Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield to the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune, 10 minutes.

Mr. COCHRAN. How much time do I have, Mr. President?

Mr. COCHRAN. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman.

Mr. COCHRAN. It is amendment No. 690.

Mr. COCHRAN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished Senator from Texas.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I do not intend to object but for the purpose of asking if there would be any objection to my offering an amendment on behalf of the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, and then yielding to the Senator. We wouldn't have any debate, but we would just offer this amendment so it would be pending in the regular order.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Yvonne Stone, a detailee from the Department of Veterans Affairs, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the debate on H.R. 1591, the emergency war supplemental.

Mr. COCHRAN. I also ask unanimous consent that Earl Rilington and Eric Perritt, Fellows serving in my office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the debate on H.R. 1591, the fiscal year 2007 emergency supplemental appropriations bill.

Mr. COCHRAN

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, this appropriations bill reported by our Committee on Appropriations responds to the President's request for supplemental funding for the Department of Defense and other departments and agencies. The bill provides $121.6 billion in emergency spending. Of this amount, $102.48 billion is provided to support Iraqi security forces to continue operations in Afghanistan and to wage the global war on terrorism. In testimony before our Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, we were told this funding is needed by the end of April. I am disappointed the bill contains language that sets forth a timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The language amounts to a restatement of S.J. Res. 9, which a majority of Senators voted against, 50 to 48, on March 15. The Senate has spoken on this issue. Inclusion of this language as reported by the Appropriations Committee last week will only slow down the bill and invite a Presidential veto. We need to approve the funding now. Unnecessarily extending this debate is not going to serve the national interests. I will offer an amendment to strike this language from the bill. In this bill, the Appropriations Committee also approved $14.8 billion for additional emergencies, including $7.9 billion for continuing the recovery from Hurricane Katrina. The affected States are making good progress, slow but steady and sure. But additional Federal resources are needed. The bill also includes $1.7 billion for veterans health care facilities, which signals the committee's continuing interest in ensuring that our veterans receive the quality care they deserve. I applaud the chairman's goal, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, of completing work on the bill this week. I am concerned, however, that the bill is almost $19 billion above the President's request. We need to be sure this spending is necessary and responsible. I look forward to working with my good friend from West Virginia to ensure that this is the case. It is imperative that we provide funding to our troops promptly, and it will remain my goal to put a bill on the President's desk that he can sign. Amendment No. 643 to Amendment No. 641 Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask that it be reported.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, this is an amendment to the committee substitute which is now at the desk. The amendment will strike part of section 1315 of the bill titled ``Revision of United States Policy on Iraq.'' The majority of section 1315 of this act is a restatement of S.J. Res. 9, the United States Policy in Iraq Resolution of 2007. Two weeks ago, the Senate voted against adopting S.J. Res. 9 by a vote of 50 to 48. Section 1315 calls for a prompt transition of the mission in Iraq to a limited mission; a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq within 120 days of enactment of this act; a goal of redeployment of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 31, 2008, except for a limited number essential for protecting U.S. and coalition personnel and infrastructure, training, and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting targeted counterterrorism operations. Section 1315 also calls for a classified campaign plan for Iraq, including benchmarks and projected redeployment dates of U.S. forces from Iraq. Finally, it also includes an expression of the sense of Congress concerning benchmarks for the Government of Iraq, along with a reporting requirement by the commander, multinational forces, Iraq, which is currently General Petraeus, to detail the progress being made by the Iraqi Government on the benchmarks contained in this section. This amendment does not remove the sense-of-the-Congress provision that is important to a number of Senators. I think all Senators share an earnest desire that the Iraqi Government move aggressively to undertake the measures necessary to ensure a stable and free Iraq. The language to be removed by my amendment is essentially a restatement of S.J. Res. 9, which, as I said, on March 15 Senators defeated by a vote of 50 to 48. Before announcing his new plan in Iraq, the President sought input from his top military and civilian advisers, along with Members of Congress, foreign leaders, and other military and foreign policy experts. He acknowledged there was no easy solution to the situation in Iraq and the Middle East, and he determined a temporary deployment of additional U.S. troops in Iraq to support Iraqi security forces would provide a new window of opportunity for Iraqi political and economic initiatives to take hold and reduce sectarian violence. This plan provides the best hope to bring stability to the country and to hasten the day when our troops will come home. Earlier this year the National Intelligence Estimate entitled ``Prospects for Iraq's Stability: A Challenging Road Ahead,'' was delivered to the Congress. The National Intelligence Estimate indicated--and I am quoting now from an unclassified version: Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq. If coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this Estimate-- Which is 12 to 18 months-- we judge that this almost certainly would 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. If such a rapid withdrawal were to take place, we judge that the Iraqi security forces would be unlikely to survive as a nonsectarian national institution; neighboring countries--invited by Iraqi factions or unilaterally--might intervene openly in the conflict; massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement would be probable; Al- Qaida in Iraq would attempt to use parts of the country-- particularly al Anbar province--to plan increased attacks in and outside of Iraq; and spiraling violence and political disarray in Iraq, along with Kurdish moves to control Kirkuk and strengthen autonomy, could prompt Turkey to launch a military incursion. It is clear to me that it is in our national interests to support the President's new strategy, to help provide an opportunity for political and economic solutions in Iraq, and for more effective diplomatic efforts in the Middle East region. Of course, we know there are no guarantees of success, but according to the National Intelligence Estimate and the perspective of some of our most experienced foreign policy experts, maintaining the current course or withdrawal without additional stability in Iraq will be harmful to our national interests and to the entire region. We need to do what we can to help stabilize this situation and bring our troops home. As a beginning point, for this strategy to work, we should show a commitment to success. I support the new initiative and urge the Senate to give it a chance to work. This does not mean we should not monitor the situation or that the plan should not be adjusted as new developments occur, but we need to let the forces move forward to brighten the prospects of stabilizing Iraq and bringing our troops home. As Commander in Chief, the President needs our support. I support his efforts and the efforts of our troops. The Senate should provide the resources necessary to accomplish this mission, and these funds are included in this bill. Troop levels and missions need to be left to General Petraeus and his commanders who ought to have the flexibility to react to the situation on the ground in determining how to deploy troops as needed. Congress should not be tying the hands of our commanders or limiting their flexibility to respond to the threats on the battlefield. The inclusion of unnecessarily restrictive language will ensure a Presidential veto, we are advised. In testimony before the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, we were told that the funding provided by this bill is needed by the end of April. We need to speed this funding to our troops, rather than slow it down by returning to a debate already settled by the Senate by a recorded vote. Madam President, I urge the support of my amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Teaching Geography is Fundamental Act. I am pleased to be joined by my friend from Connecticut Mr. Dodd. The purpose of this bill is to improve geographic literacy among K-12 students in the United States by supporting professional development programs for their teachers that are administered in institutions of higher education. The bill also assists States in measuring the impact of education in geography. Ensuring geographic literacy prepares students to be good citizens of both our Nation and the world. Last May, John Fahey, President of the National Geographic Society, stated that ``Geographic illiteracy impacts our economic well-being, our relationships with other nations and the environment, and isolates us from the world.'' When students understand their own environment, they can better understand the differences in other places, and the people who live in them. Knowledge of the diverse cultures, environment, and distances between States and countries helps our students to understand national and international policies, economies, societies, and political structures on a more global scale. The 2005 publication, What Works in Geography, reported that elementary school geography instruction significantly improves student achievement and proved that the integration of geography into the elementary school curriculum improves student literacy achievement an average of 5 percent. That's the good news. However, the 2006 National Geographic-Roper Global Geographic Literacy Survey shows that 69 percent of elementary school principals report a decrease in time spent teaching geography and less than a quarter of our Nation's high school students take a geography course in high school. This survey shows that many of our high school graduates lack the basic skills to navigate our international economy, policies and relationships. To expect that Americans will be able to work successfully with the other people in this world, we need to be able to communicate and understand each other. It is a fact that we have a global marketplace, and that will continue to be the case. We need to be preparing our younger generation for global competition and ensuring that they have a strong base of understanding to be able to succeed. A strong base of geography knowledge improves those opportunities. The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis announced yesterday that 27.9 percent of the U.S. GDP, that is $3.7 trillion, annually results from international trade. According to the CIA World Factbook of 2005, U.S. workers need geographic knowledge to compete in this global economy. Geographic knowledge is increasingly needed for U.S. businesses in international markets to understand such factors as physical distance, time zones, language differences, and cultural diversity among project teams. In addition, geospatial technology is a new and emerging career available to people with an extensive background in geography education. Professionals in geospatial technology are employed in Federal Government agencies, the private sector and the non-profit sector, focusing on areas such as agriculture, archeology, ecology, land appraisal, and urban planning and development. In the United States, there are currently 175,000 individuals employed in the geospatial technology industry. It is estimated that this industry is growing up to 14 percent per year and it is projected to be a $5-6 billion industry by 2010. A strong geography education system is a necessity for this industry's continued advancement. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said, ``To solve most of the major problems facing our country today, from wiping out terrorism, to minimizing global environmental problems, to eliminating the scourge of AIDS, will require every young person to learn more about other regions, cultures, and languages.'' We need to do more to ensure that the teachers responsible for the education of our students, from kindergarten through high school graduation, are prepared and trained to teach these critical skills to solve these problems. Over the last 15 years, the National Geographic Society has awarded more than $100 million in grants to educators, universities, geography alliances, and others for the purposes of advancing and improving the teaching of geography. Their models are successful and research shows that students who have benefitted from this teaching outperform other students. State geography alliances exist in 19 States, including Mississippi, endowed by grants from the society. But, their efforts alone are not enough. The bill I am introducing establishes a Federal commitment to enhance the education of our teachers, focus on geography education research, and develop reliable, advanced technology based classroom materials. In my State of Mississippi, teachers and university professors are making progress to increase geography education in the schools through additional professional training. Based at the University of Mississippi, over 300 geography teachers are members of the Mississippi Geography Alliance. Two weeks ago, the Mississippi Geography Alliance conducted a workshop for graduate and undergraduate students who are preparing to be certified to teach elementary through high school-level geography in our State. The workshop provided opportunities for model teaching sessions and discussion of best practices in the classroom. I hope the Senate will consider the seriousness of the need to invest in geography and I invite other Senators to cosponsor the Teaching Geography is Fundamental Act.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Teaching Geography is Fundamental Act. I am pleased to be joined by my friend from Connecticut Mr. Dodd. The purpose of this bill is to improve geographic literacy among K-12 students in the United States by supporting professional development programs for their teachers that are administered in institutions of higher education. The bill also assists States in measuring the impact of education in geography. Ensuring geographic literacy prepares students to be good citizens of both our Nation and the world. Last May, John Fahey, President of the National Geographic Society, stated that ``Geographic illiteracy impacts our economic well-being, our relationships with other nations and the environment, and isolates us from the world.'' When students understand their own environment, they can better understand the differences in other places, and the people who live in them. Knowledge of the diverse cultures, environment, and distances between States and countries helps our students to understand national and international policies, economies, societies, and political structures on a more global scale. The 2005 publication, What Works in Geography, reported that elementary school geography instruction significantly improves student achievement and proved that the integration of geography into the elementary school curriculum improves student literacy achievement an average of 5 percent. That's the good news. However, the 2006 National Geographic-Roper Global Geographic Literacy Survey shows that 69 percent of elementary school principals report a decrease in time spent teaching geography and less than a quarter of our Nation's high school students take a geography course in high school. This survey shows that many of our high school graduates lack the basic skills to navigate our international economy, policies and relationships. To expect that Americans will be able to work successfully with the other people in this world, we need to be able to communicate and understand each other. It is a fact that we have a global marketplace, and that will continue to be the case. We need to be preparing our younger generation for global competition and ensuring that they have a strong base of understanding to be able to succeed. A strong base of geography knowledge improves those opportunities. The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis announced yesterday that 27.9 percent of the U.S. GDP, that is $3.7 trillion, annually results from international trade. According to the CIA World Factbook of 2005, U.S. workers need geographic knowledge to compete in this global economy. Geographic knowledge is increasingly needed for U.S. businesses in international markets to understand such factors as physical distance, time zones, language differences, and cultural diversity among project teams. In addition, geospatial technology is a new and emerging career available to people with an extensive background in geography education. Professionals in geospatial technology are employed in Federal Government agencies, the private sector and the non-profit sector, focusing on areas such as agriculture, archeology, ecology, land appraisal, and urban planning and development. In the United States, there are currently 175,000 individuals employed in the geospatial technology industry. It is estimated that this industry is growing up to 14 percent per year and it is projected to be a $5-6 billion industry by 2010. A strong geography education system is a necessity for this industry's continued advancement. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said, ``To solve most of the major problems facing our country today, from wiping out terrorism, to minimizing global environmental problems, to eliminating the scourge of AIDS, will require every young person to learn more about other regions, cultures, and languages.'' We need to do more to ensure that the teachers responsible for the education of our students, from kindergarten through high school graduation, are prepared and trained to teach these critical skills to solve these problems. Over the last 15 years, the National Geographic Society has awarded more than $100 million in grants to educators, universities, geography alliances, and others for the purposes of advancing and improving the teaching of geography. Their models are successful and research shows that students who have benefitted from this teaching outperform other students. State geography alliances exist in 19 States, including Mississippi, endowed by grants from the society. But, their efforts alone are not enough. The bill I am introducing establishes a Federal commitment to enhance the education of our teachers, focus on geography education research, and develop reliable, advanced technology based classroom materials. In my State of Mississippi, teachers and university professors are making progress to increase geography education in the schools through additional professional training. Based at the University of Mississippi, over 300 geography teachers are members of the Mississippi Geography Alliance. Two weeks ago, the Mississippi Geography Alliance conducted a workshop for graduate and undergraduate students who are preparing to be certified to teach elementary through high school-level geography in our State. The workshop provided opportunities for model teaching sessions and discussion of best practices in the classroom. I hope the Senate will consider the seriousness of the need to invest in geography and I invite other Senators to cosponsor the Teaching Geography is Fundamental Act.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, when most Americans were celebrating annual religious holidays and the beginning of a new year, my family was mourning the loss of one of our favorite and most outstanding relatives, Louis H. White, Jr. Louis White was the husband of my father's sister, Dale White. Their children, Charlotte and Curtis, in addition to being my first cousins, were good friends as well. Louis White was a member of the fabled ``greatest generation,'' made up of those who left homes and families and volunteered to serve in the armed services during World War II. He left college at Mississippi State University and became an officer in the Army Air Corps. He was qualified soon as a pilot of a B-17 and flying combat missions over Germany. He and his crew were shot down eventually, and he spent several months in a prisoner of war camp before being liberated by the Russians as they moved into Germany from the east. After the war, after completing his engineering studies, graduating from college, he became an outstanding engineer, enjoying a career of great success as a paper company executive, where he designed and managed the operation of several large paper mills in Florida, Alabama, and Texas. My parents, my brother, and I often enjoyed visits with him and his family during holidays, particularly when they were living on Santa Rosa Island, near Pensacola, FL. When Louis retired, he was a senior staff project engineer with BE&K, an engineering firm in Birmingham, AL, where he was involved for 11\1/ 2\ years at high levels of management in the paper industry. At his retirement celebration, it was said he should qualify for the ``Guinness Book of World Records'' because of 52 years of never missing a day of work because of illness or the weather. His first job, incidentally, was at age 14, when he was a dairy delivery boy. He always was dutiful and dependable. In the German prison camp, for instance, he developed an exercise routine that helped save his life and the lives of those who decided to exercise with him every day. He once told me about a Red Cross package that would come with an assortment of things that would help the prisoners survive, that they included things such as vitamin pills, cigarettes, and other things. He would trade the cigarettes for vitamin pills, for those who wanted to swap. His example of generosity with his voluntary contributions in the communities where he lived to the schools his children and grandchildren would attend, helping install, personally, the infrastructure of cables and wiring necessary for all the classrooms to have computers, for example, were marks of his contribution to his community. The quality of his life, the patriotism he displayed, his courage in battle, his survivability under the most difficult and challenging circumstances in the prisoner of war camps, his loyalty to his family and the level of excellence of his career as an engineer in business and industry are worthy of emulation and high praise. I extend my heartfelt compassion and love to his wife and family members who miss him greatly. We wish them well and thank them for the support they gave him throughout his life and his career.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, first, I want to express my deepest appreciation for the compliments and recognition given to me for reaching the milestone of casting 10,000 votes in the Senate. I sincerely thank all of those who said such generous things about me and my service in this body. It is with decidedly mixed feelings that I join my distinguished friend from West Virginia, the chairman of our Committee on Appropriations, in calling up and discussing H.J. Res. 20, the continuing resolution. This is the fourth continuing resolution we will have considered in this fiscal cycle, but without question it is the most critical. It is critical because it provides more than $463 billion to fund, for the remainder of this fiscal year, virtually all of the agencies and activities of the Federal Government outside the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, as well as certain critical problems within the Department of Defense itself. It is a very important piece of legislation. Yet the way the legislation is constructed concerns me greatly. It is an odd hybrid between a continuing resolution and an Omnibus appropriations bill. Continuing resolutions are not a desirable means of funding the operations of Government over the long term or in the routine way of providing funding. They are useful in buying time until Congress can complete its work on individual appropriations bills, but they are blunt, formula-driven instruments. Omnibus appropriations bills, though certainly not without precedent, are far from an ideal means of funding our Government. Omnibus bills combine funding for too many programs into a single bill, and they are not conducive to careful deliberation. Combining these two structures-- a continuing resolution and an omnibus bill--is not the way the American people deserve Members of Congress to fulfill our constitutional obligations. We have a responsibility to fully debate and pass the individual spending bills, funding each department of Government as we have structured them, with close supervision of subcommittees who have become aware of individual needs and opportunities in each of these bills for the hearings process, and that is not the way this continuing resolution has been constructed. The Appropriations Committee has had hearings, we have had markups, we have listened to outside witnesses, and we have taken into consideration recommendations from the President and department officials about what should and should not be funded, and at what levels the funding should be. This is an open process--and this has been an open process--where anybody can observe and review any provision that is part of any bill. It is truly a public process. The process has helped us make good decisions historically about programs that deserve funding--careful decisions, identifying programs that are of lower priorities within the constraints of the budget resolution, decisions about which programs should be terminated and have served their usefulness. The Congress should consider these individual appropriations bills on their individual merits in both the House and the Senate and on the floor of each body. Then conferences occur and we iron out differences between the House and Senate-passed bills in the regular order. That gives all Members--not just those on the committee--the opportunity to offer amendments, to reduce or increase spending funded in the bills. Members have the opportunity to offer amendments to remove, or add, or revise language that shapes agency policies. We should not shy away from these debates and these amendments. I am concerned that the continuing resolution before us is deficient because we did not follow that process. The continuing resolution required a great number of difficult decisions, including the elimination of some important projects and programs. Programs that provide flood control and natural resources conservation, grants to schools and health clinics and fire departments have been eliminated. The funding levels for various Federal scientific research institutions and programs are below levels proposed by the President. The funding levels for programs, such as defense base closure and realignment, which has been pointed out, may compel us to consider future supplemental funding requests. In some cases, reductions proposed by the President, or by the House or Senate, have not been adopted. I understand the circumstances that led us to this point. The House of Representatives last year passed all but one of the appropriations bills before the end of June. In the Senate, the Committee on Appropriations completed action and reported all of the appropriations bills before the end of July. Those bills were available to be called up and considered by the Senate in the regular order at that time. It would have been the earliest that had occurred in a very long time. But after that, the process broke down. Most of the bills were not called up for consideration in the Senate. We did pass the bill for the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, and Military Construction and the Veterans Affairs appropriations bill was approved in November. But for reasons that have not been explained to this date, that bill did not proceed to conference with the House. Congress eventually adjourned and the new leadership in the 110th Congress was created with a range of unattractive options. My preference would still have been to consider individual appropriations bills and send them to conference, but that was not my decision to make. I hope to work with the majority to make sure we don't face this situation again. The chairman, Mr. Byrd, my dear friend, is correct when he says there were extensive bipartisan consultations in the drafting of this legislation. That was important. I appreciate his efforts to seek our input, all members of the committee; but no Senator--certainly not this Senator--can speak for the entire Senate. There is little doubt in my mind that if individual appropriations bills had been considered by the Senate and sent to conference in either this Congress or the last, many of the individual decisions would be different from those provided in this continuing resolution. Having said that, this resolution does conform to the discretionary allocation of $873 billion approved by the previous Congress. It funds many important programs and department activities at the fiscal year 2006 levels, and it increases other priority programs beyond fiscal year 2006 funding levels. Judged by any reasonable standard, it is devoid of earmarks, as the distinguished chairman has pointed out. I wish the Congress had completed floor action on the individual bills, but we did not. This continuing resolution appears to me to be the best option to meet our obligation to fund Government programs and services. It is a 137-page piece of legislation that Senators should be able to amend. This is not the same as a conference report. It is the first time these bills have come before the Senate. So I urge the Senate to restore regular order to the fiscal year 2008 budget process so we can avoid this type of situation in the future. I know that is the goal of my friend from West Virginia, and I pledge to him my best effort to help accomplish this goal.

Mr. COCHRAN

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

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, there has been much debate and discussion about President Bush's plan for a new way forward in Iraq. In fact, there was much discussion between the President and his team of military and civilian advisers prior to his making the decision to change course and outline a new strategy to help bring stability to the country and to hasten the day when our troops could come home. There is no easy answer and no easy solution to the situation in Iraq and the Middle East. The President's decision was informed by input from many sources, including his national security advisers, civilian and military, members of his Cabinet, his intelligence experts, as well as Members of Congress, foreign leaders, and others with foreign policy experience. In the end, it was the President who decided this new strategy and that this new strategy had the best chance of success. He acknowledged, and we all know, there is no guarantee of success. But the dangers are too great to not try to create an opportunity to provide an increased level of stability in Iraq. A temporary deployment of additional U.S. troops in Iraq to support the Iraqi security forces will provide a new window of opportunity for Iraqi political and economic initiatives to take hold and reduce sectarian violence. The President and his military and civilian advisers reviewed last year's efforts and determined there were not enough troops to secure the cleared neighborhoods. They also determined that unnecessarily burdensome operational restrictions were placed on the military. The President and our military leaders have assured us that these mistakes will not be repeated. Prime Minister Maliki has assured us that more Iraqi troops will be engaged in the fight and that political restrictions will be removed. In addition, the Prime Minister of Iraq has committed to take responsibility for security for all Iraq provinces by November, to work to pass legislation to share oil revenues equitably among Iraqi citizens, and to spend $10 billion of Iraqi reserve funds for reconstruction and initiatives that will create jobs. He will also work toward demobilizing militias, holding provincial elections, and reforming debaathification laws, which should help improve the civil structure so the Government can meet the needs of its people and help promote economic growth. Last week the National Intelligence Estimate, entitled ``Prospects for Iraq's Stability: A Challenging Road Ahead,'' was delivered to Congress. I will not speak to the 90-page classified report. But there were some unclassified judgments provided to us that I can mention. Within this National Intelligence Estimate, this information is provided to support these conclusions: If strengthened Iraqi security forces, more loyal to the government and supported by Coalition forces, are able to reduce levels of violence and establish more effective security for Iraq's population, Iraqi leaders could have an opportunity to begin the process of political compromise necessary for longer-term stability, political progress, and economic recovery. Nevertheless, even if violence is diminished, given the current winner-take-all attitude and sectarian animosities infecting the political scene, Iraqi leaders will be hard pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation in the timeframe of this Estimate. Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq. If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this Estimate, [that is 12 to 18 months] we judge that this almost certainly would 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. If such a rapid withdrawal were to take place, we judge that the ISF [Iraqi Security Forces] would be unlikely to survive as a nonsectarian national institution: neighboring countries--invited by Iraqi factions or unilaterally--might intervene openly in the conflict; massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement would be probable; AQI [al-Qaida in Iraq] would attempt to use parts of the country--particularly al-Anbar province--to plan increased attacks in and outside of Iraq; and spiraling violence and political disarray in Iraq, along with Kurdish moves to control Kirkuk and strengthen autonomy, could prompt Turkey to launch a military incursion. Madam President, these statements remind me of prepared testimony presented by Dr. Henry Kissinger to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 31. He indicated that U.S. forces are indispensable and withdrawal would not only have dire consequences in Iraq but would also have a negative impact on the region. I will quote from Dr. Kissinger's testimony at that hearing in the Senate: The disenchantment of the American public with the burdens it has borne largely alone for nearly four years has generated growing demands for some type of unilateral withdrawal, usually expressed as benchmarks to be put to the Baghdad government that, if not fulfilled in specific timeframes, would trigger American disengagement. But under present conditions, withdrawal is not an option. American forces are indispensable. They are in Iraq not as a favor to its government or as a reward for its conduct. They are there as an expression of the American national interest to prevent the Iranian combination of imperialism and fundamentalist ideology from dominating a region on which the energy supplies of the industrial democracies depend. An abrupt American departure would greatly complicate efforts to stem the terrorist tide far beyond Iraq; fragile governments from Lebanon to the Persian Gulf would be tempted into preemptive concessions. It might drive the sectarian conflict in Iraq to genocidal dimensions beyond levels that impelled U.S. intervention in the Balkans. Graduated withdrawal would not ease these dangers until a different strategy was in place and showed progress. For now, it would be treated within Iraq and in the region as the forerunner of a total withdrawal, and all parties would make their dispositions on that basis. President Bush's decision should, therefore, not be debated in terms of the ``stay the course'' strategy he has repeatedly disavowed in recent days. Rather, it should be seen as the first step toward a new grand strategy relating power to diplomacy for the entire region, ideally on a nonpartisan basis. The purpose of the new strategy should be to demonstrate that the United States is determined to remain relevant to the outcome in the region; to adjust American military deployments and numbers to emerging realities; and to provide the maneuvering room for a major diplomatic effort to stabilize the Middle East. Of the current security threats in Iraq--the intervention of outside countries, the presence of al-Qaida fighters, an extraordinarily large criminal element, the sectarian conflict--the United States has a national interest in defeating the first two; it must not involve itself in the sectarian conflict for any extended period, much less let itself be used by one side for its sectarian goals. Madam President, it is clear to me from Dr. Kissinger's comments that it is truly in our national interest to support the President's new strategy to help provide a new opportunity for political and economic solutions in Iraq and for more effective diplomatic efforts in the Middle East region. Of course, we know there are no guarantees of success. But according to the National Intelligence Estimate, the perspective of one of our most experienced foreign policy experts, Dr. Kissinger, included maintaining the current course or withdrawal without additional stability in Iraq will be harmful to our national interests and to the entire region. Over the last few weeks, there have been a number of hearings in which the situation in Iraq and the President's new plan have been debated. During the January 30, 2007, hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on his nomination to be Deputy Secretary of State, Ambassador John Negroponte stated: . . . I believed, and still believe, that it is possible for Iraq to make a successful transition to democracy. What I would like to say is that my belief that success in Iraq remains possible is based on my experience in dealing with Iraq as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. and Ambassador to Iraq, and as Director of National Intelligence. We know there are challenges in Iraq and in the region. And the President has developed a new strategy for dealing with the problem, which I applaud. This includes involving the Government in Iraq and the military forces and the police in Iraq in a more aggressive way. Together they have worked with our military and diplomatic leadership to come up with a new plan that, if it is not undermined by the Congress, has a chance of succeeding. During the January 23 hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the nomination of General David Petraeus to be Commander of the Multinational Forces-Iraq, General Petraeus said: I believe this plan can succeed if, in fact, all of those enablers and all the rest of the assistance is, in fact, provided. He, also, indicated this: It will not be easy, but if we could get them to where they are shouting instead of shooting, that would be a very substantial improvement. Madam President, it is obvious to me we need to do what we can to help stabilize this situation and bring our troops home. As a beginning point for this strategy, for it to work, we should show a commitment by our country to success. I support this new initiative, and I think we should give it a chance to work. This does not mean we should not monitor the situation or that the plan should not be adjusted as new developments occur. But we need to move forward in hopes of stabilizing Iraq, stabilizing the region, and in hopes of bringing our troops home at an early date. The President deserves our support in this effort, and I intend to support him. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to congratulate CAPT Brian Glackin upon the completion of his career of service in the U.S. Navy. Throughout his 23 year military career, Captain Glackin served with distinction and dedication. A native of Lansdale, PA, Captain Glackin received a bachelor's degree in lectrical engineering from Villanova University prior to being commissioned as an Ensign in 1984. During his career he accumulated over 4,000 hours of flight time, including over 400 hours of combat time in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the former Republic of Yugoslavia. He has over 900 carrier arrested landings; and even more impressive over 300 of these took place at night. Captain Glackin completed seven deployments while serving on the aircraft carriers USS Ranger, USS Roosevelt, USS Independence, and USS Enterprise. He completed two overseas tours, including a tour forward deployed with the U.S. Navy's Seventh Fleet in Japan. He commanded a squadron of EA-6B Prowlers aboard USS Enterprise in the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan following the horrific attacks of September 11. Captain Glackin's family and shipmates can be proud of his distinguished service. His wife Maureen and their two children, Ann and Owen, also deserve praise for the sacrifices they made in support of Captain Glackin's naval career. As he departs the Pentagon to his second career, I call upon my colleagues to wish Brian and his family every success, and the traditional Navy ``fair winds and following seas.''

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, this amendment essentially provides for an automatic continuing resolution in the event any annual appropriations bill is not enacted prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. In this fiscal cycle we have passed three continuing resolutions to fund the programs for which appropriations bills have not yet been enacted. Those continuing resolutions have been free of extraneous matter, and have been passed by the House and Senate without particular difficulty. My desire to enact the regular appropriations bills on time does not stem from fear of our inability to enact a continuing resolution. I do not see that the need to pass continuing resolutions creates a ``crisis atmosphere'' as some have portrayed. Rather, the pressure to pass the annual spending bills stems from a sincere desire--at least on this Senator's part--to fulfill Congress's constitutional obligation to exercise the power of the purse. It stems from our desire to make intelligent decisions about programs that deserve more funding than was provided in the prior year, and to reduce or cut off funding for other programs that aren't working, or which are a lower priority within the constraints of the budget resolution. Mr. President, if Senators feel that biennial budgeting is wise, then let us enact a biennial budget. If Members feel that the amount of discretionary spending should be reduced for certain programs, then let us debate amendments to the appropriations bills or to the budget resolution. But let's not abdicate our responsibilities by putting the whole operation on autopilot. Finally, I would observe that at the end of the last Congress it was not the continuing resolution that was laden with extraneous items. It was rather the tax bill that contained a host of disparate and costly items, many of which were new to members of the Senate. And what was one of the primary drivers of that tax legislation? The need to extend expiring tax breaks. I wonder how Senators would feel about a formula-driven approach to automatically extend expiring tax provisions? This isn't a position that I am advocating, but it illustrates the point that a continuing resolution is not a ploy by the Appropriations Committee to pressure Members into supporting appropriations bills. We don't need an automatic formula of this sort. What we need to do is get to work, debate legislation, move it through in the regular order, and get it done. We should not abdicate our responsibilities and put government on autopilot.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am very pleased the Senate is formally expressing its respect and appreciation for the life and public service of President Gerald R. Ford. No person in public service in my memory did more to restore confidence in our political institutions than President Ford. He was a friend and mentor to me as a member of the body, giving me sound advice and serving as a wonderful role model during my career in Congress and in the Senate. I admired him enormously. His seriousness of purpose and his common sense approach to solving our national problems were qualities that enabled him to give our nation a new sense of confidence and direction. We are deeply grateful that he served so ably as our Republican Leader in the House, Vice President, and President of the United States.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COCHRAN

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

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.J. Res. 102, which was received from the House.