Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I wish to honor the city of Lenexa, KS. On May 8, Lenexa, which is known as the City of Festivals for the numerous festivals and events it hosts each year, will mark its 100th anniversary. This grand event will be part of a weeklong community celebration of history and culture. Lenexa was platted in 1869 by French-born civil engineer Octave Chanute, who, in addition to designing the original Hannibal Bridge over the Missouri River in Kansas City, also served as a mentor to the Wright Brothers in their quest for flight. Lenexa was named for Na Nex Se, a highly respected, hard-working Shawnee Indian woman, the daughter-in-law of Chief Black Hoof. Thirty- eight years later, on May 8, 1907, Lenexa was incorporated as a City of the 3rd Class. In Lenexa's earliest days, people from various backgrounds and cultures came together to form this great city. With a population of approximately 300, the young community boasted a healthful location, graded schools, three churches, suburban train service, excellent telephone service, and an electric railway station. Today, Lenexa has grown to a population of 46,000 residents and enjoys a healthy business base and is considered a city of choice for a variety of high-tech and bioscience companies. The city also is looked to as a leader in local government initiatives, including watershed management and public safety. Lenexa cherishes its rich history, heritage and culture, and with this celebration marking the city's 100th anniversary, Lenexa honors its past while looking forward to the future. I congratulate Lenexa and its residents, and I wish them an outstanding second hundred years.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President. I rise today in support of S. 761, the America COMPETES Act. This sweeping legislation takes bold steps to recapture America's prowess in the global economy. The demand for talented persons in the areas of science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and critical foreign language far exceeds the supply in the United States. The likelihood of finding a job in these high-need areas after college is almost guaranteed, yet we find ourselves still lagging behind other countries in producing these graduates. America ranks No. 24 out of industrialized nations in mathematical literacy for children entering high school. Right now, China is graduating four times the number of engineers as the United States, with India not far behind. I am deeply concerned with these trends. It is vital to have a superior science and mathematics education system and workforce. In 1997, I formed an Advisory Committee on Science, Technology, and the Future in my home State of Kansas. This committee helps me find ways to align Federal and State initiatives to enhance science and technology in the State. The advisory committee has been instrumental in identifying high-need high-tech jobs in the State while focusing on ways to educate, train, and attract talented persons into these fields. Kansas continues to be a State rich with high-tech industry. Wichita is the aviation capital of the United States, producing approximately 50 percent of all U.S. general aviation. This industry needs aviation researchers, engineers, and skilled technicians. My home State is rapidly growing in the areas of bioscience, including drug discovery, new treatments for disease, food safety, animal health, and renewable energy. The Roberts Advisory Committee has recognized that while these industries are growing, they have a limited pool of talented employees to choose from. Like many States, Kansas is facing a shortage of math and science teacher applicants. I agree with my advisory committee that global competitiveness lies with our younger generation. It is imperative that we provide them with an education from science and math teachers possessing a solid knowledge base and effective teaching skills. We also need to find ways to spark students' interests in math, science, and technology while they are in the early years of education. The America COMPETES Act addresses these needs by strengthening the skills of math and science teachers, creating partnerships between National Laboratories and high-need high schools, facilitating the expansion of advanced placement programs, and increasing the number of students who study foreign languages. Additionally, the bill provides an increase in research investment by doubling the funding for the National Science Foundation, NSF. The grants distributed to States from the NSF are being used to conduct extraordinary research in every corner of the world. My advisory committee supports the America COMPETES Act, and so do I. It is only through our commitment to the underlying goals of this bill that we will see success in building our competitive workforce.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. We have an honest difference of opinion, but we have not talked about that. That is the whole point I am trying to make, that at least the Senator is trying to force the issue in making his point, and let nobody say that they challenge your patriotism or your intent or whatever. I know there is a lot of rhetoric flying around. I don't agree with that at all. I think this debate ought to take place, and this debate is not taking place. So thank you to the Senator. And I don't think I have endangered--well, maybe I have--my reputation just a little.

Mr. ROBERTS. I have got it. I just want to make clear, understandably, I would probably vote no--well, not probably--I would vote no on the resolution. But again, the thing that disturbs me is when we get to the what-ifs. What if we pass your resolution? What if we pass somebody else's resolution? What happens if we get the troops out? Hopefully they would not be in a situation where we have to send them back. The what-ifs on what happens to us, which you have discussed in a rare discussion on the floor, we haven't talked about that.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. ROBERTS. So if the Senator will continue to yield, we are on step 3 until we get to your resolution?

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I was just going to ask the distinguished Senator if he would yield. While I can't associate myself with all of his remarks and, as I note, the press gallery and the world will little note nor long remember our colloquy, perhaps, I wish to congratulate him for his forthrightness and his candor and his conviction. The Senator and I have talked about the situation and about the need for full debate in regard to our national security and the war in Iraq, and I had hoped his resolution would be agreed to during the last--or the previous attempt when we only had one resolution and that was it. I had asked at that particular time, in a very similar situation--I was making a speech, and the Chamber was empty, and so I can empathize with that. But my comments were that we should consider the McCain amendment with the benchmarks, the Gregg amendment, and Senator Feingold's, because his is very forthright. It is very clear and very understandable. Now, I would not vote for it, but I respect the Senator's opinion, and I respect his candor. The Senator has been a member, a valuable member of the Intelligence Committee. I had the privilege of being the chairman of that committee. I think I am the longest serving Senator on the Intelligence Committee up to this point--10 years. It is tough work. There are a lot of times I disagreed with the Senator, but the Senator is an extremely valuable member of the Intelligence Committee. Upon learning all of the intelligence from the 19 different agencies that comprise the community, he has developed a very strong opinion. I respect that. That is what we should be doing. We should be having a full debate. I hope in voting to proceed that we at least get that full debate. I would say to the Senator, one of my best friends is General Petraeus, who used to be the commanding general at Fort Leavenworth, at the Intellectual Center of the Army, and he wrote the counterterrorism manual for the Army. He just finished it. We talked a lot about the British experience in regards to what happened at that particular time in Iraq. It is unique, it seems to me, because what the Senator wants to do follows the same time period General Petraeus wants to inform us as to whether we are making any progress and if we can achieve stability in Iraq, and that is a mighty big ``if.'' I think by the summer at least, if we are not making progress, at that particular time we are going to have to go to a policy of containment as opposed to intervention, as the Senator has suggested. How we do that, I am not quite sure. We haven't had that debate on the Senate floor. Now, this Senator, Mr. Feingold, has called for that debate, and that is what we should be debating. It calls for a lot of different opinions. So I congratulate the Senator. I thank him for his candor. I thank him for being forthright. I wish we could vote on the Senator's resolution this time around. Does the Senator think that is even possible?

Mr. ROBERTS. Why not the Feingold resolution?

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, if the Senator would continue to yield, what if I ask unanimous consent that the Senator's amendment be made in order?

Mr. ROBERTS. It would be step 3 before you would think it would be appropriate to consider your resolution?

Mr. ROBERTS. If the Senator will continue to yield for a question, you are talking about step 2. Step 1 is being considered, and your specific resolution would be step 2 on the supplemental.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Maine, who does such an outstanding job, along with the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. I, too, rise in strong opposition to the amendment that is proposed by Senator Feinstein. Senator Collins pretty well summed it up, and my remarks might be somewhat repetitive, and I think they need to be. I know the Senator from California, no doubt, has the best of intentions. She has been an excellent member of the Intelligence Committee, when I had the privilege of being the chairman of that committee. She is working simply to increase the grant funding--which on the surface of it makes some sense--to high-population areas. I just don't think that reducing funding for the majority of our States and our great Nation, as the distinguished Senator has pointed out with her chart, is a viable way to protect against terrorism. If we as a country are going to be adequately prepared for another terrorist attack, we must not forget that we are vulnerable on all fronts. The States that would be negatively impacted by this proposal contain some of our Nation's most valuable assets. If we are going to reduce funds to States such as Kansas, this amendment tosses aside the risk to agriculture, as the Senator has pointed out, agraterrorism, although we don't use that term anymore because it used to scare a lot of people. We just call it ``food security,'' and it is a big-ticket item. Basically, that is the ability of our Nation's intelligence community, 19 different agencies, to protect our Nation's food supply, not to mention the oil and petroleum facilities that provide invaluable energy in this time of need to many Federal buildings and places of national significance that are scattered throughout our great Nation. So we cannot let ourselves believe if we only protect large cities and high-population States, we will be safe from the devious and the calculating minds of those who wish to do us harm. You only need to look at the Oklahoma City tragedy to understand this. Rather, preparing for what we expect in the densely populated area is a sure-fire way to be shocked and horrified should the unthinkable happen again. This legislation has been considered before. It was defeated soundly. To add it now as an amendment disregards the hard work many have done to negotiate a funding formula that most benefits our entire economy and our entire country. We cannot afford to compromise the security of an entire Nation for the benefit of a few areas. It is not where the people are, it is where the terrorists will attack and how and when. Let me say when I was the chairman of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee on the Armed Services Committee, I went to a secret city in Russia--there are approximately 11 of them--and they let us into a few because we had the Nunn-Lugar program that paid the scientists the Russians used to have making various armaments and bioweapons and viruses and all sorts of things. It certainly gives you pause to think about the fact that when Ronald Reagan called the former Soviet Union the ``evil empire,'' he was correct, if you looked at the stockpile of this weaponry. We were granted access to this research center, which is located outside of Moscow, about 60 miles. It is called Obninsk. We went in and saw what was being manufactured. I can assure you when they opened up the refrigerator doors, we stepped back a little bit. I will not go into everything in terms of what was being manufactured there, some of which is classified, but we thought under the Nunn-Lugar program the best thing we could do was to provide security. Yet how easy would it be for a terrorist group or somebody within the organized mafia of Russia today to latch on to any part of this stockpile, of which there are a great many, and transfer that to the United States and attack our food supply? We have had exercises. I have taken part in exercises. There was an exercise in regard to hoof and mouth disease. What happened was we got into a situation where the infestation period was 6 days, and we got past that, and then utter chaos developed. We lost in the process a large number of our livestock herd, all of our export stock, and when people finally figured out their food doesn't come from grocery stores, there was panic in our cities. We basically endangered our food supply not only for 1 year but for several years running. This is a very real threat. I can tell you as a former chairman of the Intelligence Committee, we worked very hard to get the intelligence community to first assess this and then to assess it in terms of a priority risk and a threat. That is exactly what we have done. This amendment does great harm to that effort and to adequate funding for all States and to assess the threats that certainly face all Americans. I am very hopeful we will oppose this amendment. Let's repeat what we have done in the past and safeguard all Americans as opposed to the individual, or the individual many, if that is the proper way to put it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I will try to finish as fast as I can. I apologize. I arrived late. I asked for 15 minutes, and I thought I could get it done in 15 minutes. Obviously, ``Roberts-ese'' is expanding that time period. I will try to finish as fast as I can.

Mr. ROBERTS. As I indicated, Mr. President, we have not discussed the difficult policy decisions that will confront us if it becomes necessary to withdraw or redeploy, what that mission would be, or even how to withdraw. The reality is what we will do when certain consequences would take place. These are the possible, if not probable, consequences we should be confronting and debating and explaining to the American people and ourselves and in the media, even if some may have a deaf ear. First. A dramatic increase in sectarian violence quickly escalating to a civil war--and I mean a real civil war--and a humanitarian disaster far more devastating than what is happening now. Shia versus Shia, Shia versus Sunni. What do we do? Thousands of Iraqis have already become refugees and left the country. Second. Given a civil war and struggle for control, we can expect an incursion of Sunni troops from other Mideast countries--I want to make it very clear about that: other Mideast countries--to prevent an Iranian takeover of Iraq and the very real possibility of an Iraq led by Muqtada al-Sadr, whose street appeal could endanger their own Governments. I am talking about other Mideast countries. When that happens, the war becomes regional. What do we do? Third. We can expect an Iraq certainly dominated by Iran, thus completing a Shia crescent with Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Today, countries such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt are talking about building their own nuclear programs, given Iran's nuclear ambitions and progress. Iran has just refused inspectors from the IAEA. With the possibility of Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims each working to achieve nuclear capability and weapons, what does Israel do? What do we do? Fourth. Iraq will become a safe haven for terrorists. This time it is for real. What do we do? Fifth. In their eyes, with the defeat of the ``Great Satan'' only months away, as expected--a clear signal by this body and perhaps inevitable--terrorists around the world are already emboldened, waiting us out and planning more attacks; that is, if you believe what they say. Read Afghanistan and the Taliban and the spring offensive. Will we soon be in the business of passing nonbinding resolutions about Afghanistan? Sixth. We can expect a perceived, if not real, lack of American resolve in the eyes of adversaries and potential adversaries around the world resulting in additional national security threats. Read Putin and Belarus and Iran, and his recent remarkable speech at Munich in Germany at the NATO security conference. Kim Jong Il. We are making some progress with North Korea right now, but he does have a penchant for missile launches on the 4th of July. Read Hugo Chavez--31 countries in the southern command. He is the new Castro, nationalizing his oil production and directly involved in five different countries. What do we do? The point is that globally and over the long term this is not a Bush issue or a Democratic or a Republican issue, or even how you feel about Iraq or the war. Even as we argue about whether we debate and vote on one resolution or three or four, I hope, there are terrorist organizations and their second-generation affiliates--guided and inspired--are plotting attacks against the United States and throughout the world. It is obvious we can't sustain the status quo in Iraq, but while we debate on how to proceed, these folks are not giving up. The irony is that should the President wake up in the morning and say, well, the House has voted for this resolution, they are not for this new mission, and the Senate is about to, and they may or may not do that, so I am going to terminate it, I am going to end it, then we are back to square one, back to a stalemate, back to the status quo. That, to me, doesn't make sense. Given the fact there were at least five successful attacks that killed Americans--and others that, thank goodness, were not successful--before President Bush came to office and before military action in Iraq--given the fact this threat will face the next President and future world leaders, surely we can figure out it makes no sense to fight each other when the terrorists then and now and in the future do not kill according to party affiliation, nationality, race, age, or gender. We do not need a Republican approach to national security and the war. We do not need a Democratic approach to national security and the war. We need, however, an American approach to our national security and the war and to our individual freedoms. This is a time to engage in honest dialog, to work together and think through and agree on the strategy that will defeat our enemies and make the American people safe. And yes, bring our troops home but in a way that we don't have to send them back. So I say to the leadership, with all due respect, let us end this nonbinding business and get these confetti resolutions behind us. We have all had a chance now to discuss the war and we need to vote on I think at least four resolutions, and then come together with a bipartisan commitment--a difficult and perhaps impossible task but, I believe, a task that must be undertaken for the sake of our national security. Mr. President, I yield back the balance of my time and I thank my colleagues across the aisle for permitting me to finish my remarks.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed and make my remarks in 15 minutes.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I understand I have 15 minutes within which to make my remarks; is that correct?

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

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I have about 4 minutes left. If I could ask unanimous consent that Senator Dorgan allow me that privilege, I would greatly appreciate it.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, some weeks ago--and I mentioned this in my remarks during the debate we were having on the resolutions with regard to Iraq and the war--I said several weeks ago I had the privilege of attending and speaking at a farewell dinner in honor of LTG David Petraeus and his wife Holly at the Command and General Staff College of the United States Army at Fort Leavenworth, KS. And, of course, now General Petraeus is in Iraq and involved in the new mission as prescribed by the President and the subject of great debate not only here but in the House of Representatives, which is voting as I speak on their resolution in regard to this matter. It was quite an evening of tribute in behalf of the general who has become admired and beloved serving as commanding general of the Army's Intellectual Center in Leavenworth, KS. Throughout the evening I had the opportunity to again visit with David Petraeus, his feelings about his new mission, his impressive knowledge with regard to this most difficult war in Iraq, the history of the region, his understanding with regard to the nature of past wars, his understanding of insurgency in past wars and the insurgency we now face in Iraq. While at the Command and General Staff College, he wrote the Army's new manual on counterterrorism. Let me say, as a former marine, as the Presiding Officer is as well, I helped write a similar manual years ago for the U.S. Marine Corps. So I find this man unique in his knowledge and his command ability. But when I was asked to make remarks after the dinner--they would always invite a Senator to make some remarks and, unfortunately, sometimes that turns into a speech--I was glad I said what I said, and virtually everybody in that room told me I had said what they cannot say. Those who wear their officer rank on their shoulders or their enlisted stripes on their sleeves in most cases do not comment on policy decisions or politics, no matter how strongly they feel. They follow orders, and they serve their country. But I believe my remarks to the general and his officer corps and the veterans of many previous wars are pertinent to the issue we face in this debate. Before I express my views, I want to stress that I regret we are at a stalemate in this body. Obviously, they are not in the other body, in terms of a vote at least, on this issue of vital national security. I think most in the Senate wish we could debate this issue with comity, with cooperation, and, yes, in a bipartisan fashion. And I think the American people who are concerned, obviously frustrated and angry about the war, would certainly appreciate that, but that is not the case. This issue, very unfortunately, is wrapped around a partisan and political axle. Our good friends across the aisle insist that we debate and vote on one of three nonbinding resolutions--there may have been an agreement on maybe one more vote--in regard to the war in Iraq, and that is all. They wish to debate and vote on the House resolution which is now being debated in the other body and about to come to a conclusion, or the Warner resolution, which I think are very similar, and then call it a day because both resolutions support the troops but not the mission. This is the rub for many of my colleagues and myself, and it is about as far as the majority wishes to wade in the waters of withdrawal at this time. I realize if we were to consider other votes, it would be more pertinent to the issue, especially the amendment by Senator Feingold, and that would be wading in the water a little deeper than they would want to at this particular time. Others of us wish to debate and vote on the McCain resolution--I hope we can do that--and the Gregg resolution and, as far as I am concerned, the Feingold resolution. I oppose the Feingold resolution, but I admire his forthrightness and his courage. But we are being denied that opportunity. Most perplexing to me is that those who are covering this debate within the media--and it is never a good idea to say anything that could be possibly defined as critical of the media. I note there are none or there may be two, but, obviously, everybody is watching the vote on the House side. Having said that, how on Earth can we describe this situation by writing headlines and 15-second news sound bites saying Republicans, like myself, have voted to stifle debate? I want to debate. Let's have a debate. Let's have a full debate and vote on the House resolution and/or the Warner resolution--vote on both of them--but let us also debate and vote on resolutions offered by Senators McCain, Gregg, and Feingold. I will vote for Senator McCain's resolution. I will vote along with Senator Gregg. I would not vote for Senator Feingold's resolution but, again, I think his resolution is probably the most determining in terms of effect, and he should get a vote. We are not stifling or shutting down debate; our colleagues in the majority are. Either we are not capable of explaining what I believe is a very simple proposition or some in the media cannot discern what is obvious. This is like playing baseball, although it isn't like playing baseball--that is a poor allegory, but it is the one I have chosen-- playing baseball with one strike and then you are out. You say: Wait a minute, usually in a baseball game you get three strikes. What happened to the three strikes? Where are my other two strikes? Where are my other resolutions that I want to debate, that I want to support because they are pertinent to this, certainly as much as the others? They are nonbinding as well. And the umpire--in this particular case the distinguished majority leader--says: Back to the dugout, Senator Roberts, I am sorry. We run this ball game. You don't have any further strikes. I have information that the House has just passed the House resolution 246 to 182. That is a pretty solid vote. So, obviously, we will be getting to vote on that resolution, and I hope we will get to vote on these other resolutions. In my remarks at the Command and General Staff College, I told General Petraeus we had not been personally acquainted over a long period of years, but in our short span of time, I certainly came to know him well. I have had several stimulating and enjoyable conversations with him over a wide range of issues, most especially the British experience in Iraq from 1921 to 1931, the example of Lawrence of Arabia. Lawrence of Arabia wrote ``The Small Warfare Manual,'' and he wrote ``The Pillars of Wisdom.'' As I indicated, the U.S. Marine Corps had similar manuals, one called a ``Manual on Antiguerrilla Operations,'' which I participated in, and now the manual the general has written. It seems we cannot get it right with regard to insurgencies. The same things we write in these manuals we have to be careful about and pretty well play out the problems, to say the least, that make it very difficult. Anyway, with regard to General Petraeus, he is exactly the right man for the right job at the right time. He knows this. He has been to Iraq. He was successful in his second tour. He is going back. I hope and pray he will be successful in his third effort. Our brave young men and women in uniform deserve nothing but the very best leadership, and they are getting it. But I think it is a paradox of enormous irony that the Senate confirmed David Petraeus without a dissenting vote--not one, not one Senator--a vote of confidence that is unique, certainly given today's controversy and turmoil and the times. Yet at the same time, the same Senators who gave their vote of confidence are now in the business of what I call--I don't mean to perjure them--``confetti'' resolutions supporting the general and the troops but not the mission they are undertaking now. That to me is unprecedented for the Senate. I think it is remarkable, and I have said many times that these resolutions--and it has been said many times--are nonbinding. They have no legislative impact. They are so-called sense-of-the-Senate resolutions. For those who do not pay attention to the parliamentary procedure around here, that means they are meaningless except for the message you want to send, and that can be important to the Executive, i.e., to President Bush and the folks back home. With all due respect, we have long crossed the message Rubicon with regard to sending mixed messages to our allies, our troops, the American people, the media and, yes, our adversaries. Words have consequences and, rest assured, our adversaries will read to try and figure out, analyze every word of the resolution just passed in the House and perhaps the one, maybe two resolutions we can pass in this body, hopefully three or four, and try to figure it out. I suspect they will be absolutely flummoxed in trying to discern the sense in reading a resolution that states support for the troops and our new commander, with new rules of engagement, with a limited timeframe for achieving and reporting benchmarks of progress, but that opposes the mission. That is a mixed message, and it should cause quite a bit of head scratching among the 31 different terrorist organizations that are planning various attacks around the world and even on the United States. My real concern is that the Senate is not considering or even talking about the probable consequences of these actions, let alone our responsibilities should they happen. I want to make it very clear I do not question the intent or purpose or patriotism of any Senator, regardless of whatever resolution they are proposing voting for. I do question the judgment and the law of unintended effects. Bluntly put, with all this debate with regard to nonbinding resolutions, we appear like lemmings splashing in a sea of public concern, frustration, and expressing anger over the war in Iraq. In this regard, I don't know of anybody in this body or anybody in America who does not want our troops home at the earliest possible date, and stability in Iraq, if possible. If possible--and that is a real question here. That is not the issue. When all of this confetti settles, the end result of all this frenzy will be: ``General, you and the troops have our solid support--but we don't support your mission. However, press on and good luck.'' I think that message is remarkable. This is not a profile in courage. This is not the Senate's finest hour. If we are going to debate and vote on nonbinding resolutions, let us at least consider resolutions that will send a clear message or which can be of useful purpose. In that regard, we should consider the McCain resolution. It lists benchmarks of progress that General Petraeus has told Senator McCain and me would be useful in his discussions with Prime Minister Maliki, and certainly the Gregg resolution that supports spending for our troops in harm's way. I think that is the precedent we have to set. That is the killer in this debate, along with the Feingold resolution, because my colleagues across the aisle do not want to vote on the Gregg resolution, let alone the Feingold resolution. Senator Feingold has a resolution which certainly does something. I don't agree with his resolution, but he is at least very forthright and sends a clear message, and he is a good Senator. As the former chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the Senate, let me again stress what is not happening in the Congress or the media, and has received very little public attention regarding this challenge we face in Iraq. No one is talking about the consequences of what will happen if we simply withdraw or redeploy. And we may just do that, because I do not believe this war can or should be sustained if we do not see progress in the next 6 months. If General Petraeus doesn't come back and tell us there has been measurable progress, where we can see it, feel it, and touch it, we have some serious policy decisions to make. We need to be thinking about a policy of containment as opposed to intervention if this latest mission does not work. I would also point out that most of the time deadlines for withdrawal are either in the nonbinding resolutions or they mirror exactly the time period General Petraeus has told the Armed Services Committee he would follow in reporting whether this new effort is making any progress, pretty much along the lines of the benchmarks that are in the McCain resolution. So the obvious question is: Who can better make that judgment, General Petraeus in theater or Senators here on the floor? We have not discussed the difficult policy decisions that may confront us if it becomes necessary to redeploy, what that mission might be if we redeploy, where are we going, what is the mission going to be, or even how to withdraw.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I wish to speak about the accomplishments of the Kansas Air National Guard, and specifically of the 190th Air Refueling Wing. I have made several statements on the floor recently regarding my feelings on these resolutions. And today, instead of repeating my feelings on the subject, I would like to acknowledge some of our country's brave men and women. As we all know, our Nation has been relying heavily on our National Guard in the war on terror. In Kansas, it is no different. However, these men and women continually rise to the challenge, saving lives and defending democracy at home and abroad. Next week, we commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the 190th Air Refueling Wing in Kansas. The enormous sacrifice and dedication of the men and women serving in 190th brings great credit to their unit and to the State of Kansas. This outstanding organization began as the 117th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron in Hutchinson, KS. The unit was federally recognized on February 23, 1957. Next week they will celebrate 50 years of flying aircraft--from the F-80 to the B-57 to the KC-135 tankers they maintain today. Since 1967, the 190th has been based in our State capital of Topeka, KS. They continue to be leaders in the State and in the Air National Guard, which is evident through their most recent awards--the Spaatz trophy for outstanding Air National Guard Flying Wing and the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award. As we continue to debate the difficult topic of our presence in Iraq, I hope my colleagues will take a moment to recognize, with me, the outstanding contributions of our Nation's troops. Not only has our volunteer force proven themselves the best in the world, our citizen soldiers have proven themselves second to none. I hope we will remember the personal sacrifices of these men and women as we debate our support for them and their mission.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I would just ask what the play is, if I can do that?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, the one I would ask about, if I can ask a further question, is that of Senator Feingold. It seems to me, if we are going to have a full debate, all choices need to be considered, and the amendment offered by Senator Feingold should be considered and should be made in order. That has taken a lot of courage for him to offer such an amendment in a very forthright manner. I will say that I don't agree with it, but in discussions about the ramifications of all of these resolutions, which are nonbinding and which I call confetti resolutions because they do not do anything except send very difficult messages to everybody, I think that ought to be made in order and that ought to be a choice.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, will the minority leader yield for a question?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I just wanted to make it clear to myself and others what we are facing here; that is, there would be only one vote we would have on the resolution that was passed in the House, which I feel I could not vote for because it is nonbinding--it is, again, to support the troops but not the mission, which I think is certainly unique in regards to how people feel about this--and that, basically, the McCain resolution, which I support, which sets out the benchmarks to give to General Petraeus and to give to Prime Minister Maliki to gain some kind of catalyst or effort that would say: Look, this is where the Senate stands, and hopefully we can get these things done so that we can see some progress, to see if it is possible to achieve some security in Iraq and give that Government a political settlement. And the second amendment I am talking about is the one of Senator Gregg, as I understand it.