Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Oregon for his persistence in pursuing something we both agree should and must be disclosed and made public, to the extent it can consistent with national security. Accountability for one's actions is something most of us are taught from childhood. It is rooted not only in religious teachings but also in the tenets of government at the Federal, State, and local levels. For those of us in public service, whether we be in an elected capacity or appointed position or some form of service directly related to the security of our Nation, we should know we must expect to be held accountable for our actions. When we serve the people and if we expect the rewards of doing good deeds, just as surely we should face the negative consequences of actions which do not turn out well. In addition, the public, to the maximum extent possible consistent with national security, should have made available to it the findings and the conclusions of the Government's own agencies with regard to accountability. As my colleague from Oregon has stated, in June of 2005 the Office of Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency published a report concerning the conduct of intelligence activities prior to September 11, 2001, and afterward. To this date, that report remains classified. The amendment Senator Wyden and I propose requires the CIA to make as much of that report public as is possible, consistent with protecting the sensitive sources and methods relating to our national security. The Senator from Oregon has referred to the 9/11 Commission, the joint congressional inquiry. Our Senate Select Committee on Intelligence spent 2 very intense years, 2003 and 2004, doing an extensive investigation of what the intelligence was, how it was formulated, what the problems were, and we found that there were tremendous holes in it. So much of what would be found in the inspector general's report has already been stated. But I think to make the record clear and complete, so that we may ensure that all of the agencies working on national intelligence have the ability to learn from the mistakes--and we in our role as the oversight committee will use the information in this report and on this floor, if need be--to point out how we can make our intelligence better. In an age where the war on terrorism has been brought to us by radical Islamic groups who continue to threaten us, good intelligence is the only defense we have adequate to the threat we face. It is important that we get it right. Now, it is not pleasant to air some of these mistakes. We all make mistakes, but we better learn from them or we are destined to commit them again. I thank my colleague from Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside this amendment so that I may offer a Rockefeller-Bond amendment.

Mr. BOND. I send to the desk an amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I ask that the postponed recognition of the distinguished Senator from South Carolina now be instituted. I express my gratitude to him for allowing us to go forward with the intervening amendment.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I thank the ranking member of the committee. When this committee was formed a long time ago--30 years ago--we lacked congressional oversight. Since 9/11, we found that congressional oversight had not been as good as it should have been, and one of my first acts when I was appointed vice chairman was I suggested to the chairman that passing the authorization bill was the top priority. He agreed. We have to be able to pass authorization bills if we are to have an impact on the intelligence community. There are already a number of Rockefeller-Bond amendments on this 9/ 11 bill. There will be more. There are some who say there is nothing an executive branch agency values more than a lack of congressional oversight. But I believe congressional oversight can help them do their job better. Is this bill perfect? No. But it is largely the same bill as last year, and we have changed provisions that were objectionable. On the good side, it would ensure that the exemption of Freedom of Information Act requirements carries over to operational files. There is a specific provision creating, within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, a National Space Intelligence Center. In reviewing all these, we worked very closely together to deal with problems in the bill. I believe we have taken care of most of the problems people raised. What I am afraid of is that people are objecting to the bill without knowing what is in the bill, without knowing the changes we have made, the accommodations that have been made by the chairman and by the vice chairman to make this bill acceptable. Some have said that the administration has concerns. If the administration has concerns, obviously they could exercise those concerns in a veto. But if they have concerns, I am not sure they know the changes and the provisions we have added to this bill. I invite my colleagues who have problems with the bill to talk with me or with the chairman about the bill so we can move it. We have worked long and hard to help improve the operations of the intelligence community. Our bill is the one way we have of providing that guidance and sharing with the intelligence community the issues that the bipartisan members of this committee believe are important. I invite anybody, all people or any person who has a hold on this bill, to come forward and find out what is in the bill. Don't judge it by what you think it may contain. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, if I could impose and ask for 2 minutes, so that Senator Craig and myself will consume a total of 5 minutes on this side.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Virginia, truly a Virginia gentlemen and a good friend and a leader. I am most grateful. I join with my colleague from Idaho in saying Senator Lieberman's statement is one of a true statesman, one we all ought to take to heart. I commend it and I will make that required reading for anybody who asks about this issue. Three quick points. I was asked yesterday by the media why the drumbeat on Iran. Simple answer: Iran is providing the EFPs, the explosively formed penetrators that are killing more and more Americans. We have tried, by diplomatic pressure, to get Iran to stop. Now we have even caught a leader of the Quds Force, the Iranian elite special forces unit, that reports directly to the ayatollah. They are there. The Iranians' special forces are there. Some say, well, maybe the top leaders don't know. But how many folks believe your special forces are going to go someplace, have the devices that only Iran can make, and the top leaders not know anything about it? That is why the drumbeat on Iran. We ought to take out the Iranian fighters and stop the weapons coming in. Secondly, on this resolution, it not only downgrades General Petraeus and says that although we confirmed you unanimously, we don't believe in your mission, but it also says to our allies, the neighboring countries that have been brought in on this new strategy--a new strategy that General Petraeus is implementing--that they shouldn't bother to come in and help us stop the deterioration in Iraq, which could lead to chaos and a takeover, and it also says to the enemy we are not going to be there. I am taking an intel trip and will not be here for the vote. I am strongly opposed to cloture on this. So by being absent, I will deny those seeking the 60 votes my vote, and I strongly urge my colleagues who are here to vote no.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of myself and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, that the text of the Education Begins at Home Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, with more than 100 different forms, arthritis is one of the most widespread and devastating health conditions in the United States. Nearly 46 million, or one in every five, American adults suffer from arthritis or chronic joint symptoms, and 300,000 children live with the pain, disability and emotional trauma caused by juvenile arthritis. As the leading cause of disability in the United States, arthritis is a painful and debilitating chronic disease affecting men, women and children alike. This is why the Federal Government must make a stronger investment in research, treatment and prevention of arthritis. We know that early diagnosis, treatment, and appropriate management of arthritis can control symptoms and improve quality of life. The Arthritis Prevention, Control and Cure Act will expand the Federal Government's efforts to find new ways to prevent, treat, and care for patients with arthritis and related rheumatic diseases by: (1) improving coordination among Federal agencies and the public with regard to the Federal investment in arthritis research and public health activities through a National Arthritis and Rheumatic Diseases Summit; (2) accelerating research that will lead to improved treatments and a cure for juvenile arthritis; (3) investing in a nationwide public health initiative designed to reduce the pain and disability of arthritis through early diagnosis and effective treatment of the disease; and (4) ensuring kids with arthritis have access to specialty care by addressing the nationwide shortage of pediatric rheumatologists. We have a responsibility to look for solutions to this issue in a comprehensive manner. I look forward to working with Senator Kennedy on this important legislation which will make a real difference in the lives of the millions of Americans, both young and old, who suffer from this debilitating disease.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of myself and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, that the text of the Education Begins at Home Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I came to the Senate to talk about the loss of a great soldier and dear friend of mine, but before I do that, I will comment on a few things we have heard discussed this morning. First, our efforts on this side are to get an opportunity to debate and vote on the Gregg amendment. The Gregg amendment, very simply stated--I don't have the full text in front of me--supports our troops. It says we should support our troops and not cut off funding. That is a valid viewpoint. We are at war. Traditionally, this Senate has supported our troops. That used to be the absolute baseline which everyone accepted. The main resolution that has been referred to, I fear, goes in the wrong direction. We, in time of war, ought to debate, and we will debate fully, and everyone will have an opportunity to express their views--but I think it is very important we not only have an opportunity to vote on the two resolutions which have been discussed but also to vote on the Gregg amendment. As soon as we can get agreement to do that, I am confident the leaders can move forward. I have also heard in the Senate a number of comments from Members who do not support a cut-and-run policy. I have addressed previously the disaster of an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. In open testimony, the intelligence community--the Director of National Intelligence--the Director of CIA, the Director of Military Intelligence, said chaos would reign in Iraq if we withdrew precipitously. It would fall into chaos. The primary beneficiary of that chaos would be al-Qaida. Osama bin Laden and Al-Jazeera have said how important it was for them to establish Iraq as their main base of operations. Second, there would be chaos and slaughter of innocent civilians, both Shia and Sunni. There would be a tremendous increase in the deaths of civilians. But even more frightening, the neighboring states would likely be brought in. The Sunni states would likely come to the aid of their Sunni brethren, and if that had not already triggered the entrance of Iran into it on behalf of the Shia, it surely would, and we could potentially be facing a major Middle East conflict with many states involved. I have heard it said that the Levin-Warner resolution asks we chart a new direction. We have charted a new direction. And the way forward is a new direction. The President has the agreement of Prime Minister al- Maliki and the Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish government of Iraq that they will take control and they will assume responsibility. They need help in training particularly their police, but they will take control. That is where we need to be. We can help pick off the al-Qaida and the other committed international terrorists, the radical Islamists. But we need them to resolve this civil strife between Shia and Sunni, and do so in a fair way, including the Kurds and the Sunnis. This happens to be the military plan the Baker-Hamilton group supported. They said to enable the Iraqi security, military, and police to take over, we should send in some troops temporarily. That is what the President is doing, adding another 21,000 to support them. Is this going to work? Well, again, with the release of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and the open testimony of the leaders of the intelligence community, they said it is an open question. It is a tough decision. But it is the best option we have. Yes, they think there is a chance it will work. And the Iraqi Government knows this is their last best chance. They had best make it work. And they best get their police trained and their military trained. Many people have called for bringing in other nations in the Middle East. That is what the President and Secretary Rice have done, to bring in other nations that will help rebuild the Sunni areas and help provide support to the Iraqis. There are some people who say we should not have an unlimited commitment. Well, the President has told not only this Nation but Prime Minister al-Maliki there is a time deadline. We are committed to them but not indefinitely. And if they do not take advantage of this opportunity, it will be their country which will fall into chaos and be the battleground, perhaps embroiling the entire region, but certainly wiping out and causing great death and destruction in their own country. So we do have a new direction. Now, some are pushing a resolution that challenges the President's implementation of the plan. We are trying to be generals and say General Petraeus--whom we just confirmed unanimously because he is such a great general, who said we should have those 21,000 troops--they are challenging his military judgment in the implementation of the plan. I know many of my colleagues have followed military policy for many years, but I do not think we in this body can determine for the generals what the proper level of troop commitments is. They are the ones who take responsibility for the lives of their men and women. To send a message by adopting a resolution that says we oppose the President's plan, implementation of his plan, is not going to change sending more American troops there. But it will tell al-Qaida: Good news, boys, the Congress is opposing the President. Our chances look better to take over the country. And it will send a message to friendly countries that are trying to help the Iraqis telling them: Sorry guys, we are not interested in winning this, so you probably would not want to waste your effort helping us. Finally, what does it send as a message to our troops: We do not support the military plan they are being asked to carry out, the men and women who are risking their lives? Does that make any sense? I fear not. I hope we can reject very soundly the Levin-Warner amendment and adopt the Gregg amendment and also the McCain amendment.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Now, Mr. President, let me turn to another matter, a matter of sorrow. I tell this body that at a wonderful military ceremony last Saturday, we laid to rest LTG Charles M. Kiefner, formerly Adjutant General of the Missouri National Guard--a man who I considered a friend for almost 40 years, a man whose career was an amazing one. I called on him to serve as my Adjutant General for the 8 years I served as Governor. Having come from the Guard, he was the youngest Adjutant General at the time, still by far the youngest Adjutant General in Missouri. But he knew the citizen soldiers who made up the Guard. He knew those citizen soldiers and respected them, and they respected him. When I left office and Governor Ashcroft took over, he made him his Adjutant General for the next 8 years. He served 16 years. In that time, he not only built the Missouri National Guard to be one of the finest units--Air and Army National Guard--in America, but he was very strong in establishing a Guard presence on Capitol Hill. It was at his urging that I went to my colleague, Wendell Ford of Kentucky, and we set up the National Guard Caucus, on which today Senator Pat Leahy and I proudly serve as cochairmen. That caucus has brought together 75 to 80 Members of this body to stand up for the necessary resources, the necessary personnel, and the necessary support of the Guard when active forces in the Pentagon tend to overlook them. The Guard is a better place today because of the leadership that General Kiefner showed as he headed the National Guard, the Adjutants General Association, as he worked with his colleagues throughout the country, and as he and those generals worked to make sure the Guard was strengthened. The Guard remembers him with great fondness. Lieutenant General Vaughn of Missouri, who had served in the Guard under General Kiefner, presented the flag to his wonderful wife Marilyn, his sons John and Keith. Charles M. Kiefner was born June 28, 1930, in Cape Girardeau, MO. He graduated from high school in 1948 and attended Westminster College in Fulton. He earned his bachelor of arts degree from Columbia College in 1975. General M. Keifner, or Charlie to his friends--and I am lucky to have counted myself as one of his many--was a great man and a great American patriot. Under his strong leadership, including as the youngest Adjutant General, the men and women in the Missouri National Guard came to exemplify the best this country has to offer. Having begun his military career by enlisting as a private in Company F, 140th Infantry Regiment of the Missouri Army National Guard on September 24, 1947, General Keifner entered active duty on September 11, 1950, with the 175th Military Police Battalion of Missouri Army National Guard and served in Germany with that unit. He was commissioned a second lieutenant, Infantry on December 21, 1951. He served as platoon leader, company commander, battalion motor officer, Battalion S-2, brigade adjutant and S-3, executive officer and logistics officer on the staff of the Adjutant General. As a member of the U.S. Army Reserve, from September 11, 1978, to November 5, 1980, he served as liaison officer to the U.S. Military Academy, West Point. General Kiefner was first appointed Adjutant General by me on May 8, 1973, when I served as Missouri's Governor, and held the Adjutant General's position until March 1977, when I left the Governor's office. Upon my reelection in 1981, I once again called on this great leader and appointed General Kiefner to lead the Missouri National Guard. General Kiefner served as Adjutant General throughout my two terms as Missouri Governor. As a testament to his skill and great leadership, he was later called upon by Governor John Ashcroft to serve 8 more years in the Ashcroft administration. General Kiefner not only served Missouri admirably, he also served his nation with honor. A friend who knew him for 35 years during his service in the Guard recalls: He was a professional soldier who made a point to know what was going on at every level of the Guard, from the enlisted soldiers to the three star Generals. He knew precisely what the threat to our homeland was and made great efforts to ensure the Guard was prepared to protect us from those threats. Members of the Army National Guard knew and respected General Kiefner and called upon him to serve as president of the National Guard Association of the United States, a position he held proudly and worked diligently to enhance our Nation's modern-day minutemen's and women's ability to meet their dual-mission at home and abroad. Upon his retirement from the National Guard in 1993, Major General Kiefner was promoted to the grade of lieutenant general, Missouri National Guard Retired List by Governor Mel Carnahan. ``At his own retirement he could not speak because he knew the overwhelming emotion he would feel at leaving the service he loved so dearly would overcome him,'' said one friend and colleague. ``He was an emotional man that was totally committed to his country, Missourians, and the men under his command.'' His many decorations and awards include: the Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Air Force Commendation Medal, Good Conduct Medal, Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal, Armed Forces Reserve Medal, Department of Defense Identification Badge, Ranger Tab, NGB Distinguished Service Medal, NGAUS Distinguished Service Medal, Missouri Meritorious Service Medal, Missouri Conspicuous Service Medal, Indiana Distinguished Service Medal, Minnesota Distinguished Service Medal, Tennessee Distinguished Service Medal, Minnesota Medal for Merit, 1992 Distinguished Alumni Award--Westminster College, Field Artillery Association Order of Saint Barbara, Army Engineers Association Silver Order of the de Fleury Medal, and the Sons of the American Revolution Silver Good Citizenship Award. Charlie understood the great citizen soldiers who signed up for the Guard. When he gave them an order they knew he understood them and they were willing to follow. I have lost a great friend, not just a former Adjutant General. There have been many fine individuals who have worn the uniform of our Nation's Army National Guard, but none more proudly than LTG Charles M. Kiefner. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that under the previous order the Senate stand in recess until the appointed hour.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I spoke briefly this morning about the need to have votes on the Republican resolutions--the Republican Gregg resolution and the bipartisan Lieberman-McCain resolution. It is very important we give the opportunity for this body to go on record saying, No. 1, they do support and will not cut off funding for our troops in Iraq. That needs to be said in the Gregg resolution. It is unusual and very unfortunate that at this time, when we are actually at war, we are considering resolutions which would say: Well, we don't support sending more troops over. We are actually sending troops over, and there are some who want to say: Well, we don't support the mission; good luck, guys and gals; you are going over, but we don't support what you are doing. We owe them more than that. We owe them what used to be the baseline in our discussions. Unfortunately, in time of war, we can debate and we should debate. However, the Levin-Warner resolution, the only resolution at this point the majority would let us vote on, sends a wrong message to the insurgents, militia, and, obviously, to our troops. This is a very serious and difficult situation in Iraq, no question about it. We got the national intelligence estimate, and it says these are tough times. But--and I agree with my colleague from Florida--we cannot afford to fail. During General Petraeus's testimony before the Armed Services Committee last week, he chillingly described the typical Iraqi terrorist as ``determined, adaptable, barbaric'' and that ``he will try to wait us out.'' And now we are considering a resolution signaling to this enemy that this body doesn't think the terrorists will have to wait too long. By capping the troop strength, this resolution limits the very leaders this body confirmed as fit to lead and determine strategies and levels of troops. The proponents of the resolution to limit troop strength must now believe that sitting here 8,000 miles away, this body is more equipped than our military leaders to say what our force structure should be in Iraq. That is unacceptable; it is totally unacceptable. The question has been raised: Will this plan work? There are lots of challenges. It is a challenging situation. The intelligence community, in its National Intelligence Estimate, says there are many difficult factors; it is a complex situation. But they said this is the best we can hope to do. This is our best effort to make sure something comes out that provides a stable Iraq, one that will not be a haven for terrorist groups such as al-Qaida to operate. The intelligence community was also very forthright, both in the NIE that we received last week and in testimony several weeks earlier in an open hearing of the Intelligence Committee. They said if we cut and run, Iraq would descend into chaos, giving the terrorist groups, such as al-Qaida and probably the Shia terrorist groups, the chance to operate freely in that country. It would lead to slaughter of more and more Iraqis--innocent Iraqis--and it would likely involve the entire region. It is clear that cutting and running should not be an option. There may be some people who would vote to cut off funding. We ought to let them have a chance at least to say we want to end it now, not we want to tinker with the military strategy so perhaps we can gain some political points at home. I have heard it said that some of the people who are supporting the Levin-Warner resolution think we should be following the guidelines of the Iraq Study Group. I had the opportunity on Sunday to ask Jim Baker is this military plan the military plan you have supported? He said: Yes, it is. Others have said we need a new strategy, and I agree. I agree we shouldn't have gone forward with debaathification and disbanding the Iraqi Army. That mistake is behind us. But we need a new strategy that can lead us to victory in Iraq. It seems to me the place where we want to be is getting the Iraqi Government, al-Maliki and his Sunni and Kurdish counterparts in the Government, to take responsibility and say we are going to establish stability, we are going to end the insurgency. To do that, they have said: We need the support of American troops, not to be on the frontlines--and I agree with those who said we want to move the Iraqis out front when they are stopping the Shia and Sunni violence; that is where they should be. We still have a role, and we can play a very important role in helping to take out the al-Qaida leadership and the other organized international radical Islamist terrorists, whether they be Shia or Sunni, and we can do that. That is part of what the troop surge will do. But we need to have them take over, and we need to train them. The intelligence community said the police are not ready to take over now. We have found that when we embed American troops, provide American troops in smaller numbers but with Iraqis, they function better. We can help show them how to win, and that is a plan I think we ought to pursue because what is the cost if we lose? Iraq is the center point in the war on terror. And unfortunately, we have no better source than Osama bin Laden, who says: I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic Nation: Listen and understand. The issue is big and the misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader- Zionist coalition began against the Islamic Nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate. That is what he calls Baghdad, ``the capital of the caliphate.'' There are similar transmissions by Ayman al-Zawahiri, who said: ``We must have Iraq as our caliphate.'' So we have to wait. We have to make sure we stabilize the area. It seems to me this is absolutely the best plan than fiddling around and adopting a resolution that says, no, we don't need 21,000 more troops. Some of the same people who said earlier this year and last year that we need more troops now are saying no, no, 21,000 more troops is not necessary. Whom are we going to believe, someone standing on the floor of the Senate or the commanding general who has responsibility for making sure that our troops accomplish their mission and they are safe? If he says we need those troops, I wish to vote for a resolution that says we need those troops. I wish to vote for a resolution that says we shouldn't cut off funding; we need to support our troops when they are in the field. What is at stake in this resolution deserves a commitment that goes far beyond what the political pundits and political operatives pontificate in Washington. I don't say all the people supporting this resolution have a desire to undercut our troops, to send the wrong message to our allies in the region or to encourage al-Qaida and Jaysh al-Mahdi. But, unfortunately, that is what this resolution can do. I had the honor today of talking with the head of the intelligence agency of one of our allies in the region. I said: What message would it send to your country if we adopt a resolution saying the President can't send over more troops? He said: That would be very bad because we want to see peace and stability survive in Iraq. It is vitally important to the entire region, and we are prepared to help the coalition make sure stability is achieved. We want to make sure Iran doesn't take over that country, that chaos doesn't ensue, and we--and he was speaking for several of the countries in the region--we want to provide aid to help rebuild the economy so there will be a stable economy because a stable economy is one of the best ways to convince people they don't need to get 25 bucks from setting out an improvised explosive device along the roadside. So we would be sending a bad message to our allies, and we would be sending a message of great hope to the people of al-Qaida. That is not what we ought to be doing, Mr. President. What is at stake deserves a commitment that goes far beyond the political pundits. Those who call for an end to the war don't want to talk about the fact that the war in Iraq will not end but, in fact, will only grow more dangerous if we leave with that country in chaos. So as we debate these resolutions, Congress's role in the Iraq policy is clear: Either Congress needs to exercise its constitutional powers of the purse and cut funding for the operations of the troops, which is madness, or get behind them. We shouldn't confirm General Petraeus and then say: Oh, but we don't support your plan. So if we are not using our power of the purse to cut off funds and force a hasty withdrawal, what are we doing? Are we telling 21,000 brave men and women who will be going to Iraq that we are uncomfortable with the dangerous mission you are about to undertake but not offering any alternative? I am sure our troops would find that encouraging. Simply put, this may be a situation where there are good politics, but these good politics equal bad policy. Politics are trumping good policy. A headline in today's Roll Call reads: ``Democrats to Launch PR Blitz on Iraq Vote.'' . . . Senate Democrats are launching a national public relations campaign aimed at tying GOP moderates and incumbents facing difficult 2008 re-election races to Bush in the public's mind, Democratic leadership aides said Monday. Is that what this is all about? Is that the politics? I think that is a very sad message. What is at stake is so much bigger than politics, bigger than the 2008 election, and it is a real disservice to our troops to see our national security become a political election gamble. I previously entered into the Record an article about 12 days ago by Robert Kagan, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund. He wrote a piece saying it is a grand delusion if we think we can walk away from Iraq and not solve it. He went on to say: Democratic and Republican Members of Congress are looking for a different kind of political solution: the solution to their problems in presidential primaries and elections almost 2 years off. This is coming, as he indicates in his article, just as American soldiers are finally beginning the hard job of establishing a measure of peace, security, and order in critical sections of Baghdad. He goes on to say: They have launched attacks on Sunni insurgent strongholds and begun reining in Moqtada al-Sadr's militia. And, finally, he concludes, and it is fitting advice for this body: Politicians in both parties should realize that success in this mission is in their interest, as well as the Nation's. Here's a wild idea: Forget the political posturing, be responsible, and provide the moral and material support our forces need and expect. Mr. President, I hope we will vote on resolutions that do that. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President it is both with deep gratitude and regret that I announce the retirement of my Academies Coordinator, Teresa Poole, from the public sector. Teresa Poole, a distinguished U.S. Senate staffer, is set to retire from the political arena on January 31, 2007. This year has been a milestone, marking her thirtieth year of hard work and dedication to the Federal Government, the citizens of southwest Missouri, and most importantly the U.S. Senate offices of Danforth, Ashcroft, and Bond. We have come together to honor and congratulate Teresa on her devotion, team spirit, and the proficient skills she has provided the Springfield office over the past 30 years. Teresa is to be envied and admired by all in government for her service to the public, which she has done with a helpful heart. In January 1977, Teresa Poole was member of the first U.S. Senate constituent service office in southwest Missouri for Senator Danforth. Little would Teresa know this would begin a remarkable 30-year trek with the U.S. Senate. With her incredible knowledge of the inner workings of government and her history with the U.S. Senate, Teresa has been a great source of information. She took pride in being able to guide effectively constituents, organizations, and coworkers through the complex infrastructure of government. Among the numerous achievements that Teresa has attained over the years, her most remarkable was her enthusiastic commitment to the Military Academies. She has worked tirelessly to help students from across Missouri to achieve their dreams of becoming officers in the U.S. military by guiding them through the process required to gain a congressional nomination. Teresa has sifted through thousands of letters, applications, and grades, and made endless calls to hopeful applicants. All of this would be finally completed in December, only to start over the next year with new names, faces, and challenges. Teresa Poole has shown unwavering loyalty and dedication to her job over the past 30 years. From the day to day routine of compiling local clips to answering the phone, Teresa has approached every task with hard work and a positive attitude. She has delighted everyone she meets with her love of antiques and finding good deals at various auctions and sales, her love of travel with her mother and daughter, her passion for her family and heritage, and her impeccable spirit. We commend her for a stunning and distinguished career with the U.S. Senate and wish Teresa the best in all her future endeavors. Teresa, we have been honored to work with you for so many years. We will miss you and we wish you and your family the very best.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I assume we are proceeding as in morning business.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. I would just say that like many Members on my side of the aisle, we pushed for a minimum wage bill last fall. Regrettably, it was filibustered, so we couldn't bring it to a vote. We are looking for and I intend to support a minimum wage bill if it has some reasonable tax incentives for small businesses that would be seriously harmed in some instances by the cost of a very drastic rise in the minimum wage. But I am hoping we will be allowed and not be prevented from adding those tax breaks that I think everybody needs.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about Iraq and Iraq- related issues. I had the opportunity this past weekend and the previous weekend to spend a good deal of time with the Missouri National Guard men and women in Missouri who do a great job in providing civil response to tremendous problems, whether it is floods or tornadoes or, in some instances, an ice storm that was devastating. Many of them have been to Iraq and Afghanistan and are going back, and they are proud of what they do. They know they are doing the job the military was assigned to do, and they are proud of it and we should support them. Mr. President, it is noteworthy that I mention again my colleague and National Guard Caucus Cochair Senator Pat Leahy and I will reintroduce the National Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act later today. This comprehensive legislation recognizes the paramount contributions that our citizen soldiers and airmen have made not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but all over the globe and particularly here at home. The bill provides four central planks: the elevation of the Guard chief to the rank of general, a seat for the chief of the Guard Bureau on the Joint Chiefs of Staff; mandates that the Deputy NorthCom position be for an eligible National Guard officer; and it allows for the National Guard Bureau to identify and validate equipment requirements, particularly those unique to the Guard's homeland missions. When we went after the terrorists in Afghanistan, the Guard was there. When we needed to establish order and stability in Iraq, the Guard was there. When Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated the Gulf Coast, the Guard was there. When a natural or man-made disaster strikes, the Governors call on the Guard, and the Guard is there. The next time America needs military forces overseas, the Guard will be there. Unfortunately, when the Pentagon makes key decisions that impact the Guard, the Guard is still not there. The need to empower the National Guard is not only still there but grows each day. We need to give the Guard more bureaucratic muscle, so that the force will not be continually pushed around in policy and budget debates within the Pentagon. Time and time again, the National Guard has had to rely on the Congress, not its total force partners in the active duty, to provide and equip fully the resources it needs to fulfill its missions. Our legislation will end this nonsense. We will put the National Guard on an equal footing with other decision makers responsible for national security and the transformation of the military forces. As GEN Steve Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau put it, they need to be ``in the huddle'' at the Pentagon if they are to be in the game. This will ensure that the next time the 430,000 National Guard citizen-soldiers and airmen of the Guard are discussed at the senior levels of the Pentagon, the Guard will be there. Additionally, I remind my colleagues that the Fiscal Year 2007 Military Construction and Quality of Life Appropriations bill was not passed into law. As a result, approximately $17 billion in new construction and BRAC projects authorized by the Congress in 2007 cannot proceed. The military service chiefs have urged the Congress to pass this legislation The projects funded by the Fiscal Year 2007 MILCON bill are necessary to sustain readiness and quality of life for U.S. service personnel. I also ask that letter from the Navy and Army Secretaries and Service Chiefs that raise concern about the risk by operating under a continuing resolution be printed in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that letters in support of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, one of the big questions that is being discussed today is what the President's plans are in Iraq and whether we should submit a resolution condemning the troop increases. I find it passing strange that many of the people pushing for a resolution to say we shouldn't send troops just adopted by a unanimous vote the confirmation of General Petraeus, who has said he believes he can do the job if he has the additional troops. He says the number is 21,000. Who are we to second-guess an experienced general who knows what the needs of his men and women in service are? I have listened to many of the persuasive arguments on the other side about their concerns about the Iraq war. There are some who want to cut off completely our involvement--cut and run. They have an argument; they make a legitimate point. I hope we have a chance to vote on it because the intelligence community leaders from DNI to the military intelligence head to the CIA said cutting and running now would be a disaster resulting in chaos, in additional killing of Iraqi citizens, and giving the entire area over to al-Qaida and probably bringing in a region-wide conflict. So that is at least a position that I understand how they take it, but I will fight very hard against it. What I don't understand is the people who say they want to do several things: They want to see a change in policy in Iraq. They want to see more Iraqi responsibility. They want to change the rules of engagement so we can go after Shia death squads and there won't be any political restrictions on it. And they want to adopt the strategy of the Baker- Hamilton report. Many of these same people who are now urging the adoption of a resolution said we need to send more troops. Well, when you look at it, the President is sending some more troops for a new strategy which involves the Iraqi leadership, Prime Minister al-Maliki, the Shia, as well as the Sunni and Kurdish leaders. They are now fighting without limitations on the rules of engagement. Our additional forces will be there at the request of al-Maliki to help him stabilize the country. This is the last best chance. This is the chance to leave a stable Iraq which will not become a terrorist ground for al-Qaida. Sunday, I had the opportunity to talk to Jim Baker, the lead name on the Baker-Hamilton report. I said: Jim, is the President's surge what you recommend militarily? He said yes. That is precisely what the Baker-Hamilton commission recommended. He also recommended additional diplomatic efforts. But in terms of the military effort, he said: This is what we recommended. Now, how do we send troops over and then think maybe we can get some political cover back home by saying we don't really agree with it? I don't think that does anything of real significance. There are some things a resolution passed by this Congress expressing disapproval of the President's plan would do, and I think they are significant and serious. No. 1, it would send a message to those we fight against--al-Qaida, the Baathists, Sunni insurgents--that we are not serious; we don't intend to support our men who are supporting the Iraqi military. It gives them cause to fight harder and stay longer. No. 2, it sends a message to our friends whom Secretary Rice is trying to bring in to help rebuild the economy of Iraq and provide jobs for unemployed young Iraqis--essential if we want to win 80 percent of the battle against radical Islam, which is ideological. It would tell them: you probably better not put too much money on the Iraqis because the U.S. Congress is going to pull the plug and then it will descend into chaos and any dollars we invest will be gone. Third, I would ask my colleagues to think about the message it sends to the troops who are there, to the troops who will be going there. They are over there fighting. They are risking their lives every day. They are willing to take on the fight because they believe it is an important fight. They believe it is a fight we can and we must win militarily. What message does it send to the families back home? I think you can guess what that answer is. I saw a very interesting article in the Washington Post on Sunday. Robert Kagan at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and a Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund, has written a book. He said: Grand Delusion: Politicians in Both Parties Act as if They Can Make the War Go Away Soon. It Won't. He warns about all we are doing when we have laid out a plan and reinforcements for the Iraqi troops. He said: Back in Washington, however, Democratic and Republican Members of Congress are looking for a different kind of political solution: The solution to their problems in presidential primaries and elections almost two years off. Resolutions disapproving the troop increase have proliferated on both sides of the aisle. Many of their proponents frankly, even proudly, admit they are responding to current public mood. Those who think they were elected sometimes to lead rather than to follow seem to be in the minority. And he goes on to say that those who call for an end to the war don't want to talk about the fact that the war in Iraq and in the region will not end but will only grow more dangerous if and when we walk away. As I said, our intelligence community leaders, in open testimony a couple of weeks ago before the Senate Intelligence Committee, said if we walk away, leaving Iraq without an army and a security force adequate to sustain general order, peace and order in that country, not only will innocent Iraqis be slaughtered, there will be an open invitation for others to come in. How long can the Shias oppress the Sunnis without having the Jordanians and the Saudis and maybe the Egyptians come in to support them? We have already heard they would do that, to protect the Sunnis. And if the Sunni supporters came in, it would take about a New York minute for Iran to come in on behalf of the Shia. What kind of conflagration would ensue? It would take a lot more American troops to protect our ally Israel and to try to stop the killing. In addition, we know that al-Qaida would have a safe haven. And al- Qaida is not mad because we are in Iraq; they just want to win in Iraq. Muqtada al-Sadr, the No. 2 man, has been very eloquent, and he has been backed up by his boss, Osama bin Laden, who says: We have to win. Al- Qaida needs to restore chaos to Iraq so they will have a safe haven in which to operate, train their suicide bombers, their jihadists, develop means of command and control once again, perhaps get weapons of mass destruction. Well, that is what happens if we walk away and leave Iraq in chaos. Back to Robert Kagan's piece: Some people assume that if we can get the troops withdrawn, then it won't be a problem for all of our Senators running for President in 2008. Should any one of them win, they think by getting out of Iraq now, it won't be a problem. Bob Kagan says that: That is a delusion. Not only a democratic delusion, but some conservatives and Republicans have thrown up their hands. And they think that if we walk away, somehow the whole mess will simply solve itself and fade away. He said: Talk about a fantasy. The fact is the United States cannot escape the Iraq crisis or the Middle East crisis of which it is a part and will not be able to escape it for years. And if Iraq does collapse, it will not be the end of our problems, but the beginning of a new and much bigger set of problems. Well, Mr. President, I think that sets it up very well. I hope our colleagues will think about that. I hope they will consider that when they are talking about passing a resolution. It sends the wrong message to the enemies, to our allies, and to our troops and their families at home. This war radical Islam has declared on us is a generational war, as the President said. We best be laying plans to do our best to protect our country from repeated attacks such as September 11 by al-Qaida. That is at stake. By being in Iraq, by having good intelligence at home, we have been fortunate to avoid another September 11 attack. If al-Qaida had planned and regrouped, we would be much more likely to have another. I ask unanimous consent a copy of the article by Mr. Kagan be printed in the Record after my remarks on Iraq.

Mr. BOND. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND. Madam President, yesterday, I had the pleasure of traveling to Lee's Summit, MO, to talk about the problem of health care. Right now, we know about 47 million Americans do not have health insurance. That is a huge burden for those families. It is a big problem for all of us as policymakers who need to be addressing this issue. I went with the President and HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt. We toured the Saint Luke's Health System Hospital in Lee's Summit, which represents a very important next step in information technology for health care. The information on patients coming in--from the diagnosis to the x rays--is all included on a basic computer format, which makes it available to any physician or nurse or other health care provider working with that patient. Even the radiologist does a description of what the x ray means, which is included by voice transcription directly into the program that is on the computer. It is linked through each room, so at a distance, for smaller rural hospitals, experts can do as thorough a diagnosis as they could in the room, with the exception they cannot physically put their hands on the patient. But this has brought this hospital into a state where more and more hospitals want to go. We have the best technology. We have the best health care providers. We have the finest new medications, prescription drugs, that have dealt with many of the illnesses. But we have a much more expensive system because we have such quality care. The President has outlined a proposal on how we can incentivize Americans to buy insurance, keep health care costs under control, and maintain private control of health care decisions, leaving it in the hands of the patients and the providers. Well, I believe the President has said the best way to do that is through private health insurance. He says that is a debate we ought to have in Washington. We believe the private sector is the best delivery vehicle of health care. We know there is a role for the Federal Government, but it is not to dictate, it is not to be the decisionmaker. As he suggested, I think it makes sense to look at the Tax Code as part of the solution to the problem. Right now, if you pay your own health insurance, you pay taxes on the entire cost. If you are an individual, you get no benefit from paying your health insurance. But if you have an employer who pays for your health insurance, either all or part of it, you get that tax free. I think that creates a very unlevel playing field. The President's proposal would establish a more equitable system, one I hope this body will carefully consider through the HELP Committee--to look at it, look at the details, criticize it, change it, but at least give it a full hearing. I was rather disappointed, yesterday, before we even went out, to see some leaders of the majority party saying, oh, it is dead on arrival. Well, we are in such need of having real solutions to health care, I suggest this is a serious proposal that warrants serious discussion. I do not know all the details of it. But I had an opportunity to ask questions of staffers. I listened intently as the program was presented to a number of small business owners and small business employees who were very excited about the prospect of getting a tax break at a minimum of maybe some $2,200 a year if they bought health care-- whatever minimum program their States would provide--if they were a single person, they would get $7,500 off of their tax bill; if they are a married couple, filing jointly, they would get $15,000. Now, you may ask the question: Well, if they are low income and do not have to pay any income tax, where would the benefit come from? Well, by lowering their AGI, or the adjusted gross income, they would not be subject to Social Security and Medicare costs. So at the $15,000 level, that would exempt $15,000 from payroll taxes for FICA and Medicare. So they were very encouraged that they would, for the first time, be able to afford health care. The small business owners were anxious to provide it for their employees or see their employees have access to it. There are lots of questions about how it works. But from what I understood, you have to determine what is it you have to buy to qualify. I think at this point the thinking is that the States would determine what that base program is. It would obviously have to have some kind of catastrophic care. It is my hope that it would also include preventive care to make sure people stay healthy. It is particularly important for children. We are going to be renewing the SCHIP program to make sure children in poor families have that kind of coverage. The best investment we can make in the future is assuring that our youngest citizens get off to a good start with good health care, identifying potential problems and treating them early and getting them off to a start in their education, giving them the opportunity to begin life with good health. And a good education is No. 1. SCHIP would be available for the children of families who are at the bottom of the income ladder. But for all children, I hope they will be buying a health plan that focuses on preventive care, making sure people know what they have to do to stay healthy, and identifying problems before they become serious. The States would be given flexibility to use additional funds which the Federal Government makes available to the States to implement their programs. Some States already have ways of assisting their lower income people, not the poorest but the lower income workers, providing the assistance for payments of premiums, if that is what the State wishes to do. So there is a lot of room for innovative programs at the State level. The night before, the Governor of Missouri, Matt Blunt, offered another program, for example, and that is to say to all businesses: If you offer a health care plan to your employees that meets basic minimum State standards, you will be exempted from the franchise tax--a great boon to encourage Missouri businesses to offer all of their employees at least a basic health care plan. Proposals like that would be encouraged, and the great laboratories of the States could move forward to determine what kinds of things work best. There was some question--I don't know where it came from--that this might cut back on our support of FQACs, federally qualified health centers, what we call community health centers. There is no truth to that. The President is a big supporter--as is, of course, his Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt--of making sure there are health care clinics available in every area of the country. They have been on a vigorous expansion program and intend to continue that. I have visited health care clinics, over 50 of them, in different parts of our State, from the center cities to the suburban areas to the larger communities in rural areas to the most economically challenged, lowest population areas of the State. Those are absolutely the most critical safety net we have. I believe strongly in them. I have worked with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to support them. They must continue to be there. We are talking in this plan about using the Tax Code to make health insurance more available, but community health centers have the important challenge of making sure it is accessible. In many places, the only place you can find a doctor who will deliver babies is in a community health center or through a community health center, or find a dentist who will take care of dental problems. A shocking statistic we heard: 80 percent of 17-year-olds have serious dental problems in the United States. We have made dental care part of it. But these people who work in the community health centers are a vital part of our health care network. The President's plan envisions strengthening that safety net. In addition, he remains committed to allowing small businesses to go together in pools to purchase health insurance and avoid the high premiums often charged to individual small businesses and the cost of administering those plans, which becomes extremely burdensome for many small businesses. I hope this year we can also pass association health plans. Finally, the President spoke very forcefully about the need to continue the effort for medical malpractice reform. We saw the need for it in Missouri. Missouri passed a bill, and we started getting much better health care. In the western part of the State, until Missouri passed its medical malpractice reform, there were no doctors, outside of government hospitals, who could afford to be in the business of delivering babies. This is a problem which translates into higher costs of medicine because with unrestrained medical malpractice lawsuits being filed, there is a real danger that a great deal of time and effort will be wasted on unnecessary procedures for fear of the impact of a malpractice lawsuit. Many times, even the best doctors have maloutcomes. People don't live forever. We are all going to die from something. If there is a lawsuit filed against a doctor every time there is a bad outcome, they are going to be faced with insurance costs that go through the roof or health care that is not available. I go back to the point that this is a concept, the outlines of which I think I know but which I think deserve a fair hearing. I hope that as we take a look at the many challenges facing us, our HELP Committee and our Finance Committee will look at the President's program to determine whether it may be one way of assuring we get health care insurance to many of the 47 million Americans who don't have it. I urge that they do so. I am sure there will be changes all of us would like to make, but I believe the concept merits a hearing. I urge my colleagues to give it that chance. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I rise to talk about a portion of the President's address last night that I think is extremely important. I have heard from many of my colleagues in this body and on the talk shows that there are serious concerns about the war in Iraq. Primarily, they are saying we need to change our strategy; we shouldn't be involved in a civil war. We should be involving the Iraqis themselves in taking care of the civil war. We ought to be providing more--we ought to ensure the Iraqi Government cuts the Sunnis in on the oil revenues and makes them full economic partners. We need to bring in the friendly neighbors in the region, those countries that want to see a peaceful and stable Iraq, and we ought to be following the Baker- Hamilton report. As I listened to the President's speech last night, that is precisely what he did. This is a new strategy we have in Iraq. We have heard in our open Intelligence Committee hearings that now, for the first time, we believe Prime Minister al-Maliki and his Sunni and Kurdish fellow elected leaders believe they can take over and restore order in that country, and they are willing to crack down on the Shia death squads, such as Muqtada al-Sadr. We have seen reports of that in the media. They report that the neighboring countries are willing now to come in and help with reconstruction, provide job opportunities for young unemployed men to keep them from becoming insurgents or terrorists, and this, they say, is our best chance. Frankly, for Prime Minister al-Maliki and his government, this is probably their last chance. This is an opportunity where al-Maliki said: If you will provide some additional support as we go in, get our troops up to speed and clear and hold Baghdad, we will take over the country. That is what we need to do to bring a successful conclusion to this war and to draw out our military. We are probably going to have our military in the region for a long time because, as the President said, this is a generational war against radical Islam and the terror they bring. I wanted to just briefly note a comment. Last night we heard that the military is against the war. Well, there may be some in the military who are against the war, but I can tell my colleagues, I have spent a lot of time listening to Missouri soldiers and marines, people who have been on the ground. I have gotten reports from them continually. I have seen newspaper reports about the people who have come back, the soldiers who have come back. For example, one woman has written a book. She served with the Army's 101st Airborne. She lost her husband in the war. She says: It is hard to stay positive about Iraq because of what you see on the news. But I was able to be there and I know what a difference we are making there. Others, such as 1SG Stephanie Leonard, was moved to tears, saying that they are heroes for helping the Iraqi people. She said: It is not a 24-hour war. We want things to be in a hurry. As soon as the Iraqi police are able to secure their own country, that is when the window begins to open. These are just some of the many comments I have seen in print in Missouri and heard people express. They want to see us win. They know they are doing the job. They believe the liberal national media has painted a very unflattering and untrue picture, and that is why our troops think they are not getting a fair shake. But in that context, in the context of what the President did, let's talk about the resolutions which are being discussed. If the President is on the track to respond to all of the ideas about how we ought to change our direction in Iraq--and I believe he is--what will the resolutions do? Well, proponents of the resolutions say they want to support the troops, but the resolutions don't do that. Clearly, I believe there is an agreement now that we are not going to try to use the congressional power of the purse to cut off funding and force an immediate withdrawal from Iraq because that would be madness. The Director of National Intelligence told our committee: Precipitous withdrawal could lead to a collapse of the government of that country and a collapse of their security forces because we simply don't think they are ready to take over, to assume full control of their fiscal responsibilities. To simply withdraw now would have catastrophic effects, and that is a quite widely held view inside of Iraq itself. If we were to cut off funds, the CIA Director said it would lead, No. 1, to increased killing of Iraqi civilians. No. 2, the establishment by al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden of the base of operations for their war to establish a worldwide caliphate beginning in the Middle East, taking over the areas of Iraq which would be out of control and would bring people in from other countries in a possible civil war. If we remember, that is what happened in Vietnam. When Congress cut off the purse, we saw our allies slaughtered in Vietnam, and some 2 to 2.5 million people in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam were killed. A possible slaughter of people in the Middle East who have supported us would ensue. General Maples, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told our committee 2 weeks ago: . . . A failure in Iraq would empower the jihadist movement. It would give that base of operations from which the jihadist movement would extend. And it's consistent with the goals of Al Qaida in Iraq to establish that Islamic state, and then to expand it into the caliphate. I also think that there, of course, will be very significant regional impacts both in terms of stability to other countries-- I ask unanimous consent to speak an additional 4 minutes.

Mr. BOND. I ask for 4 additional minutes.