Floor Statements

Mr. President. I rise today in support of S. 761, the America COMPETES Act. This sweeping legislation takes bold steps to recapture America's prowess in the global economy.

The demand for talented persons in the areas of science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and critical foreign language far exceeds the supply in the United States. The likelihood of finding a job in these high-need areas after college is almost guaranteed, yet we find ourselves still lagging behind other countries in producing these graduates. America ranks No. 24 out of industrialized nations in mathematical literacy for children entering high school. Right now, China is graduating four times the number of engineers as the United States, with India not far behind.

I am deeply concerned with these trends. It is vital to have a superior science and mathematics education system and workforce. In 1997, I formed an Advisory Committee on Science, Technology, and the Future in my home State of Kansas. This committee helps me find ways to align Federal and State initiatives to enhance science and technology in the State. The advisory committee has been instrumental in identifying high-need high-tech jobs in the State while focusing on ways to educate, train, and attract talented persons into these fields.

Kansas continues to be a State rich with high-tech industry. Wichita is the aviation capital of the United States, producing approximately 50 percent of all U.S. general aviation. This industry needs aviation researchers, engineers, and skilled technicians. My home State is rapidly growing in the areas of bioscience, including drug discovery, new treatments for disease, food safety, animal health, and renewable energy. The Roberts Advisory Committee has recognized that while these industries are growing, they have a limited

pool of talented employees to choose from.

Like many States, Kansas is facing a shortage of math and science teacher applicants. I agree with my advisory committee that global competitiveness lies with our younger generation. It is imperative that we provide them with an education from science and math teachers possessing a solid knowledge base and effective teaching skills. We also need to find ways to spark students' interests in math, science, and technology while they are in the early years of education. The America COMPETES Act addresses these needs by strengthening the skills of math and science teachers, creating partnerships between National Laboratories and high-need high schools, facilitating the expansion of advanced placement programs, and increasing the number of students who study foreign languages.

Additionally, the bill provides an increase in research investment by doubling the funding for the National Science Foundation, NSF. The grants distributed to States from the NSF are being used to conduct extraordinary research in every corner of the world.

My advisory committee supports the America COMPETES Act, and so do I. It is only through our commitment to the underlying goals of this bill that we will see success in building our competitive workforce.

Mr. President, I wish to honor the city of Lenexa, KS. On May 8, Lenexa, which is known as the City of Festivals for the numerous festivals and events it hosts each year, will mark its 100th anniversary. This grand event will be part of a weeklong community celebration of history and culture.

Lenexa was platted in 1869 by French-born civil engineer Octave Chanute, who, in addition to designing the original Hannibal Bridge over the Missouri River in Kansas City, also served as a mentor to the Wright Brothers in their quest for flight.

Lenexa was named for Na Nex Se, a highly respected, hard-working Shawnee Indian woman, the daughter-in-law of Chief Black Hoof. Thirty- eight years later, on May 8, 1907, Lenexa was incorporated as a City of the 3rd Class.

In Lenexa's earliest days, people from various backgrounds and cultures came together to form this great city. With a population of approximately 300, the young community boasted a healthful location, graded schools, three churches, suburban train service, excellent telephone service, and an electric railway station.

Today, Lenexa has grown to a population of 46,000 residents and enjoys a healthy business base and is considered a city of choice for a variety of high-tech and bioscience companies. The city also is looked to as a leader in local government initiatives, including watershed management and public safety.

Lenexa cherishes its rich history, heritage and culture, and with this celebration marking the city's 100th anniversary, Lenexa honors its past while looking forward to the future. I congratulate Lenexa and its residents, and I wish them an outstanding second hundred years.

Madam President, would the Senator yield for a question?

Madam President, I was just going to ask the distinguished Senator if he would yield. While I can't associate myself with all of his remarks and, as I note, the press gallery and the world will little note nor long remember our colloquy, perhaps, I wish to congratulate him for his forthrightness and his candor and his conviction.

The Senator and I have talked about the situation and about the need for full debate in regard to our national security and the war in Iraq, and I had hoped his resolution would be agreed to during the last--or the previous attempt when we only had one resolution and that was it. I had asked at that particular time, in a very similar situation--I was making a speech, and the Chamber was empty, and so I can empathize with that. But my comments were that we should consider the McCain amendment with the benchmarks, the Gregg amendment, and Senator Feingold's, because his is very forthright. It is very clear and very understandable. Now, I would not vote for it, but I respect the Senator's opinion, and I respect his candor.

The Senator has been a member, a valuable member of the Intelligence Committee. I had the privilege of being the chairman of that committee. I think I am the longest serving Senator on the Intelligence Committee up to this point--10 years. It is tough work. There are a lot of times I disagreed with the Senator, but the Senator is an extremely valuable member of the Intelligence Committee. Upon learning all of the intelligence from the 19 different agencies that comprise the community, he has developed a very strong opinion. I respect that. That is what we should be doing. We should be having a full debate. I hope in voting to proceed that we at least get that full debate.

I would say to the Senator, one of my best friends is General Petraeus, who used to be the commanding general at Fort Leavenworth, at the Intellectual Center of the Army, and he wrote the counterterrorism manual for the Army. He just finished it. We talked a lot about the British experience in regards to what happened at that particular time in Iraq. It is unique, it seems to me, because what the Senator wants to do follows the same time period General Petraeus wants to inform us as to whether we are making any progress and if we can achieve stability in Iraq, and that is a mighty big ``if.''

I think by the summer at least, if we are not making progress, at that particular time we are going to have to go to a policy of containment as opposed to intervention, as the Senator has suggested. How we do that, I am not quite sure. We haven't had that debate on the Senate floor.

Now, this Senator, Mr. Feingold, has called for that debate, and that is what we should be debating. It calls for a lot of different opinions.

So I congratulate the Senator. I thank him for his candor. I thank him for being forthright. I wish we could vote on the Senator's resolution this time around. Does the Senator think that is even possible?

Why not the Feingold resolution?

Madam President, if the Senator would continue to yield, what if I ask unanimous consent that the Senator's amendment be made in order?

If the Senator will continue to yield for a question, you are talking about step 2. Step 1 is being considered, and your specific resolution would be step 2 on the supplemental.

So if the Senator will continue to yield, we are on step 3 until we get to your resolution?

It would be step 3 before you would think it would be appropriate to consider your resolution?

I have got it. I just want to make clear, understandably, I would probably vote no--well, not probably--I would vote no on the resolution. But again, the thing that disturbs me is when we get to the what-ifs. What if we pass your resolution? What if we pass somebody else's resolution? What happens if we get the troops out? Hopefully they would not be in a situation where we have to send them back. The what-ifs on what happens to us, which you have discussed in a rare discussion on the floor, we haven't talked about that.

We have an honest difference of opinion, but we have not talked about that. That is the whole point I am trying to make, that at least the Senator is trying to force the issue in making his point, and let nobody say that they challenge your patriotism or your intent or whatever. I know there is a lot of rhetoric flying around. I don't agree with that at all. I think this debate ought to take place, and this debate is not taking place. So thank you to the Senator. And I don't think I have endangered--well, maybe I have--my reputation just a little.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Maine, who does such an outstanding job, along with the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. I, too, rise in strong opposition to the amendment that is proposed by Senator Feinstein. Senator Collins pretty well summed it up, and my remarks might be somewhat repetitive, and I think they need to be.

I know the Senator from California, no doubt, has the best of intentions. She has been an excellent member of the Intelligence Committee, when I had the privilege of being the chairman of that committee. She is working simply to increase the grant funding--which on the surface of it makes some sense--to high-population areas. I just don't think that reducing funding for the majority of our States and our great Nation, as the distinguished Senator has pointed out with her chart, is a viable way to protect against terrorism.

If we as a country are going to be adequately prepared for another terrorist attack, we must not forget that we are vulnerable on all fronts. The States that would be negatively impacted by this proposal contain some of our Nation's most valuable assets.

If we are going to reduce funds to States such as Kansas, this amendment tosses aside the risk to agriculture, as the Senator has pointed out, agraterrorism, although we don't use that term anymore because it used to scare a lot of people. We just call it ``food security,'' and it is a big-ticket item. Basically, that is the ability of our Nation's intelligence community, 19 different agencies, to protect our Nation's food supply, not to mention the oil and petroleum facilities that provide invaluable energy in this time of need to many Federal buildings and places of national significance that are scattered throughout our great Nation.

So we cannot let ourselves believe if we only protect large cities and high-population States, we will be safe from the devious and the calculating minds of those who wish to do us harm. You only need to look at the Oklahoma City tragedy to understand this. Rather, preparing for what we expect in the densely populated area is a sure-fire way to be shocked and horrified should the unthinkable happen again.

This legislation has been considered before. It was defeated soundly. To add it now as an amendment disregards the hard work many have done to negotiate a funding formula that most benefits our entire economy and our entire country. We cannot afford to compromise the security of an entire Nation for the benefit of a few areas. It is not where the people are, it is where the terrorists will attack and how and when.

Let me say when I was the chairman of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee on the Armed Services Committee, I went to a secret city in Russia--there are approximately 11 of them--and they let us into a few because we had the Nunn-Lugar program that paid the scientists the Russians used to have making various armaments and bioweapons and viruses and all sorts of things. It certainly gives you pause to think about the fact that when Ronald Reagan called the former Soviet Union the ``evil empire,'' he was correct, if you looked at the stockpile of this weaponry. We were granted access to this research center, which is located outside of Moscow, about 60 miles. It is called Obninsk. We went in and saw what was being manufactured. I can assure you when they opened up the refrigerator doors, we stepped back a little bit.

I will not go into everything in terms of what was being manufactured there, some of which is classified, but we thought under the Nunn-Lugar program the best thing we could do was to provide security. Yet how easy would it be for a terrorist group or somebody within the organized mafia of Russia today to latch on to any part of this stockpile, of which there are a great many, and transfer that to the United States and attack our food supply?

We have had exercises. I have taken part in exercises. There was an exercise in regard to hoof and mouth disease. What happened was we got into a situation where the infestation period was 6 days, and we got past that, and then utter chaos developed. We lost in the process a large number of our livestock herd, all of our export stock, and when people finally figured out their food doesn't come from grocery stores, there was panic in our cities. We basically endangered our food supply not only for 1 year but for several years running.

This is a very real threat. I can tell you as a former chairman of the Intelligence Committee, we worked very hard to get the intelligence community to first assess this and then to assess it in terms of a priority risk and a threat. That is exactly what we have done. This amendment does great harm to that effort and to adequate funding for all States and to assess the threats that certainly face all Americans. I am very hopeful we will oppose this amendment.

Let's repeat what we have done in the past and safeguard all Americans as opposed to the individual, or the individual many, if that is the proper way to put it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I understand I have 15 minutes within which to make my remarks; is that correct?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed and make my remarks in 15 minutes.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, some weeks ago--and I mentioned this in my remarks during the debate we were having on the resolutions with regard to Iraq and the war--I said several weeks ago I had the privilege of attending and speaking at a farewell dinner in honor of LTG David Petraeus and his wife Holly at the Command and General Staff College of the United States Army at Fort Leavenworth, KS. And, of course, now General Petraeus is in Iraq and involved in the new mission as prescribed by the President and the subject of great debate not only here but in the House of Representatives, which is voting as I speak on their resolution in regard to this matter.

It was quite an evening of tribute in behalf of the general who has become admired and beloved serving as commanding general of the Army's Intellectual Center in Leavenworth, KS. Throughout the evening I had the opportunity to again visit with David Petraeus, his feelings about his new mission, his impressive knowledge with regard to this most difficult war in Iraq, the history of the region, his understanding with regard to the nature of past wars, his understanding of insurgency in past wars and the insurgency we now face in Iraq.

While at the Command and General Staff College, he wrote the Army's new manual on counterterrorism. Let me say, as a former marine, as the Presiding Officer is as well, I helped write a similar manual years ago for the U.S. Marine Corps. So I find this man unique in his knowledge and his command ability. But when I was asked to make remarks after the dinner--they would always invite a Senator to make some remarks and, unfortunately, sometimes that turns into a speech--I was glad I said what I said, and virtually everybody in that room told me I had said what they cannot say. Those who wear their officer rank on their shoulders or their enlisted stripes on their sleeves in most cases do not comment on policy decisions or politics, no matter how strongly they feel. They follow orders, and they serve their country. But I believe my remarks to the general and his officer corps and the veterans of many previous wars are pertinent to the issue we face in this debate.

Before I express my views, I want to stress that I regret we are at a stalemate in this body. Obviously, they are not in the other body, in terms of a vote at least, on this issue of vital national security. I think most in the Senate wish we could debate this issue with comity, with cooperation, and, yes, in a bipartisan fashion. And I think the American people who are concerned, obviously frustrated and angry about the war, would certainly appreciate that, but that is not the case. This issue, very unfortunately, is wrapped around a partisan and political axle.

Our good friends across the aisle insist that we debate and vote on one of three nonbinding resolutions--there may have been an agreement on maybe one more vote--in regard to the war in Iraq, and that is all. They wish to debate and vote on the House resolution which is now being debated in the other body and about to come to a conclusion, or the Warner resolution, which I think are very similar, and then call it a day because both resolutions support the troops but not the mission.

This is the rub for many of my colleagues and myself, and it is about as far as the majority wishes to wade in the waters of withdrawal at this time. I realize if we were to consider other votes, it would be more pertinent to the issue, especially the amendment by Senator Feingold, and that would be wading in the water a little deeper than they would want to at this particular time.

Others of us wish to debate and vote on the McCain resolution--I hope we can do that--and the Gregg resolution and, as far as I am concerned, the Feingold resolution. I oppose the Feingold resolution, but I admire his forthrightness and his courage. But we are being denied that opportunity.

Most perplexing to me is that those who are covering this debate within the media--and it is never a good idea to say anything that could be possibly defined as critical of the media. I note there are none or there may be two, but, obviously, everybody is watching the vote on the House side.

Having said that, how on Earth can we describe this situation by writing headlines and 15-second news sound bites saying Republicans, like myself, have voted to stifle debate? I want to debate. Let's have a debate. Let's have a full debate and vote on the House resolution and/or the Warner resolution--vote on both of them--but let us also debate and vote on resolutions offered by Senators McCain, Gregg, and Feingold. I will vote for Senator McCain's resolution. I will vote along with Senator Gregg. I would not vote for Senator Feingold's resolution but, again, I think his resolution is probably the most determining in terms of effect, and he should get a vote.

We are not stifling or shutting down debate; our colleagues in the majority

are. Either we are not capable of explaining what I believe is a very simple proposition or some in the media cannot discern what is obvious. This is like playing baseball, although it isn't like playing baseball--that is a poor allegory, but it is the one I have chosen-- playing baseball with one strike and then you are out. You say: Wait a minute, usually in a baseball game you get three strikes. What happened to the three strikes? Where are my other two strikes? Where are my other resolutions that I want to debate, that I want to support because they are pertinent to this, certainly as much as the others? They are nonbinding as well. And the umpire--in this particular case the distinguished majority leader--says: Back to the dugout, Senator Roberts, I am sorry. We run this ball game. You don't have any further strikes.

I have information that the House has just passed the House resolution 246 to 182. That is a pretty solid vote. So, obviously, we will be getting to vote on that resolution, and I hope we will get to vote on these other resolutions.

In my remarks at the Command and General Staff College, I told General Petraeus we had not been personally acquainted over a long period of years, but in our short span of time, I certainly came to know him well. I have had several stimulating and enjoyable conversations with him over a wide range of issues, most especially the British experience in Iraq from 1921 to 1931, the example of Lawrence of Arabia. Lawrence of Arabia wrote ``The Small Warfare Manual,'' and he wrote ``The Pillars of Wisdom.'' As I indicated, the U.S. Marine Corps had similar manuals, one called a ``Manual on Antiguerrilla Operations,'' which I participated in, and now the manual the general has written.

It seems we cannot get it right with regard to insurgencies. The same things we write in these manuals we have to be careful about and pretty well play out the problems, to say the least, that make it very difficult.

Anyway, with regard to General Petraeus, he is exactly the right man for the right job at the right time. He knows this. He has been to Iraq. He was successful in his second tour. He is going back. I hope and pray he will be successful in his third effort. Our brave young men and women in uniform deserve nothing but the very best leadership, and they are getting it.

But I think it is a paradox of enormous irony that the Senate confirmed David Petraeus without a dissenting vote--not one, not one Senator--a vote of confidence that is unique, certainly given today's controversy and turmoil and the times. Yet at the same time, the same Senators who gave their vote of confidence are now in the business of what I call--I don't mean to perjure them--``confetti'' resolutions supporting the general and the troops but not the mission they are undertaking now. That to me is unprecedented for the Senate. I think it is remarkable, and I have said many times that these resolutions--and it has been said many times--are nonbinding. They have no legislative impact. They are so-called sense-of-the-Senate resolutions. For those who do not pay attention to the parliamentary procedure around here, that means they are meaningless except for the message you want to send, and that can be important to the Executive, i.e., to President Bush and the folks back home.

With all due respect, we have long crossed the message Rubicon with regard to sending mixed messages to our allies, our troops, the American people, the media and, yes, our adversaries. Words have consequences and, rest assured, our adversaries will read to try and figure out, analyze every word of the resolution just passed in the House and perhaps the one, maybe two resolutions we can pass in this body, hopefully three or four, and try to figure it out. I suspect they will be absolutely flummoxed in trying to discern the sense in reading a resolution that states support for the troops and our new commander, with new rules of engagement, with a limited timeframe for achieving and reporting benchmarks of progress, but that opposes the mission. That is a mixed message, and it should cause quite a bit of head scratching among the 31 different terrorist organizations that are planning various attacks around the world and even on the United States. My real concern is that the Senate is not considering or even talking about the probable consequences of these actions, let alone our responsibilities should they happen.

I want to make it very clear I do not question the intent or purpose or patriotism of any Senator, regardless of whatever resolution they are proposing voting for. I do question the judgment and the law of unintended effects. Bluntly put, with all this debate with regard to nonbinding resolutions, we appear like lemmings splashing in a sea of public concern, frustration, and expressing anger over the war in Iraq.

In this regard, I don't know of anybody in this body or anybody in America who does not want our troops home at the earliest possible date, and stability in Iraq, if possible. If possible--and that is a real question here. That is not the issue.

When all of this confetti settles, the end result of all this frenzy will be: ``General, you and the troops have our solid support--but we don't support your mission. However, press on and good luck.''

I think that message is remarkable. This is not a profile in courage. This is not the Senate's finest hour. If we are going to debate and vote on nonbinding resolutions, let us at least consider resolutions that will send a clear message or which can be of useful purpose. In that regard, we should consider the McCain resolution. It lists benchmarks of progress that General Petraeus has told Senator McCain and me would be useful in his discussions with Prime Minister Maliki, and certainly the Gregg resolution that supports spending for our troops in harm's way. I think that is the precedent we have to set. That is the killer in this debate, along with the Feingold resolution, because my colleagues across the aisle do not want to vote on the Gregg resolution, let alone the Feingold resolution.

Senator Feingold has a resolution which certainly does something. I don't agree with his resolution, but he is at least very forthright and sends a clear message, and he is a good Senator.

As the former chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the Senate, let me again stress what is not happening in the Congress or the media, and has received very little public attention regarding this challenge we face in Iraq. No one is talking about the consequences of what will happen if we simply withdraw or redeploy. And we may just do that, because I do not believe this war can or should be sustained if we do not see progress in the next 6 months. If General Petraeus doesn't come back and tell us there has been measurable progress, where we can see it, feel it, and touch it, we have some serious policy decisions to make. We need to be thinking about a policy of containment as opposed to intervention if this latest mission does not work.

I would also point out that most of the time deadlines for withdrawal are either in the nonbinding resolutions or they mirror exactly the time period General Petraeus has told the Armed Services Committee he would follow in reporting whether this new effort is making any progress, pretty much along the lines of the benchmarks that are in the McCain resolution. So the obvious question is: Who can better make that judgment, General Petraeus in theater or Senators here on the floor?

We have not discussed the difficult policy decisions that may confront us if it becomes necessary to redeploy, what that mission might be if we redeploy, where are we going, what is the mission going to be, or even how to withdraw.

Mr. President, I have about 4 minutes left. If I could ask unanimous consent that Senator Dorgan allow me that privilege, I would greatly appreciate it.

I will try to finish as fast as I can. I apologize. I arrived late. I asked for 15 minutes, and I thought I could get it done in 15 minutes. Obviously, ``Roberts-ese'' is expanding that time period. I will try to finish as fast as I can.

As I indicated, Mr. President, we have not discussed the difficult policy decisions that will confront us if it becomes necessary to withdraw or redeploy, what that mission would be, or even how to withdraw. The reality is what we will do when certain consequences would take place. These are the possible, if not probable, consequences we should be confronting and debating and explaining to the American people and ourselves and in the media, even if some may have a deaf ear.

First. A dramatic increase in sectarian violence quickly escalating to a civil war--and I mean a real civil war--and a humanitarian disaster far more devastating than what is happening now. Shia versus Shia, Shia versus Sunni. What do we do? Thousands of Iraqis have already become refugees and left the country.

Second. Given a civil war and struggle for control, we can expect an incursion of Sunni troops from other Mideast countries--I want to make it very clear about that: other Mideast countries--to prevent an Iranian takeover of Iraq and the very real possibility of an Iraq led by Muqtada al-Sadr, whose street appeal could endanger their own Governments. I am talking about other Mideast countries. When that happens, the war becomes regional. What do we do?

Third. We can expect an Iraq certainly dominated by Iran, thus completing a Shia crescent with Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Today, countries such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt are talking about building their own nuclear programs, given Iran's nuclear ambitions and progress. Iran has just refused inspectors from the IAEA. With the possibility of Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims each working to achieve nuclear capability and weapons, what does Israel do? What do we do?

Fourth. Iraq will become a safe haven for terrorists. This time it is for real. What do we do?

Fifth. In their eyes, with the defeat of the ``Great Satan'' only months away, as expected--a clear signal by this body and perhaps inevitable--terrorists around the world are already emboldened, waiting us out and planning more attacks; that is, if you believe what they say.

Read Afghanistan and the Taliban and the spring offensive. Will we soon be in the business of passing nonbinding resolutions about Afghanistan?

Sixth. We can expect a perceived, if not real, lack of American resolve in the eyes of adversaries and potential adversaries around the world resulting in additional national security threats.

Read Putin and Belarus and Iran, and his recent remarkable speech at Munich in Germany at the NATO security conference. Kim Jong Il. We are making some progress with North Korea right now, but he does have a penchant for missile launches on the 4th of July.

Read Hugo Chavez--31 countries in the southern command. He is the new Castro, nationalizing his oil production and directly involved in five different countries. What do we do?

The point is that globally and over the long term this is not a Bush issue or a Democratic or a Republican issue, or even how you feel about Iraq or the war. Even as we argue about whether we debate and vote on one resolution or three or four, I hope, there are terrorist organizations and their second-generation affiliates--guided and inspired--are plotting attacks against the United States and throughout the world. It is obvious we can't sustain the status quo in Iraq, but while we debate on how to proceed, these folks are not giving up.

The irony is that should the President wake up in the morning and say, well, the House has voted for this resolution, they are not for this new mission, and the Senate is about to, and they may or may not do that, so I am going to terminate it, I am going to end it, then we are back to square one, back to a stalemate, back to the status quo. That, to me, doesn't make sense.

Given the fact there were at least five successful attacks that killed Americans--and others that, thank goodness, were not successful--before President Bush came to office and before military action in Iraq--given the fact this threat will face the next President and future world leaders, surely we can figure out it makes no sense to fight each other when the terrorists then and now and in the future do not kill according to party affiliation, nationality, race, age, or gender.

We do not need a Republican approach to national security and the war. We do not need a Democratic approach to national security and the war. We need, however, an American approach to our national security and the war and to our individual freedoms. This is a time to engage in honest dialog, to work together and think through and agree on the strategy that will defeat our enemies and make the American people safe. And yes, bring our troops home but in a way that we don't have to send them back.

So I say to the leadership, with all due respect, let us end this nonbinding business and get these confetti resolutions behind us. We have all had a chance now to discuss the war and we need to vote on I think at least four resolutions, and then come together with a bipartisan commitment--a difficult and perhaps impossible task but, I believe, a task that must be undertaken for the sake of our national security.

Mr. President, I yield back the balance of my time and I thank my colleagues across the aisle for permitting me to finish my remarks.

Mr. President, today I wish to speak about the accomplishments of the Kansas Air National Guard, and specifically of the 190th Air Refueling Wing.

I have made several statements on the floor recently regarding my feelings on these resolutions. And today, instead of repeating my feelings on the subject, I would like to acknowledge some of our country's brave men and women.

As we all know, our Nation has been relying heavily on our National Guard in the war on terror. In Kansas, it is no different. However, these men and women continually rise to the challenge, saving lives and defending democracy at home and abroad.

Next week, we commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the 190th Air Refueling Wing in Kansas. The enormous sacrifice and dedication of the men and women serving in 190th brings great credit to their unit and to the State of Kansas.

This outstanding organization began as the 117th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron in Hutchinson, KS. The unit was federally recognized on February 23, 1957.

Next week they will celebrate 50 years of flying aircraft--from the F-80 to the B-57 to the KC-135 tankers they maintain today.

Since 1967, the 190th has been based in our State capital of Topeka, KS. They continue to be leaders in the State and in the Air National Guard, which is evident through their most recent awards--the Spaatz trophy for outstanding Air National Guard Flying Wing and the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award.

As we continue to debate the difficult topic of our presence in Iraq, I hope my colleagues will take a moment to recognize, with me, the outstanding contributions of our Nation's troops. Not only has our volunteer force proven themselves the best in the world, our citizen soldiers have proven themselves second to none.

I hope we will remember the personal sacrifices of these men and women as we debate our support for them and their mission.

Mr. President, will the minority leader yield for a question?

Mr. President, I just wanted to make it clear to myself and others what we are facing here; that is, there would be only one vote we would have on the resolution that was passed in the House, which I feel I could not vote for because it is nonbinding--it is, again, to support the troops but not the mission, which I think is certainly unique in regards to how people feel about this--and that, basically, the McCain resolution, which I support, which sets out the benchmarks to give to General Petraeus and to give to Prime Minister Maliki to gain some kind of catalyst or effort that would say: Look, this is where the Senate stands, and hopefully we can get these things done so that we can see some progress, to see if it is possible to achieve some security in Iraq and give that Government a political settlement. And the second amendment I am talking about is the one of Senator Gregg, as I understand it.

Mr. President, I would just ask what the play is, if I can do that?

Mr. President, the one I would ask about, if I can ask a further question, is that of Senator Feingold. It seems to me, if we are going to have a full debate, all choices need to be considered, and the amendment offered by Senator Feingold should be considered and should be made in order. That has taken a lot of courage for him to offer such an amendment in a very forthright manner. I will say that I don't agree with it, but in discussions about the ramifications of all of these resolutions, which are nonbinding and which I call confetti resolutions because they do not do anything except send very difficult messages to everybody, I think that ought to be made in order and that ought to be a choice.

Mr. President, I do have a question, and it involves what I believe to be an utter failing by Congress on behalf of our Nation's military men and women. My question to my colleague from Texas is this. I know in Kansas we are at risk of losing $365 million in regard to BRAC construction. My question would be to the Senator whether the same thing is true in Texas.

I think, probably to put it in perspective, I need to get a little background information so the Senator could reply. That brings attention to why I am bringing a question to the distinguished Senator and why I wished to take the floor for 15 minutes. I hope we don't get into an objection. I certainly have no problem with Senator Kennedy speaking on any subject. I think he does that very well--and often.

Basically, let me say, with apologies to the Lizzie Borden family, that:

The Democrat House took a continuing resolution axe,

and gave the military 40 whacks,

and when they saw what they had done,

then they gave Kansas 41.

I don't think that is right. I am not here to speak about our military presence in Iraq. We have moved away from the debate on our presence in Iraq. We must now address the issue of support for our troops at home, and that is why I am going to ask the Senator a question, as soon as I give the background in regard to the question I have.

As we have heard some of my colleagues already state today, we are in danger of underfunding military construction associated with BRAC by over $3 billion--actually it is $3.1 billion. Should the Senate let this occur, we will have failed our Nation's soldiers and their families.

Why did this occur? Because there was $6 billion within the military budget, within the Department of Defense, who wanted $6 billion for BRAC construction. Is that not correct, I ask my distinguished friend?

Basically, if I understand the Senator, we are down to $2.88 billion, which means if we had a whole pie and there were six slices, now we are down to less than three. And somehow or other the Department of Defense has to spread that money for BRAC construction to these other projects? That is going to be extremely difficult.

I am trying to figure out why on Earth the House acted in such a fashion. I think it is, if I read the press about this--and I ask the Senator if she would agree--it is that under the banner of ``earmark reform,'' there was at least a theory, by some, that all of the money in the $6 billion was somehow earmarks.

I ask another question. The $3.1 billion is the first time in my memory where we have had a breach in the agreement to say we are not going to fund nondefense programs--which are very meritorious and should stand on their own right, and I support many of them--out of the military budget. I can't remember when we have done that.

If I could ask my distinguished colleague one more question? I am going to own up. The $365 million for Kansas in BRAC construction funding, there were no earmarks to that, no earmarks. That was requested by the Department of Defense and put in the President's budget for projects that are essential for our men and women in uniform when they come back from Iraq.

There were three earmarks in there. They are gone and I understand that. I had one for a childcare center, Todd Tiahrt had one for lighting a ramp on a runway--I don't know what you are going to do if you don't have any lights on a runway when you land--and then there was another vehicle maintenance center at Fort Riley to take all the humvees and vehicles back from the desert and get them fixed up and replenished. They are gone. The rest of it, the $365 million that is at risk in Kansas, goes for projects in regard to BRAC construction.

I don't know if this happened because of somebody who didn't know what was going on--sheer incompetence or ignorance--or this was political, under the banner that we are going to stop all the earmarks. This is not an earmark.

As a matter of fact, let me ask the Senator from Texas a question. Is not the breach of taking $3.1 billion from military spending and putting it over into non-Federal spending--isn't that an earmark, a $3.1 billion earmark by itself?

Let me go on with a little background about this because I want the Senator to understand how

serious the situation is in Kansas. Should this $3.1 billion deficit be allowed to move forward and become law, soldiers in Kansas and many other States will suffer greatly. As I said before, $375 billion--I have been saying $365 billion. I am $10 billion short--$375 million worth of Kansas BRAC-related projects will be put at risk, and there are even more projects at risk in future years if the operational tempo of the Army is disrupted.

I wish to be sure all of our colleagues understand exactly what this shortfall could mean--as it would be in Texas or Oklahoma or any State--what this would mean to our men and women in uniform and their families based in our respective States.

The Combat Aviation Brigade, which is coming to Fort Riley, KS, as a result of the BRAC process, is in danger of losing $152 million for a complex that will house their barracks, their office space, their hangars, their fueling aprons, and their crash rescue fire station.

This unit, this aviation brigade, is going to deploy to Iraq soon, and they need these facilities when they return. The commanding general at Fort Riley, General Carter Hamm, told me yesterday that if the aviation brigade comes home in 2008 to find these projects incomplete, they will have to live in dated facilities.

What do I mean by dated facilities? We call them the white elephant barracks. They have holes in the walls. There are even rumors they have snakes underneath these barracks.

The general said they will have to live in dated facilities that will provide worse living conditions than the brigade will find in Iraq.

Let me repeat that statement to the Senator from Texas. I don't know if she has a dire situation like this. I will ask her to respond, for our colleagues.

If this construction fails to move forward, members of the air brigade will return to housing at Fort Riley that will be below anything they have experienced in Iraq. Is this the way the Senate wants to treat these soldiers? Does the Senator from Texas have a similar situation, where men and women in uniform coming back will find their housing less than what it was in Iraq? I am incredulous.

Let me ask the Senator another question and give a little background. Not only is the air brigade in danger of losing all of their support facilities--they need a new runway, specifically they need a $17 million runway. That is in danger of being cut from this $3.1 billion earmark. That is what I call it--a cut in an earmark going to nondefense programs. I find it unacceptable to move these people and then inadequately support them when they return home. Fort Riley is also in danger of losing an $87 million division headquarters, a sustainment brigade headquarters, to support another group of soldiers who will be returning from their current deployment in Iraq. If these facilities are not done by the time they return, they will be required to live in trailers, modular buildings. That is not acceptable. These soldiers are already sacrificing for the Nation. I refuse to ask them to also sacrifice when they return home from a deployment.

Let me mention something else to the Senator. As a result of the BRAC process, nearly 11,000 soldiers and their families have already begun moving back to Fort Riley. This is unprecedented growth. I know at Fort Bliss the situation is somewhat similar. But Fort Riley does not have the support facilities to ensure these soldiers and families have full access to health, dental, and childcare.

Let me ask the Senator from Texas another question, if I could have her attention. At Fort Riley we do not have the facilities to ensure these 11,000 soldiers and their families full access to health, dental, and childcare. Is there a similar situation in Texas?

Mr. President, I truly appreciate the response of the Senator from Texas. The reason I ask that is we are losing a $17.5 million health and dental clinic and a $5.7 million child development center, which will make an enormous difference in the quality of life in regards to the soldiers coming back.

There is another project I want to mention, and the Senator has brought it up. We need a $27 million battle command training center. What is that all about? That is 4,000 people going through that center which is going to be improved, who are going immediately to Iraq to serve under General Petraeus to see if that mission can work, and they are following the doctrine General Petraeus laid down at Fort Leavenworth, KS, which is the intellectual center of the Army. This center is necessary for training command, control, and communications functions that are critical to the training of the brigade and division staff. If you don't want to have them go to Iraq, rest assured they need the training to basically have them prepared for any kind of national security threat in the future.

Another Kansas project in jeopardy of losing funding that is of deep concern to me and should be of deep concern to the Army is the joint regional correctional facility at Fort Leavenworth. This is a little different. I don't know if the Senator has something like this, but I would ask the Senator a question. We need to build a joint regional correctional facility to house prisoners from around the Nation who are moved to Kansas. Currently, the Army is stretched to its limit. It needs these new beds for prisoners, and as the general told me, there is no place to put them.

The Acting Commanding General at Fort Leavenworth, BG Mark O'Neill, told me yesterday, add to the equation that the facility is underfunded at $68 million--they need $95 million at a bare minimum. What do we do with the prisoners? That is $27 million more than was even budgeted.

So the House is saying they will receive zip, nada, zero. Now, that is a correctional facility. I know it doesn't compare to the readiness problem, but with more prisoners and no place to put them, what are we going to do? That is a real problem.

I want to give you some good news, and I am going to ask the Senator if she has a similar situation in Texas. Kansas leaders share my concern. Last night, our Governor Sebelius's Military Council passed a unanimous resolution supporting our efforts to bring this amendment before the Senate.

I ask unanimous consent the letter of support be printed in the Record at this point.

This bipartisan support shows how important these funds are to our military. So underfunding BRAC MILCON by $3 billion, or even $1, sends a terrible message to our troops. It tears to shreds the bipartisan support involved with the BRAC process.

Isn't it ironic, I would say to the Senator from Texas, and to you, Mr. President, and to my colleagues, that at a time when many of our colleagues in the House and Senate are saying, bring the troops home now, and everybody wishes we could, these same colleagues in the House--again, either through ignorance or incompetence or politics-- apparently do not think it is necessary to provide the facilities that will support these troops and their families.

There is no other option, I say to the Senator from Texas and to my colleagues. I urge the majority leader to support our troops and their families by allowing a vote on this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I thank the Senator from Texas for yielding me this time for these many questions.

Mr. President, last Friday I had the privilege of attending and speaking before a ``Farewell Dinner'' in honor of LTG David Petraeus at the Command and Staff College of the U.S. Army at Fort Leavenworth, KS.

To say the least, it was quite an evening of tribute in behalf of the general and his wife, who has become admired and beloved serving as the Commanding General of the Army's Intellectual Center. I estimate there were around 250 officers and their wives and many from the Leavenworth community to pay tribute to General and Mrs. Petraeus, to wish them well, and to express pride and confidence in the general's immediate mission. He left for Iraq this past Monday, 2 days ago.

Throughout the evening I had the opportunity to again visit with David Petraeus, his feelings about his new mission, his impressive knowledge with regard to the war in Iraq, the history of the region, and his understanding with regard to the nature of past wars of insurgency and the insurgency we face in Iraq. While at the Command and Staff school, he wrote the Army's new manual on counterterrorism. Let me say as a former marine who helped write a similar manual years ago for the U.S. Marine Corps, I find this man unique in his knowledge and his command ability.

I made a few remarks at the dinner, and being a Senator, why, the remarks turned into a speech with some additional strongly held beliefs that I had penciled out in addition to my prepared remarks in behalf of General and Mrs. Petraeus. I thought twice about saying some very frank and candid views, but as everybody knows, marines don't hold back. So concluding my comments, I was glad I said what I said in that virtually everybody in the room--all 250--told me that I had said what they could not say. Those who wear their officer rank on their shoulders or their enlisted stripes on their sleeves in most cases do not comment on policy decisions or politics no matter how strongly they feel. They follow orders and they serve their country.

I feel somewhat the same trepidation today. However, I believe my remarks to the general, his officer corps, veterans of previous wars, are dead on to

the issue we face in this debate that we have been talking about here on the floor of the Senate.

Before I express my views, I would stress I regret that we are at a stalemate in this body allegedly debating the issue of vital national security, and I think most in the Senate wish we could do just that and do it with comity, cooperation and, yes, in bipartisan fashion. The American people, who are concerned and frustrated and angry about the war, would certainly appreciate that, but that is not the case.

This issue is wrapped around a partisan and political axle procedure. My friends across the aisle insist that we debate and vote on one of the three nonbinding resolutions regarding the war in Iraq, and only that resolution. They wanted to debate and vote on the Warner resolution and call it a day. The Warner resolution supports the troops but not the mission. Let me repeat that: It supports the troops but not the mission. That is a most unique position, to say the least, and that is about as far as my colleagues across the aisle wish to wade in the waters of withdrawal at this particular time.

I also mention it might be helpful if we could consider the Feingold resolution. Senator Feingold's resolution actually does something and should be considered in the Senate, as well. Others wish to debate and vote upon the McCain resolution and the Gregg resolution, but we are being denied that opportunity.

Now, to those in the press--of which I see none--those covering this debate within the media, how on Earth can you describe this situation by writing headlines in 15-second news sound bites, stating Republicans had voted to stifle debate on the war? Yes, let's debate and vote on the Warner resolution. That is entirely proper and right. But let's also debate and vote on resolutions offered by Senators McCain and Gregg and, perhaps, Feingold. By the way, I intend to vote for McCain and Gregg if I get the chance. I do not share the resolution in regard to Senator Feingold, but I defend his honor to introduce it and to debate it.

We are not stifling or shutting down debate. They are. Hello up there. Is there any way you can discern that? I can help you. I majored in journalism. I used to be a newspaper editor. This is like playing baseball with one strike and you are out. What happened to my other two strikes? Well, sorry, back to the dugout. We are going to go to the continuing resolution. We run this ball game.

In any case, in my remarks last Friday at Fort Leavenworth, I said to General Petreaus and the crowd that was assembled in his honor:

Throughout our history as a Nation there have been numerous

times when a Commander in Chief badly needed a Commanding

General with keen intellect and raw courage. However, I do

not think that it is a slight exaggeration to suggest the

last time one was this badly needed was 144 years ago, the

year 1853, when President Lincoln covered General Grant.

There are other historical allegories of tremendous

consequence. General Washington selected Nathaniel Green at a

crucial time in our Revolutionary War. Mr. Green was a

blacksmith's assistant. There was no understanding of rank at

this time. And he reputedly stuttered badly. He must have led

by example.

As most military historians know, Grant was discharged from

the Army for drinking. He went back home to Illinois. He

failed in farming. And he failed in running a mercantile

store. Four months into the war, he joined the Illinois

Volunteer Regiment, was reinstalled as an officer. Lincoln

chose Grant over many, many others.

As an aside, Sherman was a good friend of Grant and was

discharged for ``insanity.'' When he came back to the Army,

he made a famous remark about his friend: ``He was with me

when I was insane and I was with him when he was drunk.''

Then, of course, there was Ike. Selected by General

Marshall and agreed to by Franklin Roosevelt, he was picked

due to his particular talent of getting people, some with

tremendous egos, to come together in common cause. Eisenhower

was picked over 30 to 40 senior officers.

Then, just as now, our Nation stands at a critical

crossroads. Now, just as then, the freedom of many thousands

of people is at stake. Also at stake is the safety and

security of the United States of America.

Now, remember, these remarks came at a dinner for General Petreaus at the U.S. Army Command and Staff College at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. So I said to the general: General Petreaus, you and I have not been personally acquainted over a long period of years. Yet in our relatively short span of time I have come to know you well. I have had many stimulating and enjoyable conversations with you over a wide range of issues--Lawrence of Arabia, the British experience in Iraq--so I know full well you are exactly the right man for the job at the right time.

Our brave young men and women in uniform deserve nothing but the very best leadership, and they are getting it with General Petreaus.

I told him: You have captured America's imagination and enter this job with an enormous reservoir of goodwill.

However, it is a paradox of enormous irony that the Senate confirmed General Petreaus without a dissenting vote--not one--a vote of confidence unique given today's controversy, turmoil, and times.

Yet, at the same time, the same Senators who give you their vote of confidence are now in the business of proposing what I call ``confetti resolutions,'' supporting you and the troops but not the mission you are about to undertake. That, to me, is unprecedented for the Senate and, to me, it is astounding. These resolutions are nonbinding. They have no legislative impact. They are the so-called sense-of-the-Senate resolutions--meaningless except for the message you wish to send to the Executive and the folks back home or for whatever purpose you might have a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. With all due respect, we have crossed the Rubicon with regard to sending mixed messages to our allies, our troops, the American people, the media, and, yes, our adversaries. Don't forget our adversaries.

Words have consequences. Rest assured, unlike some of my colleagues, our adversaries will read every word and try to figure out and analyze each sentence of these resolutions. And I suspect they will scratch their heads and try to discern the sense and the reading of a resolution that states support for the troops and our new commander with new rules of engagement with a limited timeframe for achieving and reporting benchmarks of progress but that opposes the mission. That mixed message should cause quite a bit of head scratching among the estimated 31 terrorist organizations we have planning various attacks around the world.

However, my real concern is that the Senate is not considering or even talking about the probable consequences of these actions, let alone our responsibilities should they happen. I make it clear, I don't question the intent, purpose, or patriotism of any Senator, regardless of the resolution, but I do question judgment and the law of unintended effects. Bluntly put, with all of this debate with regard to nonbinding resolutions, we appear like lemmings, splashing in a sea of public concern, frustration, and anger over the war in Iraq. I understand that.

In this regard, I should stress, I do not know of anybody in this Senate or the House of Representatives or anyone in America who does not want our troops home at the earliest possible date, and stability in Iraq, if possible. That is not the issue.

When all of this confetti settles--and it is settling, apparently, because we are going to a continuing resolution and we will not have a vote on any of the resolutions--the end result of all this frenzy will be: General, you and the troops have our solid support, but we don't support your mission. However, press on, and good luck.

What kind of message is that? This is not a profile in courage. This is not the Senate's finest hour. If we are going to debate and vote on nonbinding resolutions, let's at least consider resolutions that will send a clear message or that can be of useful purpose. In that regard, we should consider the McCain resolution that lists benchmarks of progress, that General Petreaus has told me would be useful in his discussions with Prime Minister Maliki, certainly the Gregg resolution that supports funding for our troops in harm's way. But that is the killer in this debate because my colleagues across the aisle do not want to vote on the Gregg resolution. Now we are not going to vote on any resolution. The only thing we voted on was cloture.

As a matter of fact, I think we should vote on a resolution, as I said before, proposed by Senator Feingold, a resolution that certainly does something. I do not agree with his resolution, but he is at least forthright and has the courage and sends a clear message.

As the former chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the Senate, let me stress what has not happened in the Congress or the media and has received very little public discussion regarding this challenge that we face in Iraq. No one is talking about the consequences of what will happen if we simply withdraw. And we may just do that because I do not believe this war can or should be sustained if we do not see progress in the next 6 months.

I would also like to point out that most of the time deadlines for withdrawal that have been proposed or are in the nonbinding resolutions mirror exactly the same time period that General Petreaus told the Committee on Armed Services he would follow in reporting whether this new effort is making measurable progress along the lines of the benchmarks within the McCain resolution. The obvious question is, Who can make a better judgment? Who can better make that judgment, General Petreaus, in theater, or Senators conducting theater?

We have not discussed the difficult policy decisions that will confront us if it becomes necessary to withdraw or even how to withdraw. The reality is, what will we do when certain consequences take place? These are the possible, if not probable, consequences we should be confronting, debating, and explaining to the American people and the media, even if some have a deaf ear. First, a dramatic increase in sectarian violence quickly escalating to a civil war, not the civil war that people say exists today but a real civil war and a humanitarian disaster far more devastating than what is happening now; Shia versus Shia, Sunni versus Sunni, Shia versus Sunni. What do we do?

Second, given a civil war and a struggle for control, we can expect an incursion of Sunni troops from other Middle Eastern countries to prevent an Iranian takeover of Iraq and the very real possibility of an Iraq led by Muqtada al-Sadr whose street appeal will endanger their own governments. When that happens, the war becomes regional. What do we do?

Third, we can expect an Iraq dominated by Iran, thus completing a Shia crescent with Iran and Iraq and Syria and Lebanon--and Lebanon is going through its own problems, to say the least. Today, countries such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt are talking about building their own nuclear programs, given Iran's nuclear ambitions and their progress. Iran just refused inspectors from the IAEA. With the possibility of Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims each working to achieve nuclear capability and weapons, what does Israel do? What do we do?

Fourth, Iraq will become a safe haven for terrorists. This time, it is for real. No, not the 2002 NIE, National Intelligence Estimate, that we all agree was an egregious error. What do we do?

Fifth, in their eyes, with defeat of the ``Great Satan'' only months away--a clear signal by this body and perhaps inevitable--terrorists around the world are already emboldened, waiting us out and planning more attacks. That is, of course, if you believe what they say. So what do we do?

Sixth, we can expect a perceived, if not real, lack of American resolve in the eyes of adversaries and potential adversaries around the world, resulting in additional national security threats. Read Putin and Belarus; Kim Jong Il, with his penchant for missile launches on the Fourth of July; read Hugo Chavez--the Southern Hemisphere's new Castro--nationalizing his oil production and directly involved in five different countries. What about American resolve? What do we do?

I realize in today's climate the obvious answer to ``What do we do?'' is simply to blame President Bush. But the point is that globally and over the long term, this is not a Bush issue or a Democratic or Republican issue or even how you feel about Iraq or the views of the so-called international community.

Even as we argue about whether we debate and vote on one resolution or three--or apparently just have a vote on cloture and say that is the end of it--terrorist organizations and their second-generation affiliates--guided and inspired--are plotting attacks against the United States and throughout the world, even as I speak. It is obvious we cannot really sustain the status quo in Iraq. But while we debate how to proceed, they are not giving up.

Now, given the fact there were at least five successful attacks killing Americans--and others that, thank God, were not successful-- before President Bush came to office and before military action in Iraq and given the fact that this threat will face the next President--yes, the next President--and future world leaders, surely, surely we can figure out it makes no sense to fight each other when the terrorists, then and now and in the future, do not kill according to party affiliation, nationality, race, age, or gender. If you were on one of those planes the terrorists were planning to send--nine of them--over the Atlantic to American cities, and they went down and exploded in an American city or simply went down in the ocean, it would not make any difference if you were Democratic, Republican, liberal, conservative, or anything--you would be dead. It would not make any difference.

We do not need a Republican approach to national security and the war. We do not need a Democratic approach to national security and the war. We need an American approach to our national security and the war and our individual freedoms.

This is a time to engage in honest dialog to work together and think through and agree on strategy that will defeat our enemies and make the American people safe--look at those consequences of our actions that we have not even discussed on what may happen--and, yes, bring our troops home but in a way that we do not have to send them back.

My colleagues, I started my remarks by saying the majority of these comments came from a speech I gave at the dinner honoring GEN David Petraeus and his wife Holly at our Leavenworth Command and Staff College in Kansas last Friday prior to David Petraeus leaving for Iraq this Monday. I closed those remarks by saying I was confident that under his leadership, this new mission with new rules of engagement, our chances of success were greater because failure is not in David Petraeus. It never has and it never will be. So America's destiny and God's blessings are riding on the shoulders of GEN David Petraeus. And I closed by saying I was proud to offer him my full support and to call him a friend.

So I say to the leadership, with all due respect, and to all of my colleagues, let us end this business of nonbinding resolutions and get these confetti resolutions behind us. Vote on all four. Vote on all three. But let's not have the headlines that Republicans are trying to shut down debate on Iraq. That is just not the case. We should vote in regard to the Warner resolution, the McCain resolution, the Gregg resolution, and as far as I am concerned the Feingold resolution, if we must. We have all had a chance now to discuss the war. We need to vote on the three resolutions--maybe four--and come together with bipartisan commitment--a difficult and perhaps impossible task but a task that must be undertaken for the sake of our national security.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, I yield the 10 minutes 23 seconds to my colleague and my friend, Senator Thune.

Madam President, I rise today to offer amendment No. 102.

As we debate the issue of minimum wage, we can't forget the impact on the employers who hire these minimum wage workers. Small businesses pay 45 percent of the payroll in the United States, and they have created 60 to 80 percent of new jobs over the last decade. In my home State of Kansas, small businesses actually employ the brunt of hard-working families. I often hear from these employers who agree with their workers that they deserve a fair wage for a fair day's work, but they

admit, however, that they struggle to offer the basic benefits to their employees such as childcare. With a mandated increase in the minimum wage, that struggle will only grow. So affordable childcare oftentimes becomes a factor in keeping a job for many Americans in small communities such as Dodge City, my hometown, and other very similar communities. Childcare facilities are very scarce, limiting the possibilities for families to earn----

I thank the Senator from Massachusetts and I thank the Presiding Officer and I thank my colleagues to my right who, hopefully, will take their conversation from the floor of the Senate.

Unfortunately, small businesses generally do not have the resources required to start up and support a childcare center like happens in many areas in urban America and big cities.

When I came to the Senate in 1997, one of the first bills I introduced was the Small Business Child Care Act, which authorized a short-term flexible grant as a program to encourage small businesses to work together or with other local childcare agencies to provide childcare services for their employees. This amendment includes the bipartisan language of the Small Business Child Care Act that was passed out of the HELP Committee in August of 2005 as part of the larger childcare and development block grant.

Under the amendment, small businesses are eligible for grants up to $500,000 for startup costs and training and scholarships and other related activities, with priority given to grantees who work with other small businesses or local childcare organizations. These grants all have a matching requirement which encourages self-sustaining facilities that will go on well after the program ends.

In many small Kansas towns, childcare facilities can be very scarce, as I have said before. This amendment would alleviate the strain on working families who often have to close the door on the opportunity to be a double-income family because of the lack of childcare options in their communities.

When I first ran for the House back in 1980, I was going door to door in Dodge City. I was in south Dodge and I knocked on a door and a young lady came to the door and two children were immediately right there with her. I handed her a brochure, and I said: I am running for Congress. What can I do for you? Is there anything I can do for you as a candidate?

She looked at me with the two kids behind her--she was obviously a single mother--and she said: Mr. Roberts, it's your world, I'm just living in it.

That made a big impression on me.

I said: What do you need more than anything else?

She said: If there could be a possibility that there could be any childcare for these two children, I could go to work. I could go back to work.

But that was not the case at that particular time. Then I promised myself that we would try our very best so that in a small community with a bank, the implement dealer, and, say, a restaurant, they could come together, and with these kinds of grants offer affordable childcare.

So I am very hopeful we can get this amendment passed. It is a small change that will make a big difference in the lives of many employees and employers who see a need for childcare in their communities. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment.

Madam President, I say to the Senator from Connecticut, I thank him very much for his comments. He has been absolutely tenacious, as described by the Senator from Wyoming.

I can remember, it was about, what, 5, 6, 7 years ago, that we all were over, on a cold day, at the childcare center that is offered for employees on Capitol Hill over by the Hart building. We had a press conference. Senator Kennedy was there, I was there, Senator Dodd was there, I think Senator Jeffords was there at that time. That was 4 or 5 years ago.

So we should be moving on these things. I pledge my support to see what we can do down the road.

I rise to call up Senate amendment 102.

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

Mr. President, I believe I can get my remarks done in 5 or 6 minutes.

Mr. President, I am going to address a decision that has just been announced by FEMA regarding emergency assistance to the citizens of my State of Kansas.

I rise today to thank all those who have aided thousands and thousands of Kansans stranded by snow and ice over the course of the past few weeks. I want to give them some much needed good news.

First, let us remember the situation. Late last month, a large winter storm spread over 30 inches of very heavy snow and up to 3 inches of ice on top of that over much of my State. Fifteen-foot drifts were very common in western Kansas. At the time, 65,000 Kansans were without power. Snow blocked all major roadways, and many impacted Kansans, many people in small communities, were able to survive only because their friends and neighbors pitched in to help each other.

I came to the Chamber in the aftermath of the storm with charts showing the damage--11,000 utility poles down, transmission lines down--and some very pertinent charts in regard to stranded livestock. I was worried about the state of assistance in our country out on the High Plains. Many financial and economic livelihoods were in danger. In Kansas, farmers remained unable to reach their herds of cattle and keep them fed and watered.

Quite frankly, I was a little worried about the Federal response. I know when we have disasters, FEMA responds as best they possibly can. We have heard a lot about Katrina and forest fires and floods and other situations, but here we had a record disaster in regard to a blizzard and ice in communities that were isolated. I was a little concerned about it. In the midst of this record destruction, let me say that the National Guard, the Department of Transportation, local emergency responders, nonprofit organizations, and regional FEMA representatives really stepped to the plate. Frankly, the swift and selfless response of so many has been almost overwhelming.

Almost immediately, in the wake of this storm, our Governor, Kathleen Sebelius, declared a state of emergency, and we all got to work. The National Guard, at the direction of GEN Tod Bunting, sprung to action, and they delivered bales of hay and generators to those with stranded cattle and also aided in emergency services with helicopters and any other equipment that would work under the circumstances.

The Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and the Association of General Contractors from the private sector also proved vital in providing Kansans simply a place to stay warm. I must particularly thank the State's emergency management officials, working with the regional FEMA office, for the countless hours they worked to expedite the requests for public assistance.

FEMA workers get a lot of brickbat when things get very tough and complicated and difficult. This time, they certainly deserve a great deal of credit. Over the course of the past few weeks, local governments and certain nonprofits serving Kansans needed their Federal Government desperately, and the cry for help was answered. But the best news came a few moments ago when I received a call from the FEMA office here in Washington. I received notice that all remaining categories of public assistance have been approved for the State of Kansas. This is the news we have been waiting for. This gives the State reimbursement for a large portion of the $360 million in damage that has been documented to date. It includes such vital assistance for public buildings and utility and road repair.

Mr. President, we believe in self-help in Kansas, and most of the time we can handle our own problems. But in working through this disaster, we desperately needed Federal help. Federal help came, and Federal help came in record time, and it came because of the cooperation of local and State and national organizations--primarily FEMA--and it was a situation where everybody worked together and got the job done.

On this particular occasion, let me say thank you to all of those people who worked so hard and all of the people in Kansas whom I am so proud to represent. I look forward to the receipt of this assistance and the continued support that our communities in Kansas have seen from all levels of government.

I yield the floor, and I yield my time back to the Senator from West Virginia. I thank him for allowing me to make this statement.

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

Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business with Members granted approximately 10 minutes apiece, if they so choose; is that correct?

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, I rise today to call your attention to what can only be described as a major disaster in my home State of Kansas and surrounding States--certainly the State represented by the distinguished Presiding Officer--along with New Mexico and eastern Colorado, more especially in western Kansas.

In the last days of December, a large winter storm spread over 30 inches of heavy snow and up to 3 inches of ice in much of my State of Kansas.

As you can see from this picture of what used to be a row of electric towers--a very idyllic scene in Kansas, where we produce the food and fiber this Nation needs--and then from the following picture--I will take this picture down and basically show you what happened after the blizzard--of what remains, this storm has caused overwhelming destruction all throughout the region. There are 21 towers in this condition, as shown in the picture. These are major towers of power, of electrical grid that have been destroyed all across my State of Kansas, more especially in the western part.

As a result, 15-foot snowdrifts closed highways and left over 60,000 customers without power. Over 10,000 downed utility poles litter the area. We did not get that picture blown up in time, but it is a marvelous picture of a road--you can see the snow here--that goes by with a whole bunch of telephone poles snapped off like matchsticks. And that has happened all throughout that area. Residents who are lucky enough to have

generators are now paying up to $50 a day for diesel fuel to simply generate electricity to stay warm, to exist.

What is more, the storm hit one of the largest concentrations of livestock in the State. Let me put up a chart that is going to be a little difficult to discern from the standpoint of what it portrays. For reasons you can understand when you look at this image, we have received numerous reports of animals like this calf--yes, this is a calf. You can see the calf's nose, and one eye here and one eye here. We do not know whether the calf made it, in that our producers are working overtime, our ranchers are working overtime to get food to their livestock herds. But in this particular instance, you can see what happens to an animal that is caught in these kinds of conditions-- a rather sad scene, to say the least. Either they succumb to a lack of food or a lack of water or they suffer extreme weight loss.

(Ms. STABENOW assumed the Chair.)

Madam President, what happens, as you well know, coming from the State you represent, is that you will have a thaw, but the thaw will only involve a couple of inches, and it turns to ice, and then below that mud. So if you have any livestock there, they are stuck. You could even put a bale of hay right next to them and they could not eat it.

So many economic livelihoods are in danger if Kansas farmers are unable to reach their herds of cattle or keep them fed. I take great pride in reporting that all across our State our producers are doing the very best they can under very difficult circumstances.

In light of the overwhelming destruction this storm has thrust on our State, 44 counties were immediately declared states of disaster. This comes as no surprise to those of us who have seen the damage this storm has caused or those of us who have gone through previous storms. I remember the one in 1973, which caused great damage, and we had to use Air Force planes with bales of hay to keep the livestock herds, at least to the extent they could be, from dying. However, what comes as a surprise to myself and many others is that FEMA has been unable to fully respond to our vital requests for assistance.

Last night, the President issued a major disaster declaration for Kansas, allowing the State access to two--two--of the seven--that is important: Two of the seven--major types of public assistance. However, he agreed with me, when I showed the President these images of our State a moment ago at the White House that the damage in the western part of our State goes far beyond something called ``debris removal'' and ``emergency protective services.''

Furthermore, we have been told that debris removal does not cover the removal of snow. Now, wait a minute. If you are in western Kansas or you are out on the high plains and you have 30 inches of snow and 15- foot snowdrifts but you cannot remove the snow because it cannot be categorized as debris, how on Earth can you reach the debris that is underneath the snow? That seems to be a quandary or a question that is rather ridiculous under the circumstances.

While I understand that Federal officials must confirm a record or near-record amount of snow in order to expend Federal funds--I understand that--30 inches of snow certainly covers any other debris one could hope to clear, including the 15-foot drifts.

The bottom line is that the State of Kansas needs its Federal Government to assist in restoring power and clearing massive amounts of snow. And they need this assistance immediately--not next week, next month, or next year.

I have been told that meetings this week will determine whether Kansas qualifies for the remaining categories of public assistance. You remember that picture of the transformer, which I will put back up--and I will cover the picture of this poor calf--these are the kinds of things where we have to have public assistance; otherwise, you have local, small generators and people paying $50 a day for diesel fuel just to keep warm. That is the kind of category of public assistance--I am not going to list all of them--we desperately need.

I can only ask on behalf of Kansans, who will have been stuck in the snow for 2 weeks by the time these meetings occur, that these decisions be made sooner rather than later. I have been informed just this morning by our FEMA Director, Mr. David Paulison--who wants to be of all possible help--that much work remains to be done between the State and also our regional FEMA officials.

I understand that. There are a lot of regulations. There are a lot of things Congress itself has put into the regulations in regard to FEMA help or State officials, that they must work through this. But the 850 people in Sharon Springs, Kansas, cannot afford to clear the 15-foot snowdrifts that are currently covering six blocks of Main Street. Their county of 1,500 people could not have known to budget for the 600 truckloads of snow they estimate it will take to clear just their Main Street, just that area. They estimate it would take that to do the job. They need their Federal Government's help, and they need their State and also regional FEMA help to expedite this process, which I understand is going to take place on Wednesday. Why it cannot take place before that I am not sure. And why the Weather Service cannot at least discern this was a major snow--a major snow of 30 inches and 15- foot drifts--is a little bit beyond me. We will keep working on that.

As each day passes that FEMA is not able to issue the remaining categories of assistance--I am not blaming FEMA. I know there is a process. I am not blaming the State. I know there is a process. But the people of Saint Francis and the people of many other communities-- county seat communities, noncounty seat communities, very small communities--need the assistance now.

I hope FEMA and our Government do not give the impression that it is entirely focused solely on large urban and suburban communities, or natural disasters that make the headlines, make the headlines, and make the headlines. Obviously, I am talking about hurricanes, I am talking about mudslides, I am talking about forest fires, I am talking about major disasters where FEMA does the best job they possibly can. We have come through a lot in the past sessions of Congress.

So I am asking our State officials and our FEMA folks here in Washington and also on a regional level to prove this is not the case by quickly providing all available Federal resources to support this effort in our heartland. And again, let's do it this week. Let's not wait until next week and the week after and a month after.

I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I honor Ms. Joyce Woodburn's 35 years of dedicated service at the Central Intelligence Agency. Ms. Woodburn has had a long and distinguished Government career, and on January 2, 2007, she will bring to a close a career as a CIA staff officer that includes over 27 years in the CIA's Office of Congressional Affairs.

Joyce began her extensive career as a secretary and rose to the rank of senior executive within the Agency. During her career, she has worked for 7 Presidents, 13 Directors of Central Intelligence, 2 Directors of the CIA, and the first Director of National Intelligence.

Joyce's excellent work and professionalism is well known to us on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and she has been a linchpin in coordinating and supporting the CIA's relations with Congress over the last 27 years. Her calm and friendly diplomacy has certainly smoothed over many a bump in the CIA's relations with Congress.

She has represented the CIA in Congress through some historic crises, including the ordeal of the American hostages in Iran, the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the bombings of the Embassy and Marine compounds in Beirut, the Iran-Contra scandal, the fall of the Soviet Union, Operation Desert Storm, Somalia, the bombings of our embassies in Africa, 9/11 and the hunt for Osama bin Laden, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the current tensions with Iran and North Korea. Joyce has been a tremendous help over the past 27 years in getting the members and staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence the information and briefings we need to do our work.

Thank you for your service, Joyce, and we wish you a healthy and prosperous retirement.

Mr. President, today I honor Salvatore Ferro's 40 years of

dedicated service at the Defense Intelligence Agency, DIA. ``Sal,'' who has worked for all 16 Directors of the DIA, will be retiring on January 3, 2007. He will be sorely missed by the Select Committee on Intelligence.

Sal has had a long and distinguished Government career. Sal served with honor in the Army in the Vietnam War, working as an intelligence officer with the ``Phoenix'' program. After his discharge from the Army in 1969, Sal joined DIA, just 8 years after its establishment as an agency and went right back to Vietnam for a 1-year tour as a civilian intelligence officer.

After finishing his service in Vietnam, Sal returned to the United States to work in DIA's Arlington Hall Station facility in northern Virginia. During the next decade, Mr. Ferro drew on his wartime experience and his analytical talents to work on issues related to American servicemen taken as prisoners of war or declared missing in action in Southeast Asia.

In 1991, Sal moved over to DIA's Office for Congressional Affairs in the Pentagon. This is when our committee really came to know Sal. He has been an invaluable asset to the members and staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. He has been tenacious in getting answers to our many questions and requests for information. He has taken pride in being responsive and making sure that DIA consistently met our deadlines. More important, his professionalism, diplomatic skills, and amazingly positive personality have smoothed over countless ripples in DIA's relations with Congress. Ask any Intelligence Committee staffer who has dealt with Sal over the years, an they will tell you that he is not only a pleasure to work with, he is also a good friend. You can always count on Sal for a kind word and a ``happy Friday.''

Sal has supported the Intelligence Committee's oversight work on countless topics. Some of the most significant and time-consuming include the 9/11 Joint Inquiry, the review of the intelligence community's prewar intelligence assessments on Iraq, and the Able Danger review. I will always be most grateful to Sal for his tireless support over the years in my efforts to resolve the status of Navy pilot CAPT Scott Speicher, who has been missing since the first gulf war.

Mr. Sal Ferro is a true national intelligence asset, and he has been one of the Defense Intelligence Agency's secret weapons. He will be missed.

Thank you for your service, Sal, and don't be a stranger.