Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask the two managers, is it possible that the Senator from Virginia could get 2, 3 minutes at most to speak?

I thank the Presiding Officer. I thank the two managers of this very important nomination.

Mr. President, I have the deepest respect for my colleague, Senator McCain. We have an association that goes back some 30 years. It is not often we are on different sides of an issue. I wish to respect Senator McCain's evaluation of a military officer. I think probably he is as well qualified as anyone in this Chamber to speak to those critical issues.

I bring a different perspective to this nomination. There is going to be, clearly, a division of thought as to General Casey and his role as the senior officer in charge of our combat missions in Iraq. But I wish to clearly say that throughout the history of the United States, the doctrine is civilian control over the military.

True, we hold accountable, as best we can, those who we feel have not carried out their responsibilities in the best interests of the country. I believe the accountability of General Casey has been spoken to by the general himself. He recognizes mistakes were made, and I think he accepted that level of accountability he, as a military officer, had. But, indeed, it is the civilians above him, if there is greater wrong, who should be held accountable.

Second, I think of the institution of the U.S. Army. The Chief of Staff is the very pinnacle of the military service, and those nominations are exceedingly carefully thought out from the President on down through the Department of Defense before a nomination goes forward.

I was privileged for some many years to serve as the Navy Secretary and witness the careful process that went through selecting a chief of service. I was personally involved in two of those processes for the U.S. Navy. So I say to my colleagues, do take into consideration the differing views of Senator McCain and others eminently qualified to assess this nomination, but I believe this nomination was carefully thought through at all levels. It represents the institution of the U.S. Army, and they have to take pride in their senior Chief of Staff.

I believe that General Casey, when one looks at the entirety of the record, is deserving of the support of colleagues in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I join my many colleagues today in recognizing this remarkable achievement of my longtime friend, Thad Cochran, who has crossed the threshold of casting 10,000 rollcall votes in the U.S. Senate. In the over 200-year history of the Senate, only 28 Senators have reached this historic milestone. Thad and I both are privileged to be 2 of the 28.

Thad and I were first elected to the Senate in 1978, and we are the only remaining Republican Senators of the class. He was sworn in 4 days prior to my taking the oath of office; and, consequently, he is senior to me. I have always dutifully acknowledged that seniority.

Colleagues have extolled his extraordinary record, and I shall not add further to his wonderful chapter of public service to Mississippi and our Nation.

I have, however, a most unique, unlike any other Senator, reason to have the highest regard for this wonderful man. For an extensive period in my life, over 20 years, I was a bachelor. There was a tragic loss of a life in our community--Belle Haven--of a man greatly admired and respected by all. I was privileged to have a friendship with this man. Thad helped his family and widow in the wake of that tragedy.

There came a time in the years that followed that loss when I said to Thad, you know, this widow is someone I admire greatly, could I be of help, for I am making little or no progress whatsoever in gaining her attention. Being very protective, he allowed he would--in his own good time--try to draw his friend's attention to me. And I am so grateful today to have my extraordinary wife, Jeanne, who as you well know, loves you dearly.

I don't know that I would be standing here today, given my wayward ways in life, had it not been for Thad Cochran and this wonderful lady who cares for me now. So, Thad, I wish you well. What the future holds for both of us remains to be seen. But I am proud to be counted among your most devoted friends.

As one describes you, I would say you reflect all the qualities a Senator should have--but foremost among them, is always your calm dignity. I yield the floor.

I yield the floor.

(Applause.)

Mr. President, today with a deep sense of sadness, I wish to speak in honor of a wonderful man, Jacob N. Perkins--a former staff assistant in my office, who passed away on February 5, 2007. Although ``Jake'' worked for me some time ago--in 1990 and 1991--he remained a key part of what I like to call the extended Warner staff family.

Jake first came to my office as a summer intern from Virginia Tech University. From day one, he impressed all of us with his profound work ethic, his absolute dedication and loyalty, his keen interest in government and politics, and his generosity of spirit. In fact, Jake was such an impressive young man that, after his internship, he was hired on as a member of my permanent staff to serve as my chief mail clerk. He always carried out his responsibilities in an exemplary fashion, giving 150 percent of effort each and every day.

Upon leaving my office, Jake returned to Virginia Tech to finish his undergraduate work. In 1994, he received his bachelor's degree in political science, compiling nearly a 4.0 average his final 2 years of school. After graduating at Virginia Tech, Jake attended law school at the University of Maryland in Baltimore.

Through all the time that has passed, Jake has remained a steadfast friend of my office, supporting my campaigns and projects whenever possible and maintaining warm and important friendships with current and former staff members. Indeed, only this past Christmas, he was the principal organizer of our annual staff alumni luncheon.

In recent years, Jake began to have significant health problems. His passing away this past Monday at the early age of 37, reportedly due to kidney transplant complications, is a tragedy.

Jake was a remarkable man in so many ways. For one, you would never have known he was ill, not even for a day. He was the type of man who never

complained, who was always upbeat, and who continuously looked out for his friends and family.

He was an avid Virginia Tech sports fan, an unfailing fan of the New York Yankees, and always eager to enjoy a game of golf with his friends.

Jake had a tremendous community presence in his home of Poolesville, MD. From his leadership role in the local Chamber of Commerce, to organizing and serving as chair of ``Poolesville Day'' in honor of his beloved community, to helping coach youth basketball teams, to serving as an announcer at local school sporting events, Jake's dedication to community service exemplified the motto of his alma-mater, Virginia Tech: Ut Prosim--that I may serve.

Jake Perkins was a big man with a big presence. The biggest thing about him, however, was his heart. He will be greatly missed by this Senator and many Warner staff members past and present.

My sincere condolences go out to his dear mother, Mrs. Ellen Perkins of Poolesville, MD, and his brother and sister-in-law, Michael and Shoshana Perkins. We thank you for the gift of Jake's friendship in our lives. We will miss him, but we are forever grateful for the time we had with him. Jake Perkins will always be remembered.

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

Mr. President, during the course of the afternoon, a group of Republican Senators have been meeting, including our final meeting with our distinguished Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, and our assistant Republican leader, Senator Lott. We now have a letter signed by seven Senators: myself, Senator Collins, Senator Smith, Senator Voinovich, Senator Snowe, Senator Hagel, and Senator Coleman. The letter is addressed

to our two Republican leaders and to the distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, and the assistant majority leader, Senator Durbin.

I would like to now read the text of the letter to place it into the Record:

Dear Leaders: The war in Iraq is the most pressing issue of

our time. It urgently deserves the attention of the full

Senate and a full debate on the Senate floor without delay.

We respectfully advise you, our leaders, that we intend to

take S. Con. Res. 7 and offer it, where possible, under the

Standing Rules of the Senate, to bills coming before the

Senate.

On January 10, 2007, the President stated, with respect to

his Iraq strategy, ``if Members have improvements that can be

made, we will make them. If circumstances change, we will

adjust.'' In a conscientious, respectful way, we offered our

resolution consistent with the President's statement.

We strongly believe the Senate should be allowed to work

its will on our resolution as well as on the concepts brought

forward by other Senators. Monday's procedural vote should

not be interpreted as any lessening of our resolve to go

forward advocating the concepts of S. Con. Res. 7.

We will explore all of our options under the Senate

procedures and practices to ensure a full and open debate on

the Senate floor. The current stalemate is unacceptable to us

and to the people of this country.

Mr. President, for reference purposes, a copy of S. Con. Res. 7 is printed in the Record of Monday, February 5, 2007 at page 51556.

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

Madam President, I was, unfortunately, engaged in a briefing in S. 407 on the most recent NIE, and I have just come down to join my colleagues on the Senate floor and I caught some portions of the debate. But I would like to say to my colleagues that the Senator from Virginia, together with probably six or eight other Republicans, has been discussing this issue very carefully and thoughtfully and respectfully.

Frankly, we have taken to heart what the President said when he addressed the Nation on January 10. His very words were: ``If there are those with ideas, we will consider them.'' We accept that invitation by our President and have tried in a very respectful way to simply state that we have some serious concern with the level of 21,500 additional troops. Now we learn it could even be larger than that, in testimony, open testimony this morning with the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. It could be 3,000 or 4,000 more. We tried in a very respectful way simply to express our concerns about an increase of that level at a time when polls show most of the Iraqi people don't want us there, much less increase the force. Now, I am not following the polls, but we are asking our troops to go into a very heated, emotional situation in that country. We simply said to the President: Shouldn't we put more emphasis on the utilization of the Iraqi forces? Shouldn't we let them bear the brunt of such additional security as must go into Baghdad?

We learned this morning that the efforts to build up the forces have fallen short. I am not going to pronounce judgment on what happened on just 2 or 3 days' reporting, but clearly the number of Iraqis showing up is far below the estimates or significantly below the estimates we anticipated their participation would be in this operation which, in many respects, is to

be joint. We talked with General Pace this morning about my concern of this concept of joint command and control. He assured us the American forces would have a linear straight line from an American senior officer right down to the sergeants operating the platoons on the front lines. But nevertheless the Iraqis are going to have their chain of command, and I think that puts a challenge to us.

But I don't want to digress from my main point. Our group, in a conscientious and a respectful way, even wrote into the resolution that we in no way contest the right of the President of the United States under the Constitution to take the actions he has taken thus far and will take. But as long as I have been in this Chamber--now in my 29th year--I have always tried to respect another Senator's way of thinking. I don't question his integrity or her integrity or their patriotism or anything else. I do not do that now. I wish to make my points based on what I have put forth in this resolution with about six other Republican colleagues and a number of Democrats.

We simply want to suggest--and we use the word ``urge''--we urge you, Mr. President, not ``direct you'' or ``you shall do this,'' we simply urge that you take into consideration all the options by which you can bring down this level and consider greater utilization of the Iraqi forces.

Then we have the subsidiary question that this program is in three parts--one part military. So much of our focus has been on that. There is a diplomatic part. There is an economic part. In our testimony today with the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman, we stressed the need for all three of those parts to come together at one time to have the effect that the President desires with his new plan. Somehow, we gained the impression today that maybe the political part and perhaps the economic part are not quite as far along as some of the military thinking and planning. Actually, the troops are moving in as we debate this on the Senate floor.

So there were several questions we respectfully raised with the President, urging him to take a look at this, by means of which to lessen--lessen the total number of 21,500 and, indeed, more now-- troops.

We also point out the importance of the benchmarks. That is all in there. We carefully lay out that the benchmarks should be clearly and fully understood by both sides and a method put in place by which we can assess the compliance or noncompliance for those benchmarks. The Secretary of Defense today, in his testimony to us, in response to questions from this Senator and others, said: Yes, we will put in a mechanism by which to evaluate the degree to which the Iraqi compliance is taken with respect to benchmarks, the benchmarks that basically have to support the President's plan. In addition, we put in the resolution of the Senator from New Hampshire. I think it is important that we have an expression in here about the non-cutoff of funds.

So our resolution has been presented to try as best we can to put together right here on the floor of the Senate a bipartisan consensus. I think the American public is entitled to see whether the Senate, an institution that is followed throughout the world, can come together and express in a single document--accompanied by lots of debate but in a single document--a joinder of a number of Republicans and a number of Democrats, so it is truly bipartisan, and therefore the American public will get, I think, the sense of confidence that this body is carrying out its responsibility under the Constitution to speak to this issue and to put onto a piece of paper what we think is the nearest a group of us can gather and express ourselves. And that includes a vote.

I am not going to enter into further debate with the two leaders. I think they are trying to work out and resolve this problem. I support my leader with respect to the cloture, and that raises a question: How can I advocate that I strongly adhere to my resolution and at the same time support my leader? Well, when I first came to this Chamber many years ago, the old-time Senators who taught me so many lessons said: This is what separates the Senate from the House--the ability to have this almost unlimited debate by a single Senator. And it is, throughout the history of this institution, one of its revered tenets and its rules. To take that and deny it, deny Senators the ability to bring up their own resolutions to express their own views, is a curtailment that I believe we should consider long and hard. That is why I cast that vote yesterday.

So I leave it to the two leaders, but I come back again to the need for this great institution to express itself through the votes of hopefully a significant number of Senators, that this is what we believe is the best course of action for our Nation to take as we revise our strategy in Iraq, as we move ahead. And in our resolution, we put in there ever so expressly that we agree with the President; it would be disastrous were we to allow this Government to collapse not knowing what government might or might not take their place, and to allow the Iraqi people to lose the ground they gained through courageous votes several times to put this Government together. It would be bad for Iraq, it would be bad for the region, and it could have ramifications on world peace and our efforts to stem this terrible growth of terrorism worldwide.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support, once again, of America's teachers by joining with Senator Collins in introducing legislation regarding the Teacher Tax Relief Act.

Senator Collins and I have worked closely for some time now in support of legislation to provide our teachers with tax relief in recognition of the many out-of-pocket expenses they incur as part of their profession. In the 107th Congress, we were successful in providing much needed tax relief for our Nation's teachers with passage of H.R. 3090, the ``Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002.''

This legislation, which was signed into law by President Bush, included the Collins/Warner ``Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2001'' provisions that provided a $250 above the line deduction for educators who incur out-of-pocket expenses for supplies they bring into the classroom to better the education of their students. These important provisions provided almost half a billion dollars worth of tax relief to teachers all across America in 2002 and 2003.

In the 108th Congress we were able to successfully extend the provisions of the Teacher Tax Relief Act for 2004 and 2005. In the 109th Congress we were able to successfully extend the provisions for 2006 and 2007.

While these provisions will provide substantial relief to America's teachers, our work is not yet complete.

It is now estimated that the average teacher spends $826 out of their own pocket each year on classroom materials--materials such as pens, pencils and books. First year teachers spend even more.

Why do they do this? Simply because school budgets are not adequate to meet the costs of education. Our teachers dip into their own pocket to better the education of America's youth.

Moreover, in addition to spending substantial money on classroom supplies, many teachers spend even more money out of their own pocket on professional development. Such expenses include tuition, fees, books, and supplies associated with courses that help our teachers become even better instructors.

The fact is that these out-of-pocket costs place lasting financial burdens on our teachers. This is one reason our teachers are leaving the profession. Little wonder that our country is in the midst of a teacher shortage.

Without a doubt the Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2001 took a step forward in helping to alleviate the Nation's teaching shortage by providing a $250 above the line deduction for classroom expenses.

However, it is clear that our teachers are spending much more than $250 a year out of their own pocket to better the education of our children.

Accordingly, Senator Collins and I have joined together to take another step forward by introducing this legislation.

This proposed legislation will build upon current law in three ways. The legislation will: One, increase the above-the-line deduction, as President Bush has called for, from $250 allowed under current law to $400; two, allow educators to include professional development costs within that $400 deduction. Under current law, up to $250 is deductible but only for classroom expenses; and three, make the Teacher Tax Relief provisions in the law permanent. Current law sunsets the Collins/Warner provisions after 2007.

Our teachers have made a personal commitment to educate the next generation and to strengthen America. And, in my view, the Federal Government should recognize the many sacrifices our teachers make in their career.

This Teacher Tax Relief Act is another step forward in providing our educators with the recognition they deserve.

Reserving the right to object, I inquire, at what point can other Senators speak? I presume at the conclusion of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia; is that correct?

Might I make that a unanimous consent, that I can be recognized following the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for 10 minutes?

All right. That is fine. And I notice the presence of the assistant Republican leader, so I would want to accommodate the assistant Republican leader.

At some point, I am just asking, as a matter of courtesy, at what time may I speak? The Senator from Maine, Senator Hagel--there are several Members who would like to speak. If the Chair could help us, recognizing the leadership precedes.

Could I then ask unanimous consent at the appropriate time that the Senator from Virginia be recognized for 10 minutes, the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Nebraska for 10 minutes?

Reserving the right to object, could then the three colleagues I have mentioned--myself, Senator Collins, and Senator Hagel--follow the distinguished Senator from New York?

Reserving the right to object, if we can have one thing clarified. Under that time agreement, if we come to 4 o'clock, does that eclipse the ability of the Senator from Virginia to speak, the Senator from Maine to speak, the Senator from Nebraska to speak? Perhaps the two Senators from Nebraska wish to speak.

Yes.

I appreciate that. But the question before the Chair is, if we do not have time within that hour, are we then unable to speak?

I thank my distinguished colleague. I know we can go to the bank on your word.

I withdraw any objection.

Reserving the right to object, would the Senator allow me to ask unanimous consent that I be recognized following the conclusion of such time as the Senator from West Virginia takes?

I would presume that I would have whatever time is between the conclusion of the Senator from West Virginia and 4 o'clock.

I intend to share it with other colleagues.

Mr. President, I say this to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. I have been privileged to be here but a small fraction of the time that he has, 29 years here and well over 40 for my colleague from West Virginia, but in that period we have worked many times on behalf of coal miners.

As the Presiding Officer recognized, my fellow colleague from Virginia, our States are joined.

Those mines have a great deal of comparability, those in Virginia and those in West Virginia.

They are joined. The plight of the miners and their families has been a subject that no Senator in the modern history of this Senate has fought harder for than the senior senator from West Virginia, and very often you have involved me and my colleagues, whoever they might be. I have served with three now, the distinguished Harry Byrd, Jr., whom you will recall, Senator Robb, and Senator Allen. All of us have worked on this subject.

I hope to join you on this, and I hope the Presiding Officer, likewise, will work on this subject of coal mine safety. So I thank my friend.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, and we will work together.

Mr. President, the cloture vote was very fully discussed by the distinguished Senator from Nevada and the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, with leadership and our ranking members, so I am confident that somehow this matter can be worked out. I want you to know, however, that I stand steadfast behind the content of a resolution I put together, along with Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Susan Collins, and some eight other cosponsors.

The question is how does the Senate bring it into focus under the complexity of our rules. I won't take the time to deal with that now, but I would say to those following this debate that we stand, the Senators I mentioned, the two principal cosponsors and myself, firmly behind this resolution, the content of which has been amended.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amended copy of the resolution be printed in the Record following my remarks, allowing ready reference for those persons examining the Congressional Record.

That resolution has been distorted and misunderstood in the debate thus far. That is one of the reasons I am so anxious to proceed with this debate. I want to make clear, because it was mentioned that perhaps these resolutions were brought along for political cover, that on that issue each Senator has to speak for themselves, but I assure my colleagues that this Senator from Virginia has moved forward with my thoughts and my ideas in the best interest of the country and the best interest of the men and women of the United States military, and not for any political cover. Nor will I, in any way, impugn the motives of Senators whose opinions differ from mine.

This being my 29th year in the Senate, I have never, to my knowledge, ever intentionally, and I don't think indirectly, impugned the motive of any Senator for the position he or she has taken on a matter. We are all patriots. We are equal patriots. We all support the men and women of the Armed Forces. Let that be understood.

I firmly believe, as we are approaching this debate, that it is imperative that the Senate work its will, and work its will in the open, on this issue which is so critical at this point in time in our many years of involvement in the Iraq situation.

I solidly support the President in his view that we cannot accept failure in getting a government, whether it is this one or an ensuing government, in Iraq up and running and functioning such that it can seize the full range of sovereignty in this nation, and not let this nation implode, causing absolute disaster throughout the region. Indeed, certainly as it relates to energy and other issues, it could impact severely on the rest of the world, not only in energy but in a signal that the terrorists have won. We cannot let that happen. So let's let the Senate work its will, and I think our colleagues here, the distinguished leaders, will work out a procedure by which we will do that. The comment was made, and understandably, that this is a nonbinding resolution. Nonbinding. Well, we have them in the history of the Senate. At this time, this Senator is not voting for any cutoff of funds. That is our one constitutional lever we can pull. As a matter of fact, in our resolution--I refer to our resolution as the one that I, together with Senator Ben Nelson and Senator Susan Collins of Maine have put together--we specifically have included an iteration of the concept advanced by our distinguished colleague Senator Gregg, which may come before the Senate. We solidly support that concept of no cutoff of funds.

What do we do short of that? Well, we have a debate. Somehow you have to have some focal point, something written down, some document in writing as to the ability of this institution, the Senate, to reach a consensus, and a bipartisan consensus, on how best we go

forward with a new strategy in Iraq. That has been my motivation from the very beginning, to put this institution on record on a bipartisan basis. I am not talking about one or two Senators on that side joining all the Senators on this side or vice versa, no, a truly on its face bipartisan consensus, albeit a resolution without any legal force and effect.

It is important that the people of this country give their support to the men and women in uniform and to a strategy which they hope will succeed in our goal of not letting Iraq implode and fall into greater disaster than it is experiencing today. So how do they go about it? The President, in his speech on January 10, explicitly said those who have other ideas, generally speaking, or concepts, bring them forward. That is what we have done. We have exercised what the President has given us, the option to come forward.

To quote the President: ``If Members,'' referring to Congress, ``have improvements that can be made, we will make them,'' he said. ``If circumstances change, we will adjust, showing flexibility,'' said the President.

Using that as our chart, we then proceeded as a group to figure out how best to comment on the President's strategy. We did say, and I repeat it, that the Senate disagrees with the plan to augment our forces by 21,500 and urge the President, instead, to consider all options and alternatives for achieving the strategic goals set forth below. Each Senator has to interpret that phrase, that sentence, as he or she so desires. I repeat that. Each Senator has the right to look at that and decide, one, do you disagree in any way with what the President is doing and the force of 21,500.

I believe we can accomplish the goals this country has set out to accomplish in Iraq, goals that were enumerated by the Baker-Hamilton commission, in a manner that we do not need a full force of 21,500. Indeed, that force, we now learn, could be somewhat higher than that number if you are going to have the essential support troops joined. Unfortunately, there was no reference to that made in the President's speech, and right now it is a matter of debate and contention.

I don't know what the additional figure is, but in my judgment, I say most respectfully that we do not in this resolution in any way challenge or contravene the constitutional provision that you are Commander in Chief and that you can deploy troops which, in your best judgment, are for the security of this Nation and the welfare of the troops. We don't challenge that. We simply accept your offer, we have expressed it, so we support it.

I support, for example, additional troops if they are necessary over and above the current level for operations in Al Anbar. On my last trip to that region, it was clear that the marines had enough troops to do certain portions of their mission, but it was also clear that additional forces were needed. Perhaps they could come from within the current force structure currently in Iraq. But perhaps you need--to use the word ``surge''--some modest surge to meet the requirements for Al- Anbar to be brought under a higher level of security.

Nothing in this resolution prohibits the President from having some portion of that surge force of 21,500 utilized to do those things which are essential--further training of the Iraqi forces, further embedding, enlarging the number of troops to be embedded with the Iraqi forces. Those are the sorts of things this Senator supports. Within the framework of this resolution, I can take those stands.

But I turn now to the principal thing we have in this resolution, and that is one of the main things that I believe has to have greater emphasis. It is as follows. We state it very clearly in a provision in our resolution:

The United States military operations should, as much as

possible, be confined to these goals, which were enumerated

by the Baker-Hamilton Commission.

I go back and I read the goals here, all set forth on page 6 of the resolution. The military part of this strategy should: focus on maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq, denying international terrorists a safe haven, conducting counterterrorism operations, promoting regional stability, supporting Iraqi efforts to bring greater security to Baghdad, and training and equipping Iraqi forces to take full responsibility for their own security.

Therein is the principal motivation.

I wonder if I could ask unanimous consent that I could proceed until such time as Senators desiring to come forth and address the standing order, namely----

Fine, if the Presiding Officer desires to do that.

I wonder if I can ask unanimous consent at this time to proceed for another 5 minutes. Seeing my distinguished colleague on the Senate floor----

If I might finish the unanimous consent request? Then I will be happy to listen to the Senator.

In other words, at this point in time I ask unanimous consent that we proceed as in morning business such that I could complete in 5 minutes. And my distinguished colleague. We have been waiting for about 2 hours this afternoon. I do not know--perhaps I am mistaken--if there are Senators in the Chamber who wish to address the subject matter of the order just given by the Chair. I wouldn't want to interfere with them going forward.

If I might say to my distinguished colleague, Mr. Reed of Rhode Island, I think the Chair has granted me 5 minutes, to be followed by a period of about 5 minutes to my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Ben Nelson. From that point on, there may be those who wish to address the underlying order, or the Chair could recognize other Senators who wish to speak on the subject.

Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer and the preceding Presiding Officer, my distinguished colleague.

I was speaking about the need to have greater involvement of the Iraqi forces. I ask unanimous consent to have this chart printed in today's Record.

It is dated as of January 27, 2007. It says, ``Transition Iraq to Security Self-Reliance--Iraq Security Forces.''

It lays it out. This is what the American taxpayer has been expending--an enormous sum of money for 2\1/2\ years to train the Iraqi forces. I bring to your attention, for the Ministry of Defense Forces: the army, 132,700; air force, 900; the navy, 1,100; total, 134,700. Ministry of Interior, trained and equipped: police, 135,000; national police, 24,400; other MOI forces, 28,900; total, 188,300. That is a total of 323,000 forces trained in the past 2\1/2\ years.

In the resolution my distinguished colleagues and I have put together, we specifically say look at all options. I say the Iraqi's are the ones who should be responsible for these problems in Baghdad. We will give them support. We will give them the training. But I say to my colleagues here in the Senate, this is what we have trained these people to do. The Iraqi forces understand the language. They understand the culture. How does an American GI, being thrust into the darkened alleys of this city, with all of the crossfire between the Sunni and the Shia, and Shia upon Shia decide whom to shoot, how to direct the force?

The National Intelligence Estimate just released made mention of this. The report states--I shall read it.

The intelligence community judges that the term ``civil

war'' does not adequately capture the complexity of the

conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia

violence, al-Qa'ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition

forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence.

Nonetheless, the term ``civil war'' accurately describes key

elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of

ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of

the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population

displacement.

I say most respectfully to our President: Mr. President, recognize what we have done in 2\1/2\ years to train these people. Let them take the point. Let them take the brunt of the fight. And maybe we do not need 21,500, together with support troops, to go in and do the job we have trained these people to do themselves.

In this regard I would like to quote from T.E. Lawrence. This quote is also cited in the Army Field Manual on Counterinsurgency. Lawrence said:

Do not try to do too much with your own hands, better the

Arabs do it tolerably than you do it perfectly. It is their

war, and you are to help them, not to win it for them.

Additionally, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq also describes a very complex conflict between all parties in Iraq. Putting American soldiers in the midst of that will require military plans and orders to contain exquisite tactical detail sufficient to afford our men and women in uniform the ability to discern friend from foe in an urban environment.

I, and others, also remain very concerned about the command and control structure that has been planned for this operation in Baghdad. In his January 10, 2007, address to the Nation, President Bush stated that U.S. troops would be ``embedded'' in Iraqi formations. This left a very serious question about the unity of command. On February 1, General Casey described the command and control as `` a nonstandard arrangement.'' This nonstandard arrangement must be clarified and our resolution addresses this serious concern.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

S. Con. Res. 7

Whereas we respect the Constitutional authorities given a

President in article II, section 2, which states that ``The

President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of

the United States''; it is not the intent of this resolution

to question or contravene such authority, but 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'';

Whereas 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;

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 the 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;

Whereas the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, including their

Reserve and National Guard organizations, together with

components of the other branches of the military, are under

enormous strain from multiple, extended deployments to Iraq

and Afghanistan;

Whereas these deployments, and those that will follow, will

have lasting impacts on the future recruiting, retention and

readiness of our Nation's all volunteer force;

Whereas in the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2006, the Congress stated that ``calendar year

2006 should be a period of significant transition to full

sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for

the security of a free and sovereign Iraq'';

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 1723,

approved November 28, 2006, ``determin[ed] that the situation

in Iraq continues to constitute a threat to international

peace and security'';

Whereas Iraq is experiencing a deteriorating and ever-

widening problem of sectarian and intra-sectarian violence

based upon political distrust and cultural differences

between some Sunni and Shia Muslims;

Whereas Iraqis must reach political settlements in order to

achieve reconciliation, and the failure of the Iraqis to

reach such settlements to support a truly unified government

greatly contributes to the increasing violence in Iraq;

Whereas the responsibility for Iraq's internal security and

halting sectarian violence must rest primarily with the

Government of Iraq and Iraqi Security Forces;

Whereas U.S. Central Command Commander General John Abizaid

testified to Congress on November 15, 2006, ``I met with

every divisional commander, General Casey, the 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'';

Whereas Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stated on

November 27, 2006, that ``The crisis is political, and the

ones who can stop the cycle of aggravation and bloodletting

of innocents are the politicians'';

Whereas there is growing evidence that Iraqi public

sentiment opposes the continued U.S. troop presence in Iraq,

much less increasing the troop level;

Whereas, in the fall of 2006, leaders in the Administration

and Congress, as well as recognized experts in the private

sector, began to express concern that the situation in Iraq

was deteriorating and required a change in strategy; and, as

a consequence, the Administration began an intensive,

comprehensive review by all components of the Executive

Branch to devise a new strategy;

Whereas, in December 2006, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group

issued a valuable report, suggesting a comprehensive strategy

that includes ``new and enhanced diplomatic and political

efforts in Iraq and the region, and a change in the primary

mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the United

States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq

responsibly'';

Whereas, on January 10, 2007, following consultations with

the Iraqi Prime Minister, the President announced a new

strategy (hereinafter referred to as the ``plan''), which

consists of three basic elements: diplomatic, economic, and

military; the central component of the military element is an

augmentation of the present level of the U.S. military forces

through additional deployments of approximately 21,500 U.S.

military troops to Iraq;

Whereas, on January 10, 2007, the President said that the

``Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two

deputy commanders for their capital'' and that U.S. forces

will ``be embedded in their formations''; and in subsequent

testimony before the Armed Services Committee on January 25,

2007, by the retired former Vice Chief of the Army it was

learned that there will also be a comparable U.S. command in

Baghdad, and that this dual chain of command may be

problematic because ``the Iraqis are going to be able to move

their forces around at times where we will disagree with that

movement'', and called for clarification;

Whereas this proposed level of troop augmentation far

exceeds the expectations of many of us as to the

reinforcements that would be necessary to implement the

various options for a new strategy, and led many members of

Congress to express outright opposition to augmenting our

troops by 21,500;

Whereas the Government of Iraq has promised repeatedly to

assume a greater share of security responsibilities, disband

militias, consider Constitutional amendments and enact laws

to reconcile sectarian differences, and improve the quality

of essential services for the Iraqi people; yet, despite

those promises, little has been achieved;

Whereas the President said on January 10, 2007, that ``I've

made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders

that America's commitment is not open-ended'' so as to dispel

the contrary impression that exists; and

Whereas the recommendations in this resolution should not

be interpreted as precipitating any immediate reduction in,

or withdrawal of, the present level of forces: Now,

therefore, be it--

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--

(1) the Senate disagrees with the ``plan'' to augment our

forces by 21,500, and urges the President instead to consider

all options and alternatives for achieving the strategic

goals set forth below;

(2) 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 Qaeda movement, and denying terrorists

a safe haven;

(3) the Senate believes a failed state in Iraq would

present a threat to regional and world peace, and the long-

term security interests of the United States are best served

by an Iraq that can sustain, govern, and defend itself, and

serve as an ally in the war against extremists;

(4) 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;

(5) the primary objective of the overall U.S. 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;

(6) the military part of this strategy should focus on

maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq, denying

international terrorists a safe haven, conducting

counterterrorism operations, promoting regional stability,

supporting Iraqi efforts to bring greater security to

Baghdad, and training and equipping Iraqi forces to take full

responsibility for their own security;

(7) 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;

(8) the military Rules of Engagement for this plan should

reflect this delineation of responsibilities, and the

Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of

Staff should clarify the command and control arrangements in

Baghdad;

(9) the United States Government should transfer to the

Iraqi military, in an expeditious manner, such equipment as

is necessary;

(10) the United States Government should engage selected

nations in the Middle East to develop a regional,

internationally sponsored peace-and-reconciliation process

for Iraq;

(11) the Administration should provide regular updates to

the Congress, produced by the Commander of United States

Central Command and his subordinate commanders, about the

progress or lack of progress the Iraqis are making toward

this end; and

(12) our overall military, diplomatic, and economic

strategy should not be regarded as an ``open-ended'' or

unconditional commitment, but rather as a new strategy that

hereafter should be conditioned upon the Iraqi government's

meeting benchmarks that must be delineated in writing and

agreed to by the Iraqi Prime Minister. 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 the 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 Iraqi commanders to

make tactical and operational decisions without political

intervention.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not, I would like to have Senator Collins included for 10 minutes.

Could Senator Collins be accommodated subsequent to the other names that have been enumerated, just to add her to the list, for 10 minutes?

Very well. I will try and work with colleagues to see if we can find time for Senator Collins on somebody else's time.

I thank the Chair.

My question to my good friend and colleague is as follows: This debate is well under way. The plans are being discussed. I just inquired at the desk, and the McCain resolution is not filed. Yet I understood you to say it had been filed. Could you help clarify for the Senate the position on that?

But it is not a part of the record so----

I feel very strongly that the Senate should work its will on facts that are out in the open. I have filed my resolutions, one after the other, at the desk so all Senators could have the benefit. Is that a possibility, that we could have the benefit of this resolution?

And what time might the promise be executed?

I will be glad to give you my copy, but I feel it is presumptuous of me to address it unless it is properly before the Senate.

Madam President, clearly what is read is correct. But I assure you that I forcefully argue that ours is in support of the troops. There is no suggestion that one is less patriotic than the other, if I may say to my dear friend.

Madam President, before the Senator yields, I would like to associate myself with his remarks. I, too, have confidence in our leadership being able to work this out accordingly. No matter how strongly I feel about my resolution, I shall vote with our distinguished leader on this issue and hope he can reconcile the differences.

Mr. President. I rise to introduce the Green Buildings Act of 2007. This bill is intended to continue the hard work of our former colleague

from Vermont, Senator Jim Jeffords, and would place an emphasis on energy efficient and healthy building environments.

In the opening weeks of this 110th Congress we have seen a significant focus on the future energy security and environmental health of our Nation and indeed the world. Much attention has been paid to the issue of global climate change and it is my firm belief that not only are the energy and environmental challenges that we face today varied, but that our solutions must be multi-faceted. In order to meet the rising demands of a growing world population and its expanding economies, we need to address the way we create energy, conserve energy, and preserve the environment.

Green Buildings are structures that are designed and built with energy-efficient and renewable materials to conserve energy and environmental resources. These buildings last longer, use less energy, and promote a healthier environment for those who may work or live in them. Green buildings have reduced electricity, heating, and cooling requirements; use less water; and may even use renewable sources of water and electricity. Recent volatility in energy costs and constraints on the electricity grid in much of the U.S. have led developers to explore the potential economic benefits of these efficient buildings as well. It is my belief that green buildings will become a significant contributor to America's energy conservation efforts and that is why I am introducing this bill today.

The proposal I offer today is one small step in the right direction and draws upon a bill approved by the Environment and Public Works Committee in 2006. The federal government is already setting an example in energy efficiency under the leadership of the White House and Department of Energy. This bill will take the next step and create an office within the General Services Administration (GSA) to oversee green building initiatives within the Federal Government and provide support for information to State and local governments as well as the private sector. With almost 9,000 buildings and 340 million square feet of space, the GSA has the experience and expertise to manage this effort for the Federal Government. The Office of Green Buildings at the GSA will be advised by a Green Buildings Council to be comprised of Federal, State, local, and private sector participants to establish guidelines and create resources for public and private builders across the country. It is my hope that the use of green buildings in the Federal real estate portfolio will contribute to increased health of the public, productivity of work, and conservation of energy.

While some portions of the private sector have caught on to the many benefits of green or ``sustainable design,'' this bill's establishment of grants through the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) to assist school systems in their school construction efforts will bring these benefits to the places our children spend so much of their time and the facilities that consume a significant amount of energy in our communities. In addition to grants to school systems, the bill would create an indoor air quality program for Federal buildings, encourage incentives for Federal agencies, and authorize research and demonstration projects in each of the four climatic regions of the United States. The bill is modest in scope, authorizing $50 million over 5 years to begin this most important effort in the Federal Government.

I know many of you share in my desire to advance our Nation's conservation agenda. Indeed, many have supported the efforts of our recently retired colleague from Vermont and have your own ideas. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and on the Environment and Public Works Committee as we move this proposal forward. Green Buildings will be a significant part of our country's energy and environmental future and this bill will help us in that effort.

Mr. President. I rise to introduce the Green Buildings Act of 2007. This bill is intended to continue the hard work of our former colleague

from Vermont, Senator Jim Jeffords, and would place an emphasis on energy efficient and healthy building environments.

In the opening weeks of this 110th Congress we have seen a significant focus on the future energy security and environmental health of our Nation and indeed the world. Much attention has been paid to the issue of global climate change and it is my firm belief that not only are the energy and environmental challenges that we face today varied, but that our solutions must be multi-faceted. In order to meet the rising demands of a growing world population and its expanding economies, we need to address the way we create energy, conserve energy, and preserve the environment.

Green Buildings are structures that are designed and built with energy-efficient and renewable materials to conserve energy and environmental resources. These buildings last longer, use less energy, and promote a healthier environment for those who may work or live in them. Green buildings have reduced electricity, heating, and cooling requirements; use less water; and may even use renewable sources of water and electricity. Recent volatility in energy costs and constraints on the electricity grid in much of the U.S. have led developers to explore the potential economic benefits of these efficient buildings as well. It is my belief that green buildings will become a significant contributor to America's energy conservation efforts and that is why I am introducing this bill today.

The proposal I offer today is one small step in the right direction and draws upon a bill approved by the Environment and Public Works Committee in 2006. The federal government is already setting an example in energy efficiency under the leadership of the White House and Department of Energy. This bill will take the next step and create an office within the General Services Administration (GSA) to oversee green building initiatives within the Federal Government and provide support for information to State and local governments as well as the private sector. With almost 9,000 buildings and 340 million square feet of space, the GSA has the experience and expertise to manage this effort for the Federal Government. The Office of Green Buildings at the GSA will be advised by a Green Buildings Council to be comprised of Federal, State, local, and private sector participants to establish guidelines and create resources for public and private builders across the country. It is my hope that the use of green buildings in the Federal real estate portfolio will contribute to increased health of the public, productivity of work, and conservation of energy.

While some portions of the private sector have caught on to the many benefits of green or ``sustainable design,'' this bill's establishment of grants through the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) to assist school systems in their school construction efforts will bring these benefits to the places our children spend so much of their time and the facilities that consume a significant amount of energy in our communities. In addition to grants to school systems, the bill would create an indoor air quality program for Federal buildings, encourage incentives for Federal agencies, and authorize research and demonstration projects in each of the four climatic regions of the United States. The bill is modest in scope, authorizing $50 million over 5 years to begin this most important effort in the Federal Government.

I know many of you share in my desire to advance our Nation's conservation agenda. Indeed, many have supported the efforts of our recently retired colleague from Vermont and have your own ideas. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and on the Environment and Public Works Committee as we move this proposal forward. Green Buildings will be a significant part of our country's energy and environmental future and this bill will help us in that effort.

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

Madam President, about a week ago, I think it was on the 23rd, my colleagues, the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Ben Nelson, and the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, and I, together with several cosponsors, put into the Record a resolution--I underline put into the Record--so that all could have the benefit of studying it.

We three have continued to do a good deal of work. We have been in consultation with our eight other cosponsors on this resolution, and we are going to put in tonight, into the Record--the same procedures we followed before--another resolution which tracks very closely the one that is of record. But it has several provisions we believe should be considered by the Senate in the course of the debate. How that debate will occur and when it will occur. I cannot advise the Senate, but I do hope it is expeditious. I understand there is a cloture motion that could well begin the debate, depending upon how it is acted upon.

We have also had a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee last Friday. We had a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee again this morning. Friday was in open session. The session this morning was in closed session. The three of us, as members of the Armed Services Committee, have learned a good deal more about this subject and, I say with great respect, the plan as laid down by the President on the 10th of January. We believed we should make some additions to our resolution.

We have not had the opportunity, given the hour, to circulate this among all of our cosponsors so at this time it will not bind them, but subsequently, tomorrow, I hope to contact all of them, together with my two colleagues, and determine their concurrence to go on this one. I am optimistic they will all stay.

But let me give the Senate several examples of what we think is important in the course of the debate--that these subjects be raised. We put it before the Senate now in the form of filing this resolution, such that all can see it and have the benefit, to the extent it is reproduced and placed into the public domain. Because the three of us are still open for suggestions, and we will continue to have receptivity to suggestions as this critical and very important subject is deliberated by the Senate.

Our objective is to hope that somehow through our efforts and the efforts

of others, a truly bipartisan statement--I don't know in what form it may be made--a truly bipartisan statement can evolve from the debate and the procedure that will ensue in the coming days, and I presume into next week. We feel very strongly that we want to see our Armed Forces succeed in Iraq to help bring about greater stability to that country, greater security to that country, so that the current elected government, through a series of free elections--the current elected government can take a firmer and firmer hand on the reins of sovereignty. We believe if for political reasons all Members of the Senate go over to vote with their party, and the others go over to vote with their party, we will have lost and failed to provide the leadership I believe this Chamber can provide to the American people so they can better understand the new strategy, and that the President can take into consideration our resolution hasn't been changed.

We say to the President: We urge that you take into consideration the options that we put forth, the strategy that we sort of lay out, in the hopes that it will be stronger and better understood by the people in this country. Their support, together with a strong level of bipartisan support in the Congress for the President's plan, hopefully as slightly modified, can be successful. We want success, Madam President. We want success.

So that is the reason we come this evening. I am going to speak to one or two provisions, and my colleagues can address others.

First, the unity of command. We have a time-honored tradition with American forces that wherever possible, there be a unity of command from an American commander, whatever rank that may be, down to the private, and that our forces can best operate with that unity of command and provide the best security possible to all members of the Armed Forces that are engaged in carrying out such mission as that command is entrusted to perform.

A number of Senators, in the course of the hearing on Friday and the hearing this morning, raised questions about this serious issue of unity of command. I say serious issue because the President, in his remarks, described--and this is on January 10--described how there will be an Iraqi commander, and that we will have embedded forces with the Iraqi troops. Well, we are currently embedding forces, but I think the plan--and that is what I refer to, the President's announcement on January 10 in the generic sense as the plan--will require perhaps a larger number of embedded forces. But the plan envisions an Iraqi chain of command. The Iraqis indicated, in working with the President, this plan in many respects tracks the exchange of thoughts that the President and the Prime Minister have had through a series of meetings and telephonic conversations. So the plan embraces the goals of the Prime Minister of Iraq, the goals of our President.

But this is a unique situation where the Iraqis have a complete chain of command, from a senior officer in each of the nine districts in Baghdad, and the United States likewise will have a chain of command in that same district or such segments of this plan as the military finally put together--each will have a chain of command, the Iraqi forces and the United States forces.

In the course of the testimony that we received, particularly testimony from the retired Vice Chief of the U.S. Army on Friday afternoon, he was concerned, as a number of Senators are concerned--and our provision literally flags this, and flags it in such a way that we call upon the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to look at that plan and to bring such clarification forward as may be necessary, and to do it in a way that will secure the safety of our forces, the protection of our forces, and yet go forward with this idea of a greater sharing of the command responsibility in the operations to take place in Baghdad. So we simply call on the administration to bring such clarification and specificity to the Congress and the people of the United States to ensure the protection of our force and that this command structure will work because I believe it doesn't have--I am trying to find a precedent where we have operated like this. I have asked the expert witnesses in hearings, and thus far those witnesses have not been able to explain the command structure that we have conceived, the concept of the plan of January 10, just how it will work.

Likewise, we put in a very important paragraph which says that nothing in this resolution should be construed as indicating that there is going to be a cutoff of funds. Given the complexity of this situation, there has been a lot of press written on the subject of our resolution. Colleagues have come up to me and said: Well, can you assure me that this doesn't provide a cutoff of funds.

Now, the cutoff of funds is the specific power given under the Constitution to the Congress of the United States. I personally think that power should not be exercised, certainly not given the facts and the circumstances today where this plan--which I hope in some manner will succeed and we are working better with the Prime Minister and his forces. So at this point in time I think it is important that our resolution carry language as follows:

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.

So I think that very clearly eliminates any consideration there.

At this time I would like to yield the floor so that my colleagues can speak, and maybe I will have some concluding remarks.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I really feel, if we could more fully-- --

Does it affect what we are trying to lay down in any way?

That is fine. I didn't realize that was coming to pass. It is late in the day, and I suppose we could anticipate a lot of things. But anyway I thank the Senator.

It momentarily will be.

Madam President, I thank our distinguished colleague from Maine.

It has been a hard work in progress, but we reiterate, perhaps Members want to offer their own resolutions. We are open to suggestions. We are not trying to grab votes, just make ours stronger.

I bring to the attention of my colleague, this is not to be construed as saying, Mr. President, you cannot do anything; we suggest you look at openings by which we could, hopefully, have substantially less United States involvement of troops in what we foresee as a bitter struggle of sectarian violence.

The American GI, in my judgment, has sacrificed greatly, and their families, in giving sovereignty to this Nation. Now we see it is in the grip of extraordinary sectarian violence. Sunni upon Shia, Shia upon Sunni. I am not trying to ascribe which is more guilty than the other, but why should they proceed to try and destabilize the very government that gives all Iraqis a tremendous measure of freedom, free from tyranny and from Saddam Hussein. Why should the American GI, who does not have a language proficiency, who does not have a full understanding of the culture giving rise to these enormous animosities and hatreds that precipitate the killings and other actions--why should not that be left to the Iraqi forces?

We have trained upwards of 200,000. We have reason to believe today there are 60,000 to 70,000 who are tested--in many respects they have been participating in a number of military operations, together with our forces. Let elements of that group be the principals to take the lead, as they proudly say, give them the lead, and go into the sectarian violence. That would enable our commanders, our President, to send fewer than 20,500 into that area.

On the other hand, we support the President with respect to his options regarding the Anbar Province and the additional forces.

Am I not correct in that?

Yes.

You refer to the one commander you met. I wonder if the Senator would reference your trip in December and what others told you about the addition of United States forces. I think that is important for the Record.

Yes.

Madam President, I thank my colleague.

In my trip in the October timeframe, I would see much the same expression from military and civilian. Our codel visited, and it was following my trip that I came back and said in a press conference, this situation is moving sideways.

My observations, together with the observations of others--some in our Government, some in the private sector--induced the administration--I am not suggesting we were the triggering cause, but we may have contributed--to go to an absolutely, as you say in the Navy, ``general quarters'' to study every aspect of the strategy which then was in place, and which now is clearly stated as late as yesterday by the admiral who will be the CENTCOM commander, wasn't working.

I commend the President for taking the study and inviting a number of consultants. That whole process was very thorough.

The point the Senator is making, as late as December--mine in October, yours in December--we both gained the same impressions that no one was asking for additional United States troops at that time.

I thank my colleague.

We should add an important reference to work done by the Baker- Hamilton commission. They have made similar findings. They mention a slight surge, but in my study of that one sentence in that report, I don't think they ever envisioned a surge of the magnitude that is here.

They can best speak for themselves and, indeed, yesterday there was testimony taken from two senior members of that commission, but I don't know whether they were speaking for the entire commission, and whether, in their remarks, they may wish to amend portions of their report. I wasn't present for that testimony.

I hope someone in the Foreign Relations Committee can make that clear. Were they speaking for the entire commission? Did they wish to have their remarks amend their report which we followed? It was one of the guideposts we used, the important work of that group.

Again, we are doing what we think is constructive to help the Senate in preparing for its deliberations, to invite other colleagues to make suggestions. We stand open to consider other options that may come before the Senate.

At this point in time, our resolution is the same form as the resolution we filed here a week or so ago. We are not changing any of the procedures by which the Senate takes into consideration our points. Whether we will be able to utilize this as a substitute should other amendments be called upon the floor, the rules are quite complex on that matter, and I will not bring all of that into the record at this point. But there are certain impediments procedurally as to how this specific resolution could ever be actually used for the purposes of a substitute.

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

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

Madam President, in the colloquy I participated in with my distinguished colleagues, Senator Ben Nelson of Kansas and Senator Collins of Maine--and I take responsibility--somehow we had a misunderstanding about the status. We wish to send to the desk and ask that this be numbered a new S. Con. Res. and, therefore, have the same status as the current S. Con. Res. we had submitted a week ago.

I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.