Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the limited private school choice provisions in the District of Columbia Appropriations bill.

As you know, private school choice, also commonly known as a voucher, refers to the use of public money to allow a limited number of students to attend a K-12 private school.

As a strong supporter of our Nation's public schools, I certainly appreciate the views of those who believe that public money should be used to improve only public schools.

However, as a member of the Senate's Education Committee, I also strongly believe that if our educational system is to improve, as needed, we cannot remain stuck in the status-quo. We must look for innovative ways to improve our schools. While providing additional money into an educational system can help--money alone is never enough.

I commend the Mayor of Washington, DC--Mayor Anthony Williams--who along with others have all come together in support of an innovative idea to improve the educational system in the District of Columbia: an infusion of money into the public school system along with a limited private school choice option for the District of Columbia.

How fortunate we are to have the leadership of Mayor Williams in the District of Columbia.

The legislation before us does just what Mayor Williams has requested. It adds an additional $40 million in education spending in the District. $27 million of that $40 million will go to the District's public schools and charter schools. The remaining $13 million will be used for the limited private school choice option provided in this bill.

And while some may be critical of spending $13 million on private school choice, I believe it is important to view this money in the context of other education spending.

In comparison to the $13 million we will spend in this bill on private school choice, the Federal Government currently spends about $12.5 billion on the Pell Grant program. And as we all know, the Pell Grant Program provides grants to students to help them afford the cost of tuition at an institution of higher learning, regardless of whether the institution is a public or private one.

Similarly, the proposal before us today will allow certain low-income students in the District to attend private K-12 school.

More specifically, the school choice provisions in this legislation will provide scholarships of up to $7,500 to allow 2,000 low-income students the opportunity to attend private school.

These scholarships will be sufficient in dollar amount to cover the cost of tuition at approximately two-thirds of the private schools in the District. It is my hope that the remaining one-third of private schools in the District, whose tuition is more expensive than $7,500 a year, will consider making special exceptions to also open their doors to the low-income students in the District who are scholarship recipients.

In my view, the proposal supported by Mayor Williams and put forth in this legislation is a win-win situation. The school system gets more money and low-income students are given a unique educational opportunity.

Over 50 years ago, I was given a similarly unique opportunity to obtain a quality education as I was a recipient of the GI bill. The education that I was fortunate enough to receive as a result of the GI bill has allowed me to achieve most of the dreams to which I have aspired. Without the GI bill, I certainly would not be standing here today.

Similarly, the private school choice proposal before the Senate today will provide certain students in the District with an opportunity to receive a strong education. And, along with that education, these scholarships will provide these students the same opportunity I had to achieve my goals in life.

I commend the work and leadership of the chairman, Senator DeWine, my colleague in the Virginia congressional delegation, Tom Davis, Mayor Anthony Williams, the local media, and other philanthropists and community leaders who have worked closely together in support of this private school choice initiative.

It is my intention to support this limited private school choice initiative, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have no objection, but I will indicate that I desire to follow the distinguished Senator from Utah. I will seek recognition at that time for another 4 to 6 minutes.

Yes.

Mr. President, first, I compliment my distinguished colleague from Utah. The Bennett family has given two generations of service to the Senate, and the Senator can speak with a background and understanding of this institution and a conscience for this institution to follow. I commend my distinguished colleague.

I join this morning in speaking out about this situation, and indeed, if I may say, the responsibility of this Chamber, each individually and collectively, as we deal with these issues. I have been privileged to be a member of this Chamber for a quarter of a century. I, too, was gravely concerned to hear remarks from several of our colleagues regarding criticism of this operation in Iraq. Criticism is welcome. Our President welcomes it. It is freedom of speech. But there seems to be a responsibility, if you criticize, answer the question, Are we as a nation--is the world better off today, having deposed Saddam Hussein and his regime of terrorism, or should we have left it as it was?

That question has to be answered by those who wish to employ this strident rhetoric, but they fail to do so.

Throughout the military history of this country, from World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, our military planners have done their best--a clear victory in World War I, a clear victory in World War II, an indecisive conclusion in Korea--still there is no armistice as such--and an indecisive and somewhat tragic conclusion in Vietnam. So as we look at the records in Afghanistan, militarily, it clearly was a success. Could the planning have been more comprehensive? Possibly so. And there will come a time--and I wish to stress that-- there will come a time when this Chamber and the House of Representatives and the Congress as a whole can determine the accountability for these operations.

At this time, our focus should be behind the Commander in Chief, our President, who at this very moment is addressing the United Nations on the policies and the goals of our Nation working with a coalition of forces in Iraq.

I yield.

Mr. President, I think that carefully paraphrases what that brilliant strategist and President said. There is no doubt about it. And there will be a time to determine what went right, what did not go according to plan, and such deficiencies, and the accountability. But right now our obligation is owing to the men and the women who are fighting there and their families at home. Stop to think of the reaction of a young wife, surrounded by small children, not knowing from day to day whether her husband will survive another day's engagement in Afghanistan or Iraq, and they hear this whole thing has been a fraud perpetrated upon this family and was made up in Texas. I find that very painful.

I have had the privilege of almost a lifetime of association with the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States--over half a century. Modest was my contribution on active duty, but through this half century I have learned much from these men and women with whom I have been privileged to work and support now as a Member of the Senate.

We always have to focus on that family and their reaction to every word we say on this floor, every word that is said in the Congress. How does it affect that young wife or spouse of a female serving in uniform, as many are in these troubled areas of the world? How is that family affected, and not only the children but the parents?

By and large, people who go into uniform do so solely for patriotism. It is an all-volunteer force. There is no draft. No one is compelled to do this. They volunteer. They volunteer as a consequence of the inspiration of their older brothers and sisters, their fathers, their uncles, their grandfathers who have served in previous military conflicts.

They look upon the Congress as that bastion that safeguards-- safeguards--those who are put in harm's way. I ask, do these comments constitute embracing, as we should, those families, those children? Is that safeguarding those put in harm's way? I say no.

I simply say the goal of this operation in Iraq and the goal of the operation in Afghanistan is to bring to those troubled regions of the world, at long last, a measure of freedom for the peoples of those nations, a measure of their ability to govern themselves.

I am proud the United States, behind our President, has taken that leadership to bring about that measure of freedom and democracy in those foreign lands. Yes, each of us is paying by the loss of life, the loss of limb, but history will record, in this hour of world history, America stands strong. It is committed to its goals. I am confident this body will support our President on measures that he needs to fulfill these objectives.

The decision to confront Saddam Hussein was not without careful deliberation, extensive diplomacy, and substantial effort to find a peaceful solution. It had been the conclusion of three consecutive American administrations, countless other nations, and the United Nations that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime had weapons of mass destruction, had used them on his own people and neighboring countries, and was a clear and present danger to regional and world peace. It had been the conclusion of the Clinton administration that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, was actively seeking more, and would ultimately use them again. The United Nations Security Council had passed 17 resolutions, stretching back to 1991--12 years-- requiring full cooperation in disarming itself of weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein's response was defiance and deception.

In October 2002, after an unprecedented amount of debate, the Senate voted 77-23 to authorize the President to use force in Iraq. The House of Representatives also voted overwhelmingly in favor of authorizing the use of force. By that act, it became our war and the American people's war, not the President's war. At this critical juncture, it is our responsibility to provide the resources necessary to finish the job.

American armed forces, joined by a robust coalition, achieved extraordinary, rapid military success in Iraq, with minimum casualties and damage. This is a clear tribute to the professionalism and dedication of our young men and women in uniform and those who support them. We have succeeded in ridding the world of a brutal tyrant and have revealed the extent of his barbarism. We should be congratulating our President and our armed forces on a job well done, not criticizing and undermining their heroic efforts.

Extensive planning was done for combat operations, as well as post conflict stability operations. We all know that no plan survives its initial confrontation with reality on the battlefield. Plans must be flexible and adapt to conditions as they are encountered. No one could have anticipated the complete disintegration of Iraqi security and governance institutions. No one knew how badly the Iraqi infrastructure had deteriorated under Saddam Hussein's 30-plus years of mismanagement.

American forces and coalition partners have done a remarkable job of restoring basic services, rebuilding schools and hospitals, preventing ethnic violence and creating an environment where reconstruction can succeed. This is being done in a difficult environment of harsh conditions and significant risk, as those who have been removed from power seek to delay inevitable defeat and as terrorists lash out at the loss of another haven.

What is the best way to reduce U.S. casualties and create the conditions for withdrawing U.S. troops? The key is to improve the security situation by restoring essential services, recruiting and training dependable, indigenous Iraqi security forces, and repairing the infrastructure so that real economic growth and opportunity can flourish. The emergency supplemental request of $87 billion submitted by President Bush specifically addresses this need.

It is imperative that we give our President and our troops the resources they need to complete their missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The faster the money gets to these countries, the faster conditions will improve, and the faster our troops will come home. We must, and we will, stay the course and achieve our goals. This is also a clear message of support and resolve to our troops, their families, and the neighborhoods and communities that support them.

Lasting peace and security in Iraq will be achieved when we establish the environment for a democratic, economically viable Iraq. The supplemental request now before the Congress will ensure such an environment and is the best path to the earliest possible return of our troops. Half a century ago, the Marshall plan brought peace and prosperity to a war-ravaged continent. That modest investment has been repaid a hundredfold or more. The funding we are being asked to provide for this important region is an equally important investment that will, likewise, be repaid many times over in the decades to come. I urge my colleagues to support and rapidly approve the President's request and send a message of overwhelming bipartisan support to our troops, and to all American citizens, of the need to stay the course and secure this important victory in the war on terrorism.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Glen Conrad, who has been nominated to serve as a judge on the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. I had the pleasure of introducing him before the Senate Judiciary Committee this past July.

Judge Conrad has been nominated to fill the vacancy of Judge James Turk who began his service on this court in 1972 and recently took senior status. After Judge Turk informed Senator Allen and me about his intent to take senior status, Senator Allen and I began our search to find the most qualified and well-respected individual to fill Judge Turk's seat on the bench. During that process one name repeatedly was brought up--that name was Glen Conrad.

After interviewing Judge Conrad personally, Senator Allen and I were pleased to send this fine nominee's name to President Bush for consideration. President Bush promptly thereafter nominated Judge Conrad on April 28, 2003.

Judge Conrad's background makes him highly qualified for this position, and I strongly support his nomination. His experience with the law is extensive.

After graduating from the Marshall Wythe School of Law at the College of William and Mary, Mr. Conrad served as a probation officer in the Western District of Virginia. A little more than a year later, Mr. Conrad was selected to serve as a United States magistrate judge in the Western District. And, for the last 27 years, Judge Conrad has served as a magistrate judge in the Western District.

During his over a quarter of a century as a magistrate judge in the Western District of Virginia, Judge Conrad has earned a stellar reputation. From the many letters that I have received in support of his nomination, there is unanimity in describing Judge Conrad as intelligent, courteous, hard working and having an excellent judicial temperament.

I am confident that Judge Conrad will continue his service on the Western District of Virginia bench consistent with this reputation.

I urge my colleagues to support Judge Conrad's nomination.

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

Mr. President, there are moments in our lives in the Senate that we shall never forget. This morning is one I am privileged to share with my beloved colleagues in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle a few moments to draw from our hearts and from our memory and reflect upon September 11, 2 years ago.

We were here that day, prepared to go into our regular routine, when we were told to evacuate. We did that in an orderly and calm way. Wherever we could gather, we tried to follow the situation as best we could.

Several hours later, after the plane had crashed into the Department of Defense, I called the Secretary of Defense. I spent over 5 years of my life in that building. I wanted to come over and join him and the men and women in uniform of our country to do what little I might be able to do to bring about a reassurance not only to those on site at the Pentagon but around the world. I did that, joining the Secretary and then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Shelton, in the command and control center deep into the basement of the Pentagon. We talked to the President on two occasions. I remember so well he had a firm hand on the situation, as did those in the Department of Defense.

We observed firemen, policemen, Red Cross workers and all doing the best they could to remove the bodies and care for the wounded. Military and civilian alike in that building showed extraordinary heroism that day. I was deeply humbled to stand there and observe that.

Later, the Secretary and the Chairman of the JCS went in to address a very large gathering of press. As they concluded their remarks, they invited me to say a word. I had nothing prepared but simply spoke from the heart. As I go back over the written text of what I said, I am reminded of how this has come true.

I said:

This is indeed the most tragic hour in American history,

and yet I think it can be its finest hour, as our President

and those with him, most notably our Secretary of Defense,

our Chairman, and the men and women of the Armed Forces all

over the world stand ready not only to defend this Nation and

our allies against further attack but to take such actions as

directed in the future in retaliation for this terrorist

act--a series of terrorist acts, unprecedented in world

history.

We call upon the entire world to step up and help, because

terrorism is a common enemy to all, and we're in it all

together. The United States has borne the brunt, but who can

be next? Step forward and let us hold accountable and punish

those who have perpetrated this attack.

I believe those words have proven to be true. Certainly great leadership from our President and the men and women of the Armed Forces, indeed, the world, has gathered to join us on the battlefields of Afghanistan, where I and many Members have visited, as well as the battlefields of Iraq where just weeks ago I accompanied Members of this Chamber to be with our men and women of the Armed Forces.

Our Nation stands tall. It has been and will continue to be our finest hour.

Now, Mr. President, we observe a moment of silence in reverence for those men and women, civilian and military, who lost their lives at the Department of Defense in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Mr. President, may I at this time yield the floor to my distinguished colleague, Senator Allen.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. How privileged, how humble we are to stand here in these 200-plus years of this Senate, and to be here on behalf of the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia. It is a great privilege.

I thank my colleague and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in our efforts to ensure that the United States remains an economic and military superpower in the 21st century, we must strive to improve the quality of math and science education in this country.

The No Child Left Behind Act took some major steps in the right direction towards improving math and science education at the K-12 level.

However, our work is not done. The Federal Government is not doing enough at the higher education level to ensure that our Nation's colleges and universities are producing graduates to meet our country's national security needs.

This is evidenced by the fact that legislation was signed into law by President Clinton in 2000 to allow America's employers to bring into this country almost 200,000 highly skilled foreign workers a year through the H-1B visa program. America's employers needed these highly skilled workers to fill job vacancies in high tech, engineering, science and other highly skilled positions.

Why couldn't we fill these almost 200,000 job vacancies a year with American workers? Because this country's educational system was not producing enough graduates with degrees in these highly skilled fields to meet the demand.

Admittedly, not long after this legislation was signed into law, America's economy was hit by a decline, and this decline was greatly exacerbated with the events of September 11. But our economy is bouncing back.

Regardless, we must not forget the lessons learned on September 11. One of the clearest messages was that we live in a dangerous and ever- changing world.

Our world is much more dangerous today in many aspects than it was when I served this country with brief tours of duty in World War II and the Korean War.

While citizens of this country sleep each night, the other half of the world is thinking and contriving of every possible way to take the business and the economy from the United States of America. In addition, while we are sleeping, people all over the world are trying to figure out how to come and take our security and our freedom away from us.

Once there was a great ocean that protected this nation. Now, with cyberspace, and all the other modern technologies it is simply one world in economy, one world in national security.

Our country must continually be prepared to meet these threats.

One way we can ensure that we are prepared to meet these ever- changing 21st century threats is to ensure that America's young minds gain the technical expertise necessary to understand and defend against these threats.

Now, I love Shakespeare. I love theater. I love music, and I love political science, sociology and a lot of the liberal arts disciplines. Majors in these disciplines are important to a well-rounded and enlightened citizenry.

However, I also love this country, and I love freedom. Unfortunately, today, our institutions of higher learning are not producing enough graduates with degrees in the requisite scientific programs to meet our country's future national security needs. If this continues, how will we defend our Nation and defend freedom? Will we rely more heavily on importing highly skilled workers than we have in the past?

To ensure our country's role in the future, we must look within our borders to meet these needs.

Unfortunately, today, a look inside our borders shows that this country is facing a dire shortage of math, science, and engineering students. According to the National Science Foundation (NSF), the engineering, mathematics, and science fields show declining numbers of degrees.

Over the last 20 years, there has been a 20 percent decrease in the number of people receiving bachelors' degrees in engineering .

Moreover, during roughly the same time, the number of students graduating with bachelors in physics has dropped by nearly 20 percent, and the number graduating with a bachelors in mathematics has decreased more than 25 percent.

While the U.S. produces fewer and fewer mathematicians, scientists, and engineers, the rest of the world is making up the difference. And, America is importing them. We are grateful for their willingness to come to our shores and share their exceptional talents.

America, however, must now take steps to encourage, at all levels of our educational process, young people to undertake the training necessary to meet our Nation's demands.

There is no doubt the course work is rigorous, particularly the long hours in the laboratory. I learned firsthand the rigors involved in earning an engineering degree because as a consequence of my military service, I was privileged to receive from my great Nation GI bill education benefits. Without these benefits, I would not have earned my engineering degree and would not have achieved my career goals.

However, given the rigors, and given the great need for graduates with backgrounds in scientific courses of study, it is an absolute necessity for the Congress to help in every way to inspire and reward America's youth to pursue scientific courses of study.

Accordingly, I have submitted an amendment to this bill to encourage individuals to pursue programs of study in math, science, and engineering.

The amendment is simple. It simply provides that the maximum Pell Grant award an individual can receive will be increased by 50 percent if he or she pursues a program of study in math, science, or engineering.

As you know, the Pell Grant program, which is funded at about $12 billion a year, is one of the most successful and respected educational initiatives taken by the Congress. The concept behind the Pell Grant properly

recognizes the needs of young people coming from economic backgrounds which make it difficult for them to acquire higher education.

Nevertheless, we in the Congress have an obligation when expending taxpayer money, to do so in a manner that meets our Nation's needs. Our Nation desperately needs more trained students in math, science, and engineering. That is an indisputable objective.

The Pell Grant program, in my judgment, offers Congress the opportunity to provide incentives for student recipients to pursue curricula in math, science, and engineering.

My Pell Grant amendment is one idea, but I am certain it is not the only idea. As a member of the Senate's Education Committee, I hope that my chairman, Senator Gregg, will schedule hearings as part of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act to look into our system of higher education and whether this country is on track to produce graduates who meet the current and projected needs of this country.

At this time, I will not offer my amendment in order to give the Education Committee a sufficient opportunity to address this issue.

At some time in this Congress, though, I fully intend to reintroduce an amendment along these lines after the committee has reviewed the issues, after I get the views of the administration, and after the wide range of people who on a daily basis review the Pell Grant program have an opportunity to share their views as well.

Mr. President, I rise to address the Senate concerning my concern--I think there are others who feel similarly--about the crisis situation that is rapidly developing in Liberia and the decision framework that has confronted, is confronting, and will confront our Government.

I carefully use the word ``Government'' because when men and women in the Armed Forces are sent into harm's way, there is a constitutional responsibility on the President as Commander in Chief and the principal architect of our foreign policy to make the decision to send them into harm's way. In no way in my 25 years in the Senate have I ever once questioned that constitutional authority. In fact, I will match my record--humble as it is--against any Member of this body with regard to participation in the war power debates, participation in the resolutions regarding the use of force, when we, as a body, are addressing our responsibilities with regard to the men and women of the Armed Forces.

The President has a constitutional right. There is always debate, as reflected in the history of the War Powers Act, to what extent should he consult and, indeed, to what extent should he receive the specific concurrence of the Congress before exercising that very heavy responsibility.

There are volumes written on this subject. But for simplicity, clarity, and brevity today, I simply say the Constitution gives that right to the President and should not be ever in question. To the extent that Congress has the opportunity, through consultation and through other actions working with the administration, I believe it is wise that Congress speak to this issue.

About 4 weeks ago, I appeared on ``Meet the Press'' and somewhat indirectly referenced my concern about Liberia at that time. I expressed that the need to make a decision was coming down upon this Government, as indeed it has, and that it would be wise for the Congress to take a role. I cannot predict how this body would vote on it if it got to a vote. But I think the involvement of Congress when men and women go in harm's way is a very important responsibility as coequal branches of the Government, the executive and the legislative, and, indeed, an obligation.

I have tried each day to spend some time on these issues. I read what I can from the press, which has been rather interesting and good coverage so far, and from other documents, official and otherwise.

The complexity of this situation is really considerable. We do have these historical ties dating to the 1840s to this small country. At times, we have taken actions there. At times through the history of this country, we have sort of looked the other way. We have gone in before to try to quell disruption and violence, but I do not find a long history of strong involvement. We now have a despot who has been elected to the highest official post in that country, who has made representation that he will leave subject to certain contingencies. The President of the United States has indicated he wants to try and help the people subject, again, to the Liberian leader taking certain actions. This whole framework is quite unclear.

The Secretary General of the United Nations visited here 2 weeks ago. I was privileged to sit in a small meeting hosted by the distinguished majority leader, at which time we expressed our views. He was quite concerned, as I am quite concerned--I think everybody is quite concerned who has followed this--about the extraordinary dimensions of human suffering, there is no dispute about that, human suffering as a consequence of the frightful public record of the current leader in Liberia, that leader who has indicated he is willing to leave.

As I stand here addressing the Senate, on orders from the President, a very significant force, largely of marines, has progressed from the Horn of Africa around to the Mediterranean and is approaching, probably in the next 72 hours, a location somewhere off the coast of Liberia, where the ships will be positioned to await such further orders as the President may direct.

Now, what of the role of the Congress? As chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I had hearings--at least a briefing--at my request on July 8. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs provided a very fine team of briefers where my committee, in S-407, heard their reports. A day or so ago, recognizing the Congress would soon be leaving for its August recess, I felt it wise to set a second briefing of the Armed Services Committee to which I invited really anyone in the Senate who wished to join, and also specifically a group of Senators, of which I am one, who soon will be embarking on a trip to the African continent. I was privileged to be included in that trip and expressed an interest to go primarily because of my concerns of national security in that region and the impending Liberian conflict. It had been my expectation that several of those Senators would have joined today had that briefing gone ahead.

Yesterday afternoon, the Department of Defense, following the regular procedures we always follow, sent up the names of three briefers--2 from the Joint Staff and one from OSD policy--and it all seemed to be ready to go this morning when quite unexpectedly we received word from the Department of Defense that the briefers would not come.

I will not dwell further on that procedure. I will say in my 25 years in the Senate, it is most unusual to conduct our affairs in that way between the Senate and the Department of Defense. Indeed, I am not sure I know of a precedent of that type of abrupt cancellation, but I will put that to one side and press on. I did feel it would have been helpful, certainly, to this Senator and several others--I know one or two on the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday expressed to me their concerns of where could they get information. Both of those Senators were invited to attend this morning. One of them is on the Subcommittee on African Affairs and he expressed to me his concern and asked how best he could get involved in learning more.

I will move on now to this question about the seriousness of this problem. This type of civil war, regrettably, has persisted in Liberia for many years. There are essentially three factions now. There is one faction to the sort of fragile, if almost inconsequential, government that is in place today with this despotic leader. Then there is a group to the south that refers to themselves as the Model, M-O-D-E-L. There is a group in the north that refers to themselves as the Lurd, L U-R-D. Both of them are a mixture of groups of Liberians and others from other areas. Both groups are now converging on the central part of the country, Monrovia, and we have witnessed this outbreak once again of civil war and the devastation being wrought on innocent civilians.

So what to do about it? Again, I am not prepared to give a clear answer. I would presume the administration is proceeding and in due course will share this information, but it is likely one or more decisions will be made in the absence of the Congress in formal session, so that concerns me because I feel strongly that congressional involvement in this situation is very important. I go back to our obligation to the men and women in the Armed Forces.

Once this military force--that is the force at sea--is on station, I anticipate that will increase the international pressure on our Government--and I continue to use the phrase ``government''--to become more actively involved and send these forces in. Again, under the Constitution, the President has every right to make that decision on his own initiative, with or without consultation with the Congress, and to proceed.

In doing that, I call the attention of the Senate to the military doctrine that has evolved since Vietnam. It was my privilege to serve in the Department of Defense for over 5 years during the Vietnam conflict as Navy Secretary. That period of history is indelibly etched in my memory, a period of

history which reflected the Congress breaking away from successive administrations that were involved in that conflict, and the animosity in the Congress against the Department of Defense. I shared my burden of that animosity, along with three Secretaries of Defense whom I served with in that period. Two remain very dear friends and valued advisers to me to this day. The third has passed on.

Out of that conflict, America began to examine the criteria by which this Nation should send men and women in uniform into harm's way--a very introspective, deep reflection on the tragic losses. My recollection is close to 50,000 men and women gave their lives in that conflict in Vietnam, and many more were wounded.

So often in the evening hours of our duties in the Pentagon in those days, I would, as did the other service Secretaries, call families and attend funerals. I frequently met with groups regarding their deep concern about that conflict and their losses. I remember meeting with the wives of the prisoners of war on regular occasions. Then this country unfortunately, in many respects, turned its discontent on the men and women of the Armed Forces themselves. When they would return home from their tours of duty in Vietnam, indeed there were instances in commands in the European theater of breakdown in discipline and morale, because of the uncertainty surrounding that conflict, the enormity of the casualities that we would take.

I mentioned the background because it was important America sit down and reflect on those criteria that Presidents--and indeed to the extent the Congress renders its approval--that Presidents and the Congress should follow.

A brief summary of that doctrine would be that military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security interests of the United States of America; and at times we take into consideration the security interests of our valued allies.

So, is there a clear risk to national security by the intended target of our military action? What measure is the risk to the uniformed American? What measure is the risk to his or her life and limb?

The force when used should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy. There must be strong support for the campaign by the general American public and there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged.

I have generalized this but I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record following my statement a very important set of guidelines for the use of force that have been articulated through the years by our distinguished Secretary of State, Colin Powell--the so-called ``Powell Doctrine.''

I have fairly stated the basic precedents that I embrace wholeheartedly. The Members of the Senate, in general, embrace these precedents.

Therefore, I pose rhetorically the question: As the decision process is made at this time, given the Congress will be out of town, that process will be made by the executive branch, the President of the United States, assuming, as he does, full accountability, will those criteria for the use of force be the guideline or are we somehow going to make a departure, and if so, what is that departure?

I fully recognize the dimension of human suffering today and the potential for even greater human suffering tomorrow, perhaps the next day. But at the same time, I fully recognize to the best I have been able to assertain, and I have not been able to assertain it to my complete satisfaction, but there will be an element of risk. I have asked not one, not two, but half a dozen distinguished military officers--some active duty, some not--whether they share my concern that there will be a measure of risk should we send troops into Liberia.

I made reference to this in hearings we have had in the Armed Services Committee in connection with the reappointment of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Myers and of the Vice Chairman, General Pace.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an excerpt from renomination hearing.

My concern is not just of today; it has been there for some significant period of time. This Senator has pressed the questions on that situation at every opportunity I have had to date.

I will also reflect on the personal involvement I have had in addition to the period in Vietnam. When I first came to the Armed Services Committee, I worked under some of the greatest men I have ever known in the Senate: Scoop Jackson, John Stennis, Barry Goldwater, John Tower. I try, as best I can, in my duties as Senator today to draw on the wisdom they imparted to me in their teachings. Those men were historic in proportion to the Senate. I shall never achieve but a small fraction of their stature but, nevertheless, having the responsibility, I do my very best.

I remember John Stennis asked me to work on a report for him of the effort we made to rescue the hostages illegally taken by the Government of Iran at the embassy. We all remember that challenge. The Pentagon prepared what I thought was a well thought through plan to rescue those hostages. It was the right thing to do. We put our military at great risk. It was a plan to use covert action and helicopters. I will not dwell on it because I did write that report for Senator Stennis. It is somewhere in the archives.

The bottom line, a series of primarily mechanical failures, due to dust being taken into the intake systems, prevented the consummation of what I still to this day say could have been a successful operation. Certainly the heroics of the men involved who volunteered for that action were extraordinary.

John Tower, when he was chairman, we went together, just the two of us, to Beirut shortly after the bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut, marines who were sent there for the best of purposes to try to alleviate the suffering. The tragic loss.

Later, I was entrusted to work on the report for Somalia. My distinguished colleague, good friend, Carl Levin, and I went to Somalia. We worked on that report. It took us months to interview many individuals. How could we have experienced that tragic loss of men and women in our Armed Forces at the hands of savage attacks? That is a matter of record, the observations and conclusions Senator Levin and I put in that report.

I don't want to take any more time of the Senate on what I personally have done. Many have done as much, if not more, in respective responsibilities, but I do draw on some experience.

I am not hesitant to express my own concerns about some situations. If I were asked today, What should be done with respect to Liberia, I would simply say, I do not have the facts to make an informed decision. I hope in the executive branch there are those who do have sufficient facts to make an informed decision. Is this situation following the doctrine in our national security interests? I have even seen the word ``vital'' national security interests used. It has not been answered to my satisfaction.

If we are going to make a departure from the doctrine, is that predicated on sound principles that equate, somehow, to violation of security interests? If so, should we state them? If so, should we explain to the people?

I strongly believe, as I pointed out, that as we ask our men and women to take risks, we should, an as executive branch, as a legislative branch, have informed the American people, prepared the American--prepared them in a way to accept such losses as might occur. Has that been done? I fear, in my judgment, it has not been done.

I have tried my best to respond to my constituents. I have been questioned about it a number of times. I do not have the facts to my satisfaction. But it is very clear throughout the history of that Vietnam experience, we should have, as I stated, gained the support of the general public, the support of the families of the men and women in the Armed Forces who must go in harm's way. That has not, to my satisfaction, been done.

It is my hope that whatever decision process has to be made in the absence

of the Congress will be made and carefully thought through. If we are going to depart from this doctrine on the use of force, if there are geopolitical pressures, if there are domestic political pressures-- whatever it is, spell it out: What were the factors taken into consideration to make such decisions as may--and I underline may--be made by the executive branch when the Congress is gone, assuming that some decisions will be made--I don't predict in any way what they may be, but assuming some decisions are made. Maybe the decision is not to be involved.

I do fervently hope the Congress becomes engaged when we return, that we consider whether we have a resolution--first at the request of the administration, with the concurrence of the Senate leadership, and perhaps maybe some consultation with the committee chairmen and ranking members who are involved in the oversight committees--mine, Foreign Relations, certainly the Subcommittee on Appropriations, and others. So we go through a process.

I was privileged--I remember it so well--in 1991 to be asked by then the distinguished leader, Robert Dole, to prepare a resolution for the utilization by the President of force in the Persian Gulf in the 1991 conflict. How well I remember that debate--3 days, 3 nights on this floor of the Senate and then the vote. And only by a margin of 5 votes did the Senate adopt a resolution in support of then the first President Bush to utilize force in that conflict.

We had a larger vote with regard to the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. We had some closer votes. I worked on these resolutions and so forth and decisionmaking by the Congress in the Balkan situation. I watched, carefully, all of those matters as they were addressed by this body.

Now, as we look at this situation in Liberia, we have a background of an ongoing conflict in Afghanistan and an ongoing conflict in Iraq. This mighty Nation is mourning the losses of uniformed members of the Armed Forces every week for some weeks now, doing the best we can individually to comfort and share the grief of the families.

Just this week, one Senator approached me: His State suffered a loss, and how could we facilitate the interment that this brave soldier deserved in Arlington in a timely way? Those steps are being taken. But a number of Senators have approached me, and I am glad to help as best I can with this situation back home in the context of the loss of the brave men and women of the Armed Forces.

This decision regarding Liberia could superimpose on those losses another level. It could. The risk, it seems to us, to be there--some of us who looked at this issue. Are we prepared as a nation to accept another circumstance in another theater that poses the threat of more casualties? I come back, is the United States of America--its citizens--prepared?

Our Armed Forces today, in my humble judgment, are stretched. We have seen some questioning the morale. I happen to think the morale is quite high. The recruiting, to the everlasting credit of the American spirit, is still strong; the retention is still strong. The All-Volunteer Force has exceeded every expectation we had.

I was privileged to be part of the framework in the Pentagon, under the leadership of a distinguished Secretary of Defense by the name of Melvin Laird, and a successor Secretary by the name of Jim Schlesinger, to envision and create and establish the All-Volunteer Force. It worked, and worked well. But that has its breaking points. Like everything else in life, it has its breaking points. I am not suggesting we have reached that limit, but we should never take our eye off the fact of that framework, that concept that everyone in uniform today is there because he or she has raised their arm and pledged allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and obligated themselves to accept the risks of military service. They do so thinking that the President, whoever that President may be, and the Congress, whatever the composition may be, are standing guard, protecting them and their families, protecting them and following the doctrine on the use of force, which presumably they have some knowledge of before accepting these obligations, that doctrine that I have enunciated and others have enunciated.

That is a heavy obligation upon us. We have to make certain that, as these conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are concluded and the goals that we stated are reached--goals which enable both of those nations to achieve a measure of democracy and freedom that they never have had, certainly not in the last 30 years--after that, those successive goals--and there is no doubt that we must be steadfast in our resolve to achieve them--we have to make certain our Armed Forces remain strong to meet the unexpected contingencies that arise around the world. Those contingencies that could challenge the vital security interests of this Nation. That means a strong, active, All-Volunteer Force, a strong Guard and Reserve.

We have to take those steps now to ensure that they are in place as we complete our mission in Afghanistan and Iraq, and indeed in many ways where our troops are throughout the world. I think they are on the border of being overdeployed and overextended, and we have to keep a very watchful eye.

Early this week, the Secretary of Defense came up to the Hill along with General Keane and went over a rotation policy which is going to correct--and I repeat in their words--that ``some mistakes were made'' of late with regard to our troops currently engaged in the Iraqi conflict. I commend the general. He recognized that some mistakes have been made. They are going to correct them.

I think now our forces will have a much clearer understanding, and their families--and I repeat--and their families will have a clear understanding as to their obligation. But always keep in mind that there is a tomorrow and a tomorrow, and what we do today in many ways establishes the foundation of what we can and cannot do on a tomorrow.

I wish our President Godspeed to make his decision. And I am hopeful that this body will engage itself when it returns from this recess.

Exhibit 2

u.s. senate committee on armed services

Sir/Madam: There will be a meeting of the Committee on

Armed Services, Room SR-325, the Caucus Room, Russell Senate

Office Building, Thursday, July 24, 2003-9:30 a.m.

To consider the following nominations: General Richard B.

Myers, USAF, for reappointment as Chairman of the Joint

Chiefs of Staff and reappointment to the grade of general;

and General Peter Pace, USMC, for reappointment as Vice

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and reappointment to

the grade of general.

The nominees will be present.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 178, S. 888.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Gregg substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill be read a third time; that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 13, and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that all after the enacting clause be stricken, and the text of S. 888, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that S. 888 be returned to the calendar, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I understand that the following appropriations bills are at the desk: H.R. 2799 and H.R. 2861. I ask for their first reading en bloc.

Mr. President, I now ask for their second reading and object to further proceedings on these matters.

The bills will be read for the second time on the next legislative day; is that my understanding from the Chair?

Now, in the category of appointment authority, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the recess or adjournment of the Senate, the President of the Senate, the Senate's President pro tempore, and the majority and minority leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards, conferences, or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by concurrent action of the two Houses, or by order of the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider en bloc the following nominations on today's Executive Calendar: Calendar Nos. 344, 345, 346, 353, and 355.

Further, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee and the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of the following nominations from their respective committees: from the Foreign Relations Committee, PN764, Jeffrey Marcus; from the Finance Committee, PN477, Teresa Ressel.

I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be considered and confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during this adjournment of the Senate, the majority leader or the assistant majority leader or Senator Santorum be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, September 2. I further ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin consideration of Calendar No. 197, H.R. 2660, the Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill, as provided under the previous order.

For the information of all Senators, when the Senate reconvenes on Tuesday, September 2, the Senate will begin consideration of H.R. 2660, the Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill. There will be no rollcall votes on Tuesday, but Members are encouraged to come to the floor to offer and debate amendments to the bill. Senators who wish to offer an amendment should contact the bill managers so they can schedule an orderly process for debate. Any votes ordered with respect to amendments to the appropriations bill would occur on Wednesday, September 3.

On behalf of the leader, I wish all of my colleagues a safe and restful period and, hopefully, one in which they can have an opportunity to be with their families. Yet, as always, we enjoy the engagement with our constituents and visits to places in our State. So this is a well-earned recess for the Senate. We have had a very active session. I commend our joint leadership for their leadership. We made some history here in the last 48 hours on certain bills passed and nominations accepted.

I see a Senator desiring recognition, but I wonder if I might make the following request, with the understanding that the Chair will recognize our colleague who has been patiently waiting.

So I say, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate adjourn under the provisions of H. Con. Res. 259, following the statement of our colleague, Senator Dayton, to speak for no longer than 20 minutes.