Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Graham amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill. This is an issue which has been with us for years now, an issue of border security which we simply, as a group of policymakers, have not addressed in the right way. That became pretty obvious during our debate on the immigration bill several weeks ago. All of us heard from our constituents back home that while overall immigration reform may be needed in due course, what we need to do immediately is to take action to make sure our borders are, in fact, actually secure. That is the first step in real immigration reform. Senator Isakson and I sent a letter to the administration imploring them to take action on this issue. We have asked the administration to send an emergency supplemental to the Senate and the House requesting that certain measures to secure our borders be enacted and adequately funded. What Senator Graham has done with this amendment is a step in the right direction toward ensuring that our borders--particularly our border to the south--are made secure. I am a little bit disappointed we cannot go any further because what Senator Isakson and I have asked the administration to do in its supplemental request to this body would be to include the creation of a biometric identification card so all of those folks who cross the border in a legal way would have that identification card and any employer who sought to hire any of those individuals would know that they are here legally. If you hired them otherwise, it would be at your own peril. There are some technical reasons why Senator Graham could not add that provision in here. It is going to require more money, No. 1, plus some other issues regarding the rules of this body. So I am hopeful that there are some additional measures we will take up after we, hopefully, adopt this amendment overwhelmingly, get this bill into conference, out of conference, and on the desk of the President. So I applaud my colleague from South Carolina, as well as Senator Pryor, who I know has worked very hard on this particular measure. This amendment does many of the things Senator Isakson and I have asked for, and we are very hopeful this will get to the desk of the President immediately. This will answer one of those questions a lot of us heard during the immigration debate from our constituents; that is, why don't you enforce the laws that are on the books today? Well, here is the answer: We do not have the money to do it. This will give us the money to do some of those things. So I urge all of my colleagues to look very favorably on this amendment. Let's take the first right step to secure the borders. Then we can come back and deal with the overall remaining immigration issues that are outstanding. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Dr. W. Ron DeHaven, Administrator of USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS. As Administrator for the last 3 years, he has ably carried out the agency's mission of protecting american agriculture. As a strong leader of APHIS' domestic safeguarding efforts, Dr. DeHaven has been the public face of USDA's effective, science-based response to bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE, in the United States. He has brought strong leadership skills to increasing U.S. preparedness to deal with avian influenza viruses in our poultry industry and ensuring that APHIS maintains robust emergency response and antismuggling programs designed to prevent the establishment of exotic pests and diseases of agriculture in our country. Dr. DeHaven serves as one of USDA's principal liaisons to the Department of Homeland Security. He has worked closely with his colleagues there on a number of fronts, including agricultural commodity inspections at our Nation's ports of entry and the joint work of USDA and DHS officials at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center off Long Island, NY. The work of the researchers and diagnosticians at the Center ensures our nation is prepared in the event of a detection of a highly contagious foreign animal disease, such as foot-and-mouth disease or classical swine fever. The agency's role has been shaped on the international front under Dr. DeHaven's direction. He has spearheaded efforts to stop the spread in poultry of the Asian strain of H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza. He has also advocated for improving international animal disease response infrastructure, traveling extensively to create a coalition of like-minded developed countries to work with the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization, FAO, and the World Organization for Animal Health. Dr. DeHaven helped push for implementation of a Crisis Management Center at the FAO's headquarters in Rome, with the goal of coordinating global H5N1 response efforts. I believe that the U.S. poultry industry is better protected as a result of his efforts. Dr. DeHaven's integrity, dedication, and professionalism have represented the United States proudly in all of these endeavors. He has consistently championed U.S. agriculture in all of his international relationships and activities. We congratulate him on his retirement from the Federal Government, and thank him for his 28 years of service with APHIS.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. That is a pathway to citizenship, giving them priority on getting the green card. But let me say to the Senator from California, I think the fact that we all recognize there is a problem and that we all want to get to the end which is a viable program that will allow all our farmers access to a quality pool of people who are here in a legal capacity under a valid temporary worker program, as long as it is truly a temporary worker program, and that those individuals are required to go back home at the time their job is completed--then we don't have an argument. But as long as you continue to give them a pathway to citizenship, it is going to be a problem. We have just had that debate. So I would say this: I would hope between Senator Craig, Senator Feinstein, myself, and others who are interested, that if we could come up with an AgJOBS- like, that would truly be a like version of AgJOBS, then perhaps that is a way that we could work our way through this year. It is going to take some time to get that done, and we don't have much time. Time is getting short. Here we are at the end of July almost, and harvest season is upon us. If we could come up with some agreement to get us through this year, to give us time, maybe, to work out in the long run a more permanent program that does not include that pathway to citizenship, I would be in agreement with the Senator.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, let me finally say to the Senator from California, again, we agree there is a problem. I think at the end of the day we agree what we want to do is give your farmers, my farmers, Texas farmers, and all farmers and ranchers the ability to have that quality pool of labor. And if there is a way to get there that is truly a means by which those workers who are here are temporary, I think that is going to be the key. Hopefully, we will continue the dialogue to see if we can't work something out.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, if I can again ask the Senator a question. That has been the problem area.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. That was Senator Isakson. We are glad you enjoyed them. My friend from California knows we have been trying to resolve this issue not for weeks and months but for years. We have been working on this issue. We have some major differences, as we have discussed. We had hoped to have an immigration reform bill on which we could resolve this issue. We moved a long ways in that direction. Madam President, I would like to ask my friend from California a question. As you know, I agree with everything you said, everything Senator Craig said about the dire straits in agriculture. We have a huge labor problem, and we are in need, in California, in Idaho, in Georgia, and in every part of the country, for agricultural labor to harvest our crops as we move toward the harvest season. The problem with the AgJOBS bill has always been it has an amnesty provision in it. It is called earned adjustment. That has been the major issue. Does the Senator intend to include that earned adjustment provision in the 5-year pilot program that the Senator is talking about offering now?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Will the majority leader yield for a question? First of all, I would love to invite the majority leader to Georgia to eat some really good Vidalia onions, and I look forward to trying some of his.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I will respond this way: Obviously, I am in favor of a temporary worker program for agriculture. We have one now. Senator Craig, Senator Feinstein, and I worked diligently to try to come to some accord on H-2A reform, but I have to tell the majority leader, we have never been able to reach that accord, and there are some issues that are going to require some major amending before we will be agreeable to bringing that bill up on the farm bill.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, first, I associate myself with the remarks of my good friend and my colleague from Georgia relative to this particular amendment. He is dead on target. We have been there for 2 years now encouraging this border security issue, that it be brought forward to the forefront on this issue of immigration. We are going to continue to pound at this until it is, in fact, realized by Congress and the administration and something is done. I also associate myself with the remarks of my good friend from Alabama, Senator Sessions, along with Senator Gregg and Senator Graham. This problem relative to illegal immigration was debated here thoroughly in the halls of the Senate a year ago as well as last month. Unfortunately, we have not come to any conclusion as to any part of this issue. The problem has not gone away. So I rise today to discuss amendment No. 2392, which is an amendment Senator Isakson and I have offered regarding the need for emergency spending to secure the borders of the United States. Since September 11, our local, State, and Federal law enforcement officials have taken great strides to make communities, air and water ports, cities, and national landmarks safer and more secure. I think it is a credit to this administration, as well as to the Congress, that we have not suffered another attack domestically since September 11. But we must continue to be vigilant. One part of that is securing our borders. We have improved our information-sharing capabilities between Federal and local first responders and law enforcement officials. Within our intelligence community--the CIA, the FBI, NSA--we have also increased our information-sharing capabilities -both vertically within each agency and horizontally with each other. Since the inception of our global war on terrorism, we have made numerous arrests, disrupted al-Qaida communication and planning capabilities, prevented and foiled potential terror attacks, broken up sleeper cells, and captured members of al-Qaida's top leadership. When it comes to our national security, terrorists only have to get it right once. We have to get it right every single time. None of us can afford to take our safety and our freedom for granted. Much more still needs to be done, But there is no doubt about it, we are winning the war on terrorism. On June 28, 2007, the Senate, by a vote of 46 to 53, rejected cloture on a bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform. However, illegal immigration remains as a top domestic issue in the United States. The American people continue to encounter the effects of our failed immigration system on a daily basis. They have not forgotten the duty of Congress and the President to address this issue of illegal immigration and the security of the international borders of the United States. This amendment will help remind the President and Congress that the problem of illegal immigration is still with us. There is no consensus on the best overall approach to comprehensive immigration reform, but I believe, and many Americans do as well, that the first step is funding the necessary tools to defend our country. The Federal Government has the responsibility to, and immediately should, secure the borders of the United States. Even with our best efforts, illegal entry into the United States remains a vast problem that is getting more and more out of control. This is a security breach we must address. We must commit the sufficient money for our border security agencies, including Customs and Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as well as the National Guard currently on our borders through Operation Jump Start. Many Americans from across the Nation have become engaged in this issue and shared with me their wide-ranging and passionate opinions on how we can secure our borders and resolve our illegal immigration crisis. I sincerely believe the greatest obstacle this body faces with the American people on the issue of border security and immigration reform is trust. The Federal Government's lack of action to uphold and enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders has eroded respect for those laws and eliminated the faith of the American people in the ability of the Government to responsibly administer immigration programs and protect our citizenry. I believe there is a clear way to regain the trust of the American people in the ability of the Federal Government to enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders. We should prove our abilities with actions rather than continuing to make promises. To that end, Senator Isakson and I believe the President could alleviate many of the fears of our constituents and other great citizens of America by calling for an emergency supplemental bill to fully fund the border and interior security initiatives contained in the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007, as well as any outstanding existing authorizations. Such a move would show his commitment to securing the border first, stopping the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs into this country, and creating a tamper proof biometric identification card for foreign workers who are here legally. It will also work toward restoring the credibility of the Federal Government on this very critical issue. Frankly, Congress has not done a very good job of addressing this issue for about two decades. It is imperative that we find and implement a solution quickly. This is a national security emergency which must be addressed immediately. I certainly do not have all of the answers, but I do know that, first and foremost, what we have to do is secure the borders. This is where the problem originates, and this is where it must be halted. If we don't secure our borders, then nothing else we do relative to immigration reform or national security will really matter. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I begin today by saying that I oppose the Levin-Reed amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I oppose the amendment for three important reasons: First of all, I believe the amendment unconstitutionally usurps the power of the Commander in Chief. Secondly, the amendment tells our enemies when they can take over in Iraq. Thirdly, the amendment is the wrong approach at the wrong time. Also, I wish to focus on what we are missing by spending unnecessary time last night and today debating this amendment. We have had a Defense bill pending before the Senate now for a week and a half and have yet to discuss this bill in substance. The bill which we have yet to make any real progress on does the following things for our men and women in uniform: First of all, it authorizes a 3.5-percent pay raise for our men and women in the armed forces. It authorizes additional tools for combating post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury and provides improved health care benefits for our injured warriors. It takes new steps to recognize the contributions of our Reserve Forces through increased retirement benefits and robust reintegration programs. It tightens our acquisition processes, our contracting policies, and increases benefits to our civilian personnel. It increases the amount of leave our military personnel can carry over, a provision which DOD strongly advocates as a way to increase the morale of our troops. It authorizes $4 billion for mine-resistant vehicles and critical MRAP vehicles that we need so desperately to protect our men and women. It authorizes $135 billion for allowances, bonuses, death benefits, and permanent change of station moves. It authorizes payment of over 25 types of bonuses and special pays aimed at encouraging enlistment, reenlistment, and continued service by Active-Duty as well as Reserve military personnel. It fully funds the President's budget request for the Army's future combat systems and adds $90 million for the Armed Robotic Vehicles. It authorizes $775.1 million for reactive armor. I could go on for a long time cataloging the good things in this bill that we are not talking about. We are not focusing on them because of the time we have spent yesterday, last night, as well as today, focusing on this amendment, which we could have dealt with several days ago. This side of the aisle has been prepared to vote and we have been asking for that vote, yet that vote has not taken place. I think it is important to keep in mind the people who are on the receiving end of the decisions we make and the votes we take in this body; that is, the American soldier, sailor, airman, and marine who is out there doing what we have asked them to do in service to our country. I appreciate the comments last night of the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, regarding my good friend, General Lynch, who commands the 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, GA, and Task Force Marne in Baghdad. General Lynch and his troops are in harm's way as we speak-- right now--executing the duties and the responsibilities the American people have asked of them. General Lynch recently commented that the addition of thousands more surge troops in the recent weeks has enabled him to clear insurgents in 70 percent of his territory south of Baghdad. I would like to share a few of General Lynch's comments regarding his mission and the work in which his troops are involved. Regarding the effects of ceasing the current strategy now in place, General Lynch has said the following: You'd find the enemy regaining ground, reestablishing sanctuary, building more roadside bombs, and the violence would escalate. It would be a mess. Regarding the current mindset of the Iraqi people that he encounters, General Lynch has said: What they are worried about is our leaving, and our answer is: ``We're staying.'' Regarding our need to stay and keep doing what we are doing, General Lynch has said the following: We need these surge forces. They came in for a reason. They are being used for the reason they were sent to be used for. These comments by General Lynch and the perspective he shares from Iraq is that it would be a mistake to give up on the President's strategy now. That is why I oppose the Levin- Reed amendment. Months ago, some in the media declared Al Anbar Province lost. Ramadi was declared by AQI--al-Qaida in Iraq--as the capital of AQI. Today, it is clear that they were wrong and that the President's new strategy has effectively turned Al Anbar around. I was in Al Anbar 2 months ago, and I have to say I was significantly impressed by the job General Gaskins and his folks are doing. We were able to take a convoy ride to the middle of downtown Ramadi. We were in a safe and secure setting for the first time in years, in that community. We saw children returning to schools. We saw markets open. We saw people walking on the streets for the first time in years. People now felt safe and secure because al-Qaida has now been cleared out of Ramadi and out of virtually every inch of Al Anbar Province. The surge is working in Al Anbar Province and in the self-declared capital of al-Qaida. The last elements of the troop increase that the President proposed back in January became operational in Iraq on June 15. Let me quote retired Vice Chief of Staff of the Army Jack Keane, who has been critical in the right ways and positive as well as other ways about Iraq--a good man, a good soldier. Here is what he said: It is my judgment the security situation is making steady, deliberate progress and it will continue to make progress as we go on through the rest of the summer and into the fall. The thought of pulling out now or pulling out in a couple of months makes no sense militarily in terms of what we are trying to achieve, and that is providing security and stability for Iraq so that we can make some political progress. If there is one strategy that does not make sense at this point either militarily or politically, it is signaling to the enemy, during a time when we are making early progress in establishing security and laying the grounds for reconciliation, that we are leaving and that they can have the country. This is an extremely ill-advised approach for which the United States, the Middle East, and especially the Iraqi people will pay dearly for decades to come. I have never been more convinced that waiting for General Petraeus's report in September was more right than yesterday afternoon when two young Georgia veterans, Tripp Bellard and Ruben Maestre, visited my office. I wish every Member of this body could have heard the passion and the emotion and the strength in their voices. Their resolve was clear, yet they were humble and forceful at the same time. I say to my colleagues, these men implored me to speak out. They said that America needed unwavering leadership now more than ever. They could not have been more clear when they said that pulling out of Iraq now would mean chaos and would have implications for our troops and for the Nation that would be beyond horrific. These were men who had been deployed to Iraq more than once and not for a few months. These were men who have been on the ground and who fervently echoed what I have heard without exception on every single trip I have taken to Iraq, from my first trip several years ago to my last one just 2 months ago. I have heard it from privates, and I have heard it from generals--that we must not leave prematurely and that we must not act prematurely. I wish to relate another anecdote about a conversation I had with a young female Army soldier. I had lunch with her in Ramadi. She is a Georgian with whom I had a very delightful conversation about a number of issues. But I asked her: Why in the world did you join the Army 3\1/ 2\ years ago in the face of the ongoing conflict in Iraq? She said: Senator, my life was not--I was not accomplishing in my life what I wanted to accomplish. I needed to head in a different direction. I felt like serving my country was something that I could do. She then said: Senator, I signed up in the face of Iraq knowing that I would go to Iraq. This is not my first trip to Iraq; it is my second tour of duty in Iraq. I know I am here for the right reason. I know the mission we have to accomplish. I am prepared to accomplish that mission because it is necessary and it is the right thing to do. As I visit with the people of Iraq here in the streets of Ramadi on a daily basis, I am reminded of what freedom is all about. Boy, you talk about emotion. You talk about a great young American. Those folks are truly great Americans. There is no better commentary on the status in Iraq than the men and women who are on the ground, and they are all telling us loudly and clearly that now is not the time to leave, nor is it the time to judge the strategy. The right time to evaluate the strategy is September, and the right time to give our forces what they deserve, by passing the National Defense Authorization Act, is now. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair notify me when I have 1 minute left.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, before the distinguished Senator from Connecticut begins, can we see about getting a unanimous consent agreement relative to some order?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I propose that the Senator from Connecticut go for as long as he might take; that the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, follow him. Does the Senator know who wants to go next on his side? The Senator from New Jersey?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. We will figure out where we are at the end of that time.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Senator Brown would follow Senator Collins and Senator Isakson would follow Senator Brown.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I am sorry, I put Senator Collins ahead of Senator Brown and I was wrong. Senator Brown would follow Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins follows Senator Brown.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I think that is what I said.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Following Senator Collins, that is correct.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent that Julie Blanks, a legislative fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the remainder of the debate on H.R. 1585.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Webb amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against the cloture motion. This amendment is about restricting the President and his military leaders' ability to prosecute a war that we have asked them to execute, and for which we unanimously confirmed General Petraeus to carry out. It is an unwise and harmful effort to limit the ability of the President and his military leaders and handicap their use of personnel and resources available to them. Senator Webb's amendment would preclude ``deployment'' of certain active and reserve forces based on the number of days they have spent at home. Keep in mind these restrictions would apply to the Nation's most experienced and capable troops during a time of war when we face an unpredictable and highly adaptive enemy. Keep in mind that during World War II and other wars of this country, servicemembers participating in those wars deployed for 3 and 4 years with little or no break. With this in mind the current proposal by Senator Webb seems out of step with history and what it has taken to win the wars of this country. I can think of no way in which the Webb amendment will help our Nation succeed in Iraq. This amendment ignores the fact that we are at war and that artificial conditions imposed by Congress on the use of troops are not helpful. Senator Webb is not alone in worrying about the effects of this war on the readiness of the Armed Forces, on the soldiers and marines and their loved ones, and on the ability of our all volunteer force to continue to perform under this demanding schedule of rotations. Senator Webb's amendment, however, is not a solution to any of these problems. Senator Webb stated that his amendment ``does not micromanage the military nor does it tie the hands of our operational commanders in theater.'' The Pentagon disagrees. The Pentagon has said that if the Webb amendment passes, operations and plans would need to be significantly altered. Units or individuals without sufficient ``dwell time'' would need a waiver to deploy based on threat. This waiver process adds time, cost, and uncertainty to deployment planning. In emergency situations the waiver process could affect the war fight itself by delaying forces needed in theater. Units would need to be selected for deployment based on dwell criteria that may in fact cause significant disruption to needed reset, planned transformation or unit training schedules. And from the Joint Staff: For fiscal year 2008, four Army brigade combat teams are projected to incur ``dwell violations;'' gaps in manning would be seen in aviation, intelligence, engineer, medical and military police; gaps would be seen in high demand units, specifically EOD, security forces, forces supporting detainee operations, and mobility aircrews. For individual members: ``anticipate high operational impact due to breakdowns in unit cohesion and problems in filling individual shortfalls in tasked units.'' Public approval ratings for the President and for Congress may be at all time lows, but the admiration of the American people for our military only gets higher. Why? Well, one reason is they take their responsibilities seriously and they train, prepare, and plan to win. And we should let them win--not legislate a recipe for failure which the amendment clearly does. The power of the Congress under article 1 of the Constitution to ``make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces'' is well understood, as is the President's authority under article 2 to command our military forces as Commander in Chief. This amendment, however, is an unprecedented wartime attempt to limit the authority of the President and the military leaders by declaring substantial numbers of troops and units ``unavailable.'' Putting aside all concerns about potential contingencies that might arise, this amendment is unworkable and will make the task of generating cohesive units for rotations impossible. Here is the Joint Staff's bottom line on the Webb amendment: If a 1:1 dwell policy is codified in law, eliminating the flexibility of the services to manage and mitigate exceptions to the dwell planning goals, future support to OIF/OEF may be severely impacted. Specifically, the requirement to provide 15 months of dwell for Army units scheduled to execute forthcoming planned 15 month deployments will result in future capability gaps in both OIF and OEF unless the force requirements are simultaneously reduced to a substantial degree. The same will apply to Marine Corps units. I am also concerned by the provision in the amendment that would allow individual members to ``volunteer'' to forego their ``dwell time to deployment'' ratio and seek a waiver from the Chief of Staff, CNO or Commandant of the Marine Corps to allow them to--voluntarily--return to the combat zone. I don't think it could be more clear that this provision in the amendment would undermine unit cohesion and readiness by encouraging debate in the ranks about when to deploy next. It would pit one soldier against another, leaders against those led, and encourage the kind of ``cross leveling'' that has been called ``evil and corrosive'' by our Reserve and Guard leaders. This notion in the amendment would introduce a whole new meaning to the concept of an ``All Volunteer'' military force: volunteerism instead of duty. It would drive wedges between soldiers and between marines, and could only hurt discipline and undermine the effectiveness of troops in the field. I would like to take a step back and talk more generally about our ongoing debate on Iraq and reflect on some of the dialogue that has transpired over the past few days and weeks, both in this body and elsewhere. I am very concerned that so many of my colleagues, and observers elsewhere, are declaring the President's change in strategy for Iraq--which he embarked on this past January--a failure when all the troops to implement that strategy have only been in Iraq for 3 weeks. In my opinion, leaders--particularly in elected offices--should do what the word implies, and that is ``lead.'' It does not take a leader to follow opinion polls, which is what I am afraid that many of my colleagues are doing. Our commanders and ambassador do not believe that the war is lost. Asked whether the U.S. could win in Iraq and leave behind a stable government, GEN David Petraeus said, ``If I didn't believe that I wouldn't be here.'' We have seen promising indicators since the President announced the new strategy in January. While al-Qaida and other extremists have conducted a counter-surge resulting in numerous horrific mass-casualty terrorist attacks, and while it is too early to declare the surge a success or failure, we have seen: A substantial drop in sectarian murders in Baghdad since January; arms caches found at more than three times the rate of a year ago; attacks in Anbar at a 2-year low; total car bombings and suicide attacks down in May and June; signs of normalcy in Baghdad, like professional soccer leagues, amusement parks, and vibrant markets; recruiting for Iraqi police forces drawing thousands of candidates; young Sunnis signing up for the army and police and more Shia rejecting militias. Some believe that setting a timeline and pulling troops out of Iraq regardless of conditions on the ground would be a responsible end to the conflict and/or would put needed pressure on Iraq's government. The collective judgment of our intelligence community is that this would increase, not decrease, the violence and hinder national reconciliation. In fact, a rapid withdrawal would almost certainly lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation. Some have said that General Petraeus does not believe the U.S. military can make a difference in Iraq. While General Petraeus has indeed said the ultimate solution to Iraq's problems is a political one, he has consistently argued that such a solution can only come with the improvements in security he is trying to achieve. I was last in Iraq in early May and learned several things during my trip that have convinced me that the President's plan deserves a chance to work and that a change in strategy now is the wrong course. For example: There has been a significant reduction of sectarian murders and assassinations in Baghdad; attacks in Ramadi have eased by 74 percent in the past 3 months; there have been 263 weapons cache discoveries in the past 3 months, a 192 percent increase; over the past 6 weeks, daily attacks in Ramadi have dropped from an average of 20-25 a day to less then 3 per day. Last year, only two tribal areas were viewed as cooperative with U.S. forces and 17 were uncooperative. Today, all 23 tribal areas in Ramadi are cooperating with U.S. forces to fight al-Qaida militants. There are no uncooperative tribes. Iraqis are now volunteering by the thousands to join local police and army forces. At the end of March, there were over 1,200 army recruits in just 2 days. Also from my trip to Iraq I learned that there are still issues that we and the Iraqis need to work on and watch closely. There are several political issues the Iraqis need to address, including passing a hydrocarbon law, continuing reconciliation efforts, debaathification, and holding provincial elections. These are keys to political progress. We need to work to emplace additional provisional reconstruction teams--PRTs--in Iraq to help with reconstruction. However, the foundation for these political issues being resolved and for the Iraqi Government continuing to mature and take responsibility is improved security throughout the country. That is the approach the President has taken, that General Petraeus is executing, and that is showing signs of progress. We should not abandon it because we live in an impatient society that wants to see results before the President's strategy is even fully implemented. We should stick with the plan, give it a chance to work, and listen to our military and civilian leaders when they report back on the strategies progress in the coming months. I ask my colleagues to vote against cloture. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution that will recognize July 2007 as ``National Watermelon Month.'' Watermelon production is a vital part of our Nation's agricultural sector and this resolution recognizes that fact. According to statistics released by the National Agricultural Statistics Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in January 2006, the United States produces 4,200,000,000 pounds of watermelon annually. This amount of annual production is remarkable when you consider the number of actual watermelons it represents. Watermelon varieties range in size from 5 pounds to over 40 pounds, so the number produced, consumed, and exported each year is truly amazing. Research has shown that the inclusion of fruits and vegetables in our diets is vitally important for a healthy lifestyle. Evidence indicates that eating between 2\1/2\ and 5 cups of fruits and vegetables everyday will improve health and protect against many of the diseases, especially those influenced by diet, that afflict our Nation. Watermelon provides many of the vitamins, fiber and nutrients which help prevent many of these diseases. Watermelon is also a good source of lycopene, an antioxidant that has been shown to reduce the risk of certain cancers. The health benefits associated with watermelon are so outstanding that the American Heart Association has certified watermelon as a heart-healthy food, thereby qualifying it for the heart-check certification mark. I cannot address this body without mentioning the importance of the watermelon to my home State of Georgia. The University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development recently released its 2006 Georgia Farm Gate Value Report. Watermelon ranked 16th among all Georgia commodities with a farm gate value of a little over $111 million from almost 24,000 acres of watermelon. I am also proud to represent Cordele, Georgia, which is known as the, ``Watermelon Capital of the World.'' Recognizing July as ``National Watermelon Month'' will provide the watermelon industry with many avenues to not only market their product but also educate the public about the health benefits associated with consuming watermelon through different watermelon related programs and activities. Watermelon enjoys a long history as one of our Nation's favorite foods. As Mark Twain once said, ``When one has tasted watermelon he knows what the angels eat.'' I encourage my colleagues to join me in acknowledging the wisdom of Mark Twain by supporting this resolution.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an honest, humble and dedicated servant of the United States Senate who has decided to turn in his Senate badge and enter retirement. For over 33 years, Robert E. Sturm, has selflessly served the Senate in various positions. His humble beginnings can be traced to his first Senate position as a mail clerk for Senator Birch Bayh in 1974. Bob undoubtedly performed his duties in an exemplary fashion, for his Senate career continued in the offices of Senators Dick Clark, Donald Stewart and Russell B. Long. He eventually rose to the respected position of chief clerk of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, and has served in that capacity for five current U.S. Senators including Senator Patrick Leahy, Senator Richard Lugar, Senator Tom Harkin, Senator Thad Cochran, and myself. After enjoying a 33-year career in the United States Senate, I speak on behalf of all of those who have had the pleasure of serving with Bob when I say; your retirement is well deserved. I would like to share with you all the uniqueness of Bob's character, kind spirit and devotion to his position as chief clerk. Whether addressing an intern or chairman of a Senate committee, Bob always displayed the same measured approach, graciousness, patience and understanding. Bob never hesitates to place the needs of others before his own. It is commonplace for Bob to spend late nights at work in preparation for farm bill mark ups, accommodate last minute travel requests from impatient Senators and staff alike, fly to the furthest reaches of our great Nation to set up hearings, or answer any procedural question with the temperance of a man who has not answered the question a thousand times before. Robert Sturm is that indispensable part of your staff upon whom you grow so reliant, you wonder how you will function in his absence. Bob, while a patient and understanding man, is not shy about enforcing the rules of the Senate Agriculture Committee which he loves. Any visitor to a Senate hearing who attempted to open a newspaper during the hearing, spoke too loudly from the audience or attempted to pass out materials not reviewed and approved by Bob, knows how quick the wrath of Bob Sturm can be meted out. Similarly, Bob guarded the Senate Agriculture Committee hearing room with diligence and insisted that its appearance always reflected the high esteem in which he held the committee and this august body. During my first hearing as chairman, I remember reaching for the gavel to call the hearing to order. As I looked down at the gavel, I was shocked to find that someone had placed my name on it. Humbled by this kind act, I turned to my staff and quietly asked, ``Who did this?'' The answer was of course Bob Sturm. During my chairmanship, I could always depend on Bob to place a few bags of my beloved Georgia peanuts at the seat of each Senator attending the hearings. It is the little things like this that exemplify Bob's attention to detail and willingness to serve. I also remember when the Agriculture Committee traveled around the country in the summer of 2006 to eight different farm bill field hearings. Bob was on the front lines of every hearing-- from educating staff on how to select an appropriate hearing site, traveling in advance to prepare for the hearing, arranging all the necessary travel, hotel accommodations and food, to running the actual hearing--Bob was in control. Even after being exhausted from continuous travel, Bob was always the first one to arrive and the last one to leave each hearing and I never heard one word of complaint. Bob, as in the performance of all his duties, was meticulous and saw things through to the end. I will always be grateful for his devotion. Let me finish by saying, Bob, that the Senate will sincerely miss you and most of all we thank you for your loyalty and the model of service you leave behind. Best of wishes on a healthy and happy retirement with your family. It is certainly well deserved.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Weighing Intelligence for Smarter Energy Act, or the WISE Act. I worked with Senator Wyden to introduce this bill and am happy to be an original cosponsor. As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I see some of the most sensitive products produced by our intelligence community. The intelligence community's analysts possess an extensive and wide range of expertise on all matters which could have national security implications for the United States. However, because of the secretive nature of the intelligence community and the sensitive work which it conducts, few policymakers are privy to many of its products. In most cases, this is essential in order to protect the sensitive sources and methods used by our intelligence agencies. In other areas, including matters related to global energy security, our intelligence analysts can provide some valuable analysis at an unclassified level. Energy policy and energy security have far reaching implications for the United States. As the country recognizes the danger of relying on imported oil, we need to develop an energy policy that is aggressive while at the same time thoughtful. Renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel are not the solution to our problems, but they can help reduce our dependence on imported oil from unstable regions of the world during a time of rising crude oil prices. At the same time, we must understand and be prepared for the unintended consequences of pursuing alternative fuel policies and to be sensitive to their impact on other sectors of the U.S. and global economies. Already, incentives for ethanol and biodiesel in the United States, Europe, Brazil and other developed and developing countries are forcing changes in the agriculture economy not seen in over a generation. While rising demand for alternative fuels will increase prices for agriculture commodities and benefit farmers, will this increase strain development in developing countries, in regions such as sub-Saharan Africa? We don't know yet, but these are questions we should and must ask. We already know the impact poverty and food insecurity has on populations around the world. However, policymakers, especially here in Congress, are not realizing the full extent of information available to them. Energy policy debates usually do not harness the full expertise of the intelligence community or consider the substantive analysis they may contribute to the debate. Experts in the intelligence community may examine the effects of energy policy around the globe and the impact those decisions may have on U.S. policy. In addition, the intelligence community can provide an analysis of the impact around the world of policies that utilize renewable resources. This legislation asks for just that type of analysis. The WISE Act asks the intelligence community to provide an intelligence assessment on the long-term energy security of the United States. The bill requests that as much of the assessment as possible be unclassified, while taking into consideration the need to protect valuable sources and methods by including a classified portion, it is my hope that this bill will better inform energy policy. In addition to informing policymakers of the energy security of the United States, the bill will also provide important analysis on the international impact of energy policies around the world. The WISE Act will harness fully the expertise of our intelligence community and allow policymakers to formulate more informed energy policy. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the bill.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Weighing Intelligence for Smarter Energy Act, or the WISE Act. I worked with Senator Wyden to introduce this bill and am happy to be an original cosponsor. As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I see some of the most sensitive products produced by our intelligence community. The intelligence community's analysts possess an extensive and wide range of expertise on all matters which could have national security implications for the United States. However, because of the secretive nature of the intelligence community and the sensitive work which it conducts, few policymakers are privy to many of its products. In most cases, this is essential in order to protect the sensitive sources and methods used by our intelligence agencies. In other areas, including matters related to global energy security, our intelligence analysts can provide some valuable analysis at an unclassified level. Energy policy and energy security have far reaching implications for the United States. As the country recognizes the danger of relying on imported oil, we need to develop an energy policy that is aggressive while at the same time thoughtful. Renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel are not the solution to our problems, but they can help reduce our dependence on imported oil from unstable regions of the world during a time of rising crude oil prices. At the same time, we must understand and be prepared for the unintended consequences of pursuing alternative fuel policies and to be sensitive to their impact on other sectors of the U.S. and global economies. Already, incentives for ethanol and biodiesel in the United States, Europe, Brazil and other developed and developing countries are forcing changes in the agriculture economy not seen in over a generation. While rising demand for alternative fuels will increase prices for agriculture commodities and benefit farmers, will this increase strain development in developing countries, in regions such as sub-Saharan Africa? We don't know yet, but these are questions we should and must ask. We already know the impact poverty and food insecurity has on populations around the world. However, policymakers, especially here in Congress, are not realizing the full extent of information available to them. Energy policy debates usually do not harness the full expertise of the intelligence community or consider the substantive analysis they may contribute to the debate. Experts in the intelligence community may examine the effects of energy policy around the globe and the impact those decisions may have on U.S. policy. In addition, the intelligence community can provide an analysis of the impact around the world of policies that utilize renewable resources. This legislation asks for just that type of analysis. The WISE Act asks the intelligence community to provide an intelligence assessment on the long-term energy security of the United States. The bill requests that as much of the assessment as possible be unclassified, while taking into consideration the need to protect valuable sources and methods by including a classified portion, it is my hope that this bill will better inform energy policy. In addition to informing policymakers of the energy security of the United States, the bill will also provide important analysis on the international impact of energy policies around the world. The WISE Act will harness fully the expertise of our intelligence community and allow policymakers to formulate more informed energy policy. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the bill.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate the women's gymnastics team from my alma mater, the University of Georgia, for winning the 2007 NCAA championship for the third straight year. The Gym Dogs celebrated their threepeat championship and eighth national title as they earned the highest score of the finals in Salt Lake City, UT, on April 27, 2007, and completed their season with a final record of 31-2-1. As an alumnus of this distinguished university, I am extremely proud of these talented women for all of their hard work and dedication that contributed to the championship scores that sealed their victory. I congratulate all of the team members and the women of the senior class, Adrienne Dishman, Kelsey Ericksen and Ashley Kupets, who gave 4 years of excellence to the Gym Dogs. Their leadership and talents will surely be missed. In addition, sophomore Courtney Kupets won her second straight National Individual All-Around title, and Courtney Kupets, Megan Dowlen, Marcia Newby, Tiffany Tolnay, Katie Heenan, Grace Taylor were all named first team All Americans. This is a remarkable program that will carry on its winning tradition with the outstanding strength of the remaining juniors, sophomores, and freshman members. Furthermore, I would like to extend my appreciation to all the families and fans for their continual support of the Gym Dogs throughout the season. The success of the team could not have been achieved without the exceptional coaching staff, led by legendary head coach Suzanne Yoculan, the 2006 NCAA Coach of the Year. Coach Yoculan has been the head coach of the Gym Dogs since 1983 and has won 8 national championships, 15 conference championships, as well as being named National Coach of the Year four times. Congratulations again to all of these young women for their great accomplishments and hard work.