Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Mr. Victor Fontanez of Platte City, MO. Mr. Fontanez is a World War II veteran who served with distinction in Europe from 1942 to 1945.

Mr. Fontanez joined the Army in January of 1941, 11 months before the attacks on Pearl Harbor. He recognized the need for soldiers to answer the call, and swiftly volunteered for service wherever he could be used. Joining Company B, 47th Infantry Battalion, 9th Division, Mr. Fontanez was quickly shipped to North Africa where he participated in the larger Battle of Tunisia against German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel's vaunted Afrika Korps.

In April of 1943, near the town of El Guettar, his battalion was given orders to go over the top of an important hill. As he ran down the hill towards the enemy, a mortar shell exploded close to him, sending shrapnel into the left side of his body. Despite profuse bleeding, he continued on to the bottom of the hill and took cover near a large rock. Another mortar hit the rock, sending concussions through his body and making it difficult to breathe. After the attack, his fellow heroes helped him back to the headquarters, where he was patched up quickly and evacuated to an American hospital in Oran.

For the wounds he suffered that day, he was awarded the Purple Heart.

After his recovery, he was assigned to the 36th Infantry Division as a combat engineer. He was a crucial part of the landing forces at Salerno Bay, Italy. After securing their positions, they were given orders to help reinforce the Anzio beachhead, and then to take Velletri, one of the key cities that the Germans used in the defense of Rome. After the Nazis fell, his division marched through the streets of Rome to a hero's welcome. After the liberation of Rome, his division was sent off on ships to another crucial mission: the invasion of southern France.

It was during Operation Dragoon on the beaches of France that Mr. Fontanez would earn his highest award for valor. While the troops advanced inland from the landing area, a low-flying plane dropped a bomb onboard one of the ships in the bay, causing explosions and major fires.

After seeing a number of badly burned men jump from the ship with their clothes on fire--and with total disregard for his own safety--he entered the water and was able to swim several safely to shore.

For this selfless act of bravery, he was awarded the Soldier's Medal.

Later he rejoined his company and was able to help drive the Germans out of Cannes and Grenoble. Moving through the cold snow, they rested where they could. As Christmas 1944 approached, the 36th was hoping for a lull in fighting, but German forces launched an attack to the north. After successfully defending their positions, the 36th renewed the offense and crossed the Rhine River into Germany in late March 1945. It was shortly after this that Mr. Fontanez got his well-deserved rest, and was expedited home for extended leave.

Like so many of his generation, Mr. Fontanez's success extended beyond the battlefield. He fathered two children: a son, Victor, Jr., who is now a retired military officer; and a daughter, Edith, who currently lives in Platte City and works with Support Our Troops & Vets.

He is the proud grandfather of six grandchildren and great- grandfather of four, and counts a military chaplain, two Army soldiers, a Guardsman, an attorney, and a social worker in his lineage. Nearing 90 years of age, Victor Fontanez is a proud member and example of our ``greatest generation,'' and should be commended for his bravery in helping secure the freedoms we all enjoy. On this day, I encourage my colleagues to stand with me in praising the service of this true hero, Victor Fontanez.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the achievements of an exceptional Missouri student.

Second grader Ronald Seawright of St. Louis has taken it upon himself to lead his peers in the St. Louis Public School District in an effort to end school violence, particularly bullying. Using his personal experiences at Laclede Elementary School during his first grade year, Ronald published a short book entitled ``The Bully,'' which he hopes will guide other students to free themselves from bullying.

Ronald's book, ``The Bully,'' explains who bullies are and what they do, as well as how to respond when you are frightened by a bully. Ronald's advice is sound: do not suffer the intimidation of a bully. He stresses the importance of communicating to trusted adults in order to help students overcome peer violence and abuse in its early stages before the school's learning environment is disrupted.

With the aid of his mother and local leaders, Ronald continues to spread his message. On March 14, 2006, public schools across the city of St. Louis are celebrating Live Bully-Free Day. Ronald has invited other school children to join him in learning the personal and social skills necessary to protect themselves from bullies, gangs, and their tactics. Ronald deserves to be commended not only for his courage but also for his great service and leadership in our community.

Mr. President, I encourage you and other Members of the Senate to join me in recognizing the initiative of this brave and creative young man, Ronald Seawright.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the filing deadline for first-degree amendments to S. 2271 occur at 12 noon today.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about the war on terror, progress in Iraq, and the PATRIOT Act. In spite of the negative press you see on the nightly news, Iraq is progressing toward the goal of being independent, free, and democratic. It has been nearly 3 years since our brave men and women in the military and our other agencies freed a people from the grip of a tyrannical and murderous dictator and began to work to establish a democratic society in the heart of the Middle East. In doing so, they are also making the world and all of us much safer.

Since then, the people of Iraq have set up a constitutional government and braved death by voting in free elections.

Surely more remains to be done, but let there be no doubt, progress is being made. But challenges remain. We recognize that and we must.

The recent bombing of a mosque in Samarra has highlighted the challenges Iraq continues to face. Who did it?

Following the attack, a prominent Iraqi Shiite cleric, al-Sistani, recognizing the hallmarks of al-Qaida, called, for the first time, for street demonstrations against the bombing, and thousands of his angry supporters protested, shouting slogans against al-Qaida and its supporters, accusing them of fueling hatred and violence, which is surely what they did.

News of the attack only underscores why we are in Iraq and what is at stake. When our delegation met with Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd leaders last month in Baghdad, those leaders recognized, as our able Ambassador emphasized, the dangers of sectarian violence. They committed to work together, knowing that they have to bring about a national unity government.

Recent news reports suggest that with the intervention of enlightened leaders such as al-Sistani, people are beginning to work together again. But the disturbing news of the bombing of the mosque and resulting reactions and killings simply seems to embolden all the hand- wringing naysayers who have incessantly talked of civil war in Iraq and American withdrawal. A greater lesson, however, lies within this tragic development.

Simply put, what is the alternative?

Is America to retreat from Iraq and simply seek to be left alone and leave the world's problems to others to fix?

In the age of bin Laden, al-Zarqawi, and al-Sistani, that is a course America and the world cannot afford to take. We should have learned our lesson on 9/11.

As the Wall Street Journal recently pointed out, the fact is that under the Bush administration's policy, four democratic governments have come to power in the Middle East--Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Palestine. Yes these democracies will face serious challenges along the way, from insurgents to bloody ethnic feuding.

These are very serious challenges, and we are witnessing these challenges right now.

Let us be blunt. There is always the possibility that a murderous dictator can come to power in a democracy. That is how Hitler got in, in Germany. No one said this approach is perfect. It isn't, especially when Hamas wins in Palestine. But democracy isn't supposed to be perfect or easy or smooth. It was not such as we set up our Government.

But what is the alternative to promoting democracy, no matter how great the challenges become? I submit there is no viable alternative. It is democracy, and only democracy, that will offer these countries the possibility of greater civic freedoms, greater economic freedoms, and the hope for a politically moderate future.

It is only because of American leadership, our brave soldiers, our brave civilians, and the hopeful leadership, the enlightened leadership of people such as Hamid Karzai, Jalal Talabani, and Saad Hariri that these countries and their people stand a chance of a better life and the world stands a chance to be a safer place. Along with it, America stands a chance of having important friends in a part of the world that in the past has been no friend to America.

Some of my colleagues have said we need to get out of Iraq. I agree-- as soon as we train the Iraqi military and the police to ensure security but not until that is done.

But even when Iraq is stabilized, we will continue to see the threat of violence from the Islamofascists such as al-Qaida, Ansar al-Islam, Jamia Islamia.

As President Bush warned, this is going to be a decade-long war. Thus, our battles will go on overseas to deny foreign safe havens to murderous terrorist groups.

At home, the threat is still grim. And with recent disclosures, regrettably, of our most sensitive intelligence, according to CIA Director Porter Goss, we have experienced very severe damage to our capabilities.

It is even more important now that we provide our domestic law enforcement agencies the tools they need. That is why it is imperative we pass the PATRIOT Act as soon as possible. It is past time that we do so. 9/11 was not so long ago that we should have forgotten what it felt like that day.

You know and I know what it was like. We all need to remember. The results of hamstringing our domestic intelligence abilities are not so distant. The reasons we passed the PATRIOT Act have not gone away.

I am glad that an overwhelming number of Senators will join together to provide our terror fighters with the tools they need. For those for whom this was a hard decision, I applaud your courage. However, our actions pale in comparison to the courage exercised by those of us who protect us every day. It is to them we give these tools, to them we entrust our safety, to them we owe our freedoms, to them we owe our lives.

Why would we not give them the tools they need to hold terror at bay? Why should we slow their hunt for terror suspects here at home? Why would we take from them the tools that have aided in the capture of over 400 terrorist suspects?

Renewing the PATRIOT Act will do this and more. It strikes a balance between national security and personal liberties. In the words of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it is a better bill now than it was before.

Negotiators have addressed many concerns. A balance has been struck on national security letters. Nondisclosure requirements prevent terrorists from learning the progress of investigations and investigative techniques. New language allows recipients of NSL letters to overturn the nondisclosure requirements, if a judge finds there is no reason to believe that disclosures may endanger the national security of the United States, interfere with criminal, counterterrorism or counterintelligence investigation, interfere with diplomatic relations or endanger the life or physical safety of any person.

Could we allow anything else?

Language was added clarifying that libraries, where functioning in their traditional roles, are not subject to national security letters. The agreement removes the requirement that a person inform the FBI of the identity of any attorney to whom disclosure was made or will be made to obtain legal advice or assistance.

For those of us who care about port security--quite a few people have been talking about it--this legislation includes the Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports Act of 2005.

Those who join me in supporting this measure will make it a Federal crime to use fraud or false pretenses to enter America's ports; establish a new, general Federal crime to interfere forcibly with inspections of vessels by Federal law enforcement or resist arrest or provide law enforcement officers with false information; add ``passenger vessels'' to the forms of mass transit protected against terrorist attacks under Federal law; make it a Federal crime to place any substance or device in the navigable waters of the United States with the intent to damage a vessel or its cargo or to interfere with maritime commerce; and make it a Federal crime to transport explosives, biological, chemical, radioactive weapons or nuclear material aboard a vessel in the United States, in waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction on the high seas or aboard a vessel of the United States.

In addition, I care very deeply about fighting the drug scourge sweeping rural America, especially in the Midwest. Folks in my State know all too well that methamphetamine is perhaps the most deadly, fiercely addictive, and rapidly spreading drug the United States has known. It is cheap, potent, and available everywhere.

During the past decade, while law enforcement officers continue to bust record numbers of clandestine labs, methamphetamine use in some communities has increased by as much as 300 percent.

The PATRIOT Act reauthorization includes the most comprehensive antimeth package ever introduced in the Congress by my colleagues Senator Jim Talent of Missouri and Senator Dianne Feinstein of California. This Combat Meth Act will make certain legitimate consumers have access to the medicine they need while cutting off the meth cooks from the large amounts of ingredients they need to cook meth.

For all of these reasons, we must reauthorize the PATRIOT Act now. Our terror fighters cannot wait, our ports cannot wait, and our communities suffering from the scourge of meth cannot wait.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise to address some troubling information about natural gas, energy, and the prices of energy as well as its availability. This information came from a hearing held in the Air subcommittee of the EPW Committee last week, and I think it is of sufficient importance to all Members and all States in the Nation that I rise to speak to my colleagues about it.

We all know that American families and workers are suffering from high energy costs. They will suffer even more if we do not balance our environmental concerns with their energy needs. That is why the hearing held last week in the Air subcommittee is all the more important. If we fail to heed the warning our families and workers are sending us about high energy costs and their lost jobs, their lost incomes, their lost standards of living, then we risk doing even more harm.

The people I am talking about include manufacturing workers who used to make chemicals, plastic products, automobile parts or fertilizer. Many of them are now out of work because their employer moved to a foreign country with cheaper natural gas prices.

The pain, obviously, doesn't stop with workers. Families suffer from lost wages. Most of those who are lucky enough to get a new job will be working for lower wages. Does that mean that those wages have to move even lower? Do they have to live with a broken-down car even longer?

In addition, seniors on fixed incomes are particularly vulnerable to high natural gas prices. Across the Midwest, indeed across the country, many depend on natural gas to heat their homes in the winter and cool their homes in the summer. What do we tell them: Wear a coat inside during the winter and turn on a fan during the summer? We all know of the tragedies that hit our seniors in summer heat waves. What do we tell their families?

Some have said we should tell our workers and their families that we are going to hurt them even more in order to fight climate change. We will pass proposals to cap carbon emissions which, by the way, will raise energy prices even more. For some, I guess today's energy prices are not high enough. Some are willing to drive power and heating bills even higher in their fight against global warming. Some do not care that there are no technologies currently available to capture and store carbon dioxide. But they are working on finding those. We are not there yet.

Some are willing to stop using cheap and abundant fuels, such as coal, and force ourselves to use only the expensive and very limited supply of natural gas. Every year, recently, we have had an opportunity to vote on the McCain-Lieberman proposal. Every year we hear about how it will deliver a $100 billion hit or more to the economy. Thankfully, every year the Senate kills this job killer.

Last year, as part of the Energy bill debate, we passed a sense of the Senate stating support for climate change strategies that did not hurt the economy. I think we can all agree with that. It sounds simple, but as we consider the ``McCain-Lieberman lite'' proposals, we have to look at whether a second generation of proposals will actually spare our families and workers from more pain.

Since we still do not have the technologies to capture and store carbon, they will present other dubious arguments. Some will pin their hopes on projections that future natural gas prices will fall from triple historic levels, where they are now, to only double historic levels, where they were a few years ago. This will somehow make carbon caps affordable.

Not only do I doubt that natural gas prices will return to historic lows, States represented by Members advocating these proposals are actively trying to block actions necessary to increase natural gas supply and get prices down. Government natural gas projections, which we found very dubious, include a prediction that natural

gas prices will fall in the coming decades. However, that prediction depends upon liquefied natural gas imports rising by 600 percent by 2030, a sixfold increase in LNG imports. I find such hopes mind- boggling. How could we increase LNG imports by 600 percent at the same time we have coastal States from Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Delaware opposing or blocking LNG terminals?

By the way, these Northeastern States blocking natural gas imports through their States are the very ones proposing we punish Midwestern States using coal by forcing them to switch to natural gas to make electricity--the natural gas that they will not allow us to get through

This means that not only more cheap foreign chemicals, but it means potentially more closed U.S. plants. We must also ask whether we want to add to our oil addiction a new chemical dependency on Iraq, Iran, and the Middle East.

Before we make any hasty decisions, I believe we must have answers to these questions, and we must answer these questions as we begin to debate further carbon cap proposals.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for 8 minutes.

Mr. President, I certainly support the very powerful words of my colleague from Alabama. He has pointed out many of the compelling reasons for this program.

I rise today to discuss this vitally important program for protecting our national security, and I do so regrettably because this is an open session on the floor of the Senate. This program, of course, is known as the NSA terrorist surveillance program. I say I discuss it regrettably because it is to the detriment of our Nation that this program was leaked to the media and has now been discussed openly for months.

I submit to you that the year 2005, in intelligence and national security circles, will go down in history as the year of the leak. I will not repeat the full litany of those leaks, but we have all been continually reminded about the most damaging one.

Yes.

Mr. President, I say thank you to the Senator from Alabama.

Let me get back to the remarks.

For example, the allegation that the United States is running some secret prisons in Europe has caused European nations and other allies to question their cooperation with us on the war on terror for fear of international retribution; the barrage of books and articles disclosing alleged classified operations, like James Risen's book, ``State of War,'' where he takes every supposed leak he can find and churns it out for profit in a book; and the NSA terrorist surveillance program which tips off terrorists to our early warning program.

On February 2, CIA Director Goss testified to Congress and the Intelligence Committee in open session about the damage to our national security. I asked him if these leaks had a significant impact on our capabilities to carry out our mission. And to quote him:

I use the words ``very severe'' intentionally. That is my

belief.

He went on to say that foreign leaders chide him that the United States cannot keep a secret and that we have lost the confidence of many in the world who were desiring to assist us in the global war on terror. Do those who leak classified information with reckless abandon realize they are potentially aiding and abetting the enemy by allowing the enemy advanced warning of how to avoid our defenses as we seek to prevent another 9/11?

Since so many have taken political advantage of the leak on the NSA terrorist surveillance program, the administration and those of us who agree with the concept of the program are now forced to speak openly to defend it to make sure Congress does not throw this vital program out with the bath water while reviewing it. Some say the program is illegal and even unconstitutional. How do they figure? The President has the inherent constitutional

authority, so held by the courts, to conduct ``warrantless'' surveillance when it is reasonable for the surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. This is a constitutional principle which has been established for centuries. Go back to the writings of our Founding Fathers, and from our first President, George Washington, to our current, President George Bush. Presidents have intercepted communications to determine the plans and intentions of our enemies.

A steady stream of Federal court cases has confirmed this Presidential authority, as Attorney General Gonzales pointed out on Monday before the Senate Judiciary Committee: In the face of overwhelming evidence for the President's authority, opponents retort that the President must then be breaking the law by violating the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA. But--and this is important--Congress cannot extinguish the President's constitutional authority by passing a law.

We in this body cannot take away the powers the Constitution gives the President. If the law is read in such a way as to encroach upon his constitutional authority, then I question whether that part of the FISA act would be constitutional.

This is not the first time a President has faced the issue of exercising his inherent constitutional powers for foreign intelligence surveillance in view of legislation that could be interpreted as infringing on that authority.

In 1940, President Roosevelt wrote to Attorney General Robert Jackson that despite section 605 of the Communications Act of 1934, and in this instance despite a Supreme Court ruling upholding the prohibition on electronic surveillance, President Roosevelt said he believed he had the inherent constitutional authority to authorize the Attorney General to ``secure information by listening devices direct to the conversation or other communications of persons suspected of subversive activities against the government of the United States, including suspected spies.''

So does the President have carte blanche with respect to foreign intelligence surveillance? The answer is clearly no. Under the fourth amendment to the Constitution, the surveillance has to be ``reasonable,'' and it does not require a warrant. In the context of a war against al-Qaida and those who would do great harm by attacks on innocent American civilians within our country and with a constitutional resolution authorizing the use of ``all necessary and appropriate force'' to prevent attacks, who is the best to determine what is and isn't ``reasonable''?

When surveying communications in real time, who is best to make that determination? A judge or a lawyer or an intelligence analyst who has spent his or her professional life observing, listening, studying, and tracking the terrorist personalities which make up groups such as al- Qaida? To me the answer is obvious: the analyst.

Consider this: If someone listened to your voice on a telephone call, who would be the best person to assess it by the voice intonation and word usage, whether it is your voice on the other end or a lawyer or someone who knows you well? Of course, the answer is the person who knows you. And I submit that the Americans who know these terrorist personalities better than anyone else are the analysts who have spent endless days over the past 4 years studying them.

Again, do the analysts have carte blanche to eavesdrop on international communications coming into or out of the United States to known suspected terrorists? No. Their decisions are reviewed by supervisors, and the program is reviewed by the NSA inspector general, the NSA general counsel, the White House Counsel, and numerous lawyers at the Justice Department who are ready to blow the whistle if they see anybody stepping out of line. The Attorney General also reviews the program, and the President reauthorizes it every 45 days with the determination that al-Qaida continues to pose a significant threat.

Did the President keep the Congress in the dark? No, he didn't. He briefed the Congress in a manner consistent with the practice of Presidents over the past century. He briefed leaders of both parties in the House and Senate and the two leaders on each Intelligence Committee, Democrats and Republicans.

These leaders were elected by their constituents to represent them in Congress and elected or appointed by their parties to serve in these incredibly important positions, so if any one of them ever questioned the legality of this program, they had the responsibility to bring the matter to the leadership, discuss it with the administration, and if necessary to cut off funding for the program through congressional authority.

The reason the President briefed the Congress was to afford them the opportunity to do exactly that. Did anyone do that? No. There was a carefully couched letter written that simply expressed concern. There was no followup, no action taken, and no mention of it at all during subsequent program briefings, according to public statements by those in attendance.

Some Members of Congress may feel slighted because they were not briefed on the program. I am on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Do I feel slighted? Absolutely not. To the contrary, I recognize that the President has to keep these very important programs top secret, which the President is doing to protect my family, my constituents, and myself. That is his responsibility.

The bottom line is that I believe congressional oversight is a vital aspect of ensuring the proper execution of matters involving national security, and I believe there was adequate oversight. We are not talking about the U.S. Government listening to phone calls from me to you or from my constituents in Missouri to their relatives in or out of State. We are talking about our best intelligence officials having the ability to assess whether al-Qaida affiliates are communicating internationally where one end of the communication takes place inside the United States and the other end takes place outside the United States, maybe discussing another attack like 9/11 on America.

These are times to stand up in arms over our civil liberties. I will do so when I believe they are infringed upon. This is not one.

I thank my colleagues for their indulgence, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to engage the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in a colloquy regarding a provision contained within the manager's amendment to S. 662, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act.

The manager's amendment offered by Senator Collins changes the language of section 3622 concerning rate and service complaints that are brought to the Postal Regulatory Commission. I ask the Senator to explain the purpose and intent of this change. I particularly want to be sure that this amendment to the bill is not intended to, and does not deprive the Postal Regulatory Commission of its power to consider complaints relating to rates and the provision of postal services.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. President, responding to the distinguished minority leader, I plan to speak about 10 minutes. I would be happy to allow Senator Durbin to go first. I have some obligations.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and commend the valiant efforts of our men and women who are serving overseas. Almost 4\1/2\ years after the dreadful events of September 11 seized our Nation, brave Americans continue to serve overseas in our response to those attacks. During the past 2 months, I have visited with our troops, agency operators, and aid workers in two areas I believe are the two fronts of the war on terrorism, the Near East and Southeast Asia. Those I met with in the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan all relayed to me, on the whole, very encouraging reports. In Iraq, our congressional delegation, which included Senator Bayh, Senator Obama, Representative Ford, and I, was told by intelligence officials that in spite of the increasing numbers of IEDs, improvised explosive devices, attacks, they see more reason for optimism this year than they did in the previous year, and they see it as no small achievement that many of the insurgent groups are joining the political process. From Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, to U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzan, to U.S. military commanders, intelligence officials, aid workers, and the Iraqi people themselves, everyone told us that this year will be a bellwether year for Iraq in which we see the potential for great achievements. But we need to make progress in three key areas:

First, the Iraqis must ensure that a national unity government reigns in Baghdad. This was emphasized by President Talabani. The Sunni, Shia, and Kurds have to work together to incorporate all three parties in one governing structure. We were all greatly encouraged by the 77-percent voter turnout in the December general elections, as it evidences that more and more Iraqis are buying into the wonderful concept of democracy. Now they need to show us they are willing to work together as we provide them assistance and stability.

Second, we need to focus our primary efforts in standing up Iraqi police and domestic forces this year. Civilian authority must reign in Iraqi cities for citizens to gain confidence in their new democratic form of government.

Third, we must continue to provide maximum assistance for reconstruction efforts so that more Iraqis may gain access to electrical power, use water and sewer systems, and drive safely on their roads.

This is not to say we have not already made significant gains in these areas, for everywhere I went our troops and workers expressed to me their disappointment that the tremendous achievements we have made have gone largely unreported in the U.S. media. One phrase I heard used often in our major networks is: If it bleeds, it leads. They talk about the tragedies and the losses, but they somehow fail to talk about the progress we have made. A few suicide bombings per day executed by wayward individuals, mindless terrorists, who are willing to sacrifice themselves, is apparently a higher priority in the media than acts of sacrifice, courage, and commitment by several hundred thousand coalition workers and over 26 million Iraqis. To be sure, Iraq is a dangerous place--the day before we arrived at one base, five of their marines had been killed--but it is also a place of tremendous transformation, and over the past year our progress is often crowded out on the evening news.

But we must not lose our resolve. As the President said last night:

In all these areas, from disruption of terrorist networks,

to victory in Iraq, to the support of freedom and hope in

troubled regions, we need the support of friends and allies.

To draw that support we must always be clear in our

principles and willing to act. The only alternative to

American leadership is a dramatically more dangerous and more

anxious world.

The President also addressed his terrorist surveillance program. He said:

This program has helped prevent terrorist attacks in our

country. It remains essential to the security of America. If

there are people inside our country who are talking with al-

Qaida, we want to know about it because we will not sit back

and wait to let it happen again.

That is what I hear from the people I talk to in my home State.

In Afghanistan, also, phenomenal progress has been made. Yet what we hear about on the daily news are the incidents of terrorism that grab headlines. Today in London, the international community is coming together to chart the course for Afghan assistance for the next few years. This is a vital meeting where peace-loving nations will commit to invest in Afghanistan's newfound democracy. Afghanistan is in a very different situation from Iraq, yet it currently has two of the same pressing needs: the standup of strong, reliable, civil-controlled interior security forces and infrastructure development.

I also heard from our leaders on the ground, including President Karzai of Afghanistan and our commander of that region, General Eikenberry, that Afghanistan desperately needs a viable agriculture and farm credit system. We need to get the farmers back on their feet so they do not turn to poppy production to feed their families. We have tremendous agricultural resources in our country, as the occupant of the chair knows. We can leverage these resources to help gain leverage for international security in Afghanistan. I have written the U.S. Secretaries of State, Defense, and Agriculture to encourage their cooperation in developing a joint venture to put Afghan farmers back on their feet. I envision a corporate venture between State, USAID, the Defense Department, the Department of Agriculture, land grant colleges and universities, and private sector volunteers, working together to provide Afghanis with viable forms of agriculture. This endeavor would counter the significant drug problems in Afghanistan and destroy the incentive that many farmers face in deciding to grow poppy. Existing counternarcotics funds in the Defense budget would be well spent in this area by giving farmers a way out of drug production. I am more than willing to encourage assistance from the colleges and universities in Missouri and to work legislatively with my colleagues on a proposal to move this initiative forward.

In Afghanistan, there is now enough security in many areas to put less of an

emphasis on warfighting and more emphasis on the livelihoods of the Afghan people we are there to serve. This is one of the most effective ways to invest in our national security for the future--making an investment in their infrastructure and assisting them to develop a viable economic means of earning a living, without turning to the production of poppy, which leads to the production of dangerous drugs.

Finally, I will address an issue of great frustration to me. Over the past year, there seems to have arisen in our national security community an apparent absence of fear of punishment in regard to the arbitrary and senseless divulging of our most secret and classified intelligence information. I am talking about individuals who have taken solemn vows to protect our Nation, who are breaking these vows for their own particular purposes. In taking a vow to protect classified information, one must acknowledge that he or she will be privy to information that, if divulged, could be very harmful to their fellow Americans. They acknowledge a solemn trust by the people of the United States to protect classified information and thereby to protect their neighbors and themselves. I myself am under an obligation as a Senator, and particularly as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to protect classified information. I believe the access I have to such information is a privilege and a solemn trust, and how I handle that information has repercussions.

For example, it has come to my attention from a variety of intelligence officials on the ground, on the front lines, who have told us that the leaks in the past year have adversely and significantly affected our intelligence operations and thus diminished our national security. It is my view that we are much less safe in our homeland because of some of the actions we have taken, some by legislation, but primarily by individuals disclosing information that has been classified for good reason. Potential sources in the regions I have visited are now refusing to speak with U.S. officers or to cooperate with them for fear of their information leaking. They see some of our most sensitive programs on the front pages of our newspapers and conclude that we are a nation that has no respect for classified information. As a result, we are less likely to get information we need because sources are rightfully fearful that disclosure of their information could lead to their identification and the assassination of the sources themselves and probably their families.

Would you or I want to put our lives and the lives of our families in the hands of a nation that we believed could not keep a secret? Of course not. Last month, the Arab news network al-Jazeera aired a tape by Osama bin Laden warning the U.S. of future terrorist attacks planned for our Nation. On Monday of this week, his deputy, the infamous and deadly Ayman al-Zawahiri, taunted President Bush on videotape for not killing him at Damadola, a village in Pakistan--in the ungovernable and unreachable areas of Pakistan. These tapes demonstrate that the threat from al-Qaida is present and very real. From my personal visit to that area, I can tell you that that area of Pakistan, the tribal areas in which they operate, is truly a hostile environment to all foreigners, and not just to the United States, or British, or Australians, but to representatives of the Pakistan Government. When we drove out toward the tribal areas, we were faced with a sign that said ``foreigners not allowed.'' When we drove up to that checkpoint, five men with AK-47s stepped out in the road in front of us. I thought this was a good signal to turn back.

We have a great difficulty in getting information on what is going on in that area. But leaks of our secrets and our top sensitive programs are killing one of our last lines of defense against pending terrorist attacks. I think any reasonable person would agree.

This is an election year. Some may be content to play politics with our national security. I am not one of them. I don't think the people of America appreciate that. For me, I will do all in my power to ensure that we move forward in the work that needs to be done to strengthen our national security. I invite my colleagues, no matter their political persuasion, to join me in this endeavor. This, to me, is a very significant challenge, a challenge from which we cannot retreat. We must persevere and we must remedy the costs to our intelligence gathering that is so essential in a war against terror. We must help countries develop strong economies and democratic structures, recognizing human rights and civilian control of forces. This is a challenge that is ours to keep and we must not slack from that effort.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on the question of the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, when you boil everything down and clear away all of the other issues, the most important thing each of us wants from a judge is fairness and impartiality. None of us would want to go into a courtroom and think our judge had already made up his mind before hearing our case. Whether we are rich or poor, weak or strong, but especially if we are poor or weak, victim or defendant, we need to know we will get a fair trial.

We would not get a fair trial if we faced a judge who had already made up his mind. Not only would the deck be stacked against us, we would be dealt a losing hand if we had to face a judge with an agenda different from our case. That is what justice means--impartial and objective. That is the kind of judge we want hearing our case, and that is the kind of judge Sam Alito is.

Everything we have learned about Judge Alito, from his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, his lengthy record of decided cases, to the testimonials of his colleagues and peers, tells us that Judge Alito will be a fair, impartial, and objective Justice.

Judge Alito has told us how he believes a judge cannot prejudge an issue, a judge cannot have an agenda, a judge cannot have a preferred outcome in any particular case.

I was so glad to see that during his confirmation hearing Judge Alito would not allow himself to be forced into prejudging any cases. Now, many tried. They went down their list of issues and asked whether Judge Alito agreed with their agenda. They wanted to know how he would rule on one kind of case or another. They wanted him to decide cases before he even heard them. That would not be justice, and that would not be Judge Alito.

Not only does Judge Alito know justice, Judge Alito knows democracy. Democracy means that laws governing the people can only be made by those elected by the people to make laws. He knows the Members of Congress are elected to make laws. The citizens of Missouri elected their Representatives and Senators to represent them in Congress, the legislative body. I am honored to be one of those so chosen. Judge Alito is not.

The citizens of Missouri are not electing Judge Alito to make laws. Judge Alito knows he will not have the power to make laws. Judge Alito knows he is neither a Congressman nor a Senator who can pass his own legislation from the bench. That is not the role of a judge.

Judge Alito knows he is not a politician advocating a program. That is not what a judge should do. He is not a politician responding to a stakeholder, carrying out the agenda of his constituency, whether it be New Jersey or any other State in the Nation, taking the pulse of voters or watching the polls. That is not how to be a judge.

Judge Alito has told us he will look at the facts with an open mind and then apply the Constitution and the laws as written. He will not make up the law when he wants, he will not change the law when he needs.

Judge Alito also knows the law, as many of my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee found out. At every stage of his life, he has excelled at knowing and applying the law. As a law clerk to a Federal judge, Department of Justice official, Federal prosecutor, and now a Federal appellate judge with 15 years experience on the bench, Judge Alito is one of the most qualified ever nominated for the Supreme Court.

A very good friend of mine is an appellate judge, who in law school had the pleasure of supervising a legal document written by Judge Alito. He told me Judge Alito had the finest legal, judicial mind he had ever encountered. I trust his judgment.

Judge Alito's peers and colleagues all agree that Judge Alito is supremely qualified for the Supreme Court. He comes highly recommended by his colleagues and members of the legal profession because of his legal knowledge and experience. Even those who have worked with Judge Alito and disagree with him on the issues or the outcome of his rulings consider him fair-minded and evenhanded.

In short, Judge Alito will make a great Supreme Court Justice. Unfortunately, and regrettably, the Senate's vote will not reflect that. Perhaps it was a simpler time, less partisan, less subject to politics, less subject to the whims of shifting constituencies and pressure groups when we could overwhelmingly support those overwhelmingly qualified for the Court.

For example, both Justices Ginsburg and Scalia received unanimous or near unanimous approval. One came from the left, nominated by a Democratic President, and an advocate for the ACLU; another is a brilliant legal mind, supported by the right. Partisan politics were put aside when we voted for these Supreme Court nominees.

Unfortunately, there are those who want to use Judge Alito as a political football. I, for one, believe very strongly our judges and our justice system should be above partisan politics. Justice deserve better than to have the nominees dragged through the political mud.

My focus is on the nominee himself and on his legal knowledge and experience. In that regard, Judge Alito should be on the Supreme Court, and I will proudly vote to place him on the Supreme Court.

Every case he hears, he will approach with an open mind. Every case he considers, he will apply the law and Constitution as written. Every case he decides, he will check his personal feelings at the door and weigh the scales of justice.

We can expect, and should expect, nothing more from a Justice, and justice deserves nothing less.

I urge my colleagues to put aside partisan politics, to put aside pressure from special interests, to vote to invoke cloture, and then to vote on a majority vote to confirm Justice Alito to the Supreme Court.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to engage the chairman of the Finance Committee in colloquy regarding clarification of some Medicaid provisions relating to strengthening the government's ability to identify and collect payment from liable third party payors.

Under current law, Medicaid is the payor of last resort. In general, federal law requires available third parties must meet their legal obligation to pay claims before the Medicaid program pays for the care of an individual.

The conference report amends the list of third parties named in section 1902(a)(25) of the Social Security Act for which States must take all reasonable measures to ascertain the legal liability to include, among others, pharmacy benefits managers.

Once only the back office to health plans, employers, and State governments, pharmacy benefit managers have expanded their business model to include serving as risk-bearing entities under the Medicare Part D program.

I would like to clarify that the addition of pharmacy benefit managers to the definition of liable third parties is in the instance when they are at risk for the underlying benefit, such as operating as a plan sponsor for purposes of providing health benefits or as a riskbearing entity under the new Medicare Part D program as a stand- alone PDP. This addition is not meant to make pharmacy benefit managers liable when they are acting merely in an administrative capacity on behalf of a liable third party.

I thank the Chairman.

Bona Fide Services--Clarifying the Treatment of Distributor Service

Fees under the New Medicaid Pharmacy Reimbursement Metric

Mr. President, there are a number of subjects I want to address tonight. I appreciate the time. First, the Defense appropriations bill that is before us that is going to have to be clotured is very important. I want to make sure everybody understands what we are talking about. There are some very important things in there, including relief for the Katrina victims, and all of the victims of the hurricanes in the gulf coast over to Florida. These are important funds that need to be provided.

It also includes the opening up of ANWR, which will provide revenues that will help us meet the needs of LIHEAP and also of the hurricane victims. Beyond that, it is going to help us meet needs that all Americans have for an adequate energy supply. Nine hundred thousand barrels of oil would have been coming out of the coastal regions of northern Alaska above the Arctic Circle had the previous approval of this bill by the Congress in 1995 not been vetoed. So ANWR is necessary if we are going to bring supply up to help meet the demand for energy.

But most important, this provides $50 billion to support our troops in the war on terror. We have heard remarks recently on the floor about what our troops want. I can tell you one thing our troops want is to have the bullets, the supplies, the reinforcements, and the assistance they need to conduct the war. Our troops, by and large, are very enthusiastic about continuing to finish the job. What bothers them is to hear people in this body and in the media say that the President has failed and we ought to impeach him. Their Commander in Chief, they believe, has done the right thing in helping us clean out the murderous tyrant Saddam Hussein and carry the war on terror to the hotbed of terrorism that was and would be Iraq if we left. They are concerned that if we try to pull out the troops before they finish the job, it is going to be a disaster. I am going to talk more about that later on, but the people who claim to be supporting the troops should not be filibustering the Defense appropriations bill.

Speaking of the related subject, let me turn now to electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists' conversations with al-Qaida abroad. That is a vitally important area that has been substantially mischaracterized by recent remarks on the floor. The National Security Act of 1947 requires the President to keep Congress fully and currently informed on U.S. intelligence activities to the extent consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods.

This statutory requirement recognizes that some of the programs or activities may be so sensitive that the information is provided only to a few Members of Congress.

Regrettably, a very effective program that the President authorized has now been fully exposed. I hope there will be a full investigation by the Department of Justice and appropriate prosecutions of those found to have leaked that information.

Recognizing the need to protect sensitive programs and activities, Congress created the Intelligence Committee and worked with the President to balance the Congress's constitutional need for information and the President's constitutional responsibility to protect national security.

Before we start calling the President's efforts illegal or unconstitutional, maybe people ought to take a look at the law and the Constitution. The President has the constitutional authority to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. This is what the President stated he has done. It was for foreign intelligence purposes.

In the most recent definitive case addressing this issue, the 1980 Truong case from the Fourth Circuit, the Court upheld the Executive's warrantless electronic surveillance of U.S. persons for foreign intelligence purposes. The Court explicitly recognized a foreign intelligence exception to the warrant requirement based on the President's constitutional authority and responsibility to protect national security.

Incidentally, the President, under whose authority that warrantless search--eavesdropping--was conducted was Jimmy Carter.

The FISA statute that has been passed works with the President's constitutional authorities. It is one way to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance, but it is not the only way. You see, Congress cannot get rid of a President's constitutional authority by passing a law. The President can conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance because he is charged under the Constitution with protecting our Nation and conducting foreign relations.

Under the fourth amendment, the surveillance still has to be reasonable; it just doesn't require a warrant. In the context of the war against al-Qaida and worldwide terrorism, the constitutional resolution authorizing the use of all necessary and appropriate force to prevent future attacks makes it clear that the President's determination of what is and isn't reasonable is entitled to some deference. When you are fighting a war, you have to be able to move quickly to respond to threats. The President has said he exercised the authority to maintain speed and flexibility to target terrorists when they are about to harm our country. If the Constitution provides for that agility, the President should use it.

As the 9/11 Commission has pointed out, it was clear that enemy communications were made from the United States prior to the September 11 attacks. The Commission criticized our inability to link things happening in the United States with things that were happening elsewhere. We know, for example, that Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al Midhar, two terrorists who flew a jet into the Pentagon, communicated overseas to other members of al-Qaida while they were in the United States. We knew they were terrorists, but we did not know they were here until it was too late. Reflecting his constitutional responsibilities and authorities, the activities authorized by the President make it far more likely that such killers can be identified and located in time in the future to prevent that tragic occurrence from recurring.

The lawful activity conducted under this authorization has given the United States a proven ability to detect and prevent terrorist attacks. It enables us to learn more about those who have a link to al-Qaida in a way that is agile and timely enough to prevent and detect further attacks.

The program has been successful, but continuing public discussion of the nature and use of the capability simply will arm our enemies with the knowledge they need to prevent detection and will increase the danger to our country, our citizens, and our values.

Speaking of giving the necessary tools to our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, there is the PATRIOT Act, which, again, is being filibustered by those on the other side. Over the past few days, opponents have raised a number of arguments and charges against two controversial provisions from the original PATRIOT Act--FISA business records and national security letters. Unfortunately, many of the arguments have been inaccurate and misleading, particularly the allegations that the conference report does not fix alleged problems with these investigative tools.

Let me be clear, as my colleague from Arizona just pointed out, if the USA PATRIOT Act is not reauthorized, we will have done a grave disservice to our Nation's security. That is your and my safety, Mr. President, and the safety of our families, of our communities, of our country. We will be sending the wrong message to terrorists and spies who threaten our national security that we will not use every constitutional tool available. I don't want to send that message.

It is far too easy 4 years after September 11 to put restrictions on the intelligence community that are not necessary or appropriate. When we needlessly restrict intelligence investigations, we increase the possibility that the next attack will succeed.

The arguments of those who seek further to restrict the PATRIOT Act tools are not based on any factual allegations of abuse but, rather, on unsubstantiated allegations, inaccurate and misleading press accounts, and hypotheticals. To adopt their position and to reject the conference report is to legislate to the possible rogue FBI agent, the one-tenth of 1 percent who might go beyond the law and should be prosecuted if he or she does. If we take that step, we will deprive the other 99.9 percent of FBI agents of lawful investigative tools.

Rather than basing their votes on inaccurate media reports or hypotheticals, I urge my colleagues to base their position on this important legislation on facts: the fact that terrorists continue to seek to kill Americans; the fact they continue to plot attacks; the fact they are determined to continue the war against us; the fact that this conference report provides significant increased protections for privacy and civil liberties; and the fact that our national security investigations have not abused the authorities provided under the original act.

This bill is a compromise. Over the past days, many who have opposed the conference report have suggested we can quickly solve the matter by simply adopting the original Senate bill. They pointed to the Senate passage of this bill by unanimous consent. We did not object to the bill because it needed to proceed to conference quickly. If the Senate bill had been submitted to the conferees for signature, there are some who would not have signed it. That bill went too far, in my view. This conference report strikes the appropriate balance, and just barely.

That said, the conferees considered the bill adopted by the Senate and the Senate position on NSLs and FISA business records. All of that has been debated and negotiated. In short, the legislative process resulted in the conference report presented to us.

Many opposed to the conference report have made a great deal about what this bill is not. Well, I have a list of thing the bill is not as well. This bill does not place national security investigators on a par with their counterparts investigating criminal cases, regrettably, and it doesn't give them the same access criminal investigators have to our records. Unfortunately, we could not get that done. But neither does it compromise any American civil rights.

Speaking, as I was, of the war in Iraq, let me point out that we have had a tremendous milestone. Last Thursday, there was a 70-percent voter turnout, the highest thus far.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an op-ed piece by a marine who spoke very eloquently about the reasons why he is signing up, why he is going back to Iraq, why significant numbers of people are reenlisting because they know we are making progress in the war on terror.

Mr. President, our efforts in Iraq are pivotal to our strategic interests in the Middle East and throughout the world. This past Wednesday, Osama Bin Ladin's principal deputy, Aman al-Zawahiri, in his latest video on the internet called for the insurgent groups in Iraq to unite in order to drive out the Americans. Zawahiri has stated consistently that the war in Iraq is his holy jihad and the battleground for establishing a worldwide, Islamo-fascist state. Terrorists like Zawahiri are clear on their goals for Iraq, let us be clear and steadfast in our resolve to defeat their diabolical plans and lay the foundation for a peaceful, free Iraq.

As I outlined on the Senate floor earlier this year, Southeast Asia is of vital importance to the economic health and the security of the United States--and I have urged active engagement. Home to over 500 million people and two Muslim democracies, U.S. engagement is essential for strategic, economic and security reasons.

I have just returned from my second trip to the region this year. In January of this year, I visited Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia, including a tour of Aceh in the wake of the devastating tsunami that hit that part of the country. I have just returned from a trip to

the Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand. Throughout Southeast Asia, I spread the message that America has vital interests in the region and that we will continue to cultivate economic and security ties.

Foremost, however, I made it known that the United States wants to participate in this and any future East Asian summits. The summit was initially billed as a meeting of East Asian countries, but it continued to expand until it was a meeting of ASEAN countries plus Japan, Korea, China, India, Australia and New Zealand--it has started to look like everyone but the United States.

I can understand China wanting to take this opportunity to marginalize the United States while pressing aggressively their priorities in the region. However, I pointed out to the leaders with whom I visited in Southeast Asia that the United States was in Asia during World War II to liberate the region from Japanese aggression; we were in Asia to prevent the region from being taken over from the communists, and we are in the region to fight Islamic fascists bent in turning the region into part of an Islamic caliphate. We were in the region immediately to provide resources to save thousands of lives in Aceh and begin the rebuilding process. We have made a valuable contribution to the quality of life in Asia and we should not be excluded from such an important summit.

The Philippines has a population of 87 million people and population is expected to double in the next 30 years. I saw a startling statistic that showed in the same time that median income increased over 2,000 percent in Korea, increased over 900 percent in Thailand and almost 700 percent in Indonesia, median income increased only 90 percent in the Philippines.

Despite its longstanding ties to the United States and the presence of an English speaking population, the country has not advanced economically to the level it should have. The corruption of Marcos was a terrible setback but it is time to move ahead. The country is in need of U.S. Foreign Direct Investment but I heard from the American Chamber of Commerce that reforms are needed before more investment will flow, especially in area of judicial reform and intellectual property protection. We do have extensive U.S. Government presence that is actively working with the government on these and many important reforms.

In an excellent meeting I had with President Arroyo, I commended her on the leadership role the Philippines has taken to pushing ASEAN finally to get tough on Myanmar. It is long past time for that country to improve its human rights record and move towards installing the popularly elected government. We also discussed and I thanked her for her support of our objective to advance free trade in Asia.

Despite the massive undertaking, the rebuilding of Aceh is progressing. The U.S. remains involved, notably we have been integral to building a 60 mile road to cross the island of Sumatra, an essential artery to rebuilding the country. Between our efforts and between the waiver of military sanctions by the President, our standing in the United States is on the rise.

Reviving military to military relations will pay more dividends than support for the United States. The reform-minded President of Indonesia is a graduate of Webster University in St. Louis, MO, but he is also a graduate of the IMET program. While his tasks are immense, he is committed to reform and he has taken on corruption in the government and needed structural reforms in the military. Change will never happen at a pace that will satisfy some in this Congress, but important reforms are advancing and I believe we should seize the opportunity to influence further the professionalism of the Indonesian military through more IMET participation.

I also had the opportunity to dine with some very engaging, forward- looking members of the Indonesian parliament. They share my concern in the limitations of the Indonesian education system and the holes in curriculum that may be exploited by the paesantrans that are Saudi funded and teach an extreme version of Islam.

President Bush has identified an important goal, improving the education system in Indonesia, and has proposed a four year, $157 million education program for Indonesia. USAID is implementing the program that will work on curriculum issues and train teachers. This program is targeted at introducing basic education and the teaching of skills to young Indonesians, so that they will leave school with the ability to find work--creating a capable Indonesian labor force in the process.

Finally, I had an excellent visit to Thailand, a great and longstanding ally of the United States. Like the other countries in the region, we have active ties with Thailand on a number of levels. We are presently negotiating a FTA with the Thais, successful completion of an FTA will make Thailand our second free trade partner in Asia.

But there is also a great deal of success in the region in the war on terrorism and many of the countries in Southeast Asia have been valuable partners. As I have stated on this floor, Southeast Asia has opened up as a second front on the war on terrorism. It is home to its own terrorist network, Jemaah Islamiyah, that has made a number of successful and deadly attacks, including the two devastating bombings in Bali.

There have been numerous victories over terrorism in the past 3 years in the Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines. For example, last month on November 9, 2005, in Indonesia, Indonesian police tracked down and killed Dr. Azahari bin Husin, the Jemaah Islamiyah bomb expert who was known as the most feared terrorist in Asia. Azahari was responsible for the two Bali bombings, an attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta, and the bombing of the JW Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, among others. He was in the midst of planning a string of terrorist attacks when police assaulted his safe house in East Java. The termination of his terror campaign was the result of a culmination of numerous entities working together to fight terrorism in the region. U.S. assistance was and remains paramount to such efforts and is having great effect.

In Thailand on August 11, 2003, Riduan Isamuddin, aka Hambali, was arrested by Thai authorities near Bangkok, Thailand, after extensive coordination between multiple agencies and authorities. The capture of Hambali truly is a testament to the effectiveness that we and the allies we support are having in the global war on terror. When the details of this operation are declassified in the future, the phenomenal tale of his capture should make for a dynamic, nonfiction movie. President Bush described Hambali as ``one of the world's most lethal terrorists'' and a key figure in al Qaeda's global operations. Hambali was a close associate of September 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, KSM, and it is no coincidence that the information we have gleaned from detainees like KSM has led to captures like that of Hambali.

In the Philippines, a great success in the war on terror has taken place over the past year on the southern Philippine island of Basilan. I met with the Commander of the Joint Special Operations Task Force Philippines, JSOTF-P, and he briefed me on this tremendous success. One of the primary terrorist organizations in the Philippines is the Abu Sayyaf Group, ASG. The ASG is primarily a small, violent Muslim terrorist group operating in the southern Philippines. The group split from the much larger Moro National Liberation Front in the early 1990s under the leadership of Abdurajak Abubakar Janjalani, who was killed in a clash with Philippine police in December 1998. His younger brother, Khadaffy Janjalani, replaced him as the nominal leader of the group. The group's goal is to promote an independent Islamic state in western Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago, area in the southern Philippines heavily populated by Muslims. In April 2000, an ASG faction kidnapped 21 persons, including 10 Western tourists, from a resort in Malaysia. On May 27, 2001, the ASG kidnapped three U.S. citizens and 17 Filipinos from a tourist resort in Palawan, Philippines. Several of the hostages, including U.S. citizen Guillermo Sobero, were murdered. Philippine authorities say that the ASG had a role in the bombing near a Philippine military base in Zamboanga in October 2002 that killed a U.S. serviceman. In February 2004, Khadaffy Janjalani's faction bombed SuperFerry

14 in Manila Bay, killing approximately 132, and in March, Philippine authorities arrested an ASG cell whose bombing targets included the U.S. Embassy in Manila.

Today, however, after a year of joint operations between U.S. and Phillipine personnel consisting of combat patrols, civil affairs assistance, and local interaction with the citizens on the island, the majority of ASG personnel and other terrorist groups have been squeezed out of the island. Not only have most of the nefarious characters departed, but as our troops built wells and provided educational assistance they gained the trust of the inhabitants. They showed them a better way of life and thus ensured that once they left the terrorists would not be welcomed back. Thus far the method has worked, and a haven for terrorism has been eliminated. Through establishing security, building infrastructure and winning the confidence of the locals, Basilan Island has transformed into a place where terrorists are no longer welcome, and although U.S. and Philippine forces have largely left, the terrorists have not returned.

Rajadamri Compound

Mr. President, on a number of occasions this session, I have addressed my colleagues about the critical importance of engagement and maintaining strong relationships with our allies in Southeast Asia. As I have described, an active U.S. presence is essential for a number of vital economic, security and strategic reasons. The United States has a number of strong allies in the region and these relationships are very important for promoting our policies pursuing peace, stability and prosperity in Southeast Asia. I remind my colleagues that the United States and the Kingdom of Thailand will soon celebrate 175 years of formal relations between the two countries, which makes Thailand our foremost and longest standing ally in Asia. It is in this context that I rise to address the significance of the Rajadamri Diplomatic Compound occupied by the U.S. Embassy in Thailand.

After the end of World War II, the U.S. Government intervened with the Government of the United Kingdom on behalf of the Kingdom of Thailand. The United Kingdom was demanding war reparations from the Kingdom of Thailand, which was nominally allied with Japan during the war. However, the United States argued that during the war the Allies received very meaningful assistance from the Free Thai movement, which was composed of a significant number of the Thai leadership. In 1949, in acknowledgment of the U.S. role in assisting the Free Thai movement and in persuading the United Kingdom to forego pursuit of war reparations, the Royal Thai Government sold Rajadamri to the United States for a nominal sum and transferred title to the 17 acre compound.

Rajadamri is a beautiful piece of property. Located in the heart of bustling Bangkok, around the corner from the U.S. Embassy and across from the famous Peace Park, Rajadamri is a magnificent setting where a visitor can simultaneously admire the imposing modern towers of downtown Bangkok and feed a Mekong catfish or pet the good-natured Chihuahua that lives on the grounds. The tranquil compound also houses three historic Thai homes that were built by the king for favored members of the royal family. Rajadamri represents a true gesture of friendship from the Thai Government and the people of Thailand. The granting of these royal residences to the U.S. Government is unprecedented and emphasizes even more so that this gift is a true symbol of the gratitude of the Thai people.

This compound has played a significant role in the long relationship with our stalwart Thai allies. In addition to the close cooperation between U.S. Forces and the Free Thai during WWII, the Thai Government has stood by the United States during Korean, Vietnam, Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq wars. The Thais remain a very close friend in Southeast Asia and provide a variety of assistance beyond military, including delivering important assistance to Indonesia, Sri Lanka and other countries affected by the tsunami of 2004; and serving as the strategic center for our efforts to deal with Avian influenza and other pandemic risks. During the Vietnam War, the morgue used for transferring soldiers killed in action from Vietnam to the U.S. was initially located on this compound. Rajadamri has served as a base for regional U.S. financial operations. Rajadamri also continues to house numerous embassy support elements, along with other facilities supporting assistance programs, our war against terrorism, operations to eliminate trafficking in humans and drugs, and our operations to promote peace and stability in the region.

As the Rajadamri compound was essentially a gift to the United States by a grateful Royal Thai Government, I believe it is our obligation to continue to use the compound in a manner that is consistent with the spirit in which it was given to the United States. The Kingdom of Thailand is one of the United States true friends in the world. In honor of that friendship, in an effort to strengthen our warm relations and in hopes that the relationship will grow as we continue to meet challenges in the region and the world, we must maintain Rajadamri as a centerpiece of our mission to Thailand. I urge my colleagues to support me on this point.

Mr. President, I rise to honor SGM Frank Yoakum, who serves as the enlisted congressional, liaison for the Chief, National Guard Bureau. Sergeant Major Yoakum is the only enlisted legislative liaison in the Army, facilitating communication flow between the Army National Guard, National Guard Bureau, and elected officials on Capitol Hill, as well as their staffs and professional committee staff. He is on the personal staff of the Chief, National Guard Bureau.

He began his military career by enlisting in the Regular Army in September 1971. He was trained in Infantry, Airborne, and Air Defense Artillery assignments, being released from Active Duty in July 1976. In June 1978, Sergeant Major Yoakum joined the Alaska Army National Guard and served in a military technician status as the administrative assistant to the state maintenance officer, and part-time as a flight operations coordinator with the 1898th Aviation Company, Attack. He moved to southeast Alaska and continued his service as a full-time Scout Battalion Attendant, Administrative Supply Technician, for Company B, 4th Battalion, 297th Infantry. He served in the Alaska Army National Guard until March 1981.

In August 1983, he rejoined the Army National Guard in Phoenix AZ, working as a unit administrator and battalion supply sergeant. In October 1985, he entered Federal Active Guard Reserve status and was assigned to the United States Property and Fiscal Office Guam, where he served as military pay supervisor and logistics NCO. He transferred his membership from the Arizona Army National Guard to the Wyoming Army National Guard in March 1996. Further assignments in Federal AGR status included instructor/writer, operations NCO, force structure NCO, first sergeant, manpower NCO, training center liaison NCO, G-1 personnel policy sergeant major, and congressional liaison.

Sergeant Major Yoakum holds an associate of arts degree in business administration from the University of Alaska and a bachelor of science degree in business administration from California Pacific University. He is a graduate of every level of NCO education up to and including the Sergeants Major Academy. Yoakum is a life member of the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States and a life member of the Wyoming National Guard Association. He has been inducted into the Honorable Order of Saint Barbara by the Field Artillery Association and the Order of Samuel Sharpe by the Ordnance Corps Association.

As the former congressional liaison for the Chief, National Guard Bureau, my staff and I have found Sergeant Major Yoakum to be an invaluable resource and ally in advancing the interest of the Army National Guard. While his departure will be a major loss to the both NGB and the Federal Government, his new position as legislative director with the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the U.S. is well deserved. It is with admiration that I honor Sergeant Major Yoakum today and congratulate him on his retirement. I wish him and his family all the best.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 1 hour of debate in relation to the conference report to accompany H.R. 3058, the Transportation-Treasury-HUD bill; provided further that Senator Coburn be in control of up to 30 minutes of debate; I further ask consent that the two managers have up to 15 minutes each and that following the use or yielding back of the time, and when the Senate has received the conference report, it then be agreed to, with the motion to reconsider laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I thank all or our colleagues. This has been a long and interesting path that we have trod.

Today I stand in support of the Transportation, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, and Independent Agencies fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill. This bill also includes the District of Columbia fiscal year 2006 appropriations act. Before getting into the details of the bill, I thank Chairman Knollenberg and his ranking member, Mr. Olver, on the House side. Particularly, I express my sincere appreciation to my ranking member, Senator Murray, for her hard work, thoughtful and bipartisan approach to crafting a good bill, and her unwavering commitment to getting the bill done on an expedited schedule as mandated by the leadership. As all who follow this place know, we have had some bumps on the road over the last several days which forced both House and Senate staff to work throughout a number of nights this week while completing a blitzkrieg schedule in order for us to be able to vote on this measure today. Despite these bumps, we have completed our work, and I compliment Congressman Knollenberg on his commitment and perseverance to work with me to overcome these problems.

I do express my sincerest gratitude and thanks to our excellent staffs; on the Senate side, on the subcommittee, on my side, Jon Kamarck, Paul Doerrer, Cheh Kim, Lula Edwards, Josh Manley, and Matt McCardle; on Senator Murray's side, Peter Rogoff, Kate Hallahan, William Simpson, Diana Hamilton, and Meaghan McCarthy.

Obviously, we extend our thanks as well to the House side staffers.

Now, Mr. President, the staff had to work extremely hard, in a bipartisan manner, to make our recommendations and instructions a reality. This is not a simple bill. Yet it is likely a Rube Goldberg machine with many complex moving parts.

This bill is the first real appropriations product of a new subcommittee that grew out of the reorganization of the Senate Appropriations Committee earlier this year. It is a substantial and complex bill that will have a significant and positive impact on every State and community in the Nation as it covers, among other things, every mode of transportation, financial services, and IRS requirements as guided by the Department of Treasury; it funds the Federal Government's role in housing and economic role under HUD; it funds the Executive Office of the President, Federal judicial system, and funds other related agencies such as the General Services Administration, Office of Personnel Management, and the Postal Service.

I believe that given the circumstances and our budget allocation, this is a good bill. We started with a budget that was severely underfunded in many of the important programs in the bill. These are programs which historically have been strongly supported by Members of this body. Thankfully, in most cases we have been able to restore many of the cuts and shortfalls, perhaps not as much as some Members would want and certainly some areas not as much as I want. But I think all Members will understand and appreciate our efforts to fund the programs and activities that enjoy the greatest support.

I wish to express a very special thanks to our chairman, Senator Cochran, who demonstrated his understanding and sensitivity to the needs of the Transportation-Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee.

While we received significantly less budget authority for the conference, without Chairman Cochran's help the House would have demanded a much harsher and unrealistic reduction in our allocation, with the results we saw that happened in regard to the Labor-HHS fiscal year 2006 funding bill yesterday in the House.

In particular, despite our fiscal limitations, we have worked diligently to ensure the transportation programs in this bill are adequately funded. One of my highest priorities in fashioning this bill was to provide the needed funding for the safety, construction, and maintenance of our highways, transit systems, and airports. Funding for our Nation's transportation infrastructure, and especially for our highways and road network, creates jobs and promotes economic growth. More importantly, it continues the continued maintenance and growth of our economic infrastructure by which we serve markets throughout the Nation and ultimately the world. The transportation system is the heart and arteries by which we pump our goods and products which guarantee our current and future prosperity in the national and international marketplace, and we cannot afford to shortchange this system.

We also removed the designation on the Alaskan bridges. The funds remain with Alaska to meet their priority needs. These bridges were grabbing unreasonable and unwarranted attention which was beginning, in many ways, to undermine the very good work and the very necessary projects in this highway bill.

In addition, this bill provides $14.4 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration, which is approximately $400 million more than the request. This recommendation includes $14.3 million to hire safety inspectors and restore inspector staffing levels on an accelerated basis. It also adds $4 million to restore engineering and inspector staffing at the Office of Certification so that new equipment and technologies

can be approved for use in aviation and our Nation can retain its leadership in aviation. I am pleased also to announce that the bill does not cut the Airport Improvement Program, as proposed in the budget request.

I am also happy to report we have been able to fund Amtrak at $1.315 billion, while making some incremental steps to reforming how Amtrak conducts its business. These reforms are critical, and it is my hope that these improvements will move to jump-start the efforts of Senator Lott, Senator Stevens, and others to pass a truly comprehensive reform package.

Mr. President, I was troubled by the administration's demand of Amtrak reform with a budget request of $360 million. A $360 million-a- year appropriation would likely jolt Amtrak directly into bankruptcy, a costly financial and emotional blow to the Nation and send Amtrak into chaos. Many Members, including the occupant of the chair, our distinguished Senator from West Virginia, and Members throughout the Senate asked us to take strong action to avoid that problem. Thankfully, we were able to scrape enough funds together to ensure the continued existence of Amtrak, although it meant a number of other programs were underfunded, and when we received finally the recommended reforms at Amtrak from the administration, we were able to include them.

Mr. President, I also should touch on another issue in the conference report, and that is the ongoing efforts to improve protection consumers have from being preyed upon by rogue household movers. I think we all know they are a small group of fly-by-night companies that purport to pack and transport family household possessions and then stealing them and holding them hostage for exorbitant fees or make unreasonable demands. This could be a devastating blow.

In this past year's highway bill, additional requirements on movers were included, along with new provisions granting State officials, particularly attorneys general, new authority to help police the Federal law. Part of the problem has been the lack of the Federal enforcement. The Federal agency, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, has not had sufficient resources, and the U.S. attorneys, with the notable exceptions of the Miami and New York-New Jersey agencies, have also not made these crimes a priority; thus, the ideas of expanding cops on the beat by giving authority to State agencies and, thus, my work to make sure that while we expanded responsibilities, we did so in a reasonable and consistent way.

First, we provided additional resources to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to help them do their job better. We restored $1 million to the Education and Outreach Program in order to help them train State officials as to how to look and find the risky carriers. We also reiterated our support for the strong State-Federal partnership which had been included in the highway bill to ensure effective Federal-State cooperation.

Where we and some of our colleagues part company is on the scope and the venue. I strongly believe that Federal law should be enforced in Federal court, and thus the key provisions in the conference report will ensure that that will occur. There will be Federal enforcement on the major interstate activities. State law violations will continue to be enforced in State court. Federal law violations will continue to be enforced in Federal court.

In order to ensure that the States target those typical rogue movers who seem to be too small for U.S. attorneys and thus are slipping through the cracks, the language makes clear that the responsibilities of the State agencies are focused on what carriers they have jurisdiction over. Namely, these are the highest risk, fly-by-night carriers or carriers who meet one or more of the following: The carrier is unregistered; or the license of the carrier or broker has been revoked for safety or lack of insurance; three, the carrier is unrated or received a conditional or unsatisfactory safety rating by DOT; or the carrier has been licensed for less than 5 years.

This then accomplishes all the goals we have been discussing--tougher Federal law, additional consumer protections, State attorneys general and other State agencies have been granted the authority to be a cop on the beat to help enforce the Federal law. Their targets are the fly-by- night rogues and their venue is the Federal court and they are being asked to help enforce Federal law.

Now, Mr. President, moving on to some of the other areas in the bill, for the Department of the Treasury, this bill provides $11.7 billion for 2006. This amount is about $50 million above the budget request and some $475 million above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. We think it is very important to provide resources for Treasury's efforts to fight the war on terrorism, and we provided full funding for the Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial intelligence. I know how important the Treasury's Antiterrorism efforts are, and I strongly believe they play a vital and unique role in cutting off financial assistance to terrorist organizations.

Next, to help close the so-called tax gap, where those people who pay taxes as they should voluntarily have to carry a heavy burden for the small percentage who do not, we have provided $10.7 billion for the IRS, including $6.9 billion for tax enforcement. This amount is $443 million above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. These additional funds will help ensure there will be less fraud and that honest taxpayers will have a greater level of confidence in our tax system.

We also have provided full funding for IRS's modernization efforts through their Business Systems Modernization Program. This program is correctly IRS's highest management and administrative priority.

For the Federal judiciary, the bill includes a total appropriation of $5.7 billion, a 6-percent increase over the previous year, and this represents the funding necessary to meet the judiciary fiscal year 2006 funding needs.

For HUD, the bill provides some $38.2 billion for fiscal year 2006, an increase of $2.1 billion over the request. These additional funds include almost $4.22 billion for the Community Development Fund and CDBG, which was slated for elimination through a reduction of over 30 percent of its funding and a consolidation of its activities along with other programs into a new grant program within the Department of Commerce.

The bill also increased the Senate-proposed rescission of ``excess'' section 8 funds from $1.5 billion to $2.05 billion. After further review of the account, we firmly believe we have identified a one-time savings from section 8 that allowed us to increase the rescission to $2.05 billion.

In addition, I am happy to report we have adequately funded HUD programs at a minimum of last year's level which is generally higher than the request.

The bill basically funds the Executive Office of the President at the requested level. We have fully funded the High Intensity Drug Program at $127 million; whereas, the budget would have funded it at 100 million in the Department of Justice. This is a critically important program that has been successful throughout the Nation at helping to root out and eradicate methamphetamine production, marijuana, and ecstasy use, as well as heroin and cocaine importation. This program has been especially important in Missouri, where methamphetamine production and use have reached almost epidemic proportions.

Mr. President, as I prepare to close, I wish to express my sincerest thanks to the ranking member of the full committee who has been a great friend and mentor of mine and who has helped Senator Murray and me as we have worked through this by gaining the necessary funds.

I also thank--I feel his presence immediately behind me--the chairman emeritus of the Appropriations Committee whose birthday we celebrate, with very best wishes and, fortunately, no songs on the Senate floor. He has been of great assistance to us.

I must say, one of my last thank yous is to my chief of staff, Julie Dammann, who has served me since I arrived in this body. I was going to say in 1897 but it was 1987. She has been with me for these years and has become very well known and respected. This will be her last bill and, as on all the other bills, not only was the appropriations staff working day and night, but we were communicating by BlackBerry in the middle of the night. She

was working on the details with the appropriations staff and others. She was communicating with Senators' offices. We only came to the floor today because she had worked with other Senate offices, as Senator Murray and her staff had, to clear away objections which might be raised.

So it is with great thanks that I note the contributions to this, her last appropriations bill, of Julie Dammann and wish her all the best.

I also note that my partner, the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, has been working extremely hard on this. She helped clear the way of the remaining problems. I cannot think of how she could have been more helpful or more productive in this effort.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.