Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. That was a minute on the other side that was used or was that leadership time?

Mr. GREGG. I think it is important Members understand what this amendment says, so I am going to read it: That it is the sense of Congress that Congress shall not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such action with respect to funding would undermine their safety or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions. It is very simple. If you support the troops, you have to support this amendment. In fact, if you supported the Murray amendment, you have to support this amendment unless you changed your mind in the last 30 seconds. I yield back my time.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay special tribute to U.S. Army SPC Justin Allan Rollins, of Newport, NH. Tragically, on March 5, 2007, this courageous 22-year-old soldier, along with five of his soldier comrades, gave their last full measure for our Nation when an improvised explosive device detonated near their unit during combat operations in Samarra, Iraq. At the time of this hostile action, Specialist Rollins, the gunner on his HMMWV, was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC, and was serving in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He had recently reenlisted in the Army for an additional 4 years. Justin, the son of Mitchel ``Skip'' and Rhonda Rollins, was born on November 10, 1984, and had resided in Newport, NH, all of his life. He was a 2003 graduate of Newport High School where he played center on the football team and threw shot put and discus for the track and field team. Those close to him describe him as a wonderful young man with a nice smile and a hearty laugh, a loyal friend, and a patriot with a strong desire to serve his country. Family and friends say he had a zest for life and loved to hunt and drive fast cars. Sensing a call to duty, and in response to the September 11 terrorist attack on our Nation, he joined the U.S. Army in 2004. Justin reported to Fort Benning, GA, where he completed basic training, infantry training, and Army Airborne School. Upon completion of his training in August 2004, he was assigned and reported to the 2nd Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment at Fort Bragg. In August 2006, he deployed with his unit to Iraq. He said he went to Iraq so that the Iraqi children could have the same opportunities as U.S. children and he was extremely proud of what he was doing. The awards and decorations that Specialist Rollins received over his years of service are a testament to his strong character. They include the Bronze Star with Valor, two Purple Heart medals, Army Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Army Overseas Service Ribbon, Combat Infantry Badge, and Airborne Wings. Patriots from the State of New Hampshire have served our Nation with honor and distinction from the first conflict at Fort William and Mary, New Castle, NH, to the current conflict in Samarra, Iraq, and U.S. Army SPC Justin Allan Rollins served and fought in that same fine tradition. During our country's difficult Revolutionary War, Thomas Paine wrote, ``These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.'' In these turbulent times Justin stood with the country he loved, served it with distinction and honor, and earned and deserves our love and thanks. My sympathy, condolences, and prayers go out to Justin's parents Skip and Rhonda, older brother Jonathan, grandparents, longtime girlfriend Brittney Murray, and to his other family members and many friends who have suffered this most grievous loss. Family, friends, and fellow soldiers will no longer be able to enjoy his company. Strangers will never have the opportunity to know his friendship. Yet memories of this young patriot will last forever with those who were fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to know him. Justin had said that there is no higher honor than to be buried in Arlington National Cemetery, and now he joins many of our country's heroes in that sacred place. Because of his devotion and sense of duty, the safety and liberty of each and every American is more secure. In the words of Daniel Webster, may his remembrance be as long lasting as the land he honored. God bless Justin Allan Rollins. private first class jason d. johns

Mr. GREGG

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

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, while we are waiting here to line up a vote on this amendment and this bill, I will speak briefly relative to my thoughts on how this bill is evolving. Like everyone, I was very impressed with the work of the 9/11 Commission. I think they did a superb job of pointing out what were, unfortunately, very significant problems which we have as a nation relative to our preparedness to fight terrorism. I had the good fortune to chair the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee for the last 2 years and spent a considerable time before that working on the accounts of the FBI. We worked hard, honestly, to try to address some of the issues which were raised by the 9/11 Commission and, as a practical matter, the great majority of the issues raised by the 9/11 Commission have been addressed and are moving forward, hopefully, to a constructive resolution. This bill, although it has the 9/11 Commission imprimatur on it as its name, is more of a clutter--a collection of various ideas, some of which the 9/11 Commission agrees with, some of which I suspect they never even thought of discussing and, as a practical matter, the bill as a whole, in my humble opinion, in its present form would actually end up undermining rather than improving our safety as a nation. There are a number of reasons for that, but at the moment the most significant reason is the unionization language in this bill which essentially says the TSA will become a unionized organization. When we originally set up the TSA, which was a matter of considerable debate on this floor, that issue was at the essence, at the center, of the discussion as to why and how we were going to set up the TSA. The belief was at the time we set up the TSA and the commitment was at that time that we would not create a unionized organization. Why was that? It is not that unions do not do good work. Unions do extraordinary work. They have been one of the great forces in American culture for producing and mainstreaming many Americans, from the standpoint of income and social activity, having a group to participate with. They have been an extraordinarily positive force. But the belief was--and it is an accurate belief arrived at after considerable thought and a great deal of debate--that unionizing TSA would be like unionizing the military, to give an example. The TSA is the front line of our defense relative to protecting airplanes that fly in America today. We know air traffic is the No. 1 source for attack from the al-Qaida interests. We know that they, in their handbooks and their training manuals, constantly come back to the use of aircraft as a weapon, and unfortunately we saw them use it on 9/ 11. Having a secure transportation industry, especially in the aircraft area, is absolutely critical to our protecting our Nation from acts of terrorism. That is why we put in place the TSA. They are the front line of securing our air transportation system in this country. They are like a military force. Their purpose is to be moved around quickly to areas of weakness. Their purpose is to make sure they execute efficiently the review of people getting on aircraft to make sure those people are appropriately screened. You cannot have incompetence. You can't have inefficiency. You can't have poorly trained people or people who do not sort of get with the program. You must have a very disciplined, focused group of individuals managing the security at our airports. That is the goal we were hoping to accomplish with the TSA. It was fully understood, because I was involved in the debate, that when we set up the TSA it would not be unionized because union rules inherently create delay and they create stricture and straitjackets and make it very difficult to manage different issues that have to be managed aggressively and with fluidity by the leadership of the TSA and the TSA teams on the ground. To create a unionized TSA will take away that flexibility, that efficiency. It will take away the ability to assure the people who are doing the screening will be the best we can get and they are doing it in the most effective way that can be done. In my opinion, putting this language in this bill, if it were to pass, would undermine security generally. There are other issues with this bill which I can assure you, in my reading of the 9/11 Commission report, they did not think of in the terms this bill is structured: specifically, the formula for the distribution of funds. I chaired the Appropriations subcommittee which had responsibility for distributing funds relative to terrorist activity in this country. We do have this pool of funds which is distributed to all the States and all the regions in this country under a formula. My opinion is if you want to effectively use that money, it should be threat based. That should be the No. 1 priority and the No. 1 criterion. Is the money going where the threat is highest? We know there are certain targets in this country which are high- threat areas: New York City, the subway system specifically, but a lot of parts of New York City; Los Angeles; Washington, DC. These are clearly high-priority targets when you are talking about terrorists. Terrorists have goals. One of their goals is to destroy our culture and kill as many Americans as they can, according to al-Qaida, but another is to make a statement internationally. That is why they picked the World Trade Center. That was a recognized international symbol. I know there are places in New Hampshire that are probably susceptible to terrorist attack. I am sure they are. But the fact is, it is unlikely, if you are ordering priorities, that most of them are going to be very high on a priority list for terror attack--certainly one structured by an al-Qaida type organization. They may be from domestic terrorism; that is different--domestic terrorism such as hit Oklahoma City. But if there were a structured terrorist attack from an Islamic fundamentalist group, we can prioritize what is the terrorist threat and what is not the terrorist threat. The money should go to the threat. Now how does that affect New Hampshire? It means New Hampshire would get less money. As the chairman of an Appropriations subcommittee, I had responsibility for this area up until this year, when I switched over to foreign affairs accounts. I strongly promoted the program of putting the money where the threat was, to the disadvantage of New Hampshire, because I felt that was the way it should be done. Now this bill comes along and tries to reorder that in a way that essentially says every State, every community will get, for lack of a better word, ``walking around money'' for purposes of buying security, to the detriment of the high-threat areas. We only have so much money. Once we have secured the high-threat areas and we are fairly comfortable, then we can start distributing it maybe more broadly and without any accountability for threat. But initially the distribution should be based on threat. Yes, every State should get some, but it should not be under the formula that is in this bill. It should be a much lower absolute commitment of dollars and a much higher commitment of dollars in the threat area. This is what bothers me about this bill. In addition, there is the ability of people to get access to classified intelligence briefings and materials. This is playing with fire when we start significantly expanding access to this type of material. Because it is this material falling into the wrong hands by accident, which it might be, or just oversight, because it is in so many hands, because it is expanded by this bill and going into so many hands, that if it falls into the wrong places, people can trace the source, and protecting these sources of where we get intelligence is absolutely the most critical thing we have to do. If we have a good source of intelligence on how people want to attack us, protecting that source is absolutely essential. Some of the intelligence material that will be released under this bill--with good intentions, but, unfortunately, the Congress tends to be a sieve, and no matter how aggressively people try to protect that information, it seems to get out--could easily expand the number of people available who have access to this information to a point where the security of the administration will come into question. So these are very serious issues relative to this bill. The most serious is the unionization of a nonunion, lean, effective organization which would protect our transportation system, especially air traffic; the failure to put the money on the target which is threatened; and the issue of expanding the availability of very sensitive intelligence information in a way that might undermine the sources of that information. Those are the reservations I have about this bill. That is why I will not be able to support the bill when it comes up for final passage should it be in its present form. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I reserve the right to object. I ask unanimous consent after Senator Graham speaks on our side that I be recognized in the proper order.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I believe I am to be recognized for 5 minutes, but I have an additional 5 minutes which Senator Stevens has yielded to me.

Mr. GREGG. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, first, my respect for the Senator from Virginia is immense. I have always admired what he does, and I wish we were voting on his resolution. I think it should be up for debate and up for a vote. He is a significant force in this institution for many things which are right. I may have some disagreements with him over time, but I certainly have never questioned anything. I hope no one would. No one should question anybody on anything around here on what our purposes are. Our purposes are the same: to make our country a better and safer place and to make sure we assure a good future for our children. Let me set the table as to where we are in this debate, however, because one of the essences of this institution has always been it has been a forum where if you have a different idea or a different thought on an issue of substance, you usually get to air it, and you most often get to vote on it. That, of course, is what our Founding Fathers structured this institution for. Ironically, it was George Washington--not ironically but appropriately--it was George Washington who immediately ascertained the significance of the Senate's role when he said the Senate is the saucer into which the hot coffee is poured. It is the spot where ideas of the day get an airing to make sure they survive the light of day. Over time, we have developed an institutional understanding in the Senate that unless 60 percent--a majority of the Senate--agrees on an issue of major importance, that issue does not move forward. And equally importantly, we have developed an attitude in the Senate that if there is more than one legitimate view on an issue of significance-- and this is, obviously, an issue of dramatic significance--there will be different views brought to the floor in the form of amendments or resolutions, and they will be debated and they will be voted on. So what I suggested was an amendment which was not, I felt, all that controversial. In fact, I thought it was in the mainstream of American thought and certainly, hopefully, in the mainstream of the Senate positions. The resolution which I suggested--and I will read it again-- simply states: It is the sense of Congress that Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such action with respect to funding would undermine their safety or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions. This should not be controversial. This should be a statement which we as a Congress are willing to make, that when we send a soldier onto the streets of Baghdad or anywhere else where that soldier may incur or be in the way of harm, that soldier will have the support of the American people and the Congress--with the financing, with the equipment, with the logistics they need to do their job well. And it should be a definitive, uncontroversial, un- controverted statement. Yet in offering this resolution, the Democratic leadership has said they will not entertain it. They will not allow us to vote on it. In fact, they have taken this whole process to a whole new level of trying to manage the activities of the floor of the Senate in a way that the Senate has never been managed in its historical past or should be managed in the context of what the purposes of the Senate are. The Democratic leader has essentially said we will vote on his amendment--his amendment--and his amendment alone. And, by the way, his amendment has changed three times now. There have been major, substantive changes to his amendment three times. And each time he has said or the leadership on the Democratic side of the aisle has said: That is the amendment we are going to vote on, that is the one that is locked in stone. It shall not be changed. You shall vote on it as a Senate. You shall not be allowed to amend it. You shall not be allowed to put up resolutions that in any other way address the issue. Well, the first proposal they came out with was not good enough to get enough votes to get to 40 probably, so they changed it. Then they said: This amendment shall be the amendment you will vote on. This amendment shall not be changed. This amendment shall not be amended on the floor of the Senate. There shall not be an amendment that I have proposed or that the Republican membership wants to propose to go up and be debated and voted on also. Then that amendment, it turned out, was not good enough. That happened to be the Warner amendment. Then the House passed an amendment, and they decided to take the House amendment and say: Now this amendment shall be the amendment which is frozen in stone and which cannot be contravened, cannot be amended, and it shall not have any other amendment offered by the minority, by the Republican side of the aisle that the Republican side of the aisle wishes to propose. There was one caveat to that, the Senate Democratic leader said: I will be willing to choose an amendment for the Republican side of the aisle to propose. I, as Democratic leader, shall choose the Republican amendment that is brought to the floor to be debated. Well, obviously that, on the face of it, does not pass the test of fairness or even the test of how the Senate should run, even under a confined system as this is. The actual way we should proceed in this manner, in this situation, is that there should be at least four amendments on the floor because there are four major ideas floating around here. There is the idea that came over from the House. There is Senator Warner's proposal. There is Senator McCain's proposal. Then there is my proposal. Every one of these is substantive, thoughtful, I believe. Maybe I am assuming too much for mine. But for everybody else's, there are substantive, thoughtful ideas that should be debated on the floor of the Senate, and they should each be allowed a vote. But the Democratic leadership has said no, there shall be no vote on anything other than their new proposal--which is now the House proposal, their third machination of what they are going to do--and another proposal which they will choose from the Republican side of the aisle. Well, that clearly fails on all levels. Substantively it fails the rules of the Senate as they have traditionally been used. And as a matter of fairness, it fails the issue of being fair to people who have a legitimate viewpoint. More importantly, it fails the American people and the troops who are in the field because it does not allow us as a Senate to effectively debate and vote on proposals which would address the various issues raised by the situation in Iraq. So we on our side are saying we shall assert our rights. There are, after all, at least 40 Members of the Republican Party--and I suspect quite a few more--who believe that we, as Members of the Republican party, as Members of the minority, have a right to offer an amendment of our choosing, and that it should be voted on, especially since we are debating nonbinding amendments. Equally important, I think it is probably appropriate to analyze: Why would the Democratic leadership not want to vote on the resolution I just outlined? Why would they not want to do something such as that? Why would they not want a vote on a resolution which states unequivocally that when we send our soldiers--our men and women--into harm's way, we are going to give them the support they need to do the mission they are assigned to do and to remain safe? I suspect it is because that amendment which I have propounded, that proposal, that resolution would actually get significantly more than a supermajority in this body, significantly more than any other of the three items that have been discussed--the McCain proposal, the Warner proposal, or the House proposal--and that they would perceive that as an embarrassment on their side, which I believe shows this is not about the substance of the issue of how you address the war in Iraq, this is about the politics of how the amendment brought to the floor is perceived in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the other panoply of national press groups that are basically trying to claim a victory over not our efforts in Iraq but over the President. The fact that they would not allow us to bring forward an amendment which they know will receive a supermajority and more votes than their amendment--and which is so forthright in its statement of what it does, and which is so appropriate to the issue of what we are doing in Iraq, which is that we should be supporting our troops who have been sent into harm's way--is a reflection of the politicalness of this process, not the substance of the process. It is regrettable. We will continue to insist that this amendment, which is reasonable, be voted on. We should not allow the frustration--and I recognize there is a tremendous amount of frustration about the war in Iraq. I have a lot of frustration about the war in Iraq. Everybody does around here. You could not but have that about what is happening there. But we should not allow that frustration to be taken out on our troops in the field. There will be endless claims that the House language that has come over to us----

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute.

Mr. GREGG. Yes.

Mr. GREGG. The House language is totally inconsistent on the issue of whether it supports the troops. It says on the one hand that it does, and it says on the other hand that it doesn't support their mission. You can't do both of those things together. I will submit for the Record an editorial from the Wall Street Journal which reflects that fact. I appreciate the courtesy from the Senator from Idaho in granting me another minute. It truly is San Francisco sophistry, the language in the House resolution. In my opinion, it cannot be claimed to be consistent. The only consistent statement of support for the troops is the language of my amendment. That is why I believe it should be voted on. I ask unanimous consent to print the editorial to which I referred in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GREGG. I was just wondering if the Republican leader, and I ask this question through the Chair, believes that the Democratic leader is correct in his characterization that we have stopped this in a procedural manner. Is it not true that the Democratic leader controls the procedure as to whether there would be a vote? And is it not true, also, that we agreed to the Democratic leader's request that we offer only one amendment but that we just ask we be able to choose our amendment, and they be able to choose their amendment?

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Republican leader.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to, once again, state the situation. It has been very well stated by the Republican leader. The simple fact is, we, as members of the minority, requested the right to offer an alternative to the proposal of the majority. That is not an unusual event in the Senate. In fact, it is the purpose of the Senate to debate different approaches. What we asked as an alternative was very simple, straight forward language. Let me read it again. It simply stated: It is the sense of the Congress that Congress should not take any action that will endanger the United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such action with respect to funding would undermine the safety or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions. All this language says is that whether you agree with the President or whether you disagree with the President, whether you support a commitment of more troops or you don't support a commitment of more troops, once the troops are on the ground in the fight, we are going to give them the financial support, the logistical support, the equipment that they need in order to protect themselves and pursue their mission effectively. Members do not have to support the President to support this language. It is not designed to state the President is right or the President is wrong. It is simply language designed to say that an American soldier deserves the support of the Congress of the United States. That is an elementary responsibility of this Senate. The fact that the Democratic leadership will not allow Members to vote on this simple statement of support for American troops is a transgression on the purposes of the Senate, which is to express itself relative to the actions of our soldiers in the field and how we will support them. It is literally impossible to address the debate on Iraq without addressing the most fundamental issue, which is whether our troops are going to be supported when they are asked to defend us in the field. The idea that we can decouple the support for the troops from the issue of policy is absurd on its face, and the position of the Democratic leadership that we should not address the issue of supporting the troops when we address the issue of whether the tactics being pursued by the military commanders in the field are correct--which doesn't happen to be the responsibility of Congress; that is the responsibility of the commanders--is by nature inconceivable, inconsistent, and simply not defensive. In fact, it is so absurd on its face that I would simply quote the national commander of the American Legion, Mr. Paul Morin, who says: We will not separate the war from the warrior. That is what this is about: whether the Democratic leadership takes the truly indefensible position that in a debate on the issue of Iraq, we do not discuss the support for the person we are asking to go out and defend this Nation. What this really comes down to is very simple. This resolution would have received broad bipartisan support in this Senate. That is because there are very few Members in this Senate--I would guess virtually none--who don't believe that our obligation as a Senate, as a legislative body which funds the military, that our obligation is to give the soldiers in the field what they need in order to defend themselves and carry out their mission. So rather than have a vote on our amendment which would have received a large majority in this Senate--much larger than the proposal put forward as their proposal--they decided not to have a vote at all. Then they claimed that we were responsible for slowing the process. How inconsistent and indefensible is that statement: I don't have the votes; therefore, I will not allow a vote to happen. But it is your fault that I am not allowing the vote to happen. Really? That only makes sense if you happen to be a true partisan and believe this debate should be a partisan debate. Somehow my language has been described as ``partisan,'' and the other language has been described as ``bipartisan,'' but the other language has fewer votes than my language. No, this is not true. It is simply a fact that the other side of the aisle does not wish to put their membership in a position of voting for a simple resolution that calls for the support of our troops. That is an unfortunate statement on where the Democratic Party is today relative to support for the efforts of soldiers in the field. It is hard for me to conceive that there are folks within the community of interest in Washington who feel so strongly about their dislike for the President or his policies that they are unwilling to go on record in support of the soldier who is fighting for us on the streets of Baghdad. But that is the essence of the problem. That is why we are not going to have a vote in the Senate. It is not that the Republican membership has in some way stalled this process. The Republican leader has gone out of his way, he has gone well beyond what many in our party believe maybe we should have done in trying to be accommodating to the insistence of the Democratic leadership that there be no opposition to the one item that they want to bring to the Senate floor. In my experience in the Senate, when something is brought to the floor of the Senate as controversial as the discussion of how we pursue a war and a war policy, there are going to be a lot of amendments. But the Senate leadership, under the Democratic leader, has said, no, not only will there not be a lot of amendments, there will only be one amendment from our side, and we on the Democratic side will pick the amendment on the Republican side that they can offer, and we will let them offer that but nothing else. The Republican leader, in an attempt to be responsive, said, OK, if there are only going to be two amendments, we will pick the amendment. And the amendment will simply say that whether you support the President, whether you support his policies, at least you can say you support the troops, the soldiers who are asked to go out and protect America and walk the streets of Baghdad. But that was a bridge too far for the Democratic leader, a bridge too far for the Democratic membership because they did not want to take that vote even though that would have been a bipartisan vote and would have received significantly more votes than the Democratic proposal. I don't think there should be any confusion about why we aren't having a vote. We are not having a vote because more people would vote for my amendment than would vote for their amendment, and they don't want to embarrass their membership by having to have them vote for my amendment even though there is nothing controversial about it, unless you consider supporting troops in the field, giving them what they need to fight and defend themselves, to be controversial. It is an ironic situation. I thank the Republican leader for having offered me the opportunity to bring this amendment forward and for making it fairly clear that we as a membership are willing to be reasonable; that we only ask for a vote on something that we think is important while they ask for a vote on something they think is important. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I will attempt to read it. I first have to find my glasses. My wife told me I had to use my glasses. The resolution which I proposed and which I understand the Republican leader has suggested be the Republican alternative or the alternative presented--in fact, it will have Democratic support, I suspect, enough so that maybe the majority leader doesn't want it voted on because it might have so much Democratic support. In any event, it is a proposal that simply states that it is the sense of the Congress that Congress should not take any action that will endanger U.S. military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such action with respect to funding would undermine their safety or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions. I don't think it requires a great deal of explanation. It is simply a statement of commitment to our troops which seems reasonable. It is hard for me to understand how we can send troops on a mission, walking the streets of Baghdad--American troops, American men and women--and not say to those men and women: Listen, we are going to support you with the financing, with the logistics, with the equipment you need to be as safe as you possibly can be in this very dangerous mission you are undertaking for our Nation. That is all it says. I can't understand why the other side isn't willing to allow a vote on that resolution. If they want to vote on the Warner amendment, it doesn't make any sense.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I would simply like to inquire of the Republican leader, have you ever in your experience seen a time when-- either the Republican leadership or the Democratic leadership--the majority party says to the minority party: We will set forth the amendments on which we are going to vote, and we will also set forth and write the amendment on which you are going to vote?

Mr. GREGG. I understand, I ask the Republican leader further, especially since it seems ironic in the context of putting forward a commitment to say to the men and women who are fighting for us: We shall give you the support you need when you are sent on a mission; they are not choosing to go on this mission; they are members of the military who, under their responsibility as members of the military, are being sent on a mission; is it not reasonable that we should say to them: We will give you the logistical support, financial support, the equipment you need in order to fulfill that mission correctly?

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, if the Senator will yield just for one further point, would it not be truly unusual in a democratic forum, which is supposed to be the most deliberative body in the world, to not allow the minority to bring forward a resolution--which is probably going to get more than a majority vote should it ever be voted on-- which is not contestable as to its purpose--its purpose being well meaning; it is certainly not a purpose that is anything other than to express a sense of support for those who are defending us--would it not be a new form of democracy, maybe closer to the Cuban model, to not allow an amendment presented by the minority as their option but, rather, have the majority write the minority's amendment which would then be voted on? That way the majority gets to write both amendments, I guess is my bottom line. You have one-party rule, sort of a Cuban model of democracy.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GREGG. First, I appreciate the Senator's generous comments. I take them as a compliment. I have been active legislatively. That is, obviously, our job. I ask the Senator: He heard me read the language of my resolution earlier, and I will read it again, if he wishes.

Mr. GREGG. Good. If the Senator is of such a mind, I ask if this were a freestanding resolution brought to the floor, would the Senator vote for my resolution?

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, if the Senator will yield further, I guess I find it difficult to argue that it is a diversion when the resolution that I am proposing simply says that we will support the troops who are being asked to carry out the mission they have been assigned. This is not a diversion. This is a responsibility, I would think, of every Member of the Senate to take a position on whether they support giving the troops who have been assigned the task, the equipment, the financial support, and the logistical support they need to protect themselves and carry out that mission. I think to call that a diversion does not do justice to our troops in the field, so I am concerned about that. It does seem to me for the Senator from Nevada to take that position is inconsistent with the basic philosophy of Congress, which is that the first responsibility in a matter of warfighting is to support the troops.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator from Vermont will be recognized for 10 minutes. Is the Senator from Missouri seeking time?

Mr. GREGG. I would also like to be recognized, as would the Senator from Arizona. I believe the Senator from West Virginia still has time. I wonder if we can organize an order so we know when we are going to speak. The Senator from Vermont is going to speak----