Floor Statements

Mr. President, I spoke briefly this morning about the need to have votes on the Republican resolutions--the Republican Gregg resolution and the bipartisan Lieberman-McCain resolution. It is very important we give the opportunity for this body to go on record saying, No. 1, they do support and will not cut off funding for our troops in Iraq. That needs to be said in the Gregg resolution.

It is unusual and very unfortunate that at this time, when we are actually at war, we are considering resolutions which would say: Well, we don't support sending more troops over. We are actually sending troops over, and there are some who want to say: Well, we don't support the mission; good luck, guys and gals; you are going over, but we don't support what you are doing.

We owe them more than that. We owe them what used to be the baseline in our discussions. Unfortunately, in time of war, we can debate and we should debate. However, the Levin-Warner resolution, the only resolution at this point the majority would let us vote on, sends a wrong message to the insurgents, militia, and, obviously, to our troops.

This is a very serious and difficult situation in Iraq, no question about it. We got the national intelligence estimate, and it says these are tough times. But--and I agree with my colleague from Florida--we cannot afford to fail.

During General Petraeus's testimony before the Armed Services Committee last week, he chillingly described the typical Iraqi terrorist as ``determined, adaptable, barbaric'' and that ``he will try to wait us out.''

And now we are considering a resolution signaling to this enemy that this body doesn't think the terrorists will have to wait too long. By capping the troop strength, this resolution limits the very leaders this body confirmed as fit to lead and determine strategies and levels of troops.

The proponents of the resolution to limit troop strength must now believe that sitting here 8,000 miles away, this body is more equipped than our military leaders to say what our force structure should be in Iraq. That is unacceptable; it is totally unacceptable.

The question has been raised: Will this plan work? There are lots of challenges. It is a challenging situation. The intelligence community, in its National Intelligence Estimate, says there are many difficult factors; it is a complex situation. But they said this is the best we can hope to do. This is our best effort to make sure something comes out that provides a stable Iraq, one that will not be a haven for terrorist groups such as al-Qaida to operate.

The intelligence community was also very forthright, both in the NIE that we received last week and in testimony several weeks earlier in an open hearing of the Intelligence Committee. They said if we cut and run, Iraq would descend into chaos, giving the terrorist groups, such as al-Qaida and probably the Shia terrorist groups, the chance to operate freely in that country. It would lead to slaughter of more and more Iraqis--innocent Iraqis--and it would likely involve the entire region.

It is clear that cutting and running should not be an option. There may be some people who would vote to cut off funding. We ought to let them have a chance at least to say we want to end it now, not we want to tinker with the military strategy so perhaps we can gain some political points at home.

I have heard it said that some of the people who are supporting the Levin-Warner resolution think we should be following the guidelines of the Iraq Study Group. I had the opportunity on Sunday to ask Jim Baker is this military plan the military plan you have supported? He said: Yes, it is.

Others have said we need a new strategy, and I agree. I agree we shouldn't have gone forward with debaathification and disbanding the Iraqi Army. That mistake is behind us. But we need a new strategy that can lead us to victory in Iraq.

It seems to me the place where we want to be is getting the Iraqi Government, al-Maliki and his Sunni and Kurdish counterparts in the Government, to take responsibility and say we are going to establish stability, we are going to end the insurgency. To do that, they have said: We need the support of American troops, not to be on the frontlines--and I agree with those who said we want to move the Iraqis out front when they are stopping the Shia and Sunni violence; that is where they should be. We still have a role, and we can play a very important role in helping to take out the al-Qaida leadership and the other organized international radical Islamist terrorists, whether they be Shia or Sunni, and we can do that. That is part of what the troop surge will do. But we need to have them take over, and we need to train them.

The intelligence community said the police are not ready to take over now. We have found that when we embed American troops, provide American troops in smaller numbers but with Iraqis, they function better. We can help show them how to win, and that is a plan I think we ought to pursue because what is the cost if we lose? Iraq is the center point in the war on terror. And unfortunately, we have no better source than Osama bin Laden, who says:

I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic Nation:

Listen and understand. The issue is big and the misfortune is

momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the

whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-

Zionist coalition began against the Islamic Nation. It is

raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone

and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate.

That is what he calls Baghdad, ``the capital of the caliphate.'' There are similar transmissions by Ayman al-Zawahiri, who said: ``We must have Iraq as our caliphate.'' So we have to wait. We have to make sure we stabilize the area.

It seems to me this is absolutely the best plan than fiddling around and adopting a resolution that says, no, we don't need 21,000 more troops. Some of the same people who said earlier this year and last year that we need more troops now are saying no, no, 21,000 more troops is not necessary. Whom are we going to believe, someone standing on the floor of the Senate or the commanding general who has responsibility for making sure that our troops accomplish their mission and they are safe? If he says we need those troops, I wish to vote for a resolution that says we need those troops. I wish to vote for a resolution that says we shouldn't cut off funding; we need to support our troops when they are in the field.

What is at stake in this resolution deserves a commitment that goes far

beyond what the political pundits and political operatives pontificate in Washington. I don't say all the people supporting this resolution have a desire to undercut our troops, to send the wrong message to our allies in the region or to encourage al-Qaida and Jaysh al-Mahdi. But, unfortunately, that is what this resolution can do.

I had the honor today of talking with the head of the intelligence agency of one of our allies in the region. I said: What message would it send to your country if we adopt a resolution saying the President can't send over more troops? He said: That would be very bad because we want to see peace and stability survive in Iraq. It is vitally important to the entire region, and we are prepared to help the coalition make sure stability is achieved. We want to make sure Iran doesn't take over that country, that chaos doesn't ensue, and we--and he was speaking for several of the countries in the region--we want to provide aid to help rebuild the economy so there will be a stable economy because a stable economy is one of the best ways to convince people they don't need to get 25 bucks from setting out an improvised explosive device along the roadside.

So we would be sending a bad message to our allies, and we would be sending a message of great hope to the people of al-Qaida.

That is not what we ought to be doing, Mr. President. What is at stake deserves a commitment that goes far beyond the political pundits. Those who call for an end to the war don't want to talk about the fact that the war in Iraq will not end but, in fact, will only grow more dangerous if we leave with that country in chaos.

So as we debate these resolutions, Congress's role in the Iraq policy is clear: Either Congress needs to exercise its constitutional powers of the purse and cut funding for the operations of the troops, which is madness, or get behind them. We shouldn't confirm General Petraeus and then say: Oh, but we don't support your plan. So if we are not using our power of the purse to cut off funds and force a hasty withdrawal, what are we doing? Are we telling 21,000 brave men and women who will be going to Iraq that we are uncomfortable with the dangerous mission you are about to undertake but not offering any alternative? I am sure our troops would find that encouraging.

Simply put, this may be a situation where there are good politics, but these good politics equal bad policy. Politics are trumping good policy.

A headline in today's Roll Call reads: ``Democrats to Launch PR Blitz on Iraq Vote.''

. . . Senate Democrats are launching a national public

relations campaign aimed at tying GOP moderates and

incumbents facing difficult 2008 re-election races to Bush in

the public's mind, Democratic leadership aides said Monday.

Is that what this is all about? Is that the politics? I think that is a very sad message.

What is at stake is so much bigger than politics, bigger than the 2008 election, and it is a real disservice to our troops to see our national security become a political election gamble.

I previously entered into the Record an article about 12 days ago by Robert Kagan, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund. He wrote a piece saying it is a grand delusion if we think we can walk away from Iraq and not solve it. He went on to say:

Democratic and Republican Members of Congress are looking

for a different kind of political solution: the solution to

their problems in presidential primaries and elections almost

2 years off.

This is coming, as he indicates in his article, just as American soldiers are finally beginning the hard job of establishing a measure of peace, security, and order in critical sections of Baghdad.

He goes on to say:

They have launched attacks on Sunni insurgent strongholds

and begun reining in Moqtada al-Sadr's militia.

And, finally, he concludes, and it is fitting advice for this body:

Politicians in both parties should realize that success in

this mission is in their interest, as well as the Nation's.

Here's a wild idea: Forget the political posturing, be

responsible, and provide the moral and material support our

forces need and expect.

Mr. President, I hope we will vote on resolutions that do that.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President it is both with deep gratitude and regret that I announce the retirement of my Academies Coordinator, Teresa Poole, from the public sector.

Teresa Poole, a distinguished U.S. Senate staffer, is set to retire from the political arena on January 31, 2007. This year has been a milestone, marking her thirtieth year of hard work and dedication to the Federal Government, the citizens of southwest Missouri, and most importantly the U.S. Senate offices of Danforth, Ashcroft, and Bond. We have come together to honor and congratulate Teresa on her devotion, team spirit, and the proficient skills she has provided the Springfield office over the past 30 years. Teresa is to be envied and admired by all in government for her service to the public, which she has done with a helpful heart.

In January 1977, Teresa Poole was member of the first U.S. Senate constituent service office in southwest Missouri for Senator Danforth. Little would Teresa know this would begin a remarkable 30-year trek with the U.S. Senate. With her incredible knowledge of the inner workings of government and her history with the U.S. Senate, Teresa has been a great source of information. She took pride in being able to guide effectively constituents, organizations, and coworkers through the complex infrastructure of government.

Among the numerous achievements that Teresa has attained over the years, her most remarkable was her enthusiastic commitment to the Military Academies. She has worked tirelessly to help students from across Missouri to achieve their dreams of becoming officers in the U.S. military by guiding them through the process required to gain a congressional nomination. Teresa has sifted through thousands of letters, applications, and grades, and made endless calls to hopeful applicants. All of this would be finally completed in December, only to start over the next year with new names, faces, and challenges.

Teresa Poole has shown unwavering loyalty and dedication to her job over the past 30 years. From the day to day routine of compiling local clips to answering the phone, Teresa has approached every task with hard work and a positive attitude. She has delighted everyone she meets with her love of antiques and finding good deals at various auctions and sales, her love of travel with her mother and daughter, her passion for her family and heritage, and her impeccable spirit. We commend her for a stunning and distinguished career with the U.S. Senate and wish Teresa the best in all her future endeavors.

Teresa, we have been honored to work with you for so many years. We will miss you and we wish you and your family the very best.

Mr. President, I assume we are proceeding as in morning business.

I thank the Chair. I would just say that like many Members on my side of the aisle, we pushed for a minimum wage bill last fall. Regrettably, it was filibustered, so we couldn't bring it to a vote. We are looking for and I intend to support a minimum wage bill if it has some reasonable tax incentives for small businesses that would be seriously harmed in some instances by the cost of a very drastic rise in the minimum wage. But I am hoping we will be allowed and not be prevented from adding those tax breaks that I think everybody needs.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about Iraq and Iraq- related issues. I had the opportunity this past weekend and the previous weekend to spend a good deal of time with the Missouri National Guard men and women in Missouri who do a great job in providing civil response to tremendous problems, whether it is floods or tornadoes or, in some instances, an ice storm that was devastating. Many of them have been to Iraq and Afghanistan and are going back, and they are proud of what they do. They know they are doing the job the military was assigned to do, and they are proud of it and we should support them.

Mr. President, it is noteworthy that I mention again my colleague and National Guard Caucus Cochair Senator Pat Leahy and I will reintroduce the National Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act later today.

This comprehensive legislation recognizes the paramount contributions that our citizen soldiers and airmen have made not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but all over the globe and particularly here at home.

The bill provides four central planks: the elevation of the Guard chief to the rank of general, a seat for the chief of the Guard Bureau on the Joint Chiefs of Staff; mandates that the Deputy NorthCom position be for an eligible National Guard officer; and it allows for the National Guard Bureau to identify and validate equipment requirements, particularly those unique to the Guard's homeland missions.

When we went after the terrorists in Afghanistan, the Guard was there. When we needed to establish order and stability in Iraq, the Guard was there. When Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated the Gulf Coast, the Guard was there. When a natural or man-made disaster strikes, the Governors call on the Guard, and the Guard is there. The next time America needs military forces overseas, the Guard will be there.

Unfortunately, when the Pentagon makes key decisions that impact the Guard, the Guard is still not there.

The need to empower the National Guard is not only still there but grows each day. We need to give the Guard more bureaucratic muscle, so that the force will not be continually pushed around in policy and budget debates within the Pentagon.

Time and time again, the National Guard has had to rely on the Congress, not its total force partners in the active duty, to provide and equip fully the resources it needs to fulfill its missions.

Our legislation will end this nonsense. We will put the National Guard on an equal footing with other decision makers responsible for national security and the transformation of the military forces.

As GEN Steve Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau put it, they need to be ``in the huddle'' at the Pentagon if they are to be in the game. This will ensure that the next time the 430,000 National Guard citizen-soldiers and airmen of the Guard are discussed at the senior levels of the Pentagon, the Guard will be there.

Additionally, I remind my colleagues that the Fiscal Year 2007 Military Construction and Quality of Life Appropriations bill was not passed into law. As a result, approximately $17 billion in new construction and BRAC projects authorized by the Congress in 2007 cannot proceed.

The military service chiefs have urged the Congress to pass this legislation

The projects funded by the Fiscal Year 2007 MILCON bill are necessary to sustain readiness and quality of life for U.S. service personnel. I also ask that letter from the Navy and Army Secretaries and Service Chiefs that raise concern about the risk by operating under a continuing resolution be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent that letters in support of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, one of the big questions that is being discussed today is what the President's plans are in Iraq and whether we should submit a resolution condemning the troop increases. I find it passing strange that many of the people pushing for a resolution to say we shouldn't send troops just adopted by a unanimous vote the confirmation of General Petraeus, who has said he believes he can do the job if he has the additional troops. He says the number is 21,000. Who are we to second-guess an experienced general who knows what the needs of his men and women in service are?

I have listened to many of the persuasive arguments on the other side about their concerns about the Iraq war. There are some who want to cut off completely our involvement--cut and run. They have an argument; they make a legitimate point. I hope we have a chance to vote on it because the intelligence community leaders from DNI to the military intelligence head to the CIA said cutting and running now would be a disaster resulting in chaos, in additional killing of Iraqi citizens, and giving the entire area over to al-Qaida and probably bringing in a region-wide conflict. So that is at

least a position that I understand how they take it, but I will fight very hard against it.

What I don't understand is the people who say they want to do several things: They want to see a change in policy in Iraq. They want to see more Iraqi responsibility. They want to change the rules of engagement so we can go after Shia death squads and there won't be any political restrictions on it. And they want to adopt the strategy of the Baker- Hamilton report. Many of these same people who are now urging the adoption of a resolution said we need to send more troops. Well, when you look at it, the President is sending some more troops for a new strategy which involves the Iraqi leadership, Prime Minister al-Maliki, the Shia, as well as the Sunni and Kurdish leaders. They are now fighting without limitations on the rules of engagement. Our additional forces will be there at the request of al-Maliki to help him stabilize the country. This is the last best chance. This is the chance to leave a stable Iraq which will not become a terrorist ground for al-Qaida.

Sunday, I had the opportunity to talk to Jim Baker, the lead name on the Baker-Hamilton report. I said: Jim, is the President's surge what you recommend militarily? He said yes. That is precisely what the Baker-Hamilton commission recommended. He also recommended additional diplomatic efforts. But in terms of the military effort, he said: This is what we recommended.

Now, how do we send troops over and then think maybe we can get some political cover back home by saying we don't really agree with it? I don't think that does anything of real significance. There are some things a resolution passed by this Congress expressing disapproval of the President's plan would do, and I think they are significant and serious.

No. 1, it would send a message to those we fight against--al-Qaida, the Baathists, Sunni insurgents--that we are not serious; we don't intend to support our men who are supporting the Iraqi military. It gives them cause to fight harder and stay longer.

No. 2, it sends a message to our friends whom Secretary Rice is trying to bring in to help rebuild the economy of Iraq and provide jobs for unemployed young Iraqis--essential if we want to win 80 percent of the battle against radical Islam, which is ideological. It would tell them: you probably better not put too much money on the Iraqis because the U.S. Congress is going to pull the plug and then it will descend into chaos and any dollars we invest will be gone.

Third, I would ask my colleagues to think about the message it sends to the troops who are there, to the troops who will be going there. They are over there fighting. They are risking their lives every day. They are willing to take on the fight because they believe it is an important fight. They believe it is a fight we can and we must win militarily. What message does it send to the families back home? I think you can guess what that answer is.

I saw a very interesting article in the Washington Post on Sunday. Robert Kagan at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and a Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund, has written a book. He said:

Grand Delusion: Politicians in Both Parties Act as if They

Can Make the War Go Away Soon. It Won't.

He warns about all we are doing when we have laid out a plan and reinforcements for the Iraqi troops. He said:

Back in Washington, however, Democratic and Republican

Members of Congress are looking for a different kind of

political solution: The solution to their problems in

presidential primaries and elections almost two years off.

Resolutions disapproving the troop increase have proliferated

on both sides of the aisle. Many of their proponents frankly,

even proudly, admit they are responding to current public

mood. Those who think they were elected sometimes to lead

rather than to follow seem to be in the minority.

And he goes on to say that those who call for an end to the war don't want to talk about the fact that the war in Iraq and in the region will not end but will only grow more dangerous if and when we walk away.

As I said, our intelligence community leaders, in open testimony a couple of weeks ago before the Senate Intelligence Committee, said if we walk away, leaving Iraq without an army and a security force adequate to sustain general order, peace and order in that country, not only will innocent Iraqis be slaughtered, there will be an open invitation for others to come in. How long can the Shias oppress the Sunnis without having the Jordanians and the Saudis and maybe the Egyptians come in to support them? We have already heard they would do that, to protect the Sunnis. And if the Sunni supporters came in, it would take about a New York minute for Iran to come in on behalf of the Shia. What kind of conflagration would ensue? It would take a lot more American troops to protect our ally Israel and to try to stop the killing.

In addition, we know that al-Qaida would have a safe haven. And al- Qaida is not mad because we are in Iraq; they just want to win in Iraq. Muqtada al-Sadr, the No. 2 man, has been very eloquent, and he has been backed up by his boss, Osama bin Laden, who says: We have to win. Al- Qaida needs to restore chaos to Iraq so they will have a safe haven in which to operate, train their suicide bombers, their jihadists, develop means of command and control once again, perhaps get weapons of mass destruction. Well, that is what happens if we walk away and leave Iraq in chaos.

Back to Robert Kagan's piece:

Some people assume that if we can get the troops withdrawn,

then it won't be a problem for all of our Senators running

for President in 2008. Should any one of them win, they think

by getting out of Iraq now, it won't be a problem.

Bob Kagan says that:

That is a delusion. Not only a democratic delusion, but

some conservatives and Republicans have thrown up their

hands. And they think that if we walk away, somehow the whole

mess will simply solve itself and fade away.

He said:

Talk about a fantasy. The fact is the United States cannot

escape the Iraq crisis or the Middle East crisis of which it

is a part and will not be able to escape it for years. And if

Iraq does collapse, it will not be the end of our problems,

but the beginning of a new and much bigger set of problems.

Well, Mr. President, I think that sets it up very well. I hope our colleagues will think about that. I hope they will consider that when they are talking about passing a resolution. It sends the wrong message to the enemies, to our allies, and to our troops and their families at home.

This war radical Islam has declared on us is a generational war, as the President said. We best be laying plans to do our best to protect our country from repeated attacks such as September 11 by al-Qaida. That is at stake. By being in Iraq, by having good intelligence at home, we have been fortunate to avoid another September 11 attack. If al-Qaida had planned and regrouped, we would be much more likely to have another.

I ask unanimous consent a copy of the article by Mr. Kagan be printed in the Record after my remarks on Iraq.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, yesterday, I had the pleasure of traveling to Lee's Summit, MO, to talk about the problem of health care. Right now, we know about 47 million Americans do not have health insurance. That is a huge burden for those families. It is a big problem for all of us as policymakers who need to be addressing this issue.

I went with the President and HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt. We toured the Saint Luke's Health System Hospital in Lee's Summit, which represents a very important next step in information technology for health care.

The information on patients coming in--from the diagnosis to the x rays--is all included on a basic computer format, which makes it available to any physician or nurse or other health care provider working with that patient. Even the radiologist does a description of what the x ray means, which is included by voice transcription directly into the program that is on the computer. It is linked through each room, so at a distance, for smaller rural hospitals, experts can do as thorough a diagnosis as they could in the room, with the exception they cannot physically put their hands on the patient.

But this has brought this hospital into a state where more and more hospitals want to go. We have the best technology. We have the best health care providers. We have the finest new medications, prescription drugs, that have dealt with many of the illnesses. But we have a much more expensive system because we have such quality care. The President has outlined a proposal on how we can incentivize Americans to buy insurance, keep health care costs under control, and maintain private control of health care decisions, leaving it in the hands of the patients and the providers.

Well, I believe the President has said the best way to do that is through private health insurance. He says that is a debate we ought to have in Washington. We believe the private sector is the best delivery vehicle of health care. We know there is a role for the Federal Government, but it is not to dictate, it is not to be the decisionmaker.

As he suggested, I think it makes sense to look at the Tax Code as part of the solution to the problem. Right now, if you pay your own health insurance, you pay taxes on the entire cost. If you are an individual, you get no benefit from paying your health insurance. But if you have an employer who pays for your health insurance, either all or part of it, you get that tax free.

I think that creates a very unlevel playing field. The President's proposal would establish a more equitable system, one I hope this body will carefully consider through the HELP Committee--to look at it, look at the details, criticize it, change it, but at least give it a full hearing.

I was rather disappointed, yesterday, before we even went out, to see some leaders of the majority party saying, oh, it is dead on arrival. Well, we are in such need of having real solutions to health care, I suggest this is a serious proposal that warrants serious discussion. I do not know all the details of it. But I had an opportunity to ask questions of staffers. I listened intently as the program was presented to a number of small business owners and small business employees who were very excited about the prospect of getting a tax break at a minimum of maybe some $2,200 a year if they bought health care-- whatever minimum program their States would provide--if they were a single person, they would get $7,500 off of their tax bill; if they are a married couple, filing jointly, they would get $15,000.

Now, you may ask the question: Well, if they are low income and do not have to pay any income tax, where would the benefit come from? Well, by lowering their AGI, or the adjusted gross income, they would not be subject to Social Security and Medicare costs. So at the $15,000 level, that would exempt $15,000 from payroll taxes for FICA and Medicare.

So they were very encouraged that they would, for the first time, be able to afford health care. The small business owners were anxious to provide it for their employees or see their employees have access to it.

There are lots of questions about how it works. But from what I understood, you have to determine what is it you have to buy to qualify. I think at this point the thinking is that the States would determine what that base program is. It would obviously have to have some kind of catastrophic care.

It is my hope that it would also include preventive care to make sure people stay healthy. It is particularly important for children. We are going to be renewing the SCHIP program to make sure children in poor families have that kind of coverage. The best investment we can make in the future is assuring that our youngest citizens get off to a good start with good health care, identifying potential problems and treating them early and getting them off to a start in their education, giving them the opportunity to begin life with good health. And a good education is No. 1. SCHIP would be available for the children of families who

are at the bottom of the income ladder. But for all children, I hope they will be buying a health plan that focuses on preventive care, making sure people know what they have to do to stay healthy, and identifying problems before they become serious.

The States would be given flexibility to use additional funds which the Federal Government makes available to the States to implement their programs. Some States already have ways of assisting their lower income people, not the poorest but the lower income workers, providing the assistance for payments of premiums, if that is what the State wishes to do. So there is a lot of room for innovative programs at the State level.

The night before, the Governor of Missouri, Matt Blunt, offered another program, for example, and that is to say to all businesses: If you offer a health care plan to your employees that meets basic minimum State standards, you will be exempted from the franchise tax--a great boon to encourage Missouri businesses to offer all of their employees at least a basic health care plan. Proposals like that would be encouraged, and the great laboratories of the States could move forward to determine what kinds of things work best.

There was some question--I don't know where it came from--that this might cut back on our support of FQACs, federally qualified health centers, what we call community health centers. There is no truth to that. The President is a big supporter--as is, of course, his Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt--of making sure there are health care clinics available in every area of the country. They have been on a vigorous expansion program and intend to continue that. I have visited health care clinics, over 50 of them, in different parts of our State, from the center cities to the suburban areas to the larger communities in rural areas to the most economically challenged, lowest population areas of the State. Those are absolutely the most critical safety net we have. I believe strongly in them. I have worked with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to support them. They must continue to be there.

We are talking in this plan about using the Tax Code to make health insurance more available, but community health centers have the important challenge of making sure it is accessible. In many places, the only place you can find a doctor who will deliver babies is in a community health center or through a community health center, or find a dentist who will take care of dental problems. A shocking statistic we heard: 80 percent of 17-year-olds have serious dental problems in the United States. We have made dental care part of it. But these people who work in the community health centers are a vital part of our health care network.

The President's plan envisions strengthening that safety net. In addition, he remains committed to allowing small businesses to go together in pools to purchase health insurance and avoid the high premiums often charged to individual small businesses and the cost of administering those plans, which becomes extremely burdensome for many small businesses. I hope this year we can also pass association health plans.

Finally, the President spoke very forcefully about the need to continue the effort for medical malpractice reform. We saw the need for it in Missouri. Missouri passed a bill, and we started getting much better health care. In the western part of the State, until Missouri passed its medical malpractice reform, there were no doctors, outside of government hospitals, who could afford to be in the business of delivering babies. This is a problem which translates into higher costs of medicine because with unrestrained medical malpractice lawsuits being filed, there is a real danger that a great deal of time and effort will be wasted on unnecessary procedures for fear of the impact of a malpractice lawsuit. Many times, even the best doctors have maloutcomes. People don't live forever. We are all going to die from something. If there is a lawsuit filed against a doctor every time there is a bad outcome, they are going to be faced with insurance costs that go through the roof or health care that is not available.

I go back to the point that this is a concept, the outlines of which I think I know but which I think deserve a fair hearing. I hope that as we take a look at the many challenges facing us, our HELP Committee and our Finance Committee will look at the President's program to determine whether it may be one way of assuring we get health care insurance to many of the 47 million Americans who don't have it. I urge that they do so. I am sure there will be changes all of us would like to make, but I believe the concept merits a hearing. I urge my colleagues to give it that chance.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise to talk about a portion of the President's address last night that I think is extremely important. I have heard from many of my colleagues in this body and on the talk shows that there are serious concerns about the war in Iraq. Primarily, they are saying we need to change our strategy; we shouldn't be involved in a civil war. We should be involving the Iraqis themselves in taking care of the civil war. We ought to be providing more--we ought to ensure the Iraqi Government cuts the Sunnis in on the oil revenues and makes them full economic partners. We need to bring in the friendly neighbors in the region, those countries that want to see a peaceful and stable Iraq, and we ought to be following the Baker- Hamilton report.

As I listened to the President's speech last night, that is precisely what he did. This is a new strategy we have in Iraq. We have heard in our open Intelligence Committee hearings that now, for the first time, we believe Prime Minister al-Maliki and his Sunni and Kurdish fellow elected leaders believe they can take over and restore order in that country, and they are willing to crack down on the Shia death squads, such as Muqtada al-Sadr. We have seen reports of that in the media. They report that the neighboring countries are willing now to come in and help with reconstruction, provide job opportunities for young unemployed men to keep them from becoming insurgents or terrorists, and this, they say, is our best chance.

Frankly, for Prime Minister al-Maliki and his government, this is probably their last chance. This is an opportunity where al-Maliki said: If you will provide some additional support as we go in, get our troops up to speed and clear and hold Baghdad, we will take over the country.

That is what we need to do to bring a successful conclusion to this war and to draw out our military. We are probably going to have our military in the region for a long time because, as the President said, this is a generational war against radical Islam and the terror they bring.

I wanted to just briefly note a comment. Last night we heard that the military is against the war. Well, there may be some in the military who are against the war, but I can tell my colleagues, I have spent a lot of time listening to Missouri soldiers and marines, people who have been on the ground. I have gotten reports from them continually. I have seen newspaper reports about the people who have come back, the soldiers who have come back.

For example, one woman has written a book. She served with the Army's 101st Airborne. She lost her husband in the war. She says:

It is hard to stay positive about Iraq because of what you

see on the news. But I was able to be there and I know what a

difference we are making there.

Others, such as 1SG Stephanie Leonard, was moved to tears, saying that they are heroes for helping the Iraqi people. She said:

It is not a 24-hour war. We want things to be in a hurry.

As soon as the Iraqi police are able to secure their own

country, that is when the window begins to open.

These are just some of the many comments I have seen in print in Missouri and heard people express. They want to see us win. They know they are doing the job. They believe the liberal national media has painted a very unflattering and untrue picture, and that is why our troops think they are not getting a fair shake.

But in that context, in the context of what the President did, let's talk about

the resolutions which are being discussed. If the President is on the track to respond to all of the ideas about how we ought to change our direction in Iraq--and I believe he is--what will the resolutions do?

Well, proponents of the resolutions say they want to support the troops, but the resolutions don't do that. Clearly, I believe there is an agreement now that we are not going to try to use the congressional power of the purse to cut off funding and force an immediate withdrawal from Iraq because that would be madness. The Director of National Intelligence told our committee:

Precipitous withdrawal could lead to a collapse of the

government of that country and a collapse of their security

forces because we simply don't think they are ready to take

over, to assume full control of their fiscal

responsibilities.

To simply withdraw now would have catastrophic effects, and that is a quite widely held view inside of Iraq itself. If we were to cut off funds, the CIA Director said it would lead, No. 1, to increased killing of Iraqi civilians.

No. 2, the establishment by al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden of the base of operations for their war to establish a worldwide caliphate beginning in the Middle East, taking over the areas of Iraq which would be out of control and would bring people in from other countries in a possible civil war.

If we remember, that is what happened in Vietnam. When Congress cut off the purse, we saw our allies slaughtered in Vietnam, and some 2 to 2.5 million people in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam were killed. A possible slaughter of people in the Middle East who have supported us would ensue.

General Maples, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told our committee 2 weeks ago:

. . . A failure in Iraq would empower the jihadist

movement. It would give that base of operations from which

the jihadist movement would extend. And it's consistent with

the goals of Al Qaida in Iraq to establish that Islamic

state, and then to expand it into the caliphate. I also think

that there, of course, will be very significant regional

impacts both in terms of stability to other countries--

I ask unanimous consent to speak an additional 4 minutes.

I ask for 4 additional minutes.

General Maples also told the Senate Intelligence Committee that a withdrawal from Iraq could leave Iraq's vast oil reserves in the hands of jihadists. We can imagine what trouble that would lead to.

If we are not using our power to cut off the funds and force a hasty withdrawal, what are we doing? Are we telling the 21,000 brave men and women who are going to Iraq we are uncomfortable with the dangerous mission they are about to undertake but not offering any alternative? I am sure they will find that very encouraging. They will be delighted to know we don't like what they are doing but they will have to do it anyhow.

If the goal of the resolution is to let the American people know we are uncomfortable with the situation in Iraq, I guess that makes for good politics. But, personally, I think it is wrong and irresponsible. It is irresponsible because if we approve this resolution, the whole world will be listening, including the worst actors in Iraq. We will be telling the Sunni terror cells and the Shia militias that America's political will is wavering.

If the members of al-Qaida in Iraq are finding themselves discouraged by the United States military's relentless pursuit, I am sure they will take comfort from these political gestures. If the Iraqis who support and encourage the Shia death squads are feeling the heat of United States-led and supported operations and are contemplating a compromise that might bring sectarian killing to an end, I am sure they will take comfort from the political gesture to hold on a little longer.

One of the keys to a successful counterinsurgency campaign is to wear down the enemy's resolve. This resolution will do the opposite. It will encourage Sunni terrorists and Shia death squads, letting them know if they hang on longer, the United States will not have the political will to outlast them.

One of the ironies of the resolution is that it condemns a recommendation that comes from a group the Senate requested in legislation. The Iraq Study Group's report recommended that the Iraqi government:

. . . accelerate assuming responsibility for Iraqi

security by increasing the number and quality of Iraqi Army

brigades. While this process is underway, and to facilitate

it, the United States should significantly increase the

number of U.S. military personnel, including combat troops,

imbedded in and supporting Iraqi Army units. As these actions

proceed, U.S. combat forces could begin to move out of Iraq.

So let me make sure I have this right. The Senate demanded the legislation. The Iraq Study Group put together recommendations. The study group came forward and made recommendations and the President had the temerity to accept some of them, and now we are going to vote out a resolution condemning them for accepting those recommendations?

General Petraeus said this week to the Committee on Armed Services that he needs the 21,000 troops to get the job done. Are we telling him we don't think we should have those troops?

I have to confess, even as a Senator, I can't tell you exactly what we are trying to say in these resolutions. Are we expressing concern and discomfort with the situation in Iraq? I can't imagine how that would help. But more importantly, I can imagine lots of ways in which it will not help.

Look at the confusion within our Government in 1993 when the military had concerns about congressional intentions over our involvement in Somalia and how they prevented a request for armor that could have saved the lives of American soldiers. It is not a perfect analogy, of course, but I think it offers an important warning of the danger of mixed message like the one we will send with this resolution.

Our commander on the ground in Somalia in 1993, General Montgomery, requested a small unit of tanks and armored vehicles, as a quick reaction force in case our troops got bogged down or surrounded in the dense urban sprawl of Mogadishu, as they eventually did.

Les Aspin, the Secretary of Defense at the time, denied the commander's request. He told the Senate Armed Services Committee that ``Congressional concerns about U.S. military involvement in Somalia were a factor in his decision to deny General Montgomery's request for armor.''

General Montgomery also told the Armed Services Committee that he would have used that armor in October 1993 ``Blackhawk Down'' incident to rescue our troops who were bogged down in urban combat with Somali militia men. General Montgomery said that if he had that armor, ``we would have gotten there faster. We would have taken fewer casualties.''

My fear is that, in addition to the message this resolution will send to our enemies about our lack of resolve, it will also send a wrong and confusing message to our military commanders.

Just like we did in Somalia in 1993, we are pretty much saying that while the President should not pull our military out of Iraq, they shouldn't bother asking for what they need to get the job done and protect themselves while they are there.

General Petraeus raised this very same issue in his testimony this week in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said that he worried about what message this resolution. would send to his soldiers and himself.

If we are going to leave our troops in Iraq, as we should, we should also give them everything they need to protect themselves and get their job done. Just as importantly, we should not leave them with the mistaken impression that they shouldn't bother to ask for what they need.

Congress cannot, and should not micromanage the war in Iraq--the troops in the field like to call that the 8,000 mile screwdriver. If any Senator wants to propose legislation to compel a withdrawal from Iraq, so be it, and let's vote on the matter.

If not, let's stop trying to micromanage by resolution, suggestion and

gesture, put away the 8,000 mile screwdriver, and give the President's plan a chance to succeed.

The Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Tom Fingar, told the Senate Intelligence Committee this week that gains in stability in Iraq could open a window for gains in sectarian reconciliation. I agree, and we have to give the President's plan a chance to succeed if we want to open that window.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have two pertinent articles printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kansas, who made the point well that we cannot afford to lose in Iraq. I thought my colleagues, and maybe those who may be interested--if anybody is paying attention and watching the floor--may be interested to hear what the intelligence community said in public. It is rare we have public hearings in the Intelligence Committee, but once a year at least we have the worldwide threat hearing.

Last Thursday, we had that hearing and we spent about 5\1/2\ hours. It was very informative and mostly dealt with Iraq. Present were the Director of National Intelligence, Ambassador Negroponte; Director Hayden of the CIA; Director of the DIA General Maples; Mr. Foote from the State Department INR; and FBI Director Robert Mueller. Much of the questioning was about what is going on in Iraq. I think the consensus of the intelligence community was that while things have not gone well, the new commitment by Prime Minister Maliki and the rest of his Government--not just the Shia Prime Minister but the Kurds and the Sunnis--was to take over and take ownership of ending the insurgency in Iraq. That gave us the best hope of achieving a peaceful solution that would leave Iraq a stable country--not perfect by any means, with no guarantee of success, but this was the opportunity to get the three major elements in Iraq--the Shia, Sunnis, and the Kurds--to come together on what we believe will be and should be a long-term solution.

Frankly, one of the real problems we have had has been the reluctance of the Iraqi Government to let us go in and eliminate Shia militia, such as the Moqtada al-Sadr Mahdi army. This has been a serious problem. The American forces have been held back. Now it is our understanding--and the intelligence community believes what they have told the policymakers in the executive branch--that this is now the best chance, because they realize time is running out, that while our commitment was strong to Iraq, it is not an unending one, infinite.

They are going to have to take control if they don't want to see their country descend into chaos. So there was a lot of talk about the pros and cons of the policy the President announced to turn over the responsibility to the Iraqi military, for ending the insurgency in Baghdad, and to send our troops into the Al Anbar province to deal with radical Islamists, such as al-Qaida, who continue to stir up problems and who we believe were responsible for the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samara, which escalated the insurgency.

So I asked another question and the answers, I thought, were very telling. They were not covered in the media. I asked what if we decided now or within 2 or 3 months to withdraw and turn it over to the Iraqi Government, and the consensus was uniform and frightening.

Admiral Negroponte said:

And I think the view pretty much across the community is

that a precipitous withdrawal could lead to a collapse of the

government of that country, and a collapse of their security

forces, because we simply don't think that they are ready to

take over, to assume full control of their security

responsibilities.

We think that that is a goal that can be achieved on a

gradual basis and on a well-planned basis. But to simply

withdraw now, I think, could have catastrophic effects. And I

think that's a quite widely held view inside of Iraq itself.

Later, I went back and asked what it would mean in terms of the worldwide terrorist threat of al-Qaida. Director Negroponte responded:

I think in terms of al-Qaida's own planning, if you look at

the letter that Zawahiri wrote to Zarqawi last year about

establishing in Iraq a sort of beachhead for the expansion of

al-Qaida's ideology throughout the Islamic world,

establishing the caliphate, it would be the very sanctuary

for international terrorism that we are seeking to avoid.

In other words, the No. 2 man under Osama bin Laden, Zawahiri, wrote to the notorious, infamous butcher Zarqawi, who had beheaded Americans and others on television, to tell him to cool it; we are trying to establish a basis for al-Qaida to operate out of Iraq. This would be, in Zawahiri's and bin Laden's own words, establishing the range of the caliphate. What they mean by that is to establish a Taliban style of government, such as we saw in Afghanistan, on a regionwide and ultimately a global basis.

I asked General Maples about the impact of withdrawal, precipitous or immediate, or politically, a timetable withdrawal, determined by what we want in Washington, rather than what is available on the ground. He said:

. . . I believe that a failure in Iraq would empower the

jihadist movement. It would give that base of operations from

which the jihadist movement would expand. And it's consistent

with the goals of al-Qaida in Iraq to establish that

Islamic state, and then to expand it into the caliphate.

He went on to say there would be regional impacts and that there would be a tremendous economic impact. He cited hydrocarbons and, obviously, we know Iraq is very rich in oil reserves, and it would make oil reserves available to fund the activities of al-Qaida and the international radical Islamist terrorist movements. He also said it would have an impact on the world market on oil, driving up the power of oil. He concluded by saying it would give Iran the power to expand its evil empire, which President Ahmadi-Nejad is urgently trying to expand not only in the Middle East but throughout Latin America.

I think probably the best summary of the intelligence community estimates of the impact of the choices--and we are talking about choices--is there is nothing good in terms of choices. One option has been put forward by President Bush. I happen to believe it is the best available option to support the Iraqis who have committed to end the insurgency, to bring the Sunnis into a government that would share in the oil revenues and take responsibility for ending the insurgency, while our troops go after the external forces, the terrorists coming in from other countries and joining the al-Qaida movement.

I asked General Hayden to give me a concise statement of his view and the view of the intelligence community on the second option, which would be to

withdraw now, or to set a short timetable deadline in 2 or 3 months. I will read what he said:

Yes, sir, Senator. When I went before the Iraq Study Group,

I prefaced my remarks by saying I think I'll give a rather--

I'm going to be giving a rather somber assessment of the

situation in Iraq. But before I do that, I said, let me tell

you. If we leave under the current circumstances, everything

gets worse.

At that point, I commended him for being a master of understatement. He went on to say:

Three quick areas. More Iraqis die from the disorder inside

Iraq. Iraq becomes a safe haven, perhaps more dangerous than

the one al-Qaida had in Afghanistan. And finally, the

conflict in Iraq bleeds over into the neighborhood and

threatens serious regional instability.

I said, well, what would be the threat to the U.S. homeland? How does that affect us in Washington, in Rhode Island, Missouri, Kansas, New York, Los Angeles, and elsewhere? He said:

The immediate threat comes from providing al-Qaida that

which they are attempting to seek in several locations right

now, be it Somalia, the tribal area of Pakistan or Anbar

province--a safe haven to rival that which they had in

Afghanistan.

I have my views on this. This is the overwhelming consensus of the intelligence community. There are no great options, but the best option, they believe, is to provide American troops to support what the Government of Iraq has pledged to do, and that is to end the insurgency, to stop the Shia death squads, to cut the Sunnis in on a fair share of the Government, and take responsibility not only for clearing but for controlling the areas in Baghdad that have been the problem. So I think as we talk about the options available, it is vitally important that we listen to the intelligence community and their best assessments of what happens if we follow the President's plan or if we choose a course of continuing to do what we have been doing, without assisting the Iraqis to take control of their Government, or if we cut and run.

I ask unanimous consent that the transcripts which I cited be printed in the Record.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, first, I rise today to pay tribute to a much loved sportsman, businessman, civic leader, and family man, Lamar Hunt, best known as founder and owner of the Kansas City Chiefs, who, regrettably, passed away on December 13 of complications related to prostate cancer. Some might be surprised to learn that Kansas City was Lamar Hunt's adopted town, not his hometown. Born in Arkansas and raised in Texas, Lamar began his journey to Kansas City in 1959, when the National Football League unwisely turned down his request for a new franchise in Dallas. If you can't join 'em, beat 'em, to turn a cliche on its head.

Shut out of the NFL, Lamar Hunt decided to create another football league. He found seven other men as passionate about football as he was, and together they created the American Football League, the AFL. At the time, theirs was considered a risky venture. They called themselves ``the foolish club'' and located their teams in Midwestern and Southern cities, places without a history of professional football.

It has been said that leaders are visionaries with a poorly developed sense of fear and no concept of the odds against them. Lamar was such a leader and he fit that description.

He was certainly visionary. His leadership in creating and expanding the American Football League helped professional football gain a nationwide following before merging to become today's NFL.

I think he did understand the odds against him. He did not let them get in the way. He stuck with his plan for a new football league and succeeded. He first located his franchise in Dallas. In 1963, he moved the Dallas Texans to Kansas City, where they became the Chiefs.

Lamar Hunt coined the term ``Super Bowl'' and was on hand to see the Chiefs win Super Bowl IV. Unfortunately, our Chiefs have not won a Super Bowl since, but Lamar never gave up on his team and neither will we, the fans.

Lamar Hunt was a true entrepreneur, willing to take calculated risk on investments that would benefit the larger community. Since the 1960s, the Hunt family has been instrumental in the growth and development of Kansas City from a frontier town to a world-class city.

The Hunts have contributed to the Kansas City economy through Hunt Midwest Enterprises, which, among other ventures, developed Worlds of Fun and Oceans of Fun, two recreational theme parks that draw hundreds of thousands of visitors each year.

While he is best known for his love for professional football, Lamar Hunt was deeply involved in other sports. He was a part owner of the Chicago Bulls, he founded World Championship Tennis in 1969, and he spearheaded the development of soccer as a professional sport in the United States. He owned two Major League Soccer teams.

While successful, Hunt remained modest. He never thought of himself as a the Chief's owner. He preferred the term ``founder.''

As he told Joe Posnanski of the Kansas City Star:

To me, every Chief's fan has ownership in the team. They

are just as invested emotionally as I am. I was able to bring

the team to Kansas City, but it is Kansas City's team.

In fact, since Mr. Hunt's death, the Star has run several stories, including examples of his love for players, coaches, and fans as individuals. Hall of Fame linebacker Bobby Bell remembered him, saying:

He's a guy who never valet parked his car unless they

absolutely made him.

Chief's tight end Fred Arbanas recalled that Hunt, himself, served the team food and drinks and picked up trash on the plane to road games. He is said to have given the widow of an employee killed in a construction accident a book of blank checks bearing his signature.

Despite struggling with cancer for 8 years, Lamar kept a strenuous schedule right until the very end. The last time I saw him was in November, during the Governor's Cup game, where the Chiefs played against the St. Louis Rams in St. Louis. The Chief's pulled out a 31- to-7 win. At that game, his illness had necessitated a car for transportation, but it had not affected his good nature, his friendliness or his optimism for his beloved Chiefs.

In an era of rapid change and turnover in the sports world, Lamar Hunt stood apart. He remained owner of the Chiefs, or founder of the Chiefs, for more than 40 years, from 1963 until his death. He invested in the lives of people in his adopted town, and the benefits of those investments will be felt for generations to come.

More than 1,000 fans have signed the Kansas City Star's online guestbook for Lamar Hunt, praising him for his honesty and sincerity, his class and his countless contributions to the Chiefs, to football, and to Kansas City.

While his family and friends will miss Lamar very much, they can take heart in the tremendous legacy he left. I know his son Clark will continue to lead the Chiefs with the same love for the game and business sense his father had. We will always remember fondly Lamar Hunt.

Iraq

Mr. President, my colleagues and our staffs, people need to know about the worldwide threat hearing we had at an open session of the Intelligence Committee yesterday. In that hearing, we asked the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the CIA, the general in charge of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Mr. Fort of the State Department's INR, and Director Bob Mueller of the FBI what their assessment was of the situation in Iraq.

Very simply, they said that, while it is not certain by any means, they believe the leadership of Iraq has bought into the concept announced by the President as a result of his telephone call from Prime Minister Malaki that Iraq is going to take over the responsibility for quelling the insurgency, the sectarian violence, and they will devote their own resources, heavily, into Baghdad, with district units headed by generals, brigades in each area supported by American troops on a 3- to-1 ratio, Iraqi to American.

While this by no means is sure to work, and recent actions do not suggest it is a very strong bet, they believe it has apparently the best chance to succeed.

In addition, since there was another idea on the table, I asked what would happen if we withdrew immediately, or within a very short timetable of 2 to 3 months, and the Director of National Intelligence and the Director of the CIA, first, said a precipitous withdrawal would bring about a collapse of the Government; that al-Qaida would establish a beachhead and a sanctuary in Iraq for the purpose of promoting the worldwide caliphate that it supports. That was the Director of National Intelligence, who, also, was joined by the Director of the CIA, General Hayden, who said if we withdraw, it would empower the jihadists to gain a safe haven, which would have a tremendous impact on the region. There would be a tremendous impact because they could be in control of the oil-rich Iraqi resources, and it would further empower Iran.

In summary, he said three things very unfortunate would be likely to occur.

No. 1, more innocent Iraqi civilians would die in sectarian violence.

No. 2, there would be a safe haven for al-Qaida and its cooperating entities--a goal that has been stated by the leader of al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden, and his second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

And third, this would very likely bring about regionwide conflicts because with the Shia in control in Iraq in the current Government, with the numbers they have, Iran has shown a very great interest and has been too actively involved in Iraqi matters already. Iran and its Shias, if they came in and heaped great losses on the Sunnis, could expect that Sunni neighbors in the region would respond to the threats of the Iraqi Shia, as the Iranians, and the danger of a tremendous conflict throughout that region would occur.

So I appreciate the opportunity to address the Senate on these matters. I think all Senators need to know the seriousness of this issue, the reasons why I believe the President's option that he

announced the night before last is the best option.

Amendments Nos. 48, 49, 50, and 51, En Bloc, to amendment No. 3

Now, Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Coburn, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside in order to call up amendments Nos. 48 through 51 en bloc.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designating the new Federal Courthouse in Cape Girardeau, MO. as the Rush Hudson Limbaugh, Sr. United States Courthouse.

When people talk about the American Dream, the ``Spirit of America'' and the people who helped make this country great, all one really has to do is mention the name of the late Rush Hudson Limbaugh Sr.

Mr. Limbaugh led an extraordinary life in which he practiced law for almost 80 years until his death at age 104 in 1996. At the time of his death, Mr. Limbaugh was the Nation's oldest practicing lawyer and still came into work about twice a week at the law firm he founded over 50 years before in Cape Girardeau, MO.

Known by his peers as a superb trial lawyer with impeccable character and integrity, he was a beloved icon of the Missouri legal community, especially in Southeast Missouri where he lived all his life.

Born in 1891, on a small farm in rural Bollinger County, he was the youngest of eight children and attended school in a one room primary school house. It is said that a passion for the law first developed in Rush as a 10-year-old boy when a Daniel Webster Oration that he memorized inspired him to become a lawyer. Fourteen years later, he began a legal career that lasted eight decades. Throughout those 80 years, his interest in the law and his dedication to his clients never wavered.

Rush paid his way through college at the University of Missouri at Columbia by working on the university farm and doing odd jobs such as carpentry, firing up furnaces, caring for animals and waiting tables. While in college, his oratory skills won him awards which he later utilized with great success in the courtroom.

In 1914, he entered law school, and after two years, he skipped the third year and passed the Missouri Bar examination. In 1916, he was admitted into the Missouri Bar and his long distinguished legal career began in Cape Girardeau.

Over his career, Rush argued more than 60 cases in front of the Missouri Supreme Court along with many prominent civil cases. He was a specialist in probate law and helped draft the 1955 Probate Code of Missouri. He also tried cases before the Interstate Commerce Commission, the U.S. Labor Board and the Internal Revenue Appellate Division.

From 1955 through 1956, he was President of the Missouri Bar and later served as President of the State Historical Society of Missouri. In addition to this, Mr. Limbaugh was a leading member of numerous legal and civic organizations including the American Bar Association, the Missouri Bar Foundation, the Missouri Human Rights Commission, the Cape Girardeau Board of Education and the Salvation Army Advisory Board

However, Rush's contributions were not just limited to Missouri. In the late 1950's, Rush served as a U.S. State Department special envoy to India where he promoted American jurisprudence and constitutional government among lawyers, judges and university students in that newly formed country. And in the 1960's, he served as Chairman of the American Bar Association's special committee on the Bill of Rights.

Rush was truly an inspiration and mentor to many aspiring lawyers, especially the ones in his own family. His two sons, Rush Jr. and Steven, both practiced law with him for many years. His son, Steven N. Limbaugh, currently serves as a Senior Federal Judge in St. Louis. Four of his grandsons followed in his footsteps and pursued legal careers including his grandson Steven Jr. who is now a Missouri Supreme Court Justice.

Perhaps the best measure of Rush Hudson Limbaugh' legacy as a lawyer and as a human being comes from the praise and admiration of his peers in the legal community. ``A top notch all-around lawyer; the epitome of what a lawyer ought to be said one colleague. ``A legend in his time,'' said another.

However, his grandson Steven may have offered the best possible description of this great citizen: ``He was an extraordinary man, exemplary in every way, yet very humble. He was a lawyer's lawyer, a community servant and a gentle and kind man whose family was the very center of his life.''

It is only fitting that the new Federal courthouse in Cape Girardeau, Missouri be named after this great hero of American Jurisprudence.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designating the new Federal Courthouse in Cape Girardeau, MO. as the Rush Hudson Limbaugh, Sr. United States Courthouse.

When people talk about the American Dream, the ``Spirit of America'' and the people who helped make this country great, all one really has to do is mention the name of the late Rush Hudson Limbaugh Sr.

Mr. Limbaugh led an extraordinary life in which he practiced law for almost 80 years until his death at age 104 in 1996. At the time of his death, Mr. Limbaugh was the Nation's oldest practicing lawyer and still came into work about twice a week at the law firm he founded over 50 years before in Cape Girardeau, MO.

Known by his peers as a superb trial lawyer with impeccable character and integrity, he was a beloved icon of the Missouri legal community, especially in Southeast Missouri where he lived all his life.

Born in 1891, on a small farm in rural Bollinger County, he was the youngest of eight children and attended school in a one room primary school house. It is said that a passion for the law first developed in Rush as a 10-year-old boy when a Daniel Webster Oration that he memorized inspired him to become a lawyer. Fourteen years later, he began a legal career that lasted eight decades. Throughout those 80 years, his interest in the law and his dedication to his clients never wavered.

Rush paid his way through college at the University of Missouri at Columbia by working on the university farm and doing odd jobs such as carpentry, firing up furnaces, caring for animals and waiting tables. While in college, his oratory skills won him awards which he later utilized with great success in the courtroom.

In 1914, he entered law school, and after two years, he skipped the third year and passed the Missouri Bar examination. In 1916, he was admitted into the Missouri Bar and his long distinguished legal career began in Cape Girardeau.

Over his career, Rush argued more than 60 cases in front of the Missouri Supreme Court along with many prominent civil cases. He was a specialist in probate law and helped draft the 1955 Probate Code of Missouri. He also tried cases before the Interstate Commerce Commission, the U.S. Labor Board and the Internal Revenue Appellate Division.

From 1955 through 1956, he was President of the Missouri Bar and later served as President of the State Historical Society of Missouri. In addition to this, Mr. Limbaugh was a leading member of numerous legal and civic organizations including the American Bar Association, the Missouri Bar Foundation, the Missouri Human Rights Commission, the Cape Girardeau Board of Education and the Salvation Army Advisory Board

However, Rush's contributions were not just limited to Missouri. In the late 1950's, Rush served as a U.S. State Department special envoy to India where he promoted American jurisprudence and constitutional government among lawyers, judges and university students in that newly formed country. And in the 1960's, he served as Chairman of the American Bar Association's special committee on the Bill of Rights.

Rush was truly an inspiration and mentor to many aspiring lawyers, especially the ones in his own family. His two sons, Rush Jr. and Steven, both practiced law with him for many years. His son, Steven N. Limbaugh, currently serves as a Senior Federal Judge in St. Louis. Four of his grandsons followed in his footsteps and pursued legal careers including his grandson Steven Jr. who is now a Missouri Supreme Court Justice.

Perhaps the best measure of Rush Hudson Limbaugh' legacy as a lawyer and as a human being comes from the praise and admiration of his peers in the legal community. ``A top notch all-around lawyer; the epitome of what a lawyer ought to be said one colleague. ``A legend in his time,'' said another.

However, his grandson Steven may have offered the best possible description of this great citizen: ``He was an extraordinary man, exemplary in every way, yet very humble. He was a lawyer's lawyer, a community servant and a gentle and kind man whose family was the very center of his life.''

It is only fitting that the new Federal courthouse in Cape Girardeau, Missouri be named after this great hero of American Jurisprudence.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I rise on the floor to pay tribute to my very good friend and colleague, Senator Jim Talent, who will be leaving the Senate next month.

I have known Jim for over 20 years, since he was minority leader in the Missouri House of Representatives. Throughout all these years, when he was in the State legislature and in the House as chairman of the Small Business Committee when I was chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee, I found Jim to be unfailingly a man of honesty, integrity, and hard work. He has been a wonderful friend and colleague.

I am going to miss him very much, and many people in Missouri are.

We all know that Washington can change a person, but it hasn't changed Jim. Jim still has the same commonsense Missouri values he brought with him to Washington. He still has the same calm, polite demeanor. He still has strong convictions and a work ethic. As I said to our folks back home in Missouri, in an arena of show horses he has been a work horse.

I was with him on the night he got the news that he lost the campaign. He was a man of unfailingly good humor and courage. And still, he thanked his Lord, his friends, and graciously accepted his fate.

I have a feeling and hope that public service will see much more of Jim Talent somewhere, sometime. And whatever he decides to do in the public or in the private sector, the qualities he has

demonstrated to so many of us in the Senate will be one he will carry with him.

He served in the Senate for only 4 years, but when you look at his record of legislative achievements, he has had so many positive impacts on people's lives. It is hard to believe he could cram all of that into 4 years.

He has been a leader on national security, energy, and criminal justice.

As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Jim worked to extend production of the C-17 line, allowing 30,000 workers across the country to keep their jobs, and more importantly to give our military strategic lift capability which they need to move troops and equipment to very difficult to reach places.

Jim also cares about our troops in battle. He sponsored legislation to end predatory lending to active servicemembers and their families. The new law just took effect 6 weeks ago. Some of our soldiers were paying almost 400 percent interest on money loaned to them. Thanks to Jim Talent, the rates are now capped at 36 percent. I trust that applies to the Marines as well.

Last year, Jim worked very hard to include a renewable fuel provision in the Energy bill. On a bipartisan basis, under his leadership, the United States will produce up to 7\1/2\ billion gallons of renewable fuels with ethanol and biodiesel. That will be implemented by 2012.

Jim's work in this area will only become more important as we see in the future America continuing to face high energy costs and our attempt to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Another accomplishment Jim will be known for is something which is extremely important in our State of Missouri, and this work--again on a bipartisan basis with the Senator from California--was to fight meth. Meth is a drug that has been destroying lives and communities across our State for many years and now even across the country.

The Combat Meth Act has helped stop the supply of meth ingredients to dealers through the ban on over-the-counter sales. You see a significant reduction in meth lab busts. It shows that we are finally beginning to make progress against this drug.

Obviously, I have to mention his other bipartisan successes, such as the sickle cell disease bill and the Emmett Till bill.

On a narrow focus, Jim and I have worked together on many transportation and economic development projects to serve our State of Missouri, including the Liberty Memorial in Kansas City, the Page Avenue Extension in St. Charles, and countless others throughout the State.

I should also mention that my friend Jim Talent has put forward some terrific proposals that he has been working on that have been enacted. His effort to allow small business employers to pool together to form association health plans comes to mind, and those of us who have been working to change the law so that small business employees and their families will have access to the same kind of insurance benefits that employees of major corporations have will not give up the fight. We are going to continue with his great leadership in mind.

I am sure the next Congress will follow up. This idea should be central to any discussion of expanding health care coverage to the uninsured.

Jim, as we prepare to say goodbye to you now from this floor, thank you for your years of devoted service to our State, to our Nation. With heartfelt gratitude, on behalf of my wife Linda and I, we wish you, Brenda, and your children the very best in future endeavors. And I know for a fact that there will be great successes ahead.

I yield the floor.

Appropriate Level of Military Funding

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman. Let me summarize by saying I visited Delhi in March right after the President had signed the historic agreements. I walked into a meeting of distinguished Indian officials asking if we could possibly confirm this treaty, this agreement.

I knew nothing about it, so I did a tremendous amount of quick work with our agency to check out what the dangers might be. They came back and they told me India was the one most least likely to engage in nuclear proliferation. They saw this as a tremendous opportunity for us to improve on our relations with a country that had for too long been in the Soviet/Russian sphere.

We have an opportunity to help them. They are a growing country. They have many needs. Civil nuclear power is the one most important thing they need because of their tremendous pollution problems. This enables us to help them reduce pollution. Not only are we interested in nuclear nonproliferation, we are interested in pollution nonproliferation. This moves us forward.

Beyond that, securing a close relationship with India is one of our most important steps toward developing a peaceful environment and prosperity in south Asia. This opportunity cannot be wasted.

This particular amendment, as has been stated, which is well- intentioned and reflects understandable concerns, is, nevertheless, a poison pill. Many countries have relations with Iran. We do not like them. But many of those countries with which we have good working relationships don't like our relations with Israel. We are not going to change our relations with Israel. We are not going to stop helping them. But we are going to continue to work with those countries.

As the Senator from Delaware has pointed out, we have relations with Pakistan and there are lots of questions about that. If we want to work with the Indians and develop a good relationship so they will not deal with Iran, the best thing we can do is to defeat these poison pill amendments and confirm the treaty so we will bring India and the United States together.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendments and to support the treaty.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 10 minutes from Senator Warner's side on the bill.

Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to talk generally about the bill. I have already spoken about the importance of not affording habeas corpus to the unlawful combatants when they have more protections than international law requires, or than any other country provides.

Speaking on the bill, for the last 5 years, our most important job has been to protect our families from another terrorist attack.

Our children, our mothers, fathers, grandparents, and grandchildren-- none of them deserved to die in the 9/11 attacks; none deserve to die in another terrorist attack. That is why we are doing everything we can to protect our families by stopping terrorists, capturing them, learning their secrets, foiling their plots, and bringing the terrorists to justice.

Through our hard work, there has not been another direct attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. We have worked hard to prevent and stop attacks in the last 5 years and must continue to prevent future attacks. We dramatically boosted airport and airline security. We hired new airport screeners, implemented new checks, and even put armed agents on flights where necessary.

We added thousands of new FBI agents, thousands of new intelligence officers, and increased their budgets by billions to provide new armies against terrorism.

We passed the PATRIOT Act to provide the tools needed to discover terrorist plots and stop them. We reorganized our intelligence agencies to bring a single focus and purpose against terrorism.

We tore down the walls between law enforcement and intelligence to get terror planning and plot information to authorities as quick as possible.

All of this is going on as I speak, as we sleep at night, as our children go to school, we are fighting the war on terrorism.

The President recently highlighted some of the successes we have had because of our terror fighting tools and efforts. He recounted how we have captured terrorists, used new tools to learn their secrets, captured additional terrorists, connected the dots of their conspiracies, and foiled their terror attack plans.

But now some want to tie the hands of our terror fighters, they want to take away the tools we use to fight terror--handcuff us, hamper us-- in our fight to protect our families.

It's not new, really. Partisans have slowed our efforts to fight terror every step of the way.

Many on the other side voted against the PATRIOT Act.

Many blocked reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act for months. The Democrat Leader actually boasted, ``We killed the PATRIOT Act.''

Thank Heavens that wasn't true. Now, I know that they all love our country. They are not unpatriotic. They just don't understand the terrorist enemies we face.

These critics are not willing to do what is necessary to protect fully our families from terrorists.

You don't have to take my word for it, just look at their record over the last 5 years. Whether or not you would say terror war critics have a weak record on terror, they have certainly tried to block, slow down, and take away our terror fighting tools.

Some congressional Democrats voted to cut and run from Iraq. Nothing would embolden terrorists more than to see the U.S. turn tail and run home.

Osama bin Laden cited America quitting Somalia, and failing to respond to the U.S.S. Cole bombing, as signs of U.S. weakness and vulnerability. We all know what happened later.

Democrats in the Senate have blocked the appointment of senior anti- terror officials. The 9/11 commission report recommended better coordination between law enforcement and intelligence officials. Only last week did Democrats stop blocking the appointment of the senior Justice Department official for National Security.

Partisans readily spread classified information leaked to the public or the media. They call news conferences to highlight cherry-picked intelligence information, or quote newspaper articles betraying our Nation's secret terror fighting programs. Don't they think this encourages the enemy or demoralizes our troops or allies?

Some propose to handcuff our ability to discover terrorist plots. They propose to make it hard to listen in on a potential terrorist calling from a foreign country, or to a foreign country to discuss terror plans.

If al-Qaida calls in, we ought to be listening. That is authorized under the Constitution. The Constitution clearly gives the President the power to intercept phone calls under the foreign intelligence exception in the amendment.

In my meetings with intelligence officials both abroad and here at home I have heard repeatedly how the disclosure, not only of classified information, but also of our interrogation techniques, are extremely damaging.

Our personnel have encountered enemy combatants trained to resist disclosed interrogation techniques thanks to leakers in our media.

If we lay out precisely the techniques that will be used and we print them in the Federal Register, they will be in an al-Qaida training manual within 48 hours.

I'm pleased that with the current Military Commissions legislation moving forward, we have clarified our strict adherence to standards that forbid torture in any way, shape or form and we are allowing our CIA to move forward with a humane interrogation program whose techniques will not be published in the Federal Register, or even worse, in another newspaper disclosure.

Critics support trial procedures that would give terrorists secret intelligence information.

Why on Earth would we hand over classified evidence and information to terrorists so that information could be used against us in the future?

Remember the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? The prosecution of terror suspects there involved giving over 200 names of terror suspects to the attorneys representing the terrorists. They gave them that in a trial, and some months later, after an investigation of the bombings in Africa, we captured the al-Qaida documents which had all of that information that had been given to the attorneys. So once you give it to a detainee or the detainee's attorney, you can count on it getting out.

One other thing is important. Some would propose exposing our terror fighters to legal liability. They oppose giving our terror fighters certainty and clarity in how to go about their jobs. They leave them vulnerable to prosecution and handcuff their efforts and leave the rest of us vulnerable to terror plots that went undiscovered.

Right now, these people are worried and they are buying insurance. People who are trying to carry out the very important intelligence missions of the United States, if they ask any questions, or if they don't give them four square meals a day and keep them in a comfortable motel, they are afraid they are going to get sued. We need to give protection to the people who are operating within the law as we are laying it out to make sure they don't cross over the line.

The problem we have is that if the critics take away the valuable tools we have in breaking apart terror plots, we are going to be significantly less safe. As the President said, the CIA interrogation program has already succeeded in breaking apart terror conspiracies and preventing several terror attacks. Critics within the program are preventing us from punishing terrorists and gaining valuable information that could prevent future attacks.

One thing I, along with the President and my Republican colleagues, share with the war critics is a strong opposition to torture. It is abhorrent, evil, and has no place in the world. What I oppose is how terror war critics would go soft on terror suspects, allowing them comforts they surely don't deserve.

Critics are being tough on targets. Terrorists argue that we should treat them like prisoners of war under the

Geneva Conventions. Article 72 of the Geneva Conventions on treatment of prisoners of war says POWs shall be allowed to receive parcels containing foodstuffs. Is that what critics think the 9/11 Commission conspirators deserve? Cookie care packages?

Article 71 says POWs shall be allowed to send and receive letters and cards. Is that what opponents of the bill believe people who conspire to cut off our heads deserve--letters from home? ``Mail call Ramzi bin al-Shibh.''

Article 60 requires us to grant all POWs monthly advances of pay. It even says how much: below sergeant, 8 Swiss francs; officers, 50 Swiss francs; generals, 75 Swiss francs.

Do the critics think Khalid Sheik Mohammed deserves 50 Swiss francs or 75?

Critics of being tough on terrorists say that we should adhere to international standards of decency. Where was the decency when international troops withdrew without a fight from Srebenica, Bosnia allowing the genocide of its men and boys?

Where was the decency when the U.N. allowed Sudan, guilty of genocide in Darfur, to serve on the Human Rights Commission, and allowed Cuba to help monitor international human rights? This was neither moral nor decent.

Some say that the tough treatment we are debating will lead to bad treatment of America's soldiers in the future. That is a close cousin to the argument that if we leave the terrorists alone they will stop attacking us, or that America made them do it.

Do we need a reminder of how badly they are already treating us? The Wall Street Journal reporter kidnapped by terrorists, Daniel Pearl, had his head cut off long before the criminal acts of Abu Grahib or news of the CIA prisons.

The charred bodies of our Special Forces dragged through the streets of Mogadishu tell us what the vague standards of the Geneva Convention got us.

As I said before, I support a torture ban. I also support provisions that clearly ban cruel, inhuman treatment or intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury. These are serious felonies, as they should be. But what we cannot do is give up tough treatment short of this that protects our families from attack.

What do critics think would happen if we went soft on terrorists? Would they be satisfied with only name, rank and serial number? Would they have us say to our terror suspects, ``Oh gosh darn, I was so hoping you would willingly tell us your terror plots. Oh well, here's your 50 Swiss franc advance pay, don't eat too much from your cookie care package, we've scheduled a dentist appointment for you for Tuesday.''

Of course not, that would be absurd to think that terrorists will willingly tell us their plots. Terror war critics have been watching too many Law and Order TV shows if they think some hokey good cop--bad cop law enforcement approach will work on al-Qaida.

These people flew airplanes into buildings for heaven's sake, or should I say for hell's sake.

America must fight with honor. We must fight from the moral high ground.

But do not tell me we lack a moral basis for our fight against terror. Show me someone who doubts America's moral basis in this fight against terror and I will show you someone who has lost their own moral compass.

The compass of America's future points to this bill. We live in an age where we must fight terror. To win, we must fight tough in that fight against terror. We must give our terror fighters the tools they need and the protections they require to protect our families from terror.

We cannot fall into the traps our terror war critics suggest: handcuffing our law enforcement and intelligence agents, blocking our terror fighting leadership, releasing and spreading our terror war secrets, giving terror suspects our terror fighting methods and techniques, granting terrorists overly-comfortable protections, going soft on terrorists who hold the secrets of their plots, their attacks.

Our agents deserve better, our soldiers deserve better, our families deserve better.

To start where I began, this is what all our efforts are about. Protecting our vulnerable families. Protecting our children, protecting our mothers and fathers, protecting grandparents and grandchildren. None of the vulnerable it protects deserved to die in the 9/11 attacks, and none deserve to die again in another terrorist attack.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill for yielding me 5 minutes.

There is no question that this bill, this military commissions bill, is absolutely essential if we are going to continue to have good intelligence and move forward with the program of interrogating and containing detainees in an appropriate manner that will maintain our standing, our honor, and puts tighter control on the United States than other countries do on their unlawful combatants.

I respectfully suggest that the Rockefeller amendment is not only unnecessary, but the simple fact is, the unintended effect is it would complicate the passage of this important military commissions bill. It would either delay or perhaps even derail this bill, which is absolutely essential if we are to get our CIA agents back in the field doing appropriately limited interrogation techniques to find out what attacks are planned against the United States.

The President has pointed out, the interrogation is the thing that has uncovered plots that could have been very serious. We need to have our CIA professionals under carefully controlled

circumstances doing the interrogation that gets the information.

As to the question about whether this is about oversight, well, our committee should be all about oversight. We need to be looking at these things. We need to be looking every day at what the agencies are doing, what the intelligence community is doing. But as I have said here on the floor before, unfortunately, for the last 4 years, we have been looking in the rearview mirror. It has been our fault, not the fault of the agencies, that we have not done enough oversight because when we spent 2 years in the Phase I investigation, we found out the intelligence was flawed, the intelligence was inadequate because our intelligence assets were cut 20 percent in the 1990s. We had no human intel on the ground.

But, most of all, there was no pressure, no coercion by administration officials of the intelligence agencies, and there was no misrepresentation of the findings of the intelligence community--same intelligence that we in the Congress relied upon in supporting the decision to go to war against the hotbed of terrorism, Iraq.

Now, I do not take issue with that first phase. But Phase II has cost us another 2 years, and we have not learned anything more than we learned in the first phase and with the WMD and the 9/11 Commission.

If we would get back to looking out the front windshield, instead of looking in the rearview mirror, we should be doing precisely this kind of interrogation in the oversight committee. And I take no issue with many of the questions the Senator from West Virginia raises. As a matter of fact, I probably would have some of my own. But I do question the need for a very lengthy, detailed report every 3 months. If you read all of the requirements, this is a paperwork nightmare. They are going to have to comply and tell us how they are going to comply, and we are going to oversee them.

I believe putting out this lengthy report gets us nowhere. Frankly, if our past experience is any guide, we will probably see those reports leaked to the press because reports have a way, regrettably, of being leaked and being disclosed.

I think there is one big problem with the Rockefeller amendment. In the amendment, he requires every 3 months the Attorney General--any time there are any new interrogation techniques, the Attorney General shall submit an unclassified certification whether or not each approved interrogation technique complies with the Constitution of the United States, applicable treaty statutes, Executive orders, relations, and an explanation of why it complies.

Mr. President, what we would just order in this amendment is to spread out for the world--and especially for al-Qaida and its related organizations--precisely what interrogation techniques are going to be used. Let me tell you something. I visited with intelligence agents around the world, some of whom have been in on the most sensitive interrogations we have had. I have asked them about that, and they have explained to me how they interrogate people. These interrogations I have learned about comply--even though they were before the passage of this law--with the detainee treatment law. They do comply, and I think they are appropriate. The important thing, they say, is that what the terrorists don't know is most important. They don't know how they are going to be questioned or what is going to happen to them. The uncertainty is the thing that gets them to talk. If we lay out, in an unclassified version, a description of the techniques by the Attorney General, that description will be in al-Qaida and Hezbollah and all of the other terrorist organizations' playbook. They will train their assets that: This is what you must be expected to do, and Allah wants you to resist these techniques.

Yes, I am happy to.

Mr. President, we are passing this bill so that we can detain people. If we catch someone like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, we have no way to hold him, no way to ask him the questions and get the information we need, because the uncertainty has brought the program to a close. It is vitally important to our security, and unfortunately the Rockefeller amendment would imperil it.

General Hayden promised to come before the committee, and I look forward, in our oversight responsibilities, to hearing how they are implementing this act.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor and recognize the immeasurable contribution Dr. James T. Cassidy has made to pediatric medicine in Missouri and across the United States.

Born in 1930 in Oil City, PA, Dr. Cassidy received his both undergraduate and medical education at the University of Michigan. He completed 2 years of active duty in the U.S. Navy and 7 years in the Naval Reserve. He returned to the University of Michigan to complete his residency in internal medicine and a rheumatology fellowship in the Rackham Arthritis Research Unit under the mentorship of Dr. Roseman and Dr. Johnson. He went on to the faculty in 1963 and worked his way up the ranks becoming professor of internal medicine and pediatrics in 1974. In 1984, he was recruited as professor and chair of pediatrics at Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha, NE. Four years later he came to the University of Missouri-Columbia as a professor in the Department of Child Health and Internal Medicine and chief of pediatric rheumatology. He became emeritus professor in 1996 and continued to staff his arthritis clinics until this year. In 1991, Dr. Cassidy published with Ross Petty, M.D., the first ``Textbook of Pediatric Rheumatology,'' a textbook now in its fifth edition which remains the foremost authority in the field both nationally and internationally. He has received many awards, including ACR Master and the ACR Distinguished Clinical Scholar Award from the American College of Rheumatology.

I am particularly proud of his work in Missouri. As a professor in the Department of Child Health and Internal Medicine at the University of Missouri-Columbia, Dr. Cassidy has inspired cutting-edge research and shared his limitless expertise in pediatric

rheumatology. Yet Dr. Cassidy has done more than just teach, write, and research. Through his efforts, the Missouri Department of Health established the Juvenile Arthritis Care Coordination Program in 1993 to help families obtain family-centered, community-based, coordinated care for children diagnosed with juvenile arthritis. His efforts did not stop there.

Realizing that there were children in Southern Missouri who were too poor or too sick to travel to Columbia to receive treatment, Dr. Cassidy and his wife Nan would get in their car every other week and drive to a small clinic in Springfield, MO, and see as many as 25 young children suffering from juvenile arthritis. It didn't matter that they couldn't pay, Dr. Cassidy insisted on finding a way to get the children the treatments they needed. As one doctor said, ``Dr. Cassidy will go to any length to help a child.''

Dr. Cassidy's support extended to his patients' families as well. ``He is an incredibly compassionate physician,'' said one mother, ``who ensures that each family understands how juvenile arthritis affects their child and what parents can do to help their child lead normal and healthy lives.'' Dr. Cassidy was instrumental in building a community of support across Missouri and the United States for families living with juvenile arthritis. In 1980, it was through the encouragement and support of Dr. Cassidy that a mother of one of his patients and two other mothers from other States formed the American Juvenile Arthritis Organization, AJAO, which eventually became a council of the Arthritis Foundation.

Dr. Cassidy was instrumental in organizing the first juvenile arthritis educational conference for parents, children, and health professionals held in 1983 which became an annual national conference. He felt education for families of children with arthritis was critical to their care and helped coordinate many Missouri regional conferences in St. Joseph, Kansas City, St. Louis, and Columbia.

Perhaps the best measure of Dr. Cassidy's legacy as a doctor comes from the praise and admiration of his patients. Twelve years ago, Dr. Cassidy began treating two young sisters who suffered debilitating pain from juvenile arthritis. Throughout the years he persistently encouraged them, to their chagrin, to wear braces and take their medicine. Recently, Dr. Cassidy received a letter from the girls. They are starting college as healthy, happy, young women--a circumstance virtually unthinkable when Dr. Cassidy began his career. They thanked him for supporting them and giving them the opportunity to live life as they never thought they could.

Dr. Cassidy has led an extraordinary life in which he has practiced, researched, and guided aspiring doctors for almost 50 years. He has improved the understanding and awareness of pediatric rheumatology and changed the lives of thousands of children. On behalf of the children and families in Missouri and across the country, is my pleasure and honor to commemorate the distinguished career of Dr. Cassidy, a true pioneer in the field of pediatric rheumatology.