Floor Statements

Mr. President, the amendment to give unlawful combatant habeas corpus rights to mirror U.S. domestic procedures is unnecessary and inappropriate.

The amendment is unnecessary because the U.S. is already giving enemy unlawful combatants more rights to question their continued incarceration than they are entitled to under international law.

Under Geneva Conventions Article 5, combatants captured during wartime are due a hearing to determine their lawful status only if such status is in doubt.

The United States goes beyond this requirement to give every combatant a status hearing, even when there is no doubt as to their status.

The U.S. gives combatants Combat Status Review Tribunal hearings, known as CSRTs, to determine their status and review the need for their continued incarceration.

If this were not enough, there is a review process under the Detainee Treatment Act, passed last year, to which detainees are also subjected.

There is no need for further review processes for these enemy combatant detainees. An enemy combatant detainee sounds a little sterile, but take a look at the name that is often referred to dealing with this. The Supreme Court case which brought about the need for this legislation deals with Hamdan. Let's be clear, Hamdan was Osama bin Laden's body guard and driver. This is the kind of person about whom we are talking. Giving unlawful enemy combatants such as these U.S. domestic habeas rights is inappropriate. These people are not U.S. citizens, arrested in the U.S. on some civil offense; they are, by definition, aliens engaged in or supporting terrorist hostilities against the U.S., and doing so in violation of the laws of the war.

Some may not have been around long enough to remember that the U.S. detained hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese soldiers, captured on World War II battlefields. We didn't give these enemy combatants access to U.S. domestic courts or habeas corpus rights. Not only would that have been absurd, it would have totally bogged down the legal system.

There has never been a legal question over the appropriateness of a separate military process for enemy combatants. We should not now start admitting them to the U.S. domestic legal process.

Current military review processes are more than adequate. Indeed, they exceed international standards. Granting enemy combatants additional U.S. domestic habeas corpus rights is unnecessary and inappropriate.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the valuable efforts of the Missouri National Guard, Missouri School Boards' Association, and National Guard Bureau as they have collaborated to support Missouri's prototypical satellite/wireless communications efforts. They have significantly contributed to our knowledge and experience in delivering interagency, interoperable communications capabilities relevant to both the Nation and Show Me state.

The Missouri School Boards' Association has closely collaborated with the National Guard to demonstrate that a limited amount of Federal funding can be leveraged to provide for the creation of interagency, interoperable, satellite/wireless, disaster response communications capability, creating reliable local, State and Federal communications infrastructure. This capability can support a number of initiatives, including first responder training, distance learning, telemedicine, and local law enforcement. It is significant to note that a critical component of this demonstration effort is to prove that various agencies can leverage common, shared infrastructure, which reduces sustainment costs and improves government efficiency. Every indication is that this model can successfully support information security and network defense requirements.

Since beginning the Missouri effort, much has already been learned. Lessons learned include: interagency interoperability offers an opportunity to transform how we communicate and for significant cost avoidance, including the reduction of annual recurring costs; impediments to interagency interoperability are not because the technology is unavailable or because security requirements cannot be addressed; and challenges and opportunities related to successful interagency communications interoperability exist at all local, State, and Federal Government levels.

The Missouri National Guard has validated the use of affordable satellite technology to create reliable, redundant disaster response network communications. The National Guard has leveraged existing resources and teamed with State and Federal agencies to confirm the reliability and capabilities of a planned network. Ongoing activities to support these efforts, resourced largely from federal FY05 funds, include defining the procurement process related to executing this effort; completing a foundational analysis, the development of ``white papers,'' to define the precise relevance of the effort; completing required Department of Defense accreditation of deployable communications capabilities; completing a national survey of communications requirements, capabilities, and existing shortfalls to confirm that there is a national need for this type of capability; providing deployable communications capabilities for testing/ validation. These capabilities will directly support the National Guard, as well as legitimize the concept that state government prior to and during times of emergency can leverage Guard equipment; and providing deployable communications capabilities to be shared with the Missouri School Boards' Association in order that the association, during nonemergency situations, can validate applications with schools.

With remaining Federal funds appropriated in fiscal year 2005, the Missouri School Boards' Association will also coordinate an effort to validate the ability to leverage emerging wireless technologies in a defined geographical area in Missouri. This demonstration will also validate the relevance of IPTV, Internet protocol television, with wireless technologies so that field-based educational opportunities can be transmitted ``live'' to school classrooms. From Federal fiscal year 2006 funds, the Missouri School Boards' Association will coordinate a wireless demonstration project in a second defined geographical area in Missouri. This project will incorporate lessons learned from the initial demonstration project in a defined geographical space.

Once again, I thank the Missouri National Guard, Missouri School Boards' Association, and National Guard Bureau for their work to support Missouri's prototypical satellite/wireless communications efforts. It is an outstanding example of collaboration.

I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for up to 8 minutes.

Mr. President, today we are speaking about security. The major topic of discussion has been, are we safer today? Well, we are safer because of the actions this administration and the Congress have taken, backed up by our brave Americans in the military, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies.

But recently, there has been another politically motivated selected leak of classified information. Regrettably, I am talking about the National Intelligence Estimate, a fraction of which was reported on in the New York Times and, I believe, misinterpreted.

Beside the fact that leaks of this nature, 6 weeks before elections, are clearly politically inspired, these leaks are also illegal and they make the job of our intelligence agency operatives even more difficult. For example, how can intelligence operatives report on the strengths and weaknesses of our allies when those conclusions will be spread on the record? Our policymakers need to know, but what good is it to tell the world what we think about the people we depend upon?

With that said, I have read the NIE in question. It is not what the paper

and some on the other side and the media say it is. Some of our Democratic colleagues would like Americans to believe that the document confirms what the Democrats believe--that the war in Iraq is simply a distraction from and has nothing to do with the war on terror, and that is the reason for the growth of radical Islam. This is simply a pitiful election year misinterpretation of a serious document.

It is clear that critics want Americans to have only a portion of the truth. That is unfortunate, but that is what happens when some people simply see intelligence matters as another tool to aid them in the fall elections.

As I said, I have seen the NIE, which is a lengthy 35-page document. It remains classified, so we cannot discuss its contents, although the President announced that some of it will soon be declassified.

Although it is a shame that dishonorable leakers have put us in this position, I believe declassifying the relevant portions of the document so that the American people will have a more balanced perspective on what the document truly says is necessary.

The fact is the war on Iraq is a central front in the struggle against radical Islamists. Our successes in Afghanistan and Iraq have made us much safer in our homeland. There have been no attacks since 9/ 11. We have destroyed their safe havens, interrogated detainees, tracked terrorist financing, and listened in on al-Qaida calls in the U.S., followed up by agency, law enforcement, and military personnel.

Iraq is not a distraction from the war on terror; it is now central to the war on terror. You don't have to take my word for it; that is the word of Osama bin Laden's primary deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri. He wrote this to the late head of al-Qaida in Iraq, Zarqawi. We intercepted that in a raid months ago. So their deputies echoed the sentiments.

They believe the war in Iraq is their best chance in the war on terror, and I believe that once you see more of the NIE, you will see it conveys that message with a warning that if we lose in Iraq, terror threats from radical Islamists will dramatically increase.

There is no greater motivation than success. If the radicals are able to claim success in Iraq, I believe we will see a geometric increase in radical recruitment as we have never seen before.

At first, Democrats argued that Iraq had nothing to do with the global war on terror. Now they are grasping at a selectively leaked portion of an NIE, claiming that Iraq is central to terrorism because of our efforts there. You cannot have it both ways. Does Iraq or does it not have something to do with the war on terror? It is clear it does.

Iraq supported terrorists before the war, and terrorists are there now. Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism and paid the families of suicide bombers. Was Iraq the primary backer of al-Qaida? No, but Saddam Hussein supported terrorism, and that is what this is about--all groups who use terror to attack America. And they must be dislodged.

In April, about the same time the NIE was produced, current CIA Director Michael Hayden, then the Deputy Director of National Intelligence, best summarized why Iraq is crucial to winning the global war on terror. In his speech in Texas, he addressed the subject we focus on today. He said that while the war in Iraq may inspire or motivate terrorists now, the failure of the terrorists in Iraq would weaken the movement elsewhere.

He continued saying that, should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, fewer fighters would step forward to carry the fight.

He went on to explain the terrorists' greatest vulnerability--the fact that the terrorists' ultimate goal of establishing an ultraconservative religious state spanning the Muslim world is unpopular with a vast majority of Muslims.

General Hayden stated that the emergence of a Muslim mainstream, such as the one we are building in Iraq, could emerge as the ``most powerful weapon in the war on terror.''

Whatever one believes about how we got where we are now, one thing is clear: The war in Iraq and the global war on terror are part and parcel of the same thing.

Some on the other side of the aisle, and some in the media, may try to use selected leaks and political spin and half truths to cynically win votes in the election, but their efforts grossly distort reality.

If we win in Iraq, moderate Islam wins and bin Laden and other extremists will have been handed a sound defeat that will have profound repercussions.

The terrorists realize this. That is why they are there, and that is why we are fighting them on their turf before they have the opportunity to regroup and assault us on our turf.

There is no way the United States can afford to let the terrorists have their way in Iraq. That means we cannot cut and run, or establish a politically driven withdrawal date, before Iraq's security forces can control the country. Were we to do that and were the place to fall into chaos, not only would sectarian strife arise, but it would become a training ground and feeding ground for terrorists once again, and they would be emboldened, as they were after we pulled out of Somalia. That sign of weakness would be a sign for terrorists to get mobilized and get working on it.

Success in Iraq is essential. Sure, people are motivated on both sides by the war, but the only answer to that is to win, make sure that we prevail and protect freedom, democracy, and integrity throughout the world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor many times to talk about our great interest in the nations of Southeast Asia and to call for increased engagement and more attention to the relations between the United States and Southeast Asia.

In the early winter of 2006, I spoke about the tsunami and the impact that had on the region. Many of us, particularly from farm country, remember what happened when Thailand's currency collapsed in 1997. It brought a tremendous decline in the region and a decline in our exports. We were previously exporting $12 billion of agricultural product--much from the Midwest--to that region, and that drop of $12 billion caused the precipitous drops in the prices of commodities sold by many farmers in the grain States. So we know that it is an important trading partner.

But yesterday, a military coup took over the Government in Thailand while its Prime Minister, Thaksin Chinnawat, was in New York at the U.N. Prime Minister Thaksin had been a successful businessman. He had strong support from Thailand's largely rural population but with opposition to the urban dwellers. In 2005, his Thai Rak Thai--which means ``Thais love Thais''--I cannot understand why we didn't think of something clever like that as a name for a political party--captured 374 out of 500 seats in the House of Representatives. The opposition party boycotted it, however. There was discussion of potential corruption by the sale by the Prime Minister of his telecommunications and satellite business. He had controversies with the military, beginning when 87 Muslim protesters in southern Thailand died in security custody, and the Prime Minister was attempting to put his own people in charge of the military.

After the election, the King stepped in and asked the court to review the election. They set it aside, and Thaksin essentially resumed power as Prime Minister even though the election was overturned.

Now, it is with great concern and disappointment that we see the military coup. Our neighbors in the region have spoken out. They have expressed concern, great disappointment. And it is clear that for the cause of the country and the region, the constitutional process must be restored in Thailand and an election date set for a new democratic government very shortly.

America has had in Thailand one of its best allies. We conduct numerous joint military exercises. Thailand was responsible for the capture of the infamous radical Islamic terrorist Hambali, who masterminded the Bali bombing. We have worked closely with them.

Thailand has been the economic stronghold of Southeast Asia. It is also a constitutional monarchy, with well-developed infrastructure and a free-enterprise economy and proinvestment policies. I think the economy will recover. As far as democracy, King Bhumibol, a benign monarch who served for 60 years, exercised his considerable influence to keep Thailand moving in that direction. Thailand, which, during the late 20th century, experienced numerous coups and military coups, had not had one since 1991. I believe King Bhumibol will push for a democracy and will get back on the negotiations between Thailand and the United States for a free-trade agreement.

As I said, Thailand is key in the region. I have described that region as the second front in the war on terror because al-Qaida- related radical Islamist groups have been conducting terrorist attacks here. It is set forth in a book by Ken Conboy, describing the most dangerous terror network. There is concern that since the bombings in southern Thailand have shown that there are insurgents--some 1,700 people have died--that this might become a haven, a breeding ground for the radical Islamists, rather than the insurgents in the three southern provinces of far south Thailand.

My view is that is an overreaction. I think the insurgents have issues with the Government, but to this point, I don't see evidence that they will become a host for al-Qaida or other related groups. They generally have practiced the moderate Muslim viewpoint of Islam of the Southeast Asia region.

Also, at the same time, I might mention, as we are speaking about the battle against terrorism and modern Islam, I visited Malaysia in August. Malaysia, again, has been a country that has been making great progress. It is a democratic nation committed to progress and development and has aspired to the peaceful and tolerant teachings of Islam. It is a key economic partner. It is our 10th largest trading partner overall. It has been growing at 5 percent annually. We are in negotiations for a free-trade agreement with them. Malaysia imports more from the United States than any

country, other than Japan, in that region. I believe that a free-trade agreement will help build on that constructive partnership in fighting terrorism and ensuring other security issues.

Despite all this, I saw a disturbing trend while I was there; that is, the possibility that some of the more radical views of extremism and intolerance in religion may be raising their ugly head in religion in Malaysia.

Most recently, a Malaysian woman who was born Azalina Jailani, changed her name to Linda Joy, and has been waiting for the federal courts to approve her conversion from Islam to Christianity. It was reported that when her application came to change her religion, it was rejected, and she was sent back to the Sharia or religious courts. Her lawyer has been arguing before Malaysia's highest court that Joy's conversion be considered a right under the constitution and not a religious matter.

We are watching this case with great interest. There are reports that provinces in Malaysia are going to change their law to implement the Sharia, or harsh religious law, as law of the province.

Sixty percent of Malaysia's people are Muslim, and Christians of various denominations make up about 8 percent. The rest are Buddhist, Taoist, and Hindu. We look forward to seeing a decision reasserting Malaysia's commitment to democratic principles and a rejection of intolerant religious laws.

Malaysia Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi has been an outspoken champion of tolerance. He has pointed out the obvious political dangers of taking that road, but I hope he will not succumb to the pressures that appear to be increasing to move down a path toward less tolerant and potentially more extremist forms of religion.

The pressures for adopting harsh religious laws are also being applied to Indonesia where President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has been another strong advocate of tolerance, freedom, and democracy.

The Muslim countries in that region, we hope, will continue on a path of secular, pluralistic, democratic societies or the choice is to see them turn from that path to a potential breeding ground for terror and instability.

Speaking of terror and instability, one country where I am not fearful of that occurring is Cambodia, which I also visited in August. I was stunned to see the World Bank put out a list of ``failed states'' with the danger of becoming harbors for terrorism, and they listed Cambodia.

To me, Cambodia is definitely heading in the right direction in terms of fighting terrorism. They are making great economic progress. We have been cooperating with them. They have contributed to counterterrorism efforts in the region.

Prime Minister Hun Sen said:

If we aren't active enough in fighting terror, we risk

becoming the hostage.

They set up a national committee to fight terrorism. After the attacks on the United States on 9/11, Cambodia offered overflight rights to support our operations.

Cambodia has contributed peacekeepers to Sudan. The United States has provided international military education and training funds for the first time, and we are planning military exercises with Cambodia later this year.

The IMET contribution of $45,000 is small, but it shows we are willing to work with them and ensure their military has civilian control, appropriate rules of engagement, and other means of conducting themselves in this very difficult time.

There is an economic issue that I hope we can resolve successfully with respect to Cambodia because they are moving on the path toward what we would want to see, and that is democracy and human rights in this part of the world and free markets.

The economy of Cambodia has been growing since 1999, boosted by a bilateral textile agreement, and we believe that has been a reason for the strong economic growth.

Mr. President, I don't see any other Senators wishing to take the floor. I ask for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. President, Cambodia has adopted international labor rights and standards touted by the International Labor Organization as a model for other developing countries, and they are beginning to flourish. This is a country that has half its population under the age of 20 because of the unbelievable depredations of the Khmer Rouge in the late seventies and widespread murder and genocide. But it is on the right track.

However, with the expiration of the bilateral textile agreement, countries such as Cambodia are now losing out in the competition with economies such as China and India. I strongly support and hope we can pass a measure to enhance economic opportunities such as the Tariff Relief Assistance for Developing Economies, or TRADE Act, that will allow least developed countries, such as Cambodia, to remain competitive by enhancing economic growth. They need to create a better investment environment.

They are clearly not a Thomas Jefferson democracy yet. They have had a very colorful and very deadly past, but we think that with our help and support, they can redevelop what was once Southeast Asia's rice basket--prior to the Khmer Rouge's destruction of small irrigation infrastructure and the execution of anyone with agricultural expertise--again to a strong contributing economy.

We must adopt initiatives such as these for Cambodia and for other countries in the Southeast Asia region. We have to work to continue improving education, emancipation, economic development, and promoting democracy in Southeast Asia, as around the rest of the world.

Doing so is not only good neighborly, it will not only help the Southeast Asian nations move toward economic and political reform, but it will be the most important thing we can do against the war that radical Islam has declared upon our world and keep these countries from turning to the extremist violence, the terrorism we now see primarily in the Middle East and have seen too frequently, as noted in ``The Second Front,'' in Southeast Asia.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, first, let me clarify, this is not classification----

Mr. President, I want to join in support of the chairman of the committee. It is important to realize this was not classified after the fact. This was classified information.

Now, we cannot say on the floor why this must remain classified. There are good and sufficient reasons for this, unlike some of the other cables which have been cited by the distinguished vice chairman of the committee, why this one should not be released.

We are witnessing something here that is very, very disturbing. The minority leader said that partisanship is the order of the day because we have objected to this unwarranted effort to misuse and abuse the intelligence process to score political points. This approach, regrettably, is something that has been used going back to 2003 when the Democratic staff in the Intelligence Committee laid out a partisan political game plan to use intelligence to try to beat President Bush and Vice

President Cheney in 2004. They laid out a game plan and they stayed on it. They stayed on it through phase I. Phase I took 2 full years during which we exhaustively examined all of the documents, interviewed anybody that might have information on whether there was an intentional misleading or misrepresentation or pressure to change the estimates of the intelligence analysts and thwart the process.

We reviewed that process exhaustively. At the end of it, our bipartisan conclusion was there was no evidence of any pressure to change findings of the Intelligence Committee; there was no effort to mislead or misuse the information of the intelligence analysts or the intelligence estimates.

Regrettably, our Democratic colleagues were not satisfied with that. They wanted to continue the battle. So we initiated a second backward look into history that I think was a tremendous waste of time--phase II--to go back and say: Well, maybe we missed something. We are going to go back and look at the intelligence prior to the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom and see if we can't find some misstatement, some misstep by the administration.

Well, President Bush is not running again. I don't know whether they want to try to impeach him or whether they just want to try to score points in the 2006 election campaign. But whichever thing they are doing, it is a blatant partisan effort to take what should be the bipartisan, even nonpartisan, Intelligence Committee and drag it through the political mire of name-calling and rock-throwing.

I think it is time for us to hit the baloney button on this and say: We have wasted now 2 more years in the Intelligence Committee going back and trying to defeat or impeach President Bush, and we have not been successful.

Let me mention something about this. All of this hype is about things that were added--much of it is about things that were added as comments to one of the two reports that we reported out of the Intelligence Committee. The Democrats chose to make extraneous allegations now that will be considered in a later report that is yet to be finalized by the committee, to look into statements made by administration officials and Members of Congress, to see whether they were inaccurate or if there was a misuse of the intelligence estimates that were available at the time. I have looked at them and I have seen some significant overstepping in statements that were made. Regrettably, those statements primarily came from Members of Congress, some on the other side of the aisle, who went too far. They went beyond what the intelligence estimates said.

Now, we have focused in this process on what the final intelligence estimates were. There are thousands--perhaps hundreds of thousands--at least tens of thousands of operational cables. They bring in different points of view. There are 16 different intelligence agencies that may have points of view. Do those all come to the policymakers? Of course not. The intelligence community is responsible for coming up with a National Intelligence Estimate, a community assessment that goes to the policymakers, whether that is the President, the Vice President, or this body. We get the final product.

Now, any time you want to, you can go back and look at all kinds of operational cables. You can find cables at any one time saying it is daytime and others say it is night, a third one saying it is dusk, and a fourth one saying it is dawn. But that is not what is given to the policymakers.

We ask the Intelligence Committee to use their best judgment. And as far as this cable, which has been properly classified--and we will not go into why it is properly classified--this cable was one communication to the headquarters, and it was not the only one. There were many, many more.

Looking back on it, we have a much better idea of what went on. But the whole purpose of this, the whole purpose of our Democratic colleagues in phase II, was to find grounds to defeat President Bush in 2004 or perhaps impeach him in 2006 or maybe in 2007. Well, we have been looking in the rearview mirror far too long. We have been looking backwards. We spent 2 full years, the staff of the Intelligence Committee spent hundreds of hours, reviewed tens of thousands of documents, over 1,000 interviews, and they found that there was no misuse, no abuse of the intelligence process, no pressure on the analysts.

So we have a lot of things that we ought to be doing. We have a lot of work in the Intelligence Committee because we have to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. One of the key recommendations concerning intelligence in the 9/11 Commission report was to set up a national security post in the Department of Justice to coordinate between the FBI and the CIA. Regrettably, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are holding up the appointment of the man who is supposed to fill that position to ensure that there is good information and good exchanges of information between the FBI as a law enforcement body and the intelligence agencies. And we have a lot of other things to do because there are still problems that we have to work out in the new structure of the Director of National Intelligence.

I have been asking plaintively why we cannot look at the continuing threats, do oversight and deal with some of the questions and problems we have. The answer is we have to complete phase II, and phase II has had, again, hundreds and hundreds of hours of work by our staff, work that could have been used on other points. Regrettably, what we are hearing on the floor and what we are seeing in some of the reports coming out of the Intelligence Committee is an effort to politicize intelligence. I deeply regret the fact that so much of this has been misquoted in the report issued, the largely Democratic report issued from the intelligence community. There was a tremendous amount of cherry-picking of selected pieces of information that did not come from the National Intelligence Estimates, to say that statements by some administration officials were not based on sound evidence.

We have learned a lot. We have learned a lot since we went into Iraq. We learned that our intelligence wasn't good, state-craft and trade- craft were not properly executed. Where there were dissenting views, those dissenting views were not conveyed up the line to the policymakers. That was us and that was the administration. And we are trying to change that. We are trying to make sure that dissenting views are explored, that policymakers know if there is a division.

Now, looking back with hindsight, we could say that many of the statements made here on the floor and made by the administration were not accurate. The question is, Were they based on the best National Intelligence Estimates at the time? We found out in phase I that they were.

The effort to do more declassification is very important. The chairman of the committee, Senator Roberts, Senator Wyden and I and the vice chairman have asked the Public Interest Declassification Board and the National Archives to look at and investigate what has been classified to see if more of it could be declassified. Because I, as most of my colleagues, want to have as much that is not sensitive or revealing sources and methods to be disclosed, so we can evaluate where we stand. But for this one, I understand full well the reason it is classified, and I am not going to say why. But when we disclose intelligence, we risk sources. Unfortunately, when we prosecuted the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, the prosecution had to turn over a list of 260 names of potential suspects. They turned it over in that court proceeding and, subsequently, several years later in a raid in an African nation they found in the al-Qaida playbook the names of all these people. When we disclose who we are talking to, their names get disclosed. And regrettably, some of them have been murdered. But it is not just the individual source who is at risk.

We have repeatedly chipped away at the confidence of our allies to work with us in the war on terror by disclosing sources and methods over the years. Friendly services are saying--and CIA leaders have told me directly--that our allies in the field are rethinking if and to what extent they can work with us because the Americans cannot keep a secret. This effort to declassify operational traffic involving overseas entities could devastate the confidence of our allies in cooperating

with American intelligence and obliterate the confidence of American intelligence officials in the United States Congress, who will be taking their discrete communications among themselves and broadcasting it to the entire world.

I can't think right now of a single more devastating action that will reverse what we have been trying to fix in the U.S. intelligence community than this, to say that if you share anything within the intelligence community or even with the Intelligence Committee, it is going to get out. People don't want to share the most sensitive intelligence when it could get out and not only disclose the information, but put at risk the sources and methods by which it is being obtained.

For that reason, I regret that the minority leader has attempted to make a partisan battle out of something that did not have to do with the National Intelligence Estimate. It was not a final product of the Intelligence Committee. Therefore, it had no place in the effort to determine what kind of information got to the top policymakers in the administration.

There were lots of conflicting pieces of information going through the chain. What we properly looked at was how those were handled and what they gave to policymakers. There is no evidence, no evidence, none, zero, zip, none--that this evidence was ever shared with the top policymakers.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, could I ask the distinguished Senator from Illinois a question? On what page is there a bipartisan statement that there was no connection between al-Qaida and Iraq?

Because we also found in there a reference that there was a meeting and two contacts.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for calling my attention to page 63. I don't see the information there. It does, on page 65, talk about George Tenet saying the intelligence indicates that the two sides at various points discussed safe haven, training, and reciprocal nonaggression. And in the report there are three instances of contact cited between al-Qaida and the Iraqi Government.

I also would just follow up on my statement that some of us in this body were misled by the inaccurate intelligence estimates presented to us by the community. For example, I see this classic statement:

When you look at what Saddam Hussein has had at his

disposal in terms of chemical, biological and perhaps even

nuclear weapons, we cannot ignore the threat that he poses to

the region and the fact that he has fomented terrorism

throughout his reign.

That was from Senator Dick Durbin on ``CNN Larry King Live,'' on December 21, 2001.

But I think we want to get back to the port security bill. I have been asked by Leader Frist to pass along from a letter just received from CIA Director GEN Michael Hayden.

General Hayden said:

The amendment offered by Senator Reid, seeks to declassify

and make public CIA internal communications that include

personal commentary and judgment. We hold these kinds of

cables to the highest standard of secrecy within our

organization, and would only share them outside of CIA under

certain specific conditions.

I provided this information over the objection of many of

my officers, after receiving assurances from the Chairman

that it would be treated as highly sensitive material. That

is why I am so disappointed that this amendment is being

considered at this time. In addition, I am deeply

disappointed that some have already characterized the cable's

contents in the media.

He also talks about the information coming in from Chiefs of Station.

He said:

No COS has ever written one of these cables expecting it to

be made public, and no COS will use his channel again without

fearing it will become public, if Congress demands

declassification.

He also said:

Further . . . it contains pre-decisional executive branch

information.

Finally, he said:

Lastly, a critical way in which our Nation gathers

intelligence is with the support of our liaison partners. If

these partners fear that their support for CIA activities

will be made public, it will make them reluctant to cooperate

with my agency. This will, I assure you, curtail the

intelligence made available to the CIA and could create gaps

in the final intelligence made available to policymakers. I

ask your help in defeating this effort in the Senate, and for

your help in protecting both CIA's sources and methods as

well as our ability to work cooperatively with the Oversight

Committees.

I yield the floor.

The ACT1NG PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.

I thank the Chair, I thank the majority leader.

Mr. President, 5 years ago Monday, we witnessed the murder of 3,000 Americans in the largest terrorist attack on American soil in the Nation's history.

September 11 was a day of loss but also a day of lessons. On September 11, 2001, the American people learned there exists a group of killers, fueled by a twisted version of Islam, who want to destroy America. But we also witnessed how a group of passengers in one hijacked plane, United flight 93, banded together, fought back, and saved countless lives in a simple, selfless act of heroism.

Today, we continue to fight the same group of killers not on an airplane over America but in a country in their own neighborhood, Iraq, and elsewhere in the Middle East and around the world.

It is the same enemy, the same determination, the same goal. But today we are fighting the radical Islamists on their own turf because we have a President who knows if America doesn't fight back, another September 11 is inevitable.

Although the central front on the war in terror is Iraq, we have taken the fight to every corner of the globe. We have improved our intelligence capabilities. We have programs in place to help watch what the bad guys are doing, gather intelligence and disrupt their plans.

We have made progress. We passed the PATRIOT Act, developed effective terrorist surveillance programs, created the Department of Homeland Security, established the Director of National Intelligence, and tore down the wall built by previous administrations which blocked critical communications between agencies.

That work has paid off. There has been no attack in the United States since September 11. Afghanistan and Iraq are now free. They have held elections. They are taking control of their own security forces.

Yet while the threat level remains high, some in this country, and regrettably in this Senate, want to let our guard down. Some talk of giving up the fight in Iraq. Let's not talk of ``troop redeployment'' and other such euphemisms. If America pulls out of Iraq now, it signals to our enemies we have given up.

On that day, the United States and the world will embark on a future of

fear and violence unlike what we have ever seen. It will be a black day for freedom and democracy. It would embolden and encourage every religious extremist and other enemies of the United States.

Letting our guard down is not a choice. It is an invitation to disaster. The alternative to naysayers is to continue our efforts. America must support the democratic governments in Iraq and elsewhere in their efforts to disarm militias and deter regional countries from undermining security there. We can't allow a minority of criminal extremists to intimidate Iraqi citizens.

While some talk of giving up the fight in the central front on the war on terror, others leak sensitive details of legal classified intelligence programs to the media to further their political agendas. We have seen our most important intelligence-gathering methods splashed across the front pages of our newspapers for the world, including our enemies, to see. Leaks expose our methods of apprehending the enemy and erode the confidence of our allies.

Over the past year, there has arisen an apparent absence of fear of punishment in regard to the arbitrary divulging of highly classified information. That needs to change. Each of these leaks gravely threatens our national security and makes it easier for our enemies to achieve their murderous and destructive plans.

The critics of this administration and our efforts to go after the enemies fail to understand the nature of our enemies, but they understand politics. I am afraid politics is what is driving some of our friends on the other side.

In the Intelligence Committee, the Democrats decided in 2003 they could prove that the administration misled the people of America, misused intelligence, and pressured the intelligence-gathering activities. We had 2 years of discussion and debate and thorough review. We concluded, the Intelligence Committee, as did the Silverman- Robb Commission and others that there was no pressure, that there was no misuse of intelligence. In fact, the intelligence was bad. But some continue to hold that view, even though the facts do not support those conclusions.

This is a long, hard battle. The people are being challenged and tested. Many are weary of war. My Democratic colleagues want to play on the weary public, trying to convince them if the United States withdraws from the rest of the world, our enemies will leave us alone. They are tougher on our Secretary of Defense than they are on the enemy. They spent a whole lot of time on Wednesday talking not about how to defeat terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere, rather, how to bring down the Secretary of Defense. Thankfully, the President and the Secretary know the truth; that is, that our enemy will not stop, and any sign of weakness on America's part will be exploited fully.

Throwing in the towel on the war on terror is not an option. But the Democrats--some--would have us believe that. Iraq's Ambassador to the United States said recently:

Plan B--abandoning the region to the religious fanatics and

Baathist terrorists--is nothing but a definition of defeat

dressed up to look like a vision for the future.

He continues:

A retreat on Iraq would encourage all the enemies of the

United States--and they are many--to be bolder and more ready

to challenge its interests everywhere. A radicalized,

totalitarian, fragmented Iraq, sitting on a lake of oil,

would become the center of a new and dangerous bloc

threatening the United States and world peace.

Not only would abandoning Iraq to its fate now be

irresponsible, it would almost certainly lead to

disintegration and dictatorship, with a high risk of a wide

regional conflict--a catastrophe for not just Iraq but also

for the United States and for world peace.

The Iraqis understand what is at stake. The administration understands what is at stake. Those on this side of the aisle do, but, unfortunately, some in the minority do not. For political reasons, they will not acknowledge the reality.

So we may expect to see they will continue to play the war on terror as a political game. This is not the first time, for sure. They have long argued for a cut-and-run strategy and have blocked our efforts time and again to fight this war. The minority voiced opposition to the NSA surveillance program. They blocked reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act for months, with the minority leader proudly boasting, ``We killed the PATRIOT Act.''

Sadly, the political games will continue at least until November. But the war on terror against radical Islam will last for generations. The choices we make today will shape the world we live in, the world our children live in.

Republicans have worked to make America safer. Action by the President and the Republican Congress, through the use of military intelligence and law enforcement resources, has led to the capture of many of al-Qaida's top leaders and degraded the capabilities of a terror network.

More needs to be done, both here at home and abroad. Accomplishment will take resolve and determination and a long-term commitment, not abandoning our efforts at the first sign of hardship.

As I said at the beginning, the passengers of United Flight 93 banded together, fought back, and died to save countless lives in a simple, selfless act of determination. It is that kind of determination that will serve us well as we confront the challenges ahead.

I ask unanimous consent that the statement of Iraqi Ambassador Samir Sumaidaie be printed in the Record after my remarks.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise to celebrate Eagle-Picher Technologies, LLC, on the company's ``One Billionth Hour'' in space as represented by the superior batteries the firm designs and builds and that power U.S. satellites.

Recognizing the need for custom designed and built batteries, the technologies division at Eagle-Picher works on a variety of batteries for aerospace and military use, which the company calls special use batteries. The company's technology division, based in Joplin, MO., continues a tradition that stretches back to the 1960s when Eagle- Picher provided power systems for the first United States satellites and the manned Mercury program.

Today, EaglePicher nickel-hydrogen cells are powering spacecraft orbiting Earth and beyond. I commend Eagle Picher, its leadership and its dedicated employees in Missouri on their commitment to maintaining the highest standards while breaking new ground for power systems and advanced electrical power system applications. I am pleased to join with the Joplin community and the State of Missouri in congratulating the company and wishing the firm's valued employees with continued growth and success.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designating the new Federal Courthouse in Cape Girardeau, MO, as the Rush H. Limbaugh, Sr., Federal 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 1950s, 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 1960s, 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's 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 allaround 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, MO, 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 H. Limbaugh, Sr., Federal 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 1950s, 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 1960s, 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's 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 allaround 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, MO, 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 thank my colleague and fellow chairman of the National Guard caucus for his kind words. As most people in this body know, we have had wonderful, bipartisan cooperation supporting the great work of the Guard.

As the Senator from Vermont was kind enough to note, I did have the experience of being commander in chief of our National Guard in Missouri for 8 years. And I have since followed very closely what they have done.

Our National Guard, as I think everybody knows, has provided about 40 percent of the boots on the ground in Iraq and in the conflict against Islamofascism. They went into that battle, being called up for their national security service, short of equipment. They are short of equipment because, as the Senator from Vermont and I have explained time after time after time, the Pentagon, when it is faced with a shortfall of equipment or resources, tends to take care of the active forces first.

No one who knows my personal situation would think I am not sympathetic to the needs of the active forces. I very much want to see them get the support they need. I understand what is going on in the Pentagon. But the National Guard has fallen so far behind in its equipment accounts because of the pressure of the need to restock and reset other branches of Government.

When we found that a significant sum of money would be available for providing equipment that is vitally needed for our National Guard, for our entire military, it was extremely important that we carve out a small amount, which is covered by this amendment, that would go directly to the Guard.

Now, we have been told this could have been accepted if we said the money ``may'' go to the National Guard. That is precisely the problem: that money could have gone to the National Guard under any circumstances. But, in fact, it is not going to the National Guard. When there are competing needs in the active military, they get first call.

Let me be clear: The National Guard is being fully active, not only in the work they are doing overseas but in their homeland defense activities.

Now, when you take a look at the national service mission, when they go abroad, as has been pointed out on the floor, and they take equipment with them, they leave it there because it does not make sense to transport equipment back from the fighting frontlines when they have carried it over there. So, as a result, that equipment is left there. When the Guard units come home, they have lost even more equipment. That means they are falling far, far behind in their needed equipment coverage.

Now, at the same time, when they went over they left the homeland defense or the natural disaster equipment at a far, far insufficient rate. Most Guard units are about one-third equipped. In other words, if they have nine units, only three of them are fully equipped.

I pointed out on the floor last year, after Hurricane Katrina, we were very proud that one of our National Guard engineering battalions was called to Louisiana. And they did a magnificent job. As a matter of fact, they did such a magnificent job that the adjutant general of Louisiana and the Governor of Louisiana sought another of the three engineering battalions from Missouri to come down. The bad news was that one out of the three battalions that we had took the only equipment we had. We did not have equipment for a second battalion that could have been very, very well used by our Guard in assisting the recovery mission in Louisiana or Mississippi or Texas or other areas.

That is why it is so important to make sure we are fully equipped.

More than 200,000 Guard troops have left their homes, their jobs, and their families to participate in the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq and other missions since 9/11. The National Guard has provided as much as half of the combat force and 40 percent of the total force in Iraq. They are performing their duties with honor and valor, often at great cost to their families and their own lives.

The Guard also helps local responders deal with overwhelming natural disasters here at home such as hurricanes, tornados, and floods.

The modified amendment will provide an additional $2.4 billion for National Guard and Army Reserve needs on top of the funds already provided in the bill under title III and title IX.

Lieutenant General Blum in a recent interview had this to say about National Guard readiness:

I am further behind or in an even more dire situation than

the active Army, but we both have the same symptoms, I just

have a higher fever.

It has been widely reported that the current funding shortfall for National Guard needs is approximately $23,000,000,000.

About a third of this amount is required to replace equipment consumed by the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and peacekeeping assignments. The remainder is money that is needed to close the gap from years of intentional underfunding according to Lieutenant General Blum, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau who also has been quoted as saying:

I am not talking about the icing on the cake. That's the

cake.

It has been reported that more than two-thirds of the Army National Guard's 34 brigades are not combat-ready due largely to vast equipment shortfalls.

The Army National Guard currently has only 34 percent of its required equipment. It was recently even worse than that. The percentage actually dropped for a time to as low as 26 percent as large numbers of units demobilized and the Guard realized the full impact of equipment destroyed, damaged or required to remain behind in theater.

Since that new low, there has been some recovery so that, at present, the percent of required equipment actually onhand is 34 percent. That is nowhere near enough.

My colleagues will recall that Senator Leahy and I provided over $900 million in last year's Defense appropriations bill for the shortages in equipment. Had we not acted then, the state of National Guard equipment might be even worse.

Currently there are 27,000 Guard forces deployed overseas and another 29,000 Guard forces either coming back from overseas or preparing to go overseas. Additionally there are 6,000 Guard troops deployed along the Nation's borders. Do the math and you will find that there are 62,000 Guard forces mobilized.

The National Guard Bureau reports that 16 percent of its force is mobilized in support of the global war on terror and 84 percent of the force is actively involved in force planning or preparing and training to deploy overseas or along the border.

Time and time again the National Guard has been a tremendous value for the capabilities it provides our Nation, providing 40 percent of the total force for around 7 to 8 of the budget.

Let me remind my colleagues that our National Guard force must also remain cognizant of its homeland defense and security role. Our Nation was reminded last year during the response to Hurricane Katrina of the Guard's other paramount mission.

The National Guard's contributions to Hurricane Katrina were stellar. The magnitude, quality, and timeliness of the Guard's response remains one of the less publicized successes of the Katrina disaster. The Guard's successful response was attributable to the fact that the Guard is best organized and trained to initiate and coordinate a civil response of the scale of Katrina.

This morning I was advised that it might be necessary to come to the floor to defend this amendment. As I noted, it came as a surprise that it might be necessary, but now that I am here I am eager to defend it. Senator Leahy and I are not alone. I have a letter from the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States addressed to the bill managers which states in part:

The $2.44 billion will not solve the equipment shortages in

the Guard. It will not instantly restore Guard equipment

readiness to top levels. It will, however, allow the Guard to

focus its restorative efforts on those who are preparing for

mobilization, and it will help to restore readiness for our

homeland defense posture.

Our amendment provides a prudent allocation of dollars to the proven and effective forces of the National Guard and Army Reserve.

Through it we ensure that the Guard and Reserve's military readiness and homeland security resources remain at minimally acceptable levels. The funds we are providing in this measure are absolutely necessary to the health of the force. This is why I urge my colleagues to send a strong message to the citizen-soldiers and Airmen of the National Guard and Army Reserve by voting overwhelmingly in favor of this amendment.

Mr. President, I will turn it over to my colleague, but I believe it is necessary for us formally to call up amendment No. 4827.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified to include ``and the Army Reserve.'' We have been asked to expand this so that the $2,440,000,000 is available for the National Guard and the Army Reserve, for National Guard and Reserve equipment.

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

Mr. President, I have letters, one from the Enlisted Association of the National Guard and one from the National Guard Association of the United States. I ask unanimous consent that those letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as I previously stated, LTG Blum, the head of the National Guard, said in a recent interview about National Guard readiness:

I am further behind or in an even more dire situation than

the active Army, but we both have the same symptoms, I just

have a higher fever.

And while this $2.4 billion will be a significant step forward, the Guard's best estimate for the shortfall is approximately $23 billion--a third of it to replace equipment consumed by the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and peacekeeping assignments. The remainder is money that is needed to close the gap from years of underfunding by the Pentagon. Again, LTG Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, has said:

I am not talking about the icing on the cake. That's the

cake.

And they have been cut very badly.

I have already mentioned that the Army National Guard has only 34 percent of its required equipment. At one time it dropped as low as 26 percent. And with some 27,000 Guard forces deployed overseas, and another 29,000 either coming back or preparing to go, there is a tremendous need for that equipment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, the manager of the bill.

Senator Stevens and I have discussed a particular rescission included in the Defense appropriations bill on a classified matter. It is my understanding--and I ask the Senator--that it is his intention to receive additional information from the Director of National Intelligence and other appropriate intelligence community officials on this program. I believe it is imperative that the committee have this information as soon as possible so that the conferees can appropriately consider the matter. Could the Senator confirm that this is his intention?

Mr. President, I thank the chairman and Senator Inouye for their leadership on this bill. This information will be of great interest to them. I appreciate their careful consideration of it. We look forward to having these discussions and hearings.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about a related area of security. The Defense appropriations bill is extremely important, but I believe that there is another matter we should be considering. I appreciate the courtesy of the managers of the bill for allowing me to present this.

This is legislation that was passed by the Intelligence Committees in 2000. It

had been adopted by unanimous vote, but it was vetoed at the time. This bill very simply provides, for the first time, a simple, clear statement of penalties for Government employees and contractors with access to classified information, who have signed agreements to keep it classified, who knowingly and willfully leak America's most important secrets. Over the past few years, we have seen unauthorized disclosures of classified information at an alarming rate. Each one of the leaks gravely increases the threat to our national security and makes it easier for our enemies to achieve their murderous and destructive plans. Each leak is a window of opportunity for terrorists to discover our sources and methods. Each violation of trust guarantees chaos and violence in the world.

Time and time again, we have witnessed leaks that told our enemies not only that we were watching them and listening to them but how and whom we are cooperating with and how we are getting the information. These leaks have threatened to erode the trust and confidence of the American people and the members of the intelligence community, as well as our allies, built upon years of work. What if during World War II, Americans had seen a leak of the Enigma Program that allowed us to decipher enemy communications and if major media outlets had joined in blowing our most sensitive secret?

Over the past year, there has arisen an apparent absence of fear of punishment in regard to arbitrary divulging of classified information. These are individuals who took solemn vows to protect our Nation. In taking a vow to protect classified information, one should acknowledge that being privy to it establishes a solemn trust. I and all of my colleagues are under obligations as Senators. And as a member of the Intelligence Committee, I have a higher standard to protect classified information. Having that access is a privilege and a trust. There are a number of stinging examples of how these leaks have compromised security. I will not call attention to them because the people who are benefiting from knowing the leaks don't need to know more about it. But a litany of intelligence officials over the past year have told me how much it hurts their efforts.

The former Director of the CIA, Porter Goss, stated in open session that there has been ``very severe'' damage to our national security. He repeated ``very severe.'' I asked the same question to current CIA Director Michael Hayden in his open confirmation hearing about the leaks and he said: We have applied the Darwinian theory to terrorists. Unfortunately, we are only catching the dumb ones because the smart ones who watch the media understand what we are doing and will escape. And many others have repeated that refrain. That was before the leakage of our ability to track terrorist financing efforts occurred in papers.

As I have traveled throughout the world and talked with cooperating overseas officials, they have asked me why they should continue to work with us when we can't keep secrets. Our intelligence chiefs abroad tell me that sources now think twice before speaking with U.S. officers. They fear their information leaking. They said: How can I give you this information if it might be leaked?

What they are really worried about is that leaking their information will identify them and put themselves and their families at risk. This is something which we cannot tolerate if we are to get the intelligence we need.

This is language which has been passed before. It is very simple. It just applies to former or retired officers or employees of the United States or any person who has authorized access and who has agreed to keep it confidential.

First, let me be clear about a couple of things this legislation does not do. It only affects Government employees and contractors who have signed a nondisclosure agreement. It doesn't affect the media, businesses, or private citizens.

Second, it only regards information properly and appropriately classified, not frivolously or inappropriately classified. If there is an overclassification, then I think the courts would easily throw out the prosecution. It doesn't cover the new categories of information developed since 9/11, like sensitive but unclassified or unclassified for official use only. It limits the subject of prosecution to those knowingly and willfully disclosing to someone they know is not authorized to receive it. It is not a ``gotcha'' tool; it is for deliberate leakers.

Well, a Federal judge has pointed out that there is no one piece of legislation that brings together all of our outdated and disparate provisions on the law. The judge has stated that ``the merits of the law are committed to Congress. If it is not sensible, it ought to be changed.'' This is why we are doing this.

Some of my colleagues said it is an insult that you have to pass a bill to protect classified information. One said:

If they have taken an oath, they don't need the threat of

law hanging over them to maintain that oath.

My answer to that one is, where have you been over the past year? I am sorry to inform you that some people need laws to hold them in check. More important, they need prosecution under those laws. There is nothing like an orange jumpsuit on a deliberate leaker to discourage others from going down that path.

I have heard that some say Attorney General Ashcroft recommended that the executive branch not pursue leaks legislation. That is true, but not because it wasn't needed. He said that the onus is on the executive branch to take care to instill a sense of loyalty in its employees to track down leakers and to prevent leakers. He was right. He also said that leaks legislation had value.

I am more than happy to work with my colleagues. I believe it is appropriate to have this debate at a time when Osama bin Laden and al- Zawahiri are warning the United States of future terrorist attacks. It is important to provide protection so that our men and women in the field in places of active hostility, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, can be protected by intelligence that is not compromised.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter dated 31 July from the Association for Intelligence Officers, a group of 4,500 current and former intelligence military and homeland security officers supporting passage of this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about a related area of security. The Defense appropriations bill is extremely important, but I believe that there is another matter we should be considering. I appreciate the courtesy of the managers of the bill for allowing me to present this.

This is legislation that was passed by the Intelligence Committees in 2000. It

had been adopted by unanimous vote, but it was vetoed at the time. This bill very simply provides, for the first time, a simple, clear statement of penalties for Government employees and contractors with access to classified information, who have signed agreements to keep it classified, who knowingly and willfully leak America's most important secrets. Over the past few years, we have seen unauthorized disclosures of classified information at an alarming rate. Each one of the leaks gravely increases the threat to our national security and makes it easier for our enemies to achieve their murderous and destructive plans. Each leak is a window of opportunity for terrorists to discover our sources and methods. Each violation of trust guarantees chaos and violence in the world.

Time and time again, we have witnessed leaks that told our enemies not only that we were watching them and listening to them but how and whom we are cooperating with and how we are getting the information. These leaks have threatened to erode the trust and confidence of the American people and the members of the intelligence community, as well as our allies, built upon years of work. What if during World War II, Americans had seen a leak of the Enigma Program that allowed us to decipher enemy communications and if major media outlets had joined in blowing our most sensitive secret?

Over the past year, there has arisen an apparent absence of fear of punishment in regard to arbitrary divulging of classified information. These are individuals who took solemn vows to protect our Nation. In taking a vow to protect classified information, one should acknowledge that being privy to it establishes a solemn trust. I and all of my colleagues are under obligations as Senators. And as a member of the Intelligence Committee, I have a higher standard to protect classified information. Having that access is a privilege and a trust. There are a number of stinging examples of how these leaks have compromised security. I will not call attention to them because the people who are benefiting from knowing the leaks don't need to know more about it. But a litany of intelligence officials over the past year have told me how much it hurts their efforts.

The former Director of the CIA, Porter Goss, stated in open session that there has been ``very severe'' damage to our national security. He repeated ``very severe.'' I asked the same question to current CIA Director Michael Hayden in his open confirmation hearing about the leaks and he said: We have applied the Darwinian theory to terrorists. Unfortunately, we are only catching the dumb ones because the smart ones who watch the media understand what we are doing and will escape. And many others have repeated that refrain. That was before the leakage of our ability to track terrorist financing efforts occurred in papers.

As I have traveled throughout the world and talked with cooperating overseas officials, they have asked me why they should continue to work with us when we can't keep secrets. Our intelligence chiefs abroad tell me that sources now think twice before speaking with U.S. officers. They fear their information leaking. They said: How can I give you this information if it might be leaked?

What they are really worried about is that leaking their information will identify them and put themselves and their families at risk. This is something which we cannot tolerate if we are to get the intelligence we need.

This is language which has been passed before. It is very simple. It just applies to former or retired officers or employees of the United States or any person who has authorized access and who has agreed to keep it confidential.

First, let me be clear about a couple of things this legislation does not do. It only affects Government employees and contractors who have signed a nondisclosure agreement. It doesn't affect the media, businesses, or private citizens.

Second, it only regards information properly and appropriately classified, not frivolously or inappropriately classified. If there is an overclassification, then I think the courts would easily throw out the prosecution. It doesn't cover the new categories of information developed since 9/11, like sensitive but unclassified or unclassified for official use only. It limits the subject of prosecution to those knowingly and willfully disclosing to someone they know is not authorized to receive it. It is not a ``gotcha'' tool; it is for deliberate leakers.

Well, a Federal judge has pointed out that there is no one piece of legislation that brings together all of our outdated and disparate provisions on the law. The judge has stated that ``the merits of the law are committed to Congress. If it is not sensible, it ought to be changed.'' This is why we are doing this.

Some of my colleagues said it is an insult that you have to pass a bill to protect classified information. One said:

If they have taken an oath, they don't need the threat of

law hanging over them to maintain that oath.

My answer to that one is, where have you been over the past year? I am sorry to inform you that some people need laws to hold them in check. More important, they need prosecution under those laws. There is nothing like an orange jumpsuit on a deliberate leaker to discourage others from going down that path.

I have heard that some say Attorney General Ashcroft recommended that the executive branch not pursue leaks legislation. That is true, but not because it wasn't needed. He said that the onus is on the executive branch to take care to instill a sense of loyalty in its employees to track down leakers and to prevent leakers. He was right. He also said that leaks legislation had value.

I am more than happy to work with my colleagues. I believe it is appropriate to have this debate at a time when Osama bin Laden and al- Zawahiri are warning the United States of future terrorist attacks. It is important to provide protection so that our men and women in the field in places of active hostility, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, can be protected by intelligence that is not compromised.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter dated 31 July from the Association for Intelligence Officers, a group of 4,500 current and former intelligence military and homeland security officers supporting passage of this legislation.

Seven minutes.

Mr. President, I rise to offer a compromise and support a compromise. I have agreed to limit my remarks to 7 minutes in the hope, however faint it might be, that people might listen to me.

Secondly, I am here to support a compromise. I am here to support a compromise led by our good friend, Chairman Domenici, involving the occupant of the Chair, the Senator from Louisiana, and a distinguished bipartisan group of Senators who are coming together to bring out a compromise that is going to solve a major problem.

We hear--on the floor, and wherever politicians gather, and pundits gather, and at coffee shops--people complain about the high cost of gasoline, the high price of natural gas, and our unhealthy dependence on foreign oil. Well, my gosh, they are all right. They are all correct. We are importing over 60 percent of our petroleum.

We hear lots of people pontificate about the skyrocketing costs of natural gas, heating homes, and how that affects the need for low- income heating assistance programs, and how it squeezes all of us who, like me, depend upon natural gas to heat a house. Once again they are right. Over the last few years, natural gas prices in America have been some of the most expensive in the world. Some people cry out for the need to do something to reduce these high oil and gas prices.

Well, in the past, when it has come down to it, too many people have stood up and said: No, we are not going to do it. The reasons range from ``not in my backyard''--they do not want anything produced right near them, whether it is oil or minerals or a manufacturing process-- that is called the NIMBY approach. Others are pushing environmental concerns to the extreme, not realizing that modern-day exploration of oil and gas is done with new techniques that are designed to be as friendly to the environment as possible. Then of course, there are others who think that high gas prices make a great campaign issue in an election year, and that it is in their best interest to do nothing before November.

Well, there is a way to begin to reduce the price of oil and natural gas; and that is to increase domestic supplies. Let me point out to my colleagues that for all the laws we pass, we have not been able to repeal the law of supply and demand. If you have more demand than you have supply, the cost goes up. And that is what we have.

Now, we are trying to reduce the demand by conservation, but people continue to make choices, and the economy grows. Not only our economy grows, but the economies of India and China, which are putting real pressure on demand, grow faster. But we are not keeping up with the demand from production in the United States. Thus, our percentage of contribution to supply continues to decline.

The area specified in S. 3711 will open up 8.3 million acres of the Outer Continental Shelf for oil and gas leasing as soon as practicable, but no later than one year from the date of enactment. This area, which includes Lease 181 and an area south of Lease 181, is estimated to contain roughly 1.26 billion barrels of oil and 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The natural gas supply alone made available under this bill is enough to heat and cool 6 million homes for 15 years. That is a good start. We would like to have more, but with the demand for energy so high, and the supply limited, we need to take what steps we can.

With the price of gasoline over $3 a gallon, all of us are looking at the need to conserve, and that is one way we can make a difference: stop driving so much, carpool, walk. People still get there. I used to walk to school, ride a bicycle to school. That is not a bad idea for a lot of kids. It keeps you in better shape.

In addition to the growing demand for energy, disruptions in supply due to geopolitical instability in the middle east and South America have caused energy prices to spike upward. All of these factors have caused the price of gasoline to increase by over 125 percent since 2000. As fighting continues in the Middle East and political instability remains in South America and North Africa, energy analysts warn that $100 barrel oil could indeed be a reality in the future.

The situation with natural gas is no different. To say that we are in a natural gas crisis is an understatement. Why is this the case? Again, the answer is quite simple. Over the years demand for natural gas has skyrocketed while domestic supplies have dwindled. And when that happens, simple economics tells us that prices soar as they have in recent years for natural gas.

We have a lot of demand for natural gas because of the increasing demand for this resource in the generation of electricity. More and more electric utility generation plants have been forced to switch to natural gas. Natural gas is also in short supply because of all the restrictions on its production and delivery, including restrictions on access to these gas supplies and strict environmental regulations, which have pushed a massive expansion of natural gas usage as opposed to the use other energy resources such as coal.

According to a Wall Street Journal editorial, there has been a 40- percent increase in the use of natural gas since 1986, and that accounts for nearly 25 percent of our energy. And it is set to increase by another 40 percent by 2025. We cannot afford to do that. Our production of natural gas has fallen from 19.2 trillion cubic feet to 18.2 trillion cubic feet. That is a 7.2-percent decline. We cannot afford to do that.

We need to liquefy and gasify coal so coal gas can fit in, too. That is some ways down the line. But in the meantime, we have to go ahead with lease 181 and the adjacent areas.

Price increases hurt our economy. They hurt people who drive cars. U.S. consumers spent $200 billion on natural gas in 2005, which is four times as much as we spent in 1999. This has caused both Federal Reserve Chairmen Greenspan and Bernanke to repeatedly warn that ``natural gas bottlenecks endanger economic expansion'' and ``pose risks to both economic activity and inflation.''

High natural gas prices cost us manufacturing jobs. The National Association of Manufacturers says that roughly 3 million manufacturing jobs have been lost due in large part to natural gas price increases. Chemical plants are moving overseas along with and fertilizer plants.

According to the U.S. Chemistry Council, it is estimated that from 2000 to 2005, the chemical industry saw the loss of 100,000 jobs and $50 billion to overseas competition. Furthermore, the magazine Business Week reported that of the 120 major chemical facilities in the planning and construction stages around the world, only one is in the United States--50 plants are going up in China.

Job loss due to increased natural gas prices has also had a devastating impact on the fertilizer industry because natural gas is a key component in the production of nitrogen fertilizer. Late last year, Ford B. West of the Fertilizer Institute informed the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior that sixteen U.S. production facilities have closed permanently and an additional five have been idled due to rising natural gas prices--this represents a 35 percent decline in U.S. fertilizer production

The agricultural sector is also taking it on the chops. The president of the Missouri Farm Bureau, Charlie Kruse, on March 17, 2005, testified that in the last 4 years, the retail nitrogen fertilizer prices, because of the shortage of the supply of natural gas, have skyrocketed from $100 per ton to $350 per ton. These are real costs being put on our farmers.

Analysis from the Food and Agricultural Policy Institute, FAPRI, at the University of Missouri-Columbia indicates that fertilizer prices paid by agricultural producers increased by almost 50 percent between 2002 and 2006, with fuel prices increasing over 100 percent in the same time frame. This leads to cost increases of over $80 per acre for rice, $50 per acre for corn and $10 to $25

per acre for soybeans, wheat and cotton.

Farmers are hurting. These increased costs are going to curtail the availability of our food supply and raise the cost of our food as well. Transportation costs will also rise.

Well, the concern has been raised by the distinguished Senator from New Mexico that this legislation is not the best deal.

I might agree with him, but I will tell you something. Standing here on the floor of the Senate, it is the best looking one of the whole ugly bunch because I have been waiting for a long time to find a way to increase the supply of oil and gas produced in the United States. This is a start. He has pointed out, we need to do a lot more things. Well, I will be there to support whatever we can do to make a reasonable compromise to overcome the objections, so we can start producing gas in deep sea offshore drilling.

I hope one of these days we can go back up to the barren reaches above the Arctic Circle in ANWR. I have been up and watched them drill in Prudhoe Bay. There is no harm to the environment. I will tell you, the caribou and the birds love it. The mosquitos are great. They are just as healthy as they are in southern Alaska.

Tapping the energy resources in the areas specified in this bill can have an immediate impact on both the price of oil and natural gas because these areas are located in the Gulf of Mexico near existing oil and gas production infrastructure. With its proximity to major oil and natural gas transport terminals and pipelines, these new energy resources could be quickly shipped to the market for use.

Well, in closing, I commend Senator Domenici for putting together a bipartisan group to support this bill. I laud his efforts. It is going to be done in an environmentally friendly manner. Last year's devastating category 5 hurricane did not cause any significant oil or gas spillage. And this new technology can produce this oil and gas from offshore areas in an environmentally friendly manner and begin to break the logjam where supply cannot keep up with demand.

I urge my colleagues to support S. 3711.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.