Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jeff Muhs be granted privileges of the floor during my remarks.

Mr. President, this is Black History Month.

I look forward to Black History Month each year because it reminds me of my late friend, Alex Haley. Alex Haley died 13 years ago this month. I can still remember his funeral in Memphis and the big crowd there-- people from all over America, leaders like Jesse Jackson. I spoke too; lots of us did.

There must have been 300 people in the room who thought they were his best friend. There were thousands of people around America and around the world who thought they were Alex Haley's best friend. He was a remarkable individual.

I remember saying that Alex Haley was God's storyteller, because he could tell a story. I remember saying, too, that I think we just used him up because he was such a generous man with his time.

After the funeral in Memphis, a procession drove to Henning, TN--not so far from Memphis--50 or 60 miles. We were there at the home where Alex Haley stayed in the summers with his grandparents.

This was a Friday. The African flute played a beautiful melody. It was cold. It was cold in February.

After the casket was laid in the grave, the stone was put there. On that stone were the words that Alex Haley lived his life by: ``Find the good and praise it.''

I remember that afternoon as if it were yesterday, even though it was 13 years ago. I remember Alex Haley as if he were perched here in this room looking us over.

I remember Alex Haley not just because of his death during Black History Month 13 years ago, but because of how he lived his life during Black History Month in the Februaries before 1992. Almost every February would find Alex

Haley on an all-night red-eye flight to Tennessee from a speaking engagement in some distant place so he could drive to some small Tennessee town and fulfill a commitment he made months earlier to a 4th grade teacher to help her students celebrate Black History Month.

Teachers loved Alex Haley's visits because he had wonderful stories to tell, stories of Frederick Douglass, of Thurgood Marshall, of Martin Luther King. Of the heroes and heroines, both black and white of the underground railroad, of Jackie Robinson, Muhammad Ali, W.E.B. Dubois, James Baldwin, and Ralph Ellison.

But the most riveting of all the stories that Alex Haley told those children were the ones Alex learned sitting on the porch steps in Henning, TN, in the summertime, listening to his great-aunts and his grandmother tell stories of his ancestor Kunta Kinte. He used to say his Great-Aunt Plus, rocking on the porch, telling those stories, could knock a firefly out of the air at 15 feet with an accurate stream of tobacco juice.

Once Alex Haley rode across the Atlantic Ocean for 3 weeks in the belly of a freighter to try to imagine what it must have been like for Kunta Kinte to be captured in the Gambia, Africa, and brought to Annapolis and sold as a slave. Alex spent 13 years tracing what had happened between the arrival of Kunta Kinte, his seventh generation grandfather, and Alex's own birth.

Alex Haley discovered one important piece of that puzzle when speaking in Simpson College in Iowa in the early 1970s. He told students and faculty there that he had found the name of the man who had bought Kunta Kinte on the Annapolis dock, but Alex could not trace what had happened after that.

A faculty member arose and said, Mr. Haley, my seventh generation grandfather purchased your seventh generation grandfather. Alex stayed with that faculty member for several weeks and because of that encounter was finally able to weave together the rest of the story of the struggle for freedom which became America's best-watched television miniseries, the story of ``Roots.''

It is in the spirit of Alex Haley that I offer this resolution celebrating Black History Month. This resolution honors the contributions of African Americans throughout the history of our country. It recommits the Senate to the goals of liberty and equal opportunity for every American. It condemns the horrors of slavery, of lynching, of segregation, and other instances in which our country has failed to measure up to its noble goals, and it pledges to work harder to improve educational, health, and job opportunities for African Americans and for all Americans.

African Americans were brought forcibly to these shores in the 17th century. From that dark beginning, however, they have overcome great obstacles and continue to do so, to take a prominent place among the many people of diverse backgrounds who have come together here to form a single nation. African Americans have made and continue to make significant contributions to the economic, educational, political, artistic, literary, scientific, and technical advancement of the United States of America.

I have repeatedly emphasized the importance of the study of American history. One of our national tragedies and embarrassments is that our twelfth graders score lower on the national assessment of educational progress on U.S. history than on any other subject. We should be ashamed of that. Senator Reid, the Democratic leader, Senator Kennedy, other Senators on this side, and I have worked together to try to change that.

This is our opportunity--in a month devoted to black history--to especially recognize the history of African Americans in this country and to recognize that it is one of the greatest examples of our national quest to reach the high ideals set for us by our Founding Fathers. The Declaration of Independence dedicated us to the proposition that ``all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.''

Our history is one of striving to reach this lofty ideal. The treatment of African Americans is our most egregious failure. Slavery, lynching, and segregation are all examples of times when this Nation failed African Americans. We failed to live up to our own promise of that fundamental truth that all men are created equal.

However, for every time we have failed, we have struggled to come to terms with that disappointment and we have recommitted ourselves to try again. Where there once was slavery, we passed the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments abolishing slavery and declaring equal protection under the law for all races. Where there was segregation, came Brown v. Board of Education and the Voting Rights Act. There are so many moments like these in our history and it is these moments we also celebrate with this resolution.

In addition, I do not believe we should simply rest on the accomplishments of our past. We celebrate and remember our history so we can learn its lessons and apply them today. Today's wrongs are begging for attention. African Americans in this country face significant and often crippling disparities in education, in health care, in quality of life, and in other areas where the Federal Government can play a role. The best way for each one of us, and for the United States Senate, to commemorate Black History Month is to get to work on legislation that would offer African Americans and other Americans better access to good schools, better access to quality health care, better access to decent jobs.

There is no resolution we can pass today that will teach one more child to read, prevent one more case of AIDS, or stop one more violent crime. However, I hope by joining me and supporting this resolution, the Members of this Senate will also join me in finding ways to look to the future and continue to contribute to this work in progress that is the United States of America.

I don't know what my friend Alex Haley would say about this Senate resolution, the one I am about to introduce, or that Senate resolution. But I do know how he lived his life. I do know how he celebrated Black History Month. He told wonderful stories about African Americans and other Americans who believed in the struggle for freedom and the struggle for equality. He minced no words in describing the terrible injustices they overcame. He said to those children he had flown all night to see that they were living in a wonderful country of great goals, and while many in the past had often failed to reach those goals, that we Americans always recommit ourselves to keep trying.

So, Mr. President, today I introduce a Senate resolution celebrating Black History Month, and it is in the spirit of Alex Haley that I offer it.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the following hearing has been scheduled before the Energy and Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Energy.

The hearing, entitled The Future of Liquefied Natural Gas: Siting and Safety, will be held on Tuesday, February 15th at 2:30 p.m. in Room SD- 366.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony regarding the prospects for liquefied natural gas (LNG) in the United States, Panel 1, and to discuss the safety and security issues related to LNG development, Panel 2. Witnesses will be the FERC, the Coast Guard, State authorities, and industry stakeholders. Issues that will be discussed include LNG siting process; risk assessment; and the State and local governments' role.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact: Shane Perkins at 202-224- 7555.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for such time as I may require.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, some of my colleagues are suggesting that as a result of yesterday's election in Iraq, the United States needs an exit strategy, that we should begin to withdraw troops, and that we should set a timetable for bringing the rest of our military men and women home. That is a very appealing thought.

I can think of about 3,000 families in Tennessee of the 278th Cavalry of the National Guard whose husbands and wives and sons and daughters have interrupted their lives for up to 18 months. And they are now in northern Iraq. Their families would like to have them home. I can think of families around Fort Campbell and Nashville. They would like to have their loved ones home. I think of the $80 billion the President is going to ask us to spend, and I can think of 80 billion ways to spend it on education and improving our competitiveness. It is a very appealing thought--to bring the troops home.

But we don't need an exit strategy in Iraq. The United States needs a success strategy in Iraq. If we are to succeed in Iraq, I am afraid that means those troops are likely to have to stay there for a while longer.

Yesterday, the Iraqis did for themselves what we haven't been able to do for them in 22 months: they isolated the terrorists. The count was about 7 million or 8 million to 5,000 or 10,000--voting Iraqis versus terrorists.

In October of 2003, Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wrote a memorandum which was widely circulated around Washington. He said:

It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in

Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a

long, hard slog.

Concerning the overall war on terror, Secretary Rumsfeld went on to ask:

Is our current situation such that ``the harder we work the

behinder we get?''

The Rumsfeld memorandum leaked, and some accused the Secretary of not having all the answers. I am glad we had a Secretary who is willing to ask the questions that he didn't know the answers to. He was worried that our actions in Iraq and being successful in the war were, in the postwar time, inflaming Arab opinion in such a way that we were creating more terrorists than we were destroying.

I know a lot of wise people around Washington, DC, who have been thinking about Secretary Rumsfeld's question since October of 2003. I have yet to hear one of them come up with a very good answer to his question.

How do we in the postwar conflict keep from creating more terrorists than we are destroying? The answers to the question come from all sides.

We in Congress have discussed, for example, more public relations, more television, more radio programming, more cultural exchanges. Those are all good ideas. They are important parts of effective public diplomacy. I hope we do them. But yesterday we witnessed a much better answer to Secretary Rumsfeld's question: elections; elections giving people a voice and a stake in the future of their own country. Those elections yesterday isolated the terrorists. That was the most important lesson of yesterday. It was 7 million or 8 million for democracy and 5,000 or 10,000 for the terrorists. It wasn't the Americans who were in the 7 or 8 million; it was the Iraqis. It was the Iraqis.

We discovered that we know how to give people their freedom. We have a military strong enough to do that virtually anywhere in the world. We did it in Iraq, and with stunning success, in 3 weeks toppling Saddam Hussein's government. We can give most countries their freedom in a few weeks or a few months, but we are being reminded in Iraq that building a democracy takes a long time. And people have to build a democracy for themselves. We can't do it for them.

We should know that from our own history. The Declaration of Independence was written in 1776. Our Constitution was signed in 1787. But women didn't receive the right to vote in America until 1920. It took 133 years. Blacks were enslaved and counted as three-fifths of a person by our Constitution until our Civil War, and they didn't receive full voting rights until the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 180 years after the signing of our Constitution. Even today, the United States of America is still a work in progress. We are the oldest democracy in the world. There is no such thing as an instant democracy. We, of all democracies, should understand that.

We also could learn some lessons from our role in nation building in the world. We spent 8 years in Germany and Japan. We are still in Bosnia and Kosovo.

According to this book, ``America's Role in Nation Building: From Germany to Iraq,'' a RAND study by Ambassador James Dobbins and others, ``There is no quick route to nation building. Five years seems to be the minimum required to enforce an enduring transition to democracy.''

This is a book about nation building in Germany to Afghanistan with lessons for Iraq. We have plenty of experience in nation building since World War II, and the lessons from those experiences are documented in this book and many other places: Any time we decide to engage in nation building, it is going to take more troops, more time, more money, and certainly more sacrifice than we at first thought when we invaded Iraq.

That doesn't mean we should reconsider our presence in Iraq. We are there. We need to finish what we started. We need to get the job done. It does suggest that in the future we should think carefully about the number of troops, the amount of time, the amount of money, and the amount of sacrifice it takes when we engage in nation building.

I believe the Bush administration as well as the Congress has some responsibilities going forward. First, as far as the administration goes, I would like to see the administration be more specific about its success strategy in Iraq. I mentioned last week in the Senate the Washington Post op-ed by two former Secretaries of State, Henry Kissinger and George Shultz. They argue, eloquently and in detail, that we should not set, as some of my colleagues have suggested, a specific timetable for pulling out our troops. We do not need an exit strategy. But they went further than the administration has gone so far in outlining the framework for a success strategy. These are the kinds of questions they ask in their framework.

Are we waging ``one war'' in which political and military efforts are mutually reinforcing? Are the institutions we are helping to build sufficiently coordinated? Is our strategic goal to achieve complete security in at least some key towns and major communications routes as opposed to 100 percent in every town and 100 percent security on every communication route? Do we have a policy for eliminating sanctuaries in neighboring territories, such as Syria and Iran? Are we designing a policy that could produce results for the people and prevent civil strife for control of the state and its oil revenue? Are we maintaining public support of the United States? Are we gaining international understanding?

They went on to conclude:

An exit strategy based on performance, not artificial time

limits, will judge progress by the ability to produce

positive answers to these questions.

That is the administration's responsibility at this stage. We have a new Secretary. We have a new election. We are being asked to appropriate 80 billion new dollars. I would like to hear a more specific success strategy.

We have our own responsibilities in the Congress. Our responsibility, now that we have authorized this war--we authorized it with 77 votes in this Chamber. Now that we have authorized this war, we have the responsibility to have the stomach to see it through to the end and not begin talking about premature exit strategies before we finish what we started.

The focus should not be on what day in July or August we will get out. Instead, we should be asking, for example, what are we willing to do to help provide the security needed so that elections in October and December are successful?

Yesterday's election was the first election. It was the first strong signal from the Iraqis that by a vote of 7 or 8 million to 5,000 or 10,000, they prefer democracy to terrorism. It did something that we could not do ourselves in 22 months: It isolated the terrorists in public opinion. There will be another election in October. There will be another election in December. And we should be talking about what we can do to help those elections be successful. Let's send another message isolating terrorists--not the United States, but the Iraqis. We will give them that opportunity two more times.

What can we do to train Iraqis to take over their own defense and to establish a constitutional government? What can we do to encourage Iraqi neighbors to allow a success strategy

to continue? Those are the questions we should be asking, and the answers to those questions will produce a success strategy.

At some point, one thing we can do to isolate terrorists in the Middle East is to leave Iraq. Then Iraqis are defending Iraq. All of us want that as soon as possible. Iraqis want that as soon as possible. But to abandon Iraq before we have implemented a success strategy is abandoning a country we have led to risk its lives in order to vote, and abandoning the brave Americans and those from other countries who have fought, bled, and died to give Iraqis their freedom and to give them an opportunity to govern themselves.

In 1994, I met a man named Larry Joyce in Chicago. He worked for the American Heart Association. Larry Joyce had been in Vietnam. He was about my age. He sought me out because he wanted anyone who might be in public life to learn the lessons he and his family had learned in Somalia. Larry Joyce's son, Casey Joyce, had been killed in Somalia. The lesson Larry Joyce wanted me to know and wanted every Member of this Senate to know and every policymaker to know was this: Before we engage in a military mission, we should do three things: One, we should have a specific mission; two, we should have more than sufficient force to complete the job; and he said, three, most importantly, we should have the stomach to see the mission through all the way to the end.

His greatest complaint about the American Government in Somalia was not the mission, not the force, but that we did not have the stomach to see all the way through to the end the mission in which his son was killed.

Larry Joyce himself has now died, but I remember that conversation. I think of his son. When I think about this war and committing American men and women to Iraq or any other place in the world, I think about seeing that mission all the way through to the end.

That is why I react badly to the talk of my colleagues who suggest an exit strategy based on some artificial date. Leaving Iraq prematurely would undermine every objective we have in the war on terror and in the Middle East. I am disappointed to hear talk of an exit approach. I would like to hear more in this Chamber and more from the administration and more in this country about a success strategy in Iraq.

Yesterday's election was a thrilling event. For the first time in 22 months it answered Secretary Rumsfeld's question of October 2003, How do we isolate the terrorists? If we do not do it, the Iraqi people do it, 7 or 8 million of them, versus 5,000 to 10,000 terrorists. They isolated the terrorists.

We should not be talking about leaving Iraq before we are finished. We should be talking today about those October elections, about those December elections, and what we can do in our country and in Iraq to help the Iraqis have the opportunity to build a constitutional government and to be in a position in October and December to once again send a message to the world that they prefer democracy to terrorism and that they, the Iraqis, are isolating the terrorists by a vote of millions of Iraqis to a few thousand terrorists.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Dr. Condoleezza Rice to be America's next Secretary of State. President Bush has made an excellent choice for this preeminent position in his Cabinet. Her experience as National Security Adviser will make her even more effective than one normally might be. When foreign leaders talk with Dr. Rice, they will know she is speaking with the President's voice.

I had the privilege of attending much of the 9-plus hours of hearings. Dr. Rice got about every kind of question. She handled the questions, I thought, with dignity, with intelligence, with grace. It was an excellent performance. It augurs well for her time as a U.S. Secretary of State. I am proud to support her.

The major issue confronting Dr. Rice and our Nation today is the war in Iraq. At the hearings to which I just referred, some of my colleagues talked about needing an exit strategy. I disagree. I don't believe we need an exit strategy in Iraq. We need a success strategy. But such a strategy may mean taking a little more realistic view of what we mean by success. It is one thing to help people win their freedom, as we did in Iraq. It is another to help a country become a stable, pluralistic democracy, a flourishing society. We need to ask ourselves how many American lives are we willing to sacrifice to do this? How long are we willing for it to take? And what is our standard for success?

We should be thinking well beyond Iraq. The next time the opportunity occurs for the United States to undertake what we now call regime change, or nation building, what lessons have we learned in Iraq? During his campaign for the Presidency in 2000, President Bush was critical of nation building. That was before September 11, 2001. Today the situation has obviously changed.

Our initial war in Iraq was a stunning success. What came afterwards has been a series of miscalculations. But the United States has engaged in nation building more than a dozen times since World War II and, based on those experiences, should we not have anticipated that nation building in Iraq would have required more troops, more money, and taken longer than we expected? And what do those lessons say about our future policy toward nation building?

I asked Dr. Rice about this when she appeared before the Foreign Relations Committee. One lesson she said we learned was that we need to train our own diplomatic personnel with the skills of nation building. She said we need to learn how to help a country set up a new, independent judiciary, how to establish a currency, how to train up police forces, among other things. I am sure other lessons will be learned as we move forward, and we should be humble enough to learn them.

I would hope that our experience in Iraq has reminded us of what a major commitment regime change and nation building require. I hope the next time someone suggests to this President, or to any future President, that he pursue regime change, that one of his advisers, perhaps Dr. Rice, will say: Mr. President, based on the history of postwar reconstruction and what we have learned in Iraq, any regime change is likely to take us several years, is likely to cost us hundreds of billions of dollars, and require the sacrifice of thousands of lives. If it is in our national interest to go ahead, then the President may decide that, but he needs to have that advice. And we need to discuss that as we did in the hearing the other day.

American history is the story of setting noble goals and struggling to reach them and often falling short. We sincerely say, in our country, that anything is possible, that all men are created equal, that no child will be left behind--even though we know down deep we will fall short and we know we will then have to pick ourselves up and keep trying again to reach those noble goals.

We also said we want to make the world safe for democracy, and we remember an inaugural speech 44 years ago in which a new President named John F. Kennedy said we would ``pay any price, bear any burden'' to defend freedom. And we heard last Thursday President Bush echo those sentiments when he said to the people of the world: When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

Yet there is obviously a limit to what we can do and to what we are willing to do and to the number of lives we will sacrifice to secure the blessings of freedom and democracy for others. So, now that we have a new Secretary of State--almost have one--new Iraqi elections within the next few days, and we are about to spend another $80 billion in Iraq, now is a good time to be clearer about what our success strategy would be in Iraq. When I asked Dr. Rice about this in her hearing, she acknowledged we need a success strategy but didn't want to commit to a timetable.

In a Washington Post op-ed this morning, two of Dr. Rice's predecessors, Secretaries Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, agreed we should not set a specific timetable for pulling out our troops. But they also go further than Dr. Rice did in the hearing in outlining the framework for what a success strategy in Iraq might look like.

Dr. Kissinger and Dr. Shultz wrote this:

A successful strategy needs to answer these questions: Are

we waging ``one war'' in which military and political efforts

are mutually reinforcing? Are the institutions guiding and

monitoring these tasks sufficiently coordinated? Is our

strategic goal to achieve complete security in at least some

key towns and major communication routes (defined as reducing

violence to historical criminal levels)? This would be in

accordance with the maxim that complete security in 70

percent of the country is better than 70 percent security in

100 percent of the country--because

fully secure areas can be models and magnets for those who

are suffering in insecure places. Do we have a policy for

eliminating the sanctuaries in Syria and Iran from which the

enemy can be instructed, supplied, and given refuge and time

to regroup? Are we designing a policy that can produce

results for the people and prevent civil strife for control

of the State and its oil revenue? Are we maintaining American

public support so that staged surges of extreme violence do

not break domestic public confidence at a time when the enemy

may, in fact, be on the verge of failure? And are we gaining

international understanding and willingness to play a

constructive role in what is a global threat to peace and

security?

An exit strategy based on performance, not artificial time

limits, will judge progress by the ability to produce

positive answers to these questions.

That is what Secretaries Kissinger and Shultz wrote this morning. I ask unanimous consent the article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

When Dr. Rice comes back to the committee as Secretary Rice--and she will be there often--I hope she will address these questions and say more about what our objectives are. When she does, I also wouldn't mind if she acknowledges when things aren't going well, or when we need to change our strategy or tactics because our earlier approach is not working. I think such acknowledgments only strengthen the administration's credibility and reassure us that needed adjustments are being made.

At President Reagan's funeral last June, former Senator Jack Danforth said the text for his homily was ``the obvious,'' Matthew 5:14-16.

You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill

cannot be hid. No one after lighting a lamp puts it in a

bushel basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all

in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before

others, so that they may see your good works, and give glory

to your father in heaven.

From our beginning, that vision of the city on a hill has helped to define what it means to be an American and provided America with a moral mission. It helps explain why we invaded Iraq, why we fought wars ``to make the world safe for democracy,'' and why President Bush said last Thursday:

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the

United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your

oppressors.

It is why we are forever involving ourselves in other nations' business. It is why when I was in Mozambique last summer I found 800 Americans, 400 of them missionaries and most of the rest diplomats or aid workers.

But is it possible that too much nation building runs the risk of extending too far the vision of the city on the hill?

Letting a light shine so others may see our good works does not necessarily mean we must invade a country and change its regime and reshape it until it begins to look like us. It may mean instead that we strive harder to understand and celebrate our own values of democracy, of equal opportunity, of individualism, of tolerance, the rule of law and other principles that unite us and that we hope will be exported to other parts of the world. How we ourselves live would then become our most persuasive claim to real leadership in a world filled with people hungry to know how to live their lives.

For example, in my own experience--and Dr. Rice said at the hearings in her experience--we have found that sometimes the most effective way to export our values is to train foreign students at our American universities who then return home to become leaders in their own countries.

Of course, we Americans will never say that only some men are created equal, that only some children will not be left behind, or that we will pay only some price to defend freedom. But perhaps we should be thinking more about strategies for extending freedom and democracy in the world other than nation building and determine what those strategies are and when they most appropriately might be used.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Exhibit 1

[From the Washington Post, Jan. 25, 2005]

Results, Not Timetables, Matter in Iraq

(By Henry A. Kissinger and George P. Shultz)

The debate on Iraq is taking a new turn. The Iraqi

elections scheduled for Jan. 30, only recently viewed as a

culmination, are described as inaugurating a civil war. The

timing and the voting arrangements have become controversial.

All this is a way of foreshadowing a demand for an exit

strategy, by which many critics mean some sort of explicit

time limit on the U.S. effort.

We reject this counsel. The implications of the term ``exit

strategy'' must be clearly understood; there can be no

fudging of consequences. The essential prerequisite for an

acceptable exit strategy is a sustainable outcome, not an

arbitrary time limit. For the outcome in Iraq will shape the

next decade of American foreign policy. A debacle would usher

in a series of convulsions in the region as radicals and

fundamentalists moved for dominance, with the wind seemingly

at their backs. Wherever there are significant Muslim

populations, radical elements would be emboldened. As the

rest of the world related to this reality, its sense of

direction would be impaired by the demonstration of American

confusion in Iraq. A precipitate American withdrawal would be

almost certain to cause a civil war that would dwarf

Yugoslavia's, and it would be compounded as neighbors

escalated their current involvement into full-scale

intervention.

We owe it to ourselves to become clear about what post-

election outcome is compatible with our values and global

security. And we owe it to the Iraqis to strive for an

outcome that can further their capacity to shape their

future.

The mechanical part of success is relatively easy to

define: establishment of a government considered sufficiently

legitimate by the Iraqi people to permit recruitment of an

army able and willing to defend its institutions. That goal

cannot be expedited by an arbitrary deadline that would be,

above all, likely to confuse both ally and adversary. The

political and military efforts cannot be separated. Training

an army in a political vacuum has proved insufficient. If we

cannot carry out both the political and military tasks, we

will not be able to accomplish either.

But what is such a government? Optimists and idealists

posit that a full panoply of Western democratic institutions

can be created in a time frame the American political process

will sustain. Reality is likely to disappoint these

expectations. Iraq is a society riven by centuries of

religious and ethnic conflicts; it has little or no

experience with representative institutions. The challenge is

to define political objectives that, even when falling short

of the maximum goal, nevertheless represent significant

progress and enlist support across the various ethnic groups.

The elections of Jan. 30 should therefore be interpreted as

the indispensable first phase of a political evolution from

military occupation to political legitimacy.

Optimists also argue that, since the Shiites make up about

60 percent of the population and the Kurds 15 to 20 percent,

and since neither wants Sunni domination, a democratic

majority exists almost automatically. In that view, the Iraqi

Shiite leaders have come to appreciate the benefits of

democratization and the secular state by witnessing the

consequences of their absence under the Shiite theocracy in

neighboring Iran.

A pluralistic, Shiite-led society would indeed be a happy

outcome. But we must take care not to base policy on the wish

becoming father to the thought. If a democratic process is to

unify Iraq peacefully, a great deal depends on how the Shiite

majority defines majority rule.

So far the subtle Shiite leaders, hardened by having

survived decades of Saddam Hussein's tyranny, have been

ambiguous about their goals. They have insisted on early

elections--indeed, the date of Jan. 30 was established on the

basis of a near-ultimatum by the most eminent Shiite leader,

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. The Shiites have also urged

voting procedures based on national candidate lists, which

work against federal and regional political institutions.

Recent Shiite pronouncements have affirmed the goal of a

secular state but have left open the interpretation of

majority rule. An absolutist application of majority rule

would make it difficult to achieve political legitimacy. The

Kurdish minority and the Sunni portion of the country would

be in permanent opposition.

Western democracy developed in homogeneous societies;

minorities found majority rule acceptable because they had a

prospect of becoming majorities, and majorities were

restrained in the exercise of their power by their temporary

status and by judicially enforced minority guarantees. Such

an equation does not operate where minority status is

permanently established by religious affiliation and

compounded by ethnic differences and decades of brutal

dictatorship. Majority rule in such circumstances is

perceived as an alternative version of the oppression of the

weak by the powerful. In multiethnic societies, minority

rights must be protected by structural and constitutional

safeguards. Federalism mitigates the scope for potential

arbitrariness of the numerical majority and defines autonomy

on a specific range of issues.

The reaction to intransigent Sunni brutality and the

relative Shiite quiet must not tempt us into identifying

Iraqi legitimacy with unchecked Shiite rule. The American

experience with Shiite theocracy in Iran since 1979 does not

inspire confidence in our ability to forecast Shiite

evolution or the prospects of a Shiite-dominated bloc

extending to the Mediterranean. A thoughtful

American policy will not mortgage itself to one side in a

religious conflict fervently conducted for 1,000 years.

The Constituent Assembly emerging from the elections will

be sovereign to some extent. But the United States'

continuing leverage should be focused on four key objectives:

(1) to prevent any group from using the political process to

establish the kind of dominance previously enjoyed by the

Sunnis; (2) to prevent any areas from slipping into Taliban

conditions as havens and recruitment centers for terrorists;

(3) to keep Shiite government from turning into a theocracy,

Iranian or indigenous; (4) to leave scope for regional

autonomy within the Iraqi democratic process.

The United States has every interest in conducting a

dialogue with all parties to encourage the emergence of a

secular leadership of nationalists and regional

representatives. The outcome of constitution-building should

be a federation, with an emphasis on regional autonomy. Any

group pushing its claims beyond these limits should be

brought to understand the consequences of a breakup of the

Iraqi state into its constituent elements, including an

Iranian-dominated south, an Islamist-Hussein Sunni center and

invasion of the Kurdish region by its neighbors.

A calibrated American policy would seek to split that part

of the Sunni community eager to conduct a normal life from

the part that is fighting to reestablish Sunni control. The

United States needs to continue building an Iraqi army,

which, under conditions of Sunni insurrection, will be

increasingly composed of Shiite recruits--producing an

unwinnable situation for the Sunni rejectionists. But it

should not cross the line into replacing Sunni dictatorship

with Shiite theocracy. It is a fine line, but the success of

Iraq policy may depend on the ability to walk it.

The legitimacy of the political institutions emerging in

Iraq depends significantly on international acceptance of the

new government. An international contact group should be

formed to advise on the political and economic reconstruction

of Iraq. Such a step would be a gesture of confident

leadership, especially as America's security and financial

contributions will remain pivotal. Our European allies must

not shame themselves and the traditional alliance by

continuing to stand aloof from even a political process that,

whatever their view of recent history, will affect their

future even more than ours. Nor should we treat countries

such as India and Russia, with their large Muslim

populations, as spectators to outcomes on which their

domestic stability may well depend.

Desirable political objectives will remain theoretical

until adequate security is established in Iraq. In an

atmosphere of political assassination, wholesale murder and

brigandage, when the road from Baghdad to its international

airport is the scene of daily terrorist or criminal

incidents, no government will long be able to sustain public

confidence. Training, equipping and motivating effective

Iraqi armed forces is a precondition to all the other

efforts. Yet no matter how well trained and equipped, that

army will not fight except for a government in which it has

confidence. This vicious circle needs to be broken.

It is axiomatic that guerrillas win if they do not lose.

And in Iraq the guerrillas are not losing, at least not in

the Sunni region, at least not visibly. A successful strategy

needs to answer these questions: Are we waging ``one war'' in

which military and political efforts are mutually

reinforcing? Are the institutions guiding and monitoring

these tasks sufficiently coordinated? Is our strategic goal

to achieve complete security in at least some key towns and

major communication routes (defined as reducing violence to

historical criminal levels)? This would be in accordance with

the maxim that complete security in 70 percent of the country

is better than 70 percent security in 100 percent of the

country--because fully secure areas can be models and magnets

for those who are suffering in insecure places. Do we have a

policy for eliminating the sanctuaries in Syria and Iran from

which the enemy can be instructed, supplied, and given refuge

and time to regroup? Are we designing a policy that can

produce results for the people and prevent civil strife for

control of the state and its oil revenue? Are we maintaining

American public support so that staged surges of extreme

violence do not break domestic public confidence at a time

when the enemy may, in fact, be on the verge of failure? And

are we gaining international understanding and willingness to

play a constructive role in what is a global threat to peace

and security?

An exit strategy based on performance, not artificial time

limits, will judge progress by the ability to produce

positive answers to these questions. In the immediate future,

a significant portion of the anti-insurrection effort will

have to be carried out by the United States. A premature

shift from combat operations to training missions might

create a gap that permits the insurrection to rally its

potential. But as Iraqi forces increase in number and

capability, and as the political construction proceeds after

the election, a realistic exit strategy will emerge.

There is no magic formula for a quick, non-catastrophic

exit. But there is an obligation to do our utmost to bring

about an outcome that will mark a major step forward in the

war against terrorism, in the transformation of the Middle

East and toward a more peaceful and democratic world order.

Less than 5 minutes.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, last week Howard Liebengood's best friend, former Senator Fred Thompson, spoke eloquently about his life with Howard over the last 30 years since their time at Vanderbilt Law School. Marty Gold, whom all of us know, spoke about Howard Liebengood in a little different way. The majority leader spoke about him today in still a different way from the experience he had with him in the last few years and especially the last 2 as his chief of staff. Senator Hagel and Senator Hatch had something to say, and many others will. So the question might be, What could I add to these eloquent words? What I can add today are some of Howard's own words.

Howard spent the last 2 years doing something that is very special in the Senate. He and my chief of staff Tom Ingram had lunch every week, and their stated objective, among all the other things, was to make sure the Frist staff and the Alexander staff didn't compete with each other but worked together to serve the people of Tennessee.

That may sound to people outside the Senate like the way it always is, but that is not always easy to do. But I think it is fair to say-- and a lot of this credit goes to the majority leader because of his attitude and his generous spirit and his unselfishness--our staff worked beautifully together for 2 years. We haven't competed with each other. That is because of the spirit of Howard Liebengood.

As a result, we invited him last September to our staff retreat. We wanted many of the staff members--some of whom are the age of his children or even younger--to hear from him how he views this Senate which was his home really for 30 years, why he loves it so much, and why he conducted himself the way he did in a world that is supposed to be cynical or cutthroat and competitive, where you take yours and the other guy gets his. That wasn't Howard Liebengood at all.

I have a copy of the notes Howard used for that evening. He went on for about an hour, and the staff members told me they wished he had gone on for 2 or 3 hours. He told stories about law school. He told stories about Fred Thompson, the Intelligence Committee, and about Howard Baker--many of the incidents which Senator Frist talked about. But when he came to the end of his remarks, he said this. I believe perhaps the most important thing I can contribute to this discussion honoring our friend Howard is his own words about why he came and why he stayed in the Senate. He concluded his remarks to our staff last October saying this: ``I came for a year.''

This is when Bill Frist asked him to come back.

``And I stayed two.''

He said, ``It is hard for me to leave the labor of love that is for me the U.S. Senate, the institution herself, in every way. From the people to the protocol and the opportunity to serve the people of Tennessee, I have relished every moment. How blessed I have been,'' Howard Liebengood told these young staff members, ``throughout my life to have these exciting assignments, these remarkable colleagues, spectacular leaders, and challenging work--never a dull moment. I am forever grateful to Fred Thompson for bringing me here and to Howard Baker for keeping me here and being my personal inspiration, to the incomparable Bill

Frist, whom I admire and enjoy working with, and to my other friends with whom I have served. And finally I thank each of you for having me with you tonight.''

The parting thoughts Howard Liebengood said to my staff last September were these: ``Always be true to yourself. Trust your best instincts. Serve humbly and unselfishly. Distinguished Senator for whom you work and Tennessee at every turn. Relish your time here. Take pride in your work, but never be haughty. Look out for your colleagues at every turn. And walk with the Lord.''

He concluded: ``With that formula my experience suggests that both Washington and life will treat you very well. Thank you for having me with you this evening.''

I think all of us would say today that Howard treated Washington and life very well, and we are grateful that he came our way.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, while the chairman and Senator Kennedy and Senator Dodd are here, I want to say that I appreciate Senator Kennedy's remarks and strong support for Margaret Spellings. I appreciate the work he and Mike Enzi and Senator Dodd have done in education and early childhood education, and I hope that is a signal that over the next couple of years we can do more together.

Senator Kennedy and I worked on legislation that affects American history, and we have another pending bill on that. Senator Dodd and I have worked together on legislation that affects premature birth. We have some differences of opinion, and we will make those differences of opinion, but I am confident at least the chairman and I, and I believe Senator Kennedy and Senator Dodd, will work together on Education Committee issues to do our very best to make sure we put children first and our country's competitive position first. I relish the opportunity to work with them. I know of no three more effective Senators than the chairman, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Dodd. I wanted to say that while they were all here.

I once held the same job President George W. Bush hopes Margaret Spellings will hold. I was appointed Secretary of Education by the first President Bush. As I said at the hearing for Ms. Spellings, at my first Cabinet meeting I learned that not everyone in Washington thinks it is the most important job in Washington, because I learned at my first Cabinet meeting that the Secretary of Education sits at the end of the Cabinet table and is the last to be evacuated in the case of a crisis. In fact, I used to tell my friends, if they woke up in the morning when I was in the Cabinet and saw me assuring them that everything was all right, they should know that everything was not all right because that would mean they had worked all the way down to rest of the Government before they got to me.

But I agree with what the Senator from Massachusetts said a little earlier. I do not think there is any more important job in Washington than that of Secretary of Education, who does not manage education. Education is in the homes and communities and

schools, and it is paid for, 93, 94 percent, outside of Washington. But the Education Secretary can help our President put a priority on education.

A lot of improving education is simply valuing education. I used to say down in Tennessee, when I was Governor, trying to get our State to value it more than that, the reason the Minnesota schools are better than the Tennessee schools is that in Minnesota they value education more, that we were valuing fast cars and football games and they were valuing high scores in math and science, and we were getting the fastest cars and they were getting the highest scores in math and science.

So having the President and respective Members of the Senate put this upfront and having a competition for who can have the best ``better schools'' program and the best new initiative, that is the way we should be doing it. I look forward to that.

I believe Margaret Spellings can help President Bush complete 8 years as a genuine education President. Because she knows him. She worked with him in Texas. She helped him introduce one of the strongest accountability programs any State has. She was able to work with the Congress, helping him work in a bipartisan way with the No Child Left Behind bill, in a very strong example of bipartisanship, not just a passive one. But to continue to support it, she worked for the school board association there.

So she knows the President. She knows the subject. She knows politics. She knows the Congress. She knows the White House. And she ought to be good. So I am delighted the President has chosen her. I look forward to working with her.

Now, Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi made some mention of a few subjects they believe are important, especially important right now, that they hope the President and his new Secretary will put a focus on. I would like to do the same, in brief.

No. 1, I would like to see this new Secretary and this President establish a point person within the administration for higher education. One of my great regrets, as I left the Secretary of Education's office in 1992--other than I had to leave it because we lost the election--one of my great regrets was I did not go to the first President Bush and say: Let me be the point person for all the Federal Government does on higher education. And why is that? It is because the National Academy of Sciences estimates that one-half of our new jobs since World War II have come from advances in science and technology; in other words, from our brainpower. That is where it has come from. And much of that advance in science and technology has come from about 50 great research universities and the national laboratories we have that are run by the Department of Energy.

No other country in the world has anything that compares with those research universities and those national laboratories. And just as they were for the last 50 years, they will be for the next 5, 10, 50 years the key to our ability to keep our standard of living. We need to remember that we are only 5 to 6 percent of the population in the world, and we may have a third of all the dollars. Now the rest of the world is going to be catching up, and they are already doing that.

India and China are busy keeping their brightest people home. They are busy working on building greater universities. While we may be taking for granted this superior system of higher education we have today, Senator Kennedy pointed out the rising tuition. I will tell you why the tuition is rising. It is not because the Federal Government is not putting more money in. It is because the State governments are putting in less.

In Tennessee, when I left the Governor's office in 1987, 51 cents out of every State tax dollar was being spent on education, and 14 cents on health care. Today, it is 40 cents on education, and 26 cents on health care; and health care is going up. That same story is true in virtually every State in the country, and the money that was being spent on education and now being spent on health care is coming, for the large part, out of higher education. So if we shortchange higher education, we are shortchanging our ability to keep good jobs in the United States.

We have a number of other issues that have to do with higher education that we need to focus on. Visas for foreign students: The Senator from Minnesota has been as active, perhaps more active, than any other Senator in pointing out there is a dramatic drop in the number of foreign students at our universities. People might say, so what? They do not speak English very well, anyway, when they teach courses in graduate school.

Here is so what. They are among the smartest people in the rest of the world, and they come here, go to our universities, and they create ideas and jobs for us. They help make our universities the best. France, Germany, India and China are trying to keep them home, and we are making it hard for them to get here. We are going to pay the price for that.

The President has made some comments about year-round Pell grants. We have held a hearing about that. Senator Kennedy talked about the adequacy of Pell grants. We need to look at that. I believe our universities are strong because, first, we recognize their autonomy.

In other words, we don't tell them what to do. We encourage autonomy, and then we give the money to students and let the money follow the students to the academic institution of their choice. We don't say you can't go to Notre Dame or you can't go to Yeshiva or you can't go to Howard. Sixty percent of American college students have a grant or a loan from the Federal Government that follows them to the school of their choice. We ought to continue to respect that autonomy and not restrict it.

Colleges of education, distance learning, community colleges, increased spending for the physical sciences that support our research efforts, political correctness in colleges and universities, the relationship of research universities and the National Laboratories, having an administration-wide inventory of all the Federal Government does in support of higher education would help us put a focus on higher education, and the fact that better schools, colleges, and universities mean better jobs.

There are two or three other areas I hope the President and the new Secretary will pay attention to, such as finding more ways to involve parents in the education of their children by giving them more choices of educational opportunities. I believe the genius behind our superior system of colleges and universities is because we don't try to run them from here. We respect the autonomy of the universities and we allow students money and allow them to choose the schools. If it helped create the best colleges, I don't know why we don't use more of that to help create the best schools.

A third area is to make sure we are spending Federal dollars for children age 0 to 5 as well as possible. This is an area the Senator from Massachusetts mentioned. It is one in which the Senator from Connecticut is interested. The Federal Government spends $18 to $21 billion a year through 69 different programs that dedicate part of their budget toward early education and care programs that serve children under the age of 5. That is in addition to all the money that goes to children because of the Medicaid Program. The Department of Education administers 34 of those 69 programs. We ought to take a look at the spending of the $18 to $21 billion and find out how well it is being spent.

Head Start is just about a third of it. Head Start is not all we do for early children. We ought to see where the gaps are. We ought to understand what the States are doing, what the cities are doing, and then see what else the Federal Government might need to do additionally or what we might change to do better.

Next, make sure No Child Left Behind is funded, flexible, and working. The President has asked us to expand it to high school, or has indicated his intention to do so. We ought to take a look at what we are already doing first and see if there are some lessons that we need to learn from how No Child Left Behind was implemented in the first 3 years so that we can avoid any mistakes we made when we consider going on into high school.

I am a convert to No Child Left Behind. I am a convert primarily because we have a third of our eighth graders who score below basic on reading and

math, which is disgraceful. At least we need to know that and need to know who is falling behind. But this is a huge program, and there is a lot to look at: Achievement in State standards, what constitutes highly qualified teachers, the choice in supplemental service provisions, how No Child Left Behind affects rural areas as compared to urban, the very important U.S. history subject and learning English subject. And we need to look at funding.

Last time I checked, the President does not appropriate a penny. The Congress might as well give itself some credit for this. Federal funding for K-12 is up 36 percent. That is a lot. It is as much as Senator Kennedy said tuition was up in the last 4 years. State funding, at least in my State, is up about 11 percent. So Federal funding for kindergarten through the 12th grade is up three times as much in the last 4 years as State funding for kindergarten through the 12th grade. But still we need to take an honest look to see.

We put some new requirements, through No Child Left Behind, on State and local governments. Did we properly fund that? That is an appropriate question. We should ask that question.

Finally, I would like to see more work done on the subject that Senator Kennedy and I and the new Democratic leader, Senator Reid, have worked on. That is restoring the civic mission of our public schools. The President talked about that today in his inaugural address: What does it mean to be an American? He gave the kind of speech I hoped he would give: What are the values in our country? What is important to us? We can get all the programs later. He did that beautifully.

The late Albert Shanker, President of the American Federation of Teachers, once said the reason we have public schools is to teach the three Rs to the immigrant children and teach them what it means to be an American with the hope that they will go home and teach their parents. We should be embarrassed that the lowest score that high school seniors make on the national assessment for educational progress test is in U.S. history, our own history. If we don't know our own history, we don't know why we are in Iraq. We don't know why we say anything is possible. We don't know why we say no child is left behind. We don't know why we debate illegal immigration. We could have no discussion in the Senate Chamber that made any sense at all unless we had some understanding of U.S. history.

Senator Reid and I cosponsored legislation that passed last year to help create summer academies, presidential academies for the teachers of American history, and congressional academies for students of American history. Senator Kennedy and I will introduce again this year legislation that will add State-by-State tests and NEAP tests in U.S. history, giving States that option so they can compare their scores. We are looking for many different ways to restore the civic mission of our public schools.

There is a lot to do. I believe there are three great challenges facing our country: One is terrorism; one is preserving our common culture; and one is keeping our jobs in a competitive world marketplace. And the key to that is brainpower and education. Better schools, colleges, and universities will mean better jobs. And with the experience that we have in this Chamber and the high level of interest we have in education and the history we have had recently of bipartisan cooperation, we ought to be able to make some significant progress.

I look forward to being a part of that, working with Chairman Enzi and Ranking Member Kennedy.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I am glad I was here to hear the Senator from Oregon. I want to think about what he said and make two comments. It is a noble and good effort for us to think about how can we make certain young girls as well as young boys have the opportunity to learn more about science and math and to make careers of science and math should they choose to do that. I would like to urge some caution in the application of title IX to cause that. We may want to be more selective in our approach.

I watched the good title IX can do. I was president of a university which saw a fantastic women's sports program, as an example, develop because of that--at the University of Tennessee. At least it encouraged that. But it might have some unintended consequences because, in many cases, girls are doing better than boys. Almost every liberal arts college in America today is having a hard time recruiting males, not females. In many of the graduate professional schools across the country we are finding growing numbers of women, which is a wonderful development, and they are in the majority. Were we to begin to apply too strict an application of title IX, we might find it restricting money spent for females because they are doing better than the males.

One of the greatest problems affecting our country is why African- American males are not doing as well in high schools, so I would like to discuss that some more. I appreciate his bringing it up. I am glad I was here to hear it.

Second, I have read the comments about Dr. Summers and his comments. He may wish he said what he said in a little different way, but I am also a little concerned about the controversy. I understand what he said is he raised the question: Is it possible that there is an innate difference between men and women that might contribute to the smaller number of women who study math and science and make careers of it?

If he were a politician on the Senate floor, he might think twice about saying that because he might be misinterpreted. But if you are on the campus of a university, you are supposed to be able to ask questions, even questions that are a little offbeat, even questions that are incorrect. I can guarantee you, having been temporarily on the faculty there at Harvard with an appointment, there are many more bizarre ideas than that that are regularly asked and regularly expressed. So he may be wrong; the answer to the question is no, there are no innate differences between men and women that contribute to the reason why fewer women follow math and science, but I think certainly a faculty member of Harvard or the president of Harvard ought to be free at least to discuss the question without being roundly condemned across the country.

I thank the Senator from Oregon for his thoughtful comments. I would love to talk with him more about whether the application of title IX would actually have some unintended consequences, consequences he might not

intend. I hope on all of our campuses and universities, even presidents are free to ask questions and have a free inquiry. I believe that is why we have those institutions.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor David L. Day on his retirement from 35 years of public service as the Deputy Engineer for Programs and Project Management with the Nashville District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. During his 35 years of Federal service, 33 with the Corps of Engineers, from 1969 to present, Dave held a clear vision and achieved a remarkable string of successes in furthering the mission of the Nashville District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Dave has earned a reputation of being honest, fair, and professional with his coworkers. He began his career with the Nashville District in October 1998 when he was selected as the Deputy District Engineer for Programs and Project Management and is the senior civilian for the district with more than 800 employees and a $140 million annual operating budget. The district provides Federal engineering, planning, construction, project management, real estate, and environmental services. His responsibilities included budgeting, planning, and executing Civil Works and Interagency and International Services programs under the project management business process.

Dave Day has distinguished himself as a leader in many ways during his tenure. He continuously has encouraged a culture of professional improvement, fostering team leadership and activity to meet district goals, while at the same time, taking care of the people with whom he works. Dave had a strong, positive impact on the morale of the district's Planning, Programs, and Project Management Division employees as well as Project Delivery Team members. He always made time to recognize deserving individuals or discuss any problem that arose. His genuine concern for every member of his team was reflected in his many messages, letters, awards, and hallway greetings.

Dave oversaw the operation of the Account Executive Program, which the Nashville District uses to establish and strengthen relationships with customers and find ways to meet regional and national needs. He also led the effort to partner, both formally and informally, with the States of Tennessee and Kentucky, Tennessee Valley Authority, TVA, Southeastern Power Association, SEPA, Tennessee River Valley Authority, TRVA, Tenn-Tom Waterways, Metro Nashville, and other

governmental and industry groups to maximize program and project accomplishments. Dave has been one of the strongest, most consistent driving forces behind the plan for the new $320,000,000 lock on the Tennessee River at Chickamauga Dam. By bringing a TVA environmental impact statement up to Corps standards, he helped advance the authorization of and funding for this new lock. He also worked hard with TVA, SEPA, and SEPA's power customers to allow SEPA customers to fund rehabilitation of hydropower facilities in the Cumberland River basin, a first in the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division.

I extend warm congratulations to Dave Day on his retirement. He will be missed, but I know the citizens of Tennessee join me in wishing him all the best as he moves forward in life.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend and thank my colleagues in the Congress for considering H.R. 4116, the American Bald Eagle Recovery and National Emblem Commemorative Coin Act. I was proud to sponsor the companion bill in the Senate.

The act authorizes the U.S. Mint to issue commemorative coins ``celebrating the recovery and restoration of the American bald eagle, the national symbol of the United States, to America's lands, waterways, and skies'' in 2008. The proceeds from these coins, which are expected to exceed $1 million, will go to the American Eagle Foundation of Pigeon Forge, TN. The foundation intends to use these funds for a national competitive grant program to support eagle recovery, education, and other related conservation efforts.

The American bald eagle is not just another bird. It is one of the most recognized symbols of our Nation. Since the Second Continental Congress selected the bald eagle as our national emblem in 1782, the image of the bald eagle has come to represent two core

values for all Americans: freedom and democracy.

Like the bald eagle, the American Eagle Foundation is not just a Tennessee treasure, but a national one. The work done by the American Eagle Foundation has been critical to helping bring the American bald eagle back from the brink of extinction. The bald eagle now soars above every State except Hawaii. With the continued success of programs and efforts of the American Eagle Foundation and other groups, the American bald eagle may soon be ``de-listed'' from the Endangered Species Act.

Senator Landrieu and I have worked hard to pass this bill in the Senate, and Tennessee Congressmen Bill Jenkins and Harold Ford led the bipartisan effort in the House of Representatives. Al Cecere, President of the American Eagle Foundation, worked tirelessly to assemble a national coalition of eagle supporters, and his face has been a welcome sight in the halls of Congress over the last year.

Al was regularly accompanied by Challenger, a 16-year-old American bald eagle that has brought this campaign to life. Many Americans have seen Challenger perform, flying into the World Series, professional and college football games, and other events. Now many Congressmen and Senators have met Challenger, too.

We should all be proud to have taken this step, today, to commemorate and support our national symbol, the American bald eagle.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4620, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 1301) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit video voyeurism in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives:

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur in the House amendment, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following postal naming bills which have been received from the House en bloc: H.R. 5364, H.R. 4968, H.R. 4847, H.R. 4829, H.R. 4807, H.R. 4232, H.R. 480, and H.R. 5370.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bills be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and that any statements relating to the bills be printed in the Record.