Chuck Hagel

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. Presdient, I wish to express my sympathy over the loss of U.S. Army captain Robert Yllescas. Captain Yllescas, a native Guatemalan and graduate of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, died on December 1 from injuries he sustained from an improvised explosive device in the mountains of Afghanistan on October 28. He was 31 years old. After spending the first 18 years of his life in Guatemala, Captain Yllescas moved to Nebraska, where he enrolled in the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and joined the ROTC. He married his wife Dena in her hometown of Osceola, NE. A graduate of Army Ranger school, Captain Yllescas' service included two tours of duty in Iraq and one in Afghanistan, where he proved to be an exemplary leader. As the commander of B Troop, 6-4 Cavalry of the 3rd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, he led 90 U.S. and 200 Afghan soldiers in Nuristan province. He was awarded the Purple Heart by President Bush on November 10. All of Nebraska is proud of Captain Yllescas' service to our country, as well as the thousands of brave men and women serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. Captain Yllescas is remembered as a devoted husband, father, and son. In addition to his wife Dena, he is survived by his daughters, Julia, 7, and Eva, 10 months; and parents Otto and Barb. I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring U.S. Army CPT Robert Yllescas.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of United States Marine Corps Corporal Adrian Robles of Scottsbluff, NE. Corporal Robles died on October 22 from injuries he sustained while supporting combat operations in Helmand province in southern Afghanistan. A graduate of Scottsbluff High School, Corporal Robles, who was 21 years old, was an exemplary marine. Throughout his service, which included a tour in Iraq during 2006, Corporal Robles received three medals of Good Conduct from the Marine Corps; two Sea Service Deployment Ribbons; the Afghanistan Campaign Medal; the Iraq Campaign Medal; the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal; the National Defense Service Medal; and the Purple Heart. All of Nebraska is proud of Corporal Robles' service to our country, as well as the thousands of brave men and women serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. Corporal Robles is remembered as a devoted son and brother. He is survived by his parents Cesar and Yolanda; sister Beatriz; and stepsiblings Cesar and Ricardo Robles and Yovana Chaparro. I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring U.S. Marine Corps Corporal Adrian Robles.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak--I assume we are in morning business.

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

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, thank you. I am very pleased you are in the chair this afternoon. For those who are not aware of the fact that Nebraska's entire Senate delegation is on the Senate floor today, one who will soon become the senior Senator is presiding. So, thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. HAGEL. For up to 20 minutes.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. On January 7, 1997, I took an oath of office in the Senate, an oath to the Constitution, and I became the 1,841st person who has ever served in the Senate. That number struck me that day because I recognized, once again--and soon to come to truly appreciate over a 12-year period in this body--how few people have had the opportunity, the privilege, the honor to serve in the Senate. Less than 2,000 Americans in the history of our country have served in the Senate. That does not make us better. That does not mean we are smarter or in any way more privileged. But it does reflect upon the kind of responsibility that we have in this body and the expectations that are placed on each of us, as should be the case, for our service. I first thank the people of Nebraska for the privilege I have been given to serve in this body for 12 years. I thank my staff not for their service to me but for their service to this country. I thank my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, from whom I have learned so much over these 12 years--in particular, Senators Lugar and Biden, from whom I have learned much in serving with them on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for the last 12 years, who have been patient with me, have helped me, as well as their staffs. The two leaders of this body--Senators Reid and McConnell--I wish to thank. I have had privileged relationships with each. Senator McConnell and I have grown to have a very close relationship, friendship, and I very much value that relationship. I thank Senator McConnell for his many courtesies over the years, as I do Senator Reid. These two men are charged with great responsibilities, and especially over the last 2 years during as difficult a Congress certainly that I have served in, and I suspect most of my colleagues have served in. They have done a remarkably good and effective job. Certainly, I thank my family for this privilege and their support and their guidance. They, too, have been privileged and enriched and enhanced by being part of this experience over the last 12 years. These last 12 years have been years of global reorientation and historic events. As I have represented Nebraskans during these turbulent times, I have formed judgments and drawn conclusions about America's future. The strength of any country is its people. Constitutions, governments, public and private institutions are important, for they form the structure of a society, the boundaries of social behavior. But it is the people, the individuals, who make the difference in life and in the world. Americans possess a generous spirit and uncommon decency predicated on faith and family, hard work, fair play, and belief in a better tomorrow. The challenges that face America today and in the future are not just American challenges but global challenges. Everything we do or don't do has global implications, just as everything that happens around the world has implications for us here in our country. The Senate is a unique institution. It is unique among all governing bodies of the world. It is imperfect. It is slow. It is tedious. Sometimes it is maddening, certainly frustrating. But the brilliance of our forefathers understood completely and carefully--how, I don't know--that the world would at some point come together with a great confluence of complications. The need to have a body whose main responsibility would be to take the longer view--the longer view of legislation, the longer view of actions, the longer view of alliances, of relationships, of all our policies--was its primary focus. Tough questions--questions about consequences of actions, consequences of inaction--that is the essence of the Senate. The many lessons I have learned in the 12 years I have been here reinforced my belief in our country but also reinforced my belief in these institutions and, in particular, the Congress of the United States, for the essence of public confidence is transparency and accountability. That is our institutional responsibility. It is our individual responsibility. And a free people know the facts. If free people are living in a world where there is transparency, where there is accountability, that society will prosper. It will fix its problems, and it will deal with its injustices. Oversight--which we hear much about these days, especially in light of the financial crisis we are in today--oversight and accountability are critical components of our responsibilities. Article I of the Constitution is about the Congress. We are a coequal branch of Government. If there is anything I have learned in the 12 years I have been here, it is the importance of sharing, participating in the governance of our country, being part of that governance, helping to make decisions with the President and the executive. If one of those articles of the Constitution--and there are three that set up the coequal branches of government: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial--but anytime there becomes an imbalance in governance in a republic and one of those three becomes too powerful and the other too weak or one too weak, there will be a consequence, there will be a reaction, and it will not tilt in favor of an accountable, transparent, open, effective government. So it is like all things in life: We strive for balance. We strive for balance of governance. And the Founders of the Constitution of this great Republic have that as much the central focus as any one part of our Government. I believe this institution of Congress will be tested more over the next few years. We need a strong President. We need a strong executive. For it is the President and the executive that we charge to carry out the policies that are made and shaped on behalf of the American people in the Congress of the United States. They must have the flexibility, they must have the authority to carry those out but not without the active participation and partnership of the Congress of the United States. In my opinion, over the last few years, we have allowed that to drift, and I believe it has cost our country dearly. I have also learned this lesson: Bipartisan consensus is the only way a democracy will work. No party has a corner on all the virtues, nor all the answers. A country of 300 million free people, who have every right to express themselves, question their leaders, question their Government, at the end of the day must somehow find some accommodation, some consensus to govern and thereby address the issues and challenges and problems that face our country. Without that bipartisan consensus, we end up in the underbrush of political paralysis. Much of what we have seen in the last 2 years has been, unfortunately, political paralysis. We all have to take some responsibility for that. Bipartisan consensus--that has to be the focus of leadership in any institution. I have learned also that a free press is indispensable to a free people. As frustrating as we all know, in this business, the press can be--sometimes we believe we are treated unfairly, and maybe sometimes we are--there is no substitute in a democracy for a free press. A free press is the indispensable element for a free people. I have learned too that power corrupts. Lord Acton had it right: Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That doesn't mean we are a nation or a body or an institution of corrupt people or bad people, but the more authority that is concentrated in too small a space is going to end up with not an effect that is in the best interests of a free people. Concentrations of power in the hands of a few is dangerous to a democracy. We all who exercise some power as national leaders must be mindful of this reality and stay vigilant to this reality. The next President, who will assume as big an inventory of challenges and problems as any President, in my opinion, since Franklin Roosevelt on March 4, 1933, must immediately reach to the Congress to make the Congress a partner, and regardless of who the new President is, he must also reach to the American people and begin building a consensus of governance in this country. There will be differences. There will be strong debates. There must be and should be. But in the end, we must reach some objective, some end point, and that is to fix a problem. We did that last night on the floor of the Senate--not that what we passed in this Economic Stabilization Act will fix all the problems; it won't. But it is important that America, our markets, the world bring back some confidence in our governance, in our systems, thereby bringing all that does flow from that confidence in a market system, the elements of commerce and trade and the possibilities to build a better life. This next President will be faced with those challenges. So will this next Congress. I believe that will occur, not just because the American people expect it and demand it, but they deserve it. I don't think the next President or the next Congress will fail. There is no perfect solution, no easy answer, but that is why we have leaders. That is why we have governments. I wish to go back to accountability for a moment because that is such an elemental part of anyone's life. We are all accountable in life. In our personal lives, private lives, public lives, we are all accountable to someone. I would like to read a very short statement. As a matter of fact, I had this hanging in my reception room in my office. This was a handwritten statement that was found in the coat pocket of General Dwight D. Eisenhower. It was found at the cleaners. This was a note he wrote in his hand on June 6, 1944, the beginning of the Normandy invasion, the invasion of Europe. We all recall that was D-day. This is what then-General Eisenhower, who was the commanding general, wrote in the event that D-day was a failure: Our landings have failed and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air, and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone. Now, that is accountability. That is accountability. This one simple, honest, handwritten statement should be as much a guiding point for all of us in public office as any one thing. I have also learned over the last 12 years that democracy actually does work. As raw as it is, it works. We in politics, we in government, government itself, the institution of government only reflects society. Politics reflects society. We respond. We react in a democracy. But the countervailing pressures, the countervailing dynamics, the countervailing debates and philosophies and opinions and positions balance the wheel in a remarkable way. I am not near wise enough to understand it all. I have observed it. I have participated in it up close for 12 years. It works. It works. That is why transparency is so important, so the American people can see it and feel it and understand it and be part of it. We live in an imperfect world. There are no perfect solutions. We are all imperfect people. But institutions are important because within the imperfect world and in the process of trying to make a better world-- maybe someday a perfect world--the process is important because it gets us to where we want to be. It is a highway. It is a process. We do that well here, as well as anywhere in the world. We are always striving to make it better. I occasionally think about this great Republic, how it was formed, when it was formed. A couple of fairly recent things come to mind. When we think of less than 100 years ago, women in America could not vote. Less than 100 years ago, women did not have the right to vote. But we addressed that. We fixed that. We fixed it through amendment XIX in our Constitution. Up until the mid-1960s, did anyone really believe that an African American had any hope or possibility to be a nominee for President of the United States, maybe even be President some day? The Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of the midsixties changed that. We know the system can work. These are defining times. We are living through a global reorientation. One of the great responsibilities this body will have, the next President will have, we all will have, is to reintroduce America to the world. The world does not know who we are. Part of that is our fault. Part of that is not our fault. There are 6.5 billion people, and 40 percent of those 6.5 billion are under the age of 19 years old. Most people alive today were not alive at the end of World War II. This can be done. It must be done. America is a great country because we are a good people. I wish to take my last minute in my comments today to read from a poem I have distributed to friends and staff for 30 years. I do not know the author of this poem, and I never have. I never found out who the author of this poem is. I have put it on a piece of glass and have distributed hundreds and hundreds of copies to people I have worked with over the years in different things I have done. I end my remarks, Mr. President, this way this afternoon, by reciting this poem entitled ``The Man in the Glass'' because it reflects on each of us but, most poignantly, it reflects on each of us who has responsibility to serve the public and be accountable and honest: When you get what you want in your struggle for self And the world makes you king for a day, Just go to the mirror and look at yourself And see what that man has to say. For it isn't your father or mother or wife Whose judgment upon you must pass. The fellow whose verdict counts most in your life Is the one staring back from the glass. You may be like Jack Horner and chisel a plum And think you're a wonderful guy. But the man in the glass says you're only a bum If you can't look him straight in the eye. He's the fellow to please--never mind all the rest, For he's with you clear to the end. And you've passed your most dangerous, difficult test If the man in the glass is your friend. You may fool the whole world down the pathway of years And get pats on the back as you pass. But your final reward will be heartache and tears If you've cheated the man in the glass. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I would like to begin my remarks this afternoon acknowledging four of our colleagues who will be leaving the Senate along with me at the end of this Congress, the 110th Congress, and then make some additional comments. Pete Domenici and John Warner Mr. President, this body will lose two of the most respected, highly regarded consensus builders in the history of this body. I speak of the senior Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, and the senior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner. Between the two of these distinguished national leaders, they have given the Senate and this country 70 years of service. Most Americans are aware of Senators Domenici and Warner and the contributions they have made. Those of us who have had the privilege of serving with these two individuals know what they have meant to our country. They have been role models, leaders, men of conscience, of vision, of integrity, of courage. And all of those most-valued human characteristics have been evident when America has needed them most. For their voice and their courage and their vision, we thank them. For the kind of men they are, and the Senators they have been, we thank them. We are all much enriched by our association with Senators Warner and Domenici, and this country will miss them greatly. But they leave strong legacies. They leave men and women who have been touched by their leadership and their values who will carry on behind them, emulating their leadership and their vision. Wayne Allard Mr. President, I wish also to recognize one of my classmates with whom I came to the Senate 12 years ago. He is our neighbor from the West, the senior Senator from Colorado, Wayne Allard. Aside from Senator Allard and Colorado usually taking Nebraska's water, we find little to quarrel with in the kind of work that Senator Allard has done for his State and our country. I have had an opportunity to serve 12 years with Senator Allard on the Banking Committee. His very steady performance and leadership will be missed on that committee, as well as on the other committees he has served and has been very active, as my colleague in the chair knows, who served with him as well on the Armed Services Committee. His leadership on the Budget Committee in particular will be missed. I wish to acknowledge that friendship and that leadership of Senator Allard. Larry Craig Mr. President, the fourth Member of the Senate who will be leaving along with me will be the senior Senator from Idaho, Larry Craig. I have had an opportunity to work with Senator Craig over the years on environmental issues, energy issues, trade issues, agricultural issues. There have been few who have been as forceful and important a voice on behalf of those critical challenges to our country. Senator Craig, Senator Allard, Senator Warner, and Senator Domenici all leave the Senate a better institution for their service.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader and minority leader for allowing me to welcome and congratulate our guest chaplain today, Rev. Cathy Quinn, who has been noted as the senior assistant rector at St. John's Episcopal Church here in Washington, DC. That church, as my colleagues know, is also referred to occasionally as the Church of the Presidents. Reverend Quinn plays an integral role in leading the congregation in their faith and spiritual growth. She is not new to Capitol Hill, having served as a legislative assistant for former New York Congressman Amo Houghton. Her experiences while at Yale Divinity School ranged from working at hospitals ministering to patients in the pediatric intensive care units and the oncology ward to assisting with the Children's Mission at St. Paul and St. James Episcopal Church. Her many accomplishments have prepared her well for a life of ministry. Along with her growing number of ministerial duties at St. John's, Reverend Quinn also manages to balance the needs of her family--her husband Peter, who is in the Chamber today, and her two daughters, Nora and Molly. Her level of commitment to both aspects of her life is a model for many to follow. I wish to thank Reverend Quinn for her contributions to her community and for her service to the members of St. John's Church. So I wish to acknowledge her good work and her spiritual guidance. I am particularly pleased because I have a parochial interest. As I said, not only does my family belong to that church, but my wife Lilibet serves on the vestry there. So not only am I always tuned in, but I pay particular attention in this case. Again, we are very proud of her and the work she does, the work of St. John's, and all who are associated with that church and that ministry. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to our friend and former colleague, Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina. When Senator Helms passed away on the Fourth of July, our country lost a patriot and a strong conservative voice. Senator Helms' life was about public service. During World War II, he served in the U.S. Navy, where he first developed his commitment to a strong U.S. military and America's security at home and abroad. He served in a number of public roles in Washington, DC, and in his home State of North Carolina, and in 1972 was elected to the U.S. Senate--a position he held for five consecutive terms. Senator Helms was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when I came to the Senate in 1996, where I have served for 12 years. As chairman, he consistently maintained a powerful and determined voice in his efforts to strengthen America. I will always be grateful for his many personal courtesies and his constant encouragement and assistance over the 6 years that we worked together. Senator Helms was outspoken, strong-minded, and unwavering in his beliefs. He was a leader who will be missed. Lilibet and I extend our thoughts and prayers to Jesse's widow and our friend Dot and his wonderful family.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to wish happy birthday to the oldest branch of our Armed Forces, the U.S. Army. Two hundred and thirty-three years ago, June 14, 1775, the Continental Congress approved the creation of a Continental Army--10 companies of riflemen, to defend American liberty. From the Revolutionary War to Iraq and Afghanistan, our men and women have served with bravery, selflessness and noble purpose. Love of their country has inspired men and women to serve a cause greater than themselves. Regard for the principles our Nation was founded on motivates them to continue to fight and defend. To say simply our Armed Forces have shaped history is an understatement. They have not only shaped history, they have defined America, and represented our nation's highest values . . . ``Duty, Honor, Country.'' Every generation of soldiers since the foundation of our country has protected our democracy and helped make the world more peaceful, secure and prosperous. The sacrifices our soldiers have made in service to our country, and the price their families have paid are worthy of America's honor and respect. So as we celebrate the Army's 233rd birthday, we really celebrate our men and women in uniform who have given so much. Thank you. In the Army's grandest tradition and as a proud Army veteran, I proclaim my annual Senate floor . . . ``HOOAH!''

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, the Feingold-Hagel bill establishes an independent Foreign Intelligence and Information Commission, appointed by Congress, to review strategies for collection, analysis, and reporting of intelligence and diplomatic information from our outposts around the world. The Commission would have a 2-year lifespan. We must ensure that the United States is prepared to face the challenges of the 21st Century. Our intelligence agencies and diplomatic outposts must provide policymakers with information that helps anticipate threats before they loom large, and our efforts must not be focused solely on the ``threat of the day.'' As observers and veterans of the intelligence community--including the 9/11 Commission--have noted, the U.S. Government and intelligence community obviously have to focus on current threats, many times at the expense of having the ``strategic depth'' to analyze and anticipate potential threats and surprises lurking over the horizon. The focus mainly on current reporting has been cited within the Intelligence Community as inhibiting its ability to forecast significant longer term problems. With the creation of the Director of National Intelligence, DNI, and the National Counterterrorism Center, NCTC, Congress helped move the Intelligence Community in the right direction, but we need strategic intelligence not just on terrorism, but many other threats that our intelligence agencies and policymakers must anticipate. This bi-partisan Commission would enhance--not supplant--the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's oversight of intelligence. ``Strategic depth'' in collection and analysis is an issue that cuts across the oversight responsibilities of both the Senate's Intelligence and Foreign Relations Committees. This Commission would examine diplomatic as well as intelligence reporting, which would help provide an in-depth analysis of issues that are not entirely within the scope of responsibilities of the DNI. The Commission would be able to probe these areas in depth and would have two years to issue its final report. We have seen how Commission reports can be useful tools to both Congress and the Executive branch to highlight needed reforms. For instance, the 2001 Carlucci Commission report on ``State Department Reform'' proved to be a tremendous resource for Secretary Colin Powell as he developed an action program to revitalize the State Department and make needed reforms. Secretary Powell studied the findings and recommendations of this and other panels. He met extensively with Carlucci and other members of various commissions, and relied on their detailed insights in formulating his reform efforts. The Feingold-Hagel legislation's commission report would help the next administration evaluate and improve the effectiveness of key instruments underlying our national power. The Commission would provide recommendations on how to improve collection strategy, analysis, interagency information sharing, and language training. A bipartisan group of respected intelligence and national security experts have endorsed the Commission, including former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski; Donald Gregg, former Ambassador and National Security Advisor to Vice President George H. W. Bush, and Larry Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Secretary Colin Powell. Earlier this month, in a bipartisan vote, the Senate Intelligence Committee endorsed the Feingold-Hagel legislation setting up this commission. This Commission would help Congress and the Executive to better position our intelligence agencies and diplomats to provide the information the United States Government needs to anticipate future strategic challenges, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, the Feingold-Hagel bill establishes an independent Foreign Intelligence and Information Commission, appointed by Congress, to review strategies for collection, analysis, and reporting of intelligence and diplomatic information from our outposts around the world. The Commission would have a 2-year lifespan. We must ensure that the United States is prepared to face the challenges of the 21st Century. Our intelligence agencies and diplomatic outposts must provide policymakers with information that helps anticipate threats before they loom large, and our efforts must not be focused solely on the ``threat of the day.'' As observers and veterans of the intelligence community--including the 9/11 Commission--have noted, the U.S. Government and intelligence community obviously have to focus on current threats, many times at the expense of having the ``strategic depth'' to analyze and anticipate potential threats and surprises lurking over the horizon. The focus mainly on current reporting has been cited within the Intelligence Community as inhibiting its ability to forecast significant longer term problems. With the creation of the Director of National Intelligence, DNI, and the National Counterterrorism Center, NCTC, Congress helped move the Intelligence Community in the right direction, but we need strategic intelligence not just on terrorism, but many other threats that our intelligence agencies and policymakers must anticipate. This bi-partisan Commission would enhance--not supplant--the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's oversight of intelligence. ``Strategic depth'' in collection and analysis is an issue that cuts across the oversight responsibilities of both the Senate's Intelligence and Foreign Relations Committees. This Commission would examine diplomatic as well as intelligence reporting, which would help provide an in-depth analysis of issues that are not entirely within the scope of responsibilities of the DNI. The Commission would be able to probe these areas in depth and would have two years to issue its final report. We have seen how Commission reports can be useful tools to both Congress and the Executive branch to highlight needed reforms. For instance, the 2001 Carlucci Commission report on ``State Department Reform'' proved to be a tremendous resource for Secretary Colin Powell as he developed an action program to revitalize the State Department and make needed reforms. Secretary Powell studied the findings and recommendations of this and other panels. He met extensively with Carlucci and other members of various commissions, and relied on their detailed insights in formulating his reform efforts. The Feingold-Hagel legislation's commission report would help the next administration evaluate and improve the effectiveness of key instruments underlying our national power. The Commission would provide recommendations on how to improve collection strategy, analysis, interagency information sharing, and language training. A bipartisan group of respected intelligence and national security experts have endorsed the Commission, including former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski; Donald Gregg, former Ambassador and National Security Advisor to Vice President George H. W. Bush, and Larry Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Secretary Colin Powell. Earlier this month, in a bipartisan vote, the Senate Intelligence Committee endorsed the Feingold-Hagel legislation setting up this commission. This Commission would help Congress and the Executive to better position our intelligence agencies and diplomats to provide the information the United States Government needs to anticipate future strategic challenges, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I am grateful to my colleague, the junior Senator from Virginia, for his continued leadership and years of contributions to our country, especially on behalf of our veterans. I would like to make some remarks focused on the general scope of what this effort is about. The Senator from Virginia has laid out very concisely, cogently, some of the realities of the force structure we have today and why it is important and in the opinion of almost 60 Senators and over 300 House Members that we take the so-called GI educational benefits this country committed to beginning in 1944 when President Truman signed the first bill and roll those forward into the 21st century, because what has happened is that we are now caught in a different kind of a world, different kinds of wars, different kinds of requirements. But what has not changed is the absolute necessity that we rely on quality individuals to man our force structure. In a world that is far more complicated, combustible, and dangerous than ever before, it has required new sets of skills, obviously technologies, to defend our country, our interests in the world. It is that reality that we must adjust to within the framework of all of our policies. What we are doing here is not adding a new benefit, we are not adding a welfare program; what we are doing is we are bringing up to date the benefits earned by men and women who have committed a good part of their lives to our country. We had that debate a long time ago, whether America wants to do that. Now, unless there are some individuals in the Congress or in America who want to go back and reengage that issue, we can do that, but I do not think that is the case. I think we recognize those who serve. I think we also, in recognizing their service, understand they have earned certain benefits. So we are rotating a GI educational benefit system forward into the 21st century, a system that has not been changed for 25 years. And as reflected in Senator Webb's charts--these, by the way, I remind our colleagues, as was noted by the junior Senator from Virginia, these are not his numbers, these are numbers from the Defense Department. So if we are to take care of our people, because we rely on our people to take care of us, if we rely on that rifleman, that person at the bottom who has always been the one whom we have asked to fight the war--fight the war, die in the war, sacrifices by their families, those who do not come back, many who come back are seriously scarred, wounded, will never recover. That is the reality of the world in which we are living. So we are talking about a relevant system, relevant to today's costs for an education. I benefited from the GI bill when I came back from Vietnam, as did the junior Senator from Virginia, as did the senior Senator from Virginia when he came back from World War II, the Korean war, as did almost every veteran in this body who has fought in a war benefitted from this program. So it is important that we get something very clear; that is, this is not a new program. Now, as the Senator from Virginia noted, this then fits into the larger framework of a cost of war. Unless we are going to just discard the people whom we count on, that rifleman at the bottom who does not have much say in all of this, by the way--he is told to take the hill; he takes the hill. He doesn't set policy. Our military doesn't set our war policy. They have input and influence into the strategy, into the tactics, but we, the elected officials of America, starting with the President, his team, and the Congress, we are the ones who set policy, we are the ones who engage our Nation in war. By the way, just as an aside, I think we should go back to a day in this country when we wanted and did, in fact, commit our Nation to war, we should declare that in the Congress of the United States, we should declare war rather than these skirmishes that we kind of on the side fund and we on the side deal with. We on the side never really come clean with the reality. Here is an opportunity for us to do what is right and what is wise-- what is right and wise; that is, to bring this educational benefit program forward. The Senator from Virginia noted something that is very important--the administration of this program. That is always important, who administers the program, how will it work, can it work? We have worked very diligently--our staffs, with many Members involved--with the Veterans' Administration, the Department of Defense, to make this work. We have ample testimony, recent testimony before the Veterans' Committee in the Senate from senior Veterans Administration' officials saying: This can work. We can now do this. We can implement this. The cost. The cost is an interesting debate, in my opinion, because if, in fact, we are a nation that can afford the cost of war, we can afford $12 billion a month waging the war in Iraq, we can afford all the requirements it takes for a nation to go to war, but somehow we are disconnected from the obligation and responsibility of taking care of those who fight the wars? We somehow can't find the money for that? We somehow want to look the other way? I don't think so. I don't think the American people--and they never have been--are in agreement with that. As to the retention issue, the Senator from Virginia again addressed this. Even taking the Senator's arguments, as clearly as the Senator from Virginia did, and making those arguments--and I can make them again, and others will--I am not sure that is even necessary because this is not a retention bill. There is a consequence to this bill, of course. We should frame within the text and the context of this bill a dynamic of retention: How can we make it attractive for our young people to serve aside from the fact that they love their country, they want to be part of something larger than their own self-interest, they want to make a noble contribution to freedom, to the world, to peace, to their families, to their future? And you can't substitute that. That is bigger than any benefit. Of course it is. But the reality is, just as Harry Truman and just as our leaders back during World War II understood, just as every leader has understood since then, as we have continued to commit to our veterans, those who fight the wars and their families, it is wise to reinvest in our society. How do you reinvest in our society? Well, one way, certainly an important way, is education. It is assuring these men and women who give of themselves--in a very selfless way that very few people do, by the way, especially today, when you look at less than 1 percent of the society, the American society, our population, less than 1 percent is bearing all of the burden. They are carrying it all for the rest of us. What do I mean by that? Because they are the few who are serving in two wars, rotation after rotation in Afghanistan and Iraq and on duty all over the world and in this country. So when they are finished, just as the Senator from Virginia has noted, in the Army and Marine Corps, it is more than 50 percent, after the first enlistment, that leave. Would it not be smarter, would it not be wise to reinvest in these people, to help them get an education so they can continue to contribute to America and strengthen America in every way? National security is not only about the military. In fact, I think we can make a pretty strong argument that the military is obviously an essential component, but just as important is the economic vitality, this culture, the society, the commitment, the education of a society. That all has an awful lot to do with the national security of a nation. This makes sense. This bill makes sense. It makes sense on this supplemental. This isn't divorced from that. This isn't an add-on to that. This isn't something we just invented. This is part of a larger context of service and earned benefits for those who serve. I am very pleased that we are finding more and more ways to enlist more individuals in this effort. I think with what the Senator from Virginia noted as to an add-on on transferability, it makes it more attractive. The senior Senator from Virginia, I assume, is going to speak to that when he takes the floor in a moment. I think when we frame up all of this, as the Senator from Virginia noted, this is the product of a composite of contributions from many individuals, from almost every veterans group I am aware of, from people who care about their country, who care about the veterans who serve this country, and care about our future. I appreciate the leadership of the junior Senator from Virginia. I understand in our series of colloquies that the senior Senator from Virginia is prepared to make some comments. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I thank both of my distinguished colleagues for their service to our country and for their leadership on one of the most important efforts we can make on behalf of those we ask to do so much for our country. The reality is, today we are asking less than 1 percent of our society to bear all the burden, to carry that burden with tremendous sacrifice, not just for themselves but also a sacrifice called for from their families. They do it willingly, they do it because they love their country, and they care about the future of their country. What this bill is about, as much as any one thing, is supporting our troops in a time of peace, just as we support our troops in a time of war. These are men and women who have earned this benefit. Every generation of veterans since World War II has been acknowledged by a grateful nation, acknowledged in many ways. Maybe the most important way is a set of educational benefits they have been given in appropriate recognition of their service to our country. Just as Senator Webb noted, what we are doing is rotating these benefits forward into the 21st century so they are relevant to the realities of the costs of education today, giving these veterans the same kinds of opportunities and options that Senator Warner, all of our World War II veterans have had--our Korean war veterans in the Congress, and our Vietnam war veterans, all of them have had. This is not a new program. This is not a welfare program. At a time when we have no difficulty finding the money to go to war, to place these men and women in war, we are having some debate over whether we have the resources, the commitment in this country to find the resources to do not only what is right but what our Nation has always done since 1944. Is that the debate? If that is the debate, we should have a debate because it is about the prioritization of our people. These young men and women are expected to go to war, fight and die, many will come back with tremendous scars, ruined families, and then we disconnect? It is not enough to slap a bumper sticker on your car and say, ``I support the troops,'' or for us to stand in the Senate or the House and speak in abstractions about supporting the troops. This is about supporting the troops. My goodness, what is a wiser investment in our society, in our future, in our country than giving these special men and women the same opportunities we had to make a better world, not just for themselves but for our country, through helping to educate these men and women. We have missed some points in this debate so far. I hope the points I have covered briefly will come back into some clarity, in some framework of understanding by the American people as to what this is about because, as I note again, if this is about not having the resources to fulfill the commitments we have made for almost 70 years to America's veterans, if that is the case, then that debate needs to be ongoing throughout this Nation because I think the American people will want to say something about this, will want to have something to say about this, and they should. It is their Nation, their sons and daughters we send off to war. This, as Senator Webb has noted, should be an effort to bring our country together, not divide our country, not divide us between Republicans and Democrats or between States. This should be some consensus of purpose to acknowledge these men and women who do so much, who bear all the burden. That is what this is about. There will be more debate, and there needs to be more debate. I am as proud to be part of this effort with my colleagues from Virginia, Senator Webb and Senator Warner, with 57 other colleagues in the Senate, and almost 300 in the House, as I have ever been since I have been in the Senate on behalf of a piece of legislation. This should be an effort to unite our country, and I believe the American people will see it that way. I appreciate very much an opportunity to express some of these points and for the continued leadership of my friend, Jim Webb.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today I wish to praise CMSgt Glenn Freeman, U.S. Air Force, Retired, of Omaha, who was honored on April 26 by the National Guard Association of Nebraska with the Distinguished Service Award. Chief Freeman has worked in my Omaha office as senior aide for military and veterans affairs, assisting servicemembers and their families, for the past 11 years. He is receiving the award in recognition of his dedicated service to the Nebraska National Guard. Glenn has served the State of Nebraska and our country in a manner that deserves high recognition and our deepest respect. He is a friend and has been invaluable to my office. Over the last 11 years, Glenn has helped thousands of Nebraska's military families with casework and veterans issues. Glenn is an American role model. Chief Freeman, originally from Washington, DC, served in the Air Force for 30 years, retiring in 1985. His decorations include the Bronze Star Medal, three Meritorious Service Medals, four Air Force Commendation medals, and the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with Combat V, Valor--Device. Chief Freeman served tours in Vietnam, Thailand, Guam, Newfoundland, Korea, Japan, and the Republic of the Philippines. Prior to joining my staff, Chief Freeman was hospital service coordinator for disabled American veterans. As a senior aide to me, he continues to work closely with veterans service organizations while assisting veterans and military families across Nebraska. Chief Freeman has served as president of the Omaha Chapter Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge, a non-profit organization which seeks to preserve American ideals and principles by helping students become responsible and active citizens. He has additionally served on the Omaha Civil Rights Advisory Committee and as chairman of the Douglas County Republican Party and the Republican Forum. He delivers college lectures across Nebraska as a recognized scholar on the American political process and the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague, Senator Webb, for his generous comments and for his leadership in writing and initially introducing this legislation. I also thank my friend and colleague, Senator Warner from Virginia. As has been noted by the junior Senator from Virginia, the senior Senator from Virginia has had many years of important experience. He has contributed many years of service in many capacities to this country. When you take the service of the two Senators from Virginia together, it is a remarkable story. I am privileged to join them, as well as over 30 of our colleagues, and a distinguished Senator in his own right and World War II veteran, Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey. We all share similar experiences in our service to our country, but most of the veterans in the Senate, and I suspect in the House of Representatives, also share the common experience of using the GI bill which was enacted after World War II to educate a generation of Americans who changed the world, who transformed the world. I put the GI bill in the same universe of importance as the original Homestead Act enacted in the early 1860s which truly transformed this country. I think the original GI bill did much the same. What Senator Webb is talking about, what Senator Warner, Senator Lautenberg, and others are committed to is a relevant new GI bill that addresses the challenges of the 21st century. We in this country not only appreciate, but revere, the service of our military, and that is as it should be. These are selfless men and women who have committed themselves to a higher cause than any other cause, and that is the defense of their Nation, defense of their fellow Americans. They ask nothing in return. Each generation of Americans who has fought for this country, who has served in uniform has never expected anything in return because they have considered it a privilege to serve this country in uniform. But one of the reasons the GI bill was first enacted after World War II was to reinvest in our country, to reinvest using the loyalty, commitment, and resources of Americans to even go further and do even more for this country and society in the world. Education does that. An important foundational element in the history of the country over the last 200 years, as any other, has been public education. It has been public education. It is the tradition of our country, not just to reward service, to acknowledge service, but be smart about that service and reinvest in our society. That is essentially what this is. This is reinvesting in our society. It is assuring that those who have given so much to our country have an opportunity to develop skill sets in education to compete in the most competitive world history has ever known, to go beyond expectations, go beyond what is possible. This is not just a payback or reward. I wish to make a couple of general comments about the bill that I think not only are appropriate but need to be addressed. I have noted that there have been some who have questioned the need for this bill when we have a current GI bill which was authored by a friend of everyone in this body, a distinguished American who left us last year, the late chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee with whom Senator Webb worked, Congressman Sonny Montgomery from Mississippi. On a personal note, it is because of Congressman Montgomery I met my wife who was working for Congressman Montgomery at the time. In the early 1980s, he took the reality and the need of our time and the relevancy of this bill, the GI bill in law, and made it appropriate to what the circumstances were 25 years ago. We are in a different place in the world today. We are engaged in two wars. We have 190,000 troops in those two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have new pressures, new challenges, and new opportunities. So it is appropriate to readdress this issue that has played such an important role in educating our veterans and investing and reinvesting in this country and in society. This does not displace or replace any other educational program. Today, the largest grant aid program the Federal Government sponsors is the Pell Grant Program, an important program. I believe most all of us on the floor of the Senate support that program. I surely do. It is a program based on financial need, and it is appropriate. It is one area in which I happen to believe the Federal Government can play a role, a meaningful role. It gives these Pell grant awardees some options. Just as what we are addressing today, we need to ensure that these people who have sacrificed for this country are given the same kind of options that other programs in the past have allowed. Senator Lautenberg will talk about that issue. Senator Warner will talk about that issue. This program needs to be updated and upgraded. I mention the cost issue because it is an appropriate issue at a time when we are running $400 billion deficits. But I remind everyone here, Mr. President, that we are spending approximately $15 billion a month on war--two wars. We are getting to nearly $1 trillion spent on two wars over the last 7 years. Surely we can find the resources necessary to upgrade and update the requirements for a 21st-century country as it relates to our veterans. I want to also address one other issue that I have heard from some who say: Senator, if we do this, if we go forward with this program and modernize the GI bill, wouldn't it undermine our recruitment and retention efforts? That is an interesting question, again, a relevant question. You recognize the fact that, first, we have an all-voluntary service, so people have choices. We want the finest, brightest, most capable young men and women we can find, and we have been able to do that over the last 25 years--build the best trained, best educated, best led, best equipped, most motivated force in the history of man. But we are on the edge of ruining that force structure. Why do I say that? The Chief of Staff appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee for the last 2 days. In order for the Army to continue to recruit enough manpower to fight in two wars, as well as the other obligations, we have had to define down the standards of the U.S. Army--waiving criminal records, waiving drug records, waiving high school diplomas, and high school equivalence in order to attract enough people. In addition to that, we have put hundreds of millions of dollars of large incentive bonuses on the table, $40,000 at a time, for reenlistment and for signup bonuses, plus the promise of down payments for houses. So we are already in the marketplace for competing with young men and women to serve this country. Isn't it far better to invest in education? Isn't it far better to give these young men and women more educational opportunities if they decide or when they decide to leave the service after they have served this country in an honorable way? Isn't that more important in many ways to recycle that commitment and loyalty and talent into a new investment in education that will serve these young men and women far longer than a $40,000 bonus? Far more. I think just the opposite. I think it enhances recruitment. I think this enhances the quality of our service. I think this helps us get back to defining our standards up. No institution can long survive when it defines its standards down. There will be a consequence for that, and we are seeing that consequence today, as I think General Casey made very clear in his comments before the Senate Armed Services Committee. In conclusion, I am very proud to be part of this effort. I am, like my colleagues, hopeful the Senate and the House and the administration will act on this bill this year. It is, as Senator Webb noted, a timely, important, and critical issue for our country and our force structure. I will continue to do everything I can to be part of that effort and work hard to that end. Again, I very much appreciate the leadership of Senators Webb, Warner, Lautenberg, and others who have brought this bill forward. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been pursuing for a number of years the establishment in the State Department of a civilian reserve to work on postconflict reconstruction. Our first meeting on this issue was in December 2003. Its need has become increasingly apparent as time has passed, and it is now urgent that we adopt the legislation authorizing the civilian reserve and providing the Department the funding and authorities it needs to get the job done. Senator Lugar has provided leadership in both the committee and in working with the executive branch on this issue, and Senator Biden and I have worked closely with him in developing the concept and pursuing its implementation. In April 2007, Senator Lugar, joined by Senator Biden and myself, introduced S. 613, the Reconstruction and Stabilization Act of 2007. Senators Warner, Collins, and Durbin are also cosponsors of S. 613. We demonstrated that the legislation has overwhelming support in this body when it passed by unanimous consent in the 109th Congress. It should now be taken up again, passed in the 110th Congress, and sent to our House colleagues for their immediate consideration. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have an op-ed by Senator Lugar and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that appeared in the December 17 Washington Post titled ``A Civilian Partner for our Troops'' printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to our friend and colleague, Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi. When Senator Lott steps down at the end of this year after 35 years of service to our country in the Congress, he will leave behind a legacy of leadership and service to Mississippi. I have known Senator Lott for many years. Our friendship dates back to when he was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1972. In 1981, when serving as House Republican whip he played a central role in the formation of a bipartisan coalition which produced national security initiatives and promoted economic recovery under President Ronald Reagan. In 1994, Senator Lott became the first Republican to ever have been elected whip in both houses, and then went on to become Senate majority leader. He and his friend and fellow Senator from Mississippi, Thad Cochran, who were both elected to the House in 1972, were the first two Republicans to win statewide elections in the Magnolia State since Reconstruction. In 2005, when Hurricane Katrina left nothing but an oak tree on the front lawn of where his home had been in Pascagoula, MS, Senator Lott worked tirelessly for recovery funding and tax breaks for gulf coast homeowners and businesses who had lost everything. My wife, Lilibet, who is also from Mississippi and I wish Trent, Tricia, and their family every happiness in their new life. They have earned it. But we will miss them. Mr. President, I know all our colleagues join me in congratulating Senator Trent Lott on a long, successful, and distinguished congressional career.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of Michael Doheny of Nebraska. Michael, a civilian contractor, died in Iraq on December 9 when an improvised explosive device struck his convoy vehicle. He was 35 years old. Michael was raised in Broken Bow, NE, and graduated from Broken Bow High School in 1996. He joined the Marine Corps after high school, where he served 8 years and achieved the rank of sergeant. In 2005, Michael left the military and began work as a civilian contractor for SOC-SMG, providing security at military bases and other installations. He was serving his third tour of duty as a civilian contractor in Iraq when he was killed. All of Nebraska is proud of Michael's service to our country, as well as the thousands of brave men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Michael is remembered as a devoted husband, son, and brother. In addition to his wife Melissa, he is survived by his mother, Kathy Kugler; two brothers, Marine Sgt. Robert Kugler and John Doheny; and sister Amy Ritchie. I ask my colleagues to join me and all Americans in honoring Michael Doheny.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the loss of Vietnam veteran Charles E. ``Butch'' Joeckel, who was buried yesterday with military honors at the Columbarium in Arlington National Cemetery. Butch was raised in Colmar Manor, MD, graduating from Bladensburg High School in 1965. In 1966 he enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps and fought for his country in Vietnam. He was seriously wounded during the Tet Offensive in 1968, losing both of his legs above the knees. For his heroic service, Butch received the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart, Navy Commendation Medal with Combat Valor, and numerous meritorious citations, medals, and honors. Butch's service to his country did not end in Vietnam. He became a national service officer for the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), and in 1988 he rose to the position of DAV national adjutant, serving in this capacity until 1993. He served on the board of directors of Help Disabled War Veterans, and contributed his time, wise counsel, and strong efforts to the President's Task Force to Improve Access to Health Care for our Nation's Veterans at the National Veterans Legal Services Program. In 2004 he was appointed to the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission. Butch was an inspiration to all who knew him, and especially for those who were disabled. He accepted the heavy responsibility of ``role model'' for disabled war veterans with grace, dignity, and a special twinkle of humor. For all of his selfless service to his country, Butch's family always came first. He is survived by his wife Dianne; his three children, Chuck, Tammy and Scott; his father, Charles, Sr.; his sister and brother-in-law; three sisters-in-law; 11 nieces and nephews; and seven grandchildren. Butch was an American patriot who believed in his country and fought for his country and the veterans who built it. America owes him our thanks for his contributions and sacrifices. Our country lost an American original, who will be missed by many.

Mr. HAGEL

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

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, yesterday the Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Mike McConnell, released the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear weapons program. This NIE, which represents the best collective judgment of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, told us: Our intelligence community has concluded with high confidence that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. This is a major reversal of the intelligence community's previous intelligence assessment in 2005 that Iran was determined to develop nuclear weapons. The NIE states that the nuclear weapons program was halted primarily in response to international pressure, which suggests that Iran may be more vulnerable to influence. Perhaps most significant is the DNI's conclusion that some combination of threats of intensified scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals might prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program. I commend Admiral McConnell and his colleagues for their decision to release unclassified conclusions based on this current intelligence. I do not believe we can overstate the importance of this new information. The effects of this NIE will be felt here, at the United Nations, throughout Europe, across the entire Middle East, the world, and in Iran. The NIE closely parallels many of the conclusions of the Internal Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, the international organization, with the most direct on-the-ground access to Iran's nuclear facilities. Once again, the facts appear to be bearing out the conclusions of the IAEA. This NIE, as well as the IAEA's analysis, should help inform and shape U.S. strategy on Iran. President Bush has a responsibility to carefully consider the policy implications concerning Iran with this new information, and I know he will. He said in his news conference this morning that this new information which he has confidence in would be factored into our policy regarding Iran. The United States must pursue a clear and strategic policy toward Iran based on this new intelligence and fact-based assessment to avoid the disastrous mistakes of Iraq. Yesterday's NIE does not invalidate the effectiveness of previous efforts to use an international consensus of pressure on Iran. We must be careful not to run from one end of the pendulum all the way to the other. As President Bush noted again this morning, the United States must continue to work with our friends and our allies to sustain an international consensus on Iran. I believe the President is correct: alliances, common purpose, common interests, focus, discipline. Iran's objectionable words and actions are real, and they must continue to be addressed. That means a very clear-eyed and realistic sense of Iran and its motives. As I said in my November 8 CSIS speech regarding U.S.-Iran policy, the United States must employ a comprehensive strategy regarding Iran: Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian issue, the Middle East, a regional comprehensive strategy. Yesterday's NIE reinforces the need for directed, unconditional, and comprehensive engagement with Iran. The United States and the international community must use all--all--elements of our foreign policy arsenal in offering direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with Iran. The United States should be clear that all issues, our issues and Iran's issues, are on the table, including offering Iran a credible way back from the fringes of the international community, security guarantees, and other incentives. We urgently need to adopt a comprehensive strategy on Iran that is focused on direct engagement and diplomacy backed, as diplomacy must always be backed, by the leverage of international pressure, isolation, containment, and military options. The United States must employ wise statecraft to redirect deepening tensions with Iran toward a higher ground of resolution. That is what Annapolis was about last week. America is the great power here. Iran is not the great power. We must be the more mature country in testing the proposition that the United States and Iran can overcome decades of mutual mistrust, suspicion, and hostility. That is diplomacy. Diplomacy is not talking to your friends; diplomacy is not giving another country bonus points for us talking to them. There is a reason for diplomacy. We should not squander this opportunity as we did in the spring of 2003 when we had an opportunity for an opening to explore talks with Iran. This initiative, by the way, in 2003, came from Iran. We are witnessing a confluence of events in the Middle East and around the world that presents the United States with new opportunities. There are hopeful and positive recent developments: Progress on North Korea's nuclear weapons program; the recent regional meeting in Istanbul on Iraq; the momentum generated by last week's Annapolis Middle East meeting where all Arab countries, including Syria, sat at the same table with Israel; and yesterday's NIE assessment. Now is the time for America to act and to lead, and to lead boldly, with confidence, with our allies, focusing on a common purpose. One dimensional optics, policies, and blunt black-or-white rhetoric, such as ``you are either with us or you are against us'' will not work, haven't worked, and will fall short of what is expected from American leadership in the eyes of the world. The world faces challenges and opportunities today that carry with it implications well beyond this moment in time. American leadership is once again being called on at yet another transformational time in history to help set a new course, a new framework for a rudderless world drifting in a sea of combustible dangers. In engaging Iran, the Middle East, and the world, we must be wide in our scope, clear in our purpose, measured in our words, and strong in our actions. Yesterday's NIE should not be overstated, but it also must not be undervalued in shaping future policy with Iran and in the Middle East. Make no mistake, the NIE sets in motion a series of ripple effects that will have serious consequences. This should be welcome news for the United States and the world. Mr. President, I thank you, yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, on December 1, America lost a great and innovative educator and a wonderfully decent human being when Sally Smith passed away this week at the age of 78. Sally was the founder and director of one of America's most important teaching institutions, the Lab School in Washington, DC. Sally was a New York City native, and longtime resident of the District. She graduated in 1950 from Bennington College, and received a master's degree in education from New York University in 1955. In 1967, inspired by her own son's difficulties in learning, she founded the Lab School. Beginning with just her son and three other students, the Lab School has now grown into an internationally renowned school for students with learning disabilities. Sally's fundamental belief was that all children, no matter what the disability, have the potential, ability and ingenuity to learn. Sally created a unique and innovative learning environment where students are given the tools and encouragement needed to fulfill their goals. She also provided through the Lab School the resources needed for others to teach students with disabilities. In 1976, Sally became a professor at the School of Education at American University, where she ran the master's degree program specializing in learning disabilities. The Lab School serves as the primary training site for most graduate students in the program. Sally is the author of 10 books on education. Her teaching techniques have been showcased in a four film series on PBS. My wife Lilibet and I are privileged to have been actively involved with the Lab School over the last 11 years, and we came to know and admire Sally. She was an American original and represented the best of our society. Like all of Sally's many friends, Lilibet and I offer our prayers to the Smith family. She leaves the world a better place than she found it. She will be missed by that world. Sally is survived by her sons, Randall, Nick and Gary Smith; a sister; and one granddaughter.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to express my sympathy over the loss of Kenneth Thomas Novel. Kenneth passed away after a battle with liver cancer on November 14 at his home in Gaithersburg, MD. He was 60 years of age. Kenneth was born in New York City, NY, on January 30, 1947. He was a Vietnam veteran who served with the ``Screaming Eagles'' of the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam in 1968. On November 20, Kenneth Novel was buried with full military honors at the Columbarium in Arlington National Cemetery. Kenneth was an owner of O Salon in Georgetown along with his brother, Robert. His career spanned more than 38 years between Washington, DC and Aspen, CO. Kenneth Novel was a devoted family man. He is survived by his loving wife Theresa; three children, Lisa Hackett, Simone and Anthony; two grandchildren, Jake and Luke; and two brothers, Gene and Robert Novel. Lilibet and I, and all of Kenneth's friends, offer our prayers to Theresa and the Novel family. Kenneth was an American patriot who believed in his country and fought for his country. America owes him our thanks for his contributions and sacrifice. He will be missed by many of us.