Floor Statements

Mr. President, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on the floor today. First, I thank Chairmen Grassley and Enzi and Ranking Members Baucus and Kennedy in crafting this important legislation. The pension issues we take up today are notoriously complex and could have a significant financial impact on both American families and American businesses. The leaders of the committees have done an impressive job in bringing us to this point, and I congratulate them on their efforts.

One of the issues we address in this legislation is the validity of the so-called hybrid plans. Hybrid plans whether cash balance or pension equity--are a modern form of defined benefit plan that combines the best features of defined contribution plans, such as 401(k)s, with the best features of traditional defined benefit programs. Hybrid plans keep defined benefit plans relevant for workers in our contemporary, mobile economy. Indeed, these hybrid plans have been popular with both employers and employees, and today an estimated 8.5 million workers are earning secure retirement benefits through these plans.

For the past several years, these hybrid plans have been called into question. These turn of events came about when one of our Federal district court judges determined in the infamous Cooper v. IBM decision that the hybrid plan designs are illegal because they pay compound interest. Somehow, this judge believes that it is age discriminatory for employers to pay interest on their employees' pensions. I, for one, have found his position hard to fathom. The judge reached this conclusion despite the fact that the Internal Revenue Service had approved interest-paying hybrid plans for 15 years and despite the fact that every other court addressing the issue found that these plans satisfy the age discrimination rules.

In classic fashion in our litigation-happy society, this lone and misguided court decision has spawned a string of copy-cat class action suits. In these suits, plaintiffs assert hundreds of millions--even billions--of dollars in ``damages'' (over and above the benefits they have earned under the plan--to ``correct'' compound interest.

So, the issue we need to address in the legislation before us is to make clear that this lone judge got it wrong and that the IRS and all those other judges got it right. Compound interest in a defined benefit pension is not illegal, and the hybrid plan designs satisfy our age discrimination rules.

The legislation before us makes this important clarification but unfortunately only with respect to the future. While addressing the hybrid issue prospectively is constructive and must be done, failing to clarify the legal regime for the more than 1,500 or so existing hybrid plans and their 8.5 million or so participants will have a number of seriously adverse consequences.

First, employers will continue to face the threat of truly business- busting litigation, which will drain resources from productive use and hamper their competitiveness. Ironically, despite the good efforts of our Senate committee leaders to insert ``no inference'' language in this bill, judges may read the legislation's prospective-only approach as suggesting the illegality of current plans, thereby worsening the litigation risk faced by employers.

Second, in light of the unresolved threat to current hybrid plans, employers are increasingly likely to abandon their pension plans, denying additional retirement benefits to millions of American families and leaving new hires at these companies with no pensions whatsoever.

Third, as the healthy companies that sponsor hybrid plans leave the pension system, they will aggravate the financial troubles of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, PBGC. Indeed, hybrid plan sponsors today pay 25 percent of the per participant premiums received by the PBGC. So, unfortunately, while this legislation is designed to shore up the PBGC, we have left unaddressed one of the central threats to that agency's solvency.

In addition, while clarifying the age discrimination rules for hybrid plans prospectively and retroactively, it is my hope that the future conferees of this legislation will considering making a specific reference to pension equity plans--a type of hybrid plan other than cash balance plans--in the statutory language. The reason for this need is that the Cooper v. IBM decision deemed not only cash balance plans to be illegal, but pension equity plans as well.

The legislation before us does not address pension equity plans, specifically. Rather, it leaves the issue of whether pension equity plans receive the same beneficial clarification as cash balance plans up to the Treasury Department in later administrative guidance. This will simply prolong the legal uncertainty that is driving many employers to consider ending their pension equity plans altogether. This leading variety of hybrid plan--the pension equity plan--is in equal need of the same congressional attention as cash balance plans. I urge the future conferees to address this accordingly and to be mindful that the conversion process in pension equity plans is typically different than that of cash balance plans.

Mr. President, it is my sincere hope that as this important bill moves through the legislative process we can address the hybrid design issue in a comprehensive way. We must do so in order to remedy the significant harms to workers and employers that will result if we only address the issue prospectively. In addition, we must give equal consideration to both cash balance and pension equity plans as two legal regimes of hybrid plans. I look forward to working with Chairmen Grassley and Enzi, Ranking Members Baucus and Kennedy, and the future conferees on this bill to ensure a solution that will enhance rather than endanger the retirement security of American families.

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

Mr. President it is both with deep gratitude and regret that I announce to my colleagues the liberation of my Chief of Staff, Julie Dammann, from the public sector.

Julie has been with me since I came to town in 1987 and has been a perfectly reliable source of sound judgment, energy, and friendship.

Within any successful enterprise, there is the heart of the operation. In the case of Julie, she has been the heart, the legs, the mind, the backbone, and the can-do spirit of my staff.

In addition to her professional service, she always subsumed her interests to mine, to the Senate, to the public interest, and most important, to our country. For the Nation, she has been a loyal public servant of the first order and a true patriot.

For me, from the time she first marched into my office, she has been my friend. Remarkably, from that first day to the present, through 19 Congressional sessions, 3 reelections, marriage, motherhood, and her bravely defiant and prevailing fight against cancer, she has never stopped. Chemotherapy met its match. She never rested, and she never let me rest either. F. Scott Fitzgerald once said that ``action is character,'' In that case, Julie is character. Some who have dealt with her would say ``character'' is entirely appropriate.

Among her many unique talents is what I have learned is referred to as multitasking. At any given time, she can be talking with me, listening to C-SPAN, Blackberrying instructions to staff, while checking out statistics of the previous Vikings game and evaluating the potential draft picks 9 months in advance. When she is talking, we all listen as fast as we can, but it can be very hard to keep up.

Our great country sends a lot of talent and integrity to Washington to staff our congressional offices and Julie is as good as I have seen.

Few understand the high-profile issues that are in the papers every day. Julie comprehends those ``big'' issues, but is extraordinary with the issues that are low on visibility and high on complexity. She has handled issues including farm credit, patent protection, voting reform, postal reform, highway transportation funding formulas, and California's clean air enforcement regulations, just to mention a few. Her intellectual dexterity has earned her extraordinary respect among her colleagues who have worked with her; and particularly those who have worked against her.

Julie began her work for the Senate in 1979, as an intern with Senator Rudy Boschwitz, eventually coming to Washington in 1982 as one of his legislative assistants--where one of her first major assignments was the Highway bill.

In 1987, after joining my staff as Legislative Director, she met Rolf Dammann at the National Republican Senatorial Committee who was apparently interested in more than her highly-regarded agricultural acumen. Rolfs new found interest in Budget and appropriations issues eventually paid off and they were married--after the 1988 election, of course. They both enjoy politics, history, golf, and German beer. As legendary Green Bay Packers coach once said, ``On third and long, I'll take the beer drinkers to milk drinkers any day.'' But more on the legendary Packers later.

Rolf and Julie are the proud parents of two daughters, Monika who is now 10, and Paula 8.

In 1997, Julie became my Chief of Staff.

During consideration of the Fiscal Year 1988 Va/HUD appropriations bill, we were able to expedite completion of the bill by successfully appealing to Senators that Julie needed to leave the floor to have her second daughter who was due to arrive that very day. Betting on the Senate internally to be family-friendly was a bold strategy Julie suggested, but it worked.

I noted to the Senate that:

I want to make a special mention of my chief of staff,

Julie Dammann, whose second child was due today and she

stayed with us throughout all the proceedings and wanted to

see the VA-HUD bill delivered first. She has been an

invaluable help in all legislative activities and helped us

shepherd this through, So, a very special thank you, and best

wishes to Julie, to Rolf and their other daughter, Monika.

Again, I express my appreciation.

Senator Mikulski echoed the comments saying:

I hope that she can go home, rest easy, put her feet up and

we are looking forward to being the proud Godparents of Bond-

Mikulski. Maybe we will name something after her in

conference.

In any event, the bill passed, and Paula arrived.

Julie was born in Roseville, MN and graduated from the University of Minnesota while also becoming a diehard Gopher, Vikings and Twins fan. For those indiscretions, she was forced to undertake an amnesty program and extensive, but unsuccessful, Bond-office Missouri rehabilitation program.

The fact that she was able to stay in my employ after the Twins- Cardinals World Series of 1987 an epic tragedy which occurred in the horrible chamber the twins call a baseball stadium, speaks volumes to her otherwise high value.

In fact, the only successful indoctrination resulted in the staff being forced to root against the arch-rival Green Bay Packers. Even one of my leatherneck Marines on staff, a Packer fan, minds his football manners around Julie.

Rolfs father, a native of Germany, bought Julie a 2-foot-tall Packers NFL action figure for Christmas one year as a joke--it sat in the garage unopened for over a year until it was re-gifted to a friend in Germany. Julie believes that the opposition should be given little room to breath and that U.S. citizenship is a privilege which should not be abused.

But while competitive, she always respected the process and the people on both sides working diligently to pursue the agenda they were elected or hired to pursue.

Through all the pressures, high expectations, and fast city life, I think that Julie may be proudest of her terrific family and, proudest that to this day, she quite obviously remains a small town Minnesota gal--hard work, loyalty, integrity, optimism, enthusiasm, and courage, which can often be misinterpreted in Julie's case as stubbornness.

Her parents, the late Dr. Paul Hasbargen and Mrs. Ervina Hasbargen made Washington a better place by producing Julie and lending her to the Federal Government.

For me, having Julie has been one of my greatest blessings in public life. In this case, it is unlike losing one member of the family because I am simultaneously losing a colleague, a trusted advisor, and, yes, at times a mother. We know that she will be very successful in the private sector, with her intelligence, experience and drive.

Julie, with the deepest affection, we have been honored to be near you for so many years. We will miss you. We wish you and your family the very best.

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

Yes. If my colleague wants to make a brief statement, I will be happy to yield to him.

Mr. President, I rise today to address the valiant efforts of our men and women serving overseas in Iraq. Their service for our country is very close to my heart because I, like thousands of other American parents across the United States, have a son who is fighting for the cause of freedom in Iraq.

Like every American, and especially for those of us with loved ones who are fighting overseas, I have carefully considered our actions in Iraq, and I am as committed to staying the course today as I was when I voted to authorize hostile action less than 3 years ago.

Today, we see the wreckage of roadside bombs plastered across our media screens. We are constantly bombarded by a daily media barrage of every hint of bad news in Iraq. The old adage, ``If it bleeds, it leads,'' seems to be in full effect.

What about the good that is happening as a result of our efforts? I can tell you this is the greatest concern our men and women in Iraq have. They are doing good work, they are making progress, but they don't hear any of the good things that are going on. This is disheartening, as are some of the comments made by a few in the United

States who say they are not doing a good job, who denigrate their efforts. We owe them better than that. I could cite for you letters I have seen written to newspapers in my State by men who have served in Iraq saying precisely this.

Has there been any progress made toward democracy this year? The Iraqis themselves answered yes, resoundingly, when last month, on October 15, an overwhelming majority of Iraqis voted peacefully to lay the foundation for their country with a national constitution. Ten days later, on October 25, the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq announced the approval of a constitution and stated that it had found no evidence of significant voter fraud, as some had alleged.

The United Nations also participated in the referendum process and concurred with the Commission's conclusions. On the day of the vote, Sunni protests were minimal, with no violence reported. Not only did the referendum pass with 15 of 18 provinces providing a majority ``yes'' vote, but all governorates recorded a high voter turnout, the likes of which would put many of our voter districts in America to shame. I can tell you from personal reports that in Sunni areas, Sunnis were going out in record numbers to register. They were registering at registration places protected solely by Iraqi security forces without any violence against them.

When we look at the election results, the Kurds in Dahuk posted an 86-percent turnout, while the Shi'a in Karbala and Najaf posted a 57- percent turnout. But let's consider the Sunni areas where critics say we are making so little progress toward democracy.

Let's compare the percentage of voter turnout from last January's elections to the October referendum last month. In Anbar, voter turnout rose from 2 percent to 40 percent; in Diyala, from 33 percent to 67 percent; in Nayniwah, from 17 percent to 54 percent; and in Salahaldin, from 29 percent to 91 percent.

Only two of those governorates voted overwhelmingly against the referendum, and all of them saw record numbers of citizens exercising their voices at the polls.

This, Mr. President, is progress toward democracy. Have we forgotten that under Saddam, the Iraqi people had no vote, no opportunity to express themselves?

I am not discouraged, as the critics say we should be, that there was not near universal agreement on the referendum in Iraq. We have had a hard enough time in our own country, the world's model for democracy, in achieving overwhelming agreement on anything. And certainly this body with its recent record of activity shows that democracies often generate strong disagreements. The only time a national vote purports to show universal agreement is when the election is held under the tight control and dictation of a dictator such as Saddam Hussein.

So how do the critics explain this massive increase in voter turnout and still maintain that democracy is dead in the water in Iraq, when the people of Iraq for the first time in centuries now have a voice and a common marketplace of ideas in which to express themselves? And why isn't more attention given to the progress in Iraq for which our sons and daughters overseas are fighting?

As for the media, it is my belief that the greatest threat to our efforts in Iraq today is the enemy's ability to manipulate press coverage of the conflict in order to influence U.S. public opinion to force a premature withdrawal of our forces.

Last month, I spoke on the floor of the Senate about the acquisition of a letter written by Osama bin Laden's principal deputy, Ayman al- Zawahiri, to al-Qaida's foremost lieutenant on the ground in Iraq, Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi. The letter underscored that al-Qaida will not relent in pursuing its Sunni Islamo-fascist, extremist agenda, and it revealed al-Qaida views its jihad in Iraq as the focal point in its effort to establish a worldwide neofascist global caliphate. Zawahiri's recipe for creating this Sunni extremist state is in this order: evict the Americans from Iraq, create an Islamic extremist state in Iraq, swallow up Iraq's neighbors and then destroy Israel, and from there go on to bigger and better things. And how did Zawahiri advise Zarqawi to achieve these goals? By augmenting his terror campaign with political warfare and by manipulating the media. Zawahiri urged Zarqawi to tone down egregious actions, such as beheadings, because they do not play well on television screens. He approved of the violence but cautioned him to execute Americans with a bullet to the head instead. Isn't that nice of him?

The Zawahiri letter so clearly unveils the insidious nature of this clever enemy we are up against. Therefore, I urge every American with access to the Internet to read the letter. Go to the Web site www.dni.gov, and look under ``News Releases.'' But Americans shouldn't have to go to a Web site to discover its content. It should have been dissected in painstaking detail on the nightly news or at least given a fraction of the time allotted to the critical coverage of the war.

It amazes me how there is such a blinding skepticism about anything that supports our effort in Iraq today. Last week, my staff spoke to a respected scholar in London about what he thought about the Zawahiri letter. He said it must have been a fabrication. When asked what evidence he had for that assertion, he responded: None, but it just makes Bush's case, so the letter can't be genuine.

As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I can tell you that we have absolutely no indication at all this letter was a fabrication. So I ask again, why isn't the media delving into this?

We ought to take a brief look at the nature of the enemy we are fighting in Iraq. I believe President Bush said it well last week during his speech in Norfolk when he called their evil form of Islamic radicalism Islamo-fascism.

We are fighting a radical ideology that has crept up over the past few decades that is taking hold in countries around the world. We see it in Palestine, in Indonesia, the Philippines and, yes, now even in Europe. For the past week, we have seen the signs of it with riots outside Paris. Rioters burned areas of the country for over a week, lashing out against the Western society in which they live. Arab experts explain the violence as an identity problem among young Arabs who see themselves first as Muslims looking for a country of their own, rather than French, English, or American citizens.

Al-Qaida preys on such youth, encourages their unjustified acts of violence, and is now telling them that their new home will be in Iraq. This is why in Iraq today we see so many foreign fighters flocking to a radical cause. An insurgent fights within his country's borders to defend it from occupation or to oust a government with which he does not agree. This is the definition of an insurgent. A terrorist is one who travels outside his country to wage politically motivated violence elsewhere.

While there remain many Sunni Baathist insurgents who would like to bring back Saddam, there is an ever growing and a proportionally lethal number of terrorists flooding into Iraq to fight what they see as the ultimate jihad, identified as their extremist neofascist interpretation of Islam.

These are the terrorists who are fueling simmering insurgencies. These are truly the Islamofascists. Iraq has become the epic battle with the West that al-Qaida has been looking for and we must win it. We cannot afford to lose. This enemy cannot be negotiated with and will never reform its ways or be deterred from its path of violence. The only option we have with such an enemy who wants to slaughter American men, women, and children is to eliminate them.

Last week former President Jimmy Carter appeared on ``Larry King Live'' and criticized President Bush for his policy of preemption in the war on terror. He claimed this policy was a break in U.S. national policy from all previous Presidents and administrations. Therefore, he declared our actions in Iraq radical.

It is radical precisely because we find ourselves in dire circumstances. It is a break from the past because in the past we were not facing organized, ruthless bands of terrorists with declared intentions to annihilate Americans, whose acquisition of weapons of mass destruction was a distinct possibility.

Every student of national security understands that threat equals capability plus intent. The intent of the

terrorists to annihilate us is indisputable, as is their stated intention to acquire weapons of mass destruction to do so. Their power is only limited by their current capability.

As David Kay said, in the Iraqi Survey Report which we discussed in the Intelligence Committee and has now been released, Iraq, despite our inadequate intelligence, was a far more dangerous place even than we knew because radical terrorists were running loose in an unorganized country that had the potential to produce weapons of mass destruction for them.

We must erode the capability of those terrorists for if we sit back and allow it to grow, we will face threats to the future such as we have never seen before. Long-distance runners say there comes a time in the race when their bodies yearn to succumb to the temptation to give up the fight but they must press on. That is when they remind themselves of the reasons for their struggle and when they remind themselves why they run; they find strength to press on. Only those who are resolute and full of conviction win the race. Let us hold to our conviction that democracy is better than tyranny, achieving peace is worth our struggle, and those who are counting on us in Iraq have a reason to hope.

We must maintain the course and be ready to fight neofascists and Islamo-fascism, wherever it exists. Right now it is Iraq, but there are other theaters as well. Southeast Asia could become one added to the list. Let us press on, for only if we do so will we one day win this long distance race. It is not a short one, but it is one we cannot afford to lose if we want to ensure that we have no more 9/11s or we at least reduce the likelihood we will have such tragedy on our shore.

I yield the floor.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2358

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Associated Students of the University of Missouri.

Recognizing the need to establish a means by which students could become involved and impact the political process, the Associated Students of the University of Missouri, ASUM, began in June of 1975. While their first chapter opened in Columbia, ASUM has grown and extended to include student representatives from every branch of the University of Missouri system.

As the student voice in State and Federal government, ASUM works diligently to encourage the student body to participate in the political process. Through their student advocacy, ASUM has achieved many accomplishments over the last 30 years including the establishment of the Bright Flight Scholarship Program, the appointment of a student representative to the Missouri Board of Curators, sales tax exemptions on textbooks, and loan forgiveness programs for teachers and medical/ veterinary doctors who serve in high-need areas of Missouri. It has been my pleasure to work with the ASUM specifically on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

I congratulate the Associated Students of the University of Missouri on their first 30 years of political advocacy for students and look forward to working with them for years to come.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, the Rosa Parks naming and the Bryant naming are very important measures. I would support both of them. But I believe as long as we have this rule in the committee, unless the committee will change the rule, I would be happy to join with my colleague from Virginia in suggesting a change in the rule to permit----

What was the judge's name?

I must renew my objection. I look forward to a discussion with the distinguished Senator from Virginia.

Mr. President, I agree with my colleagues that SAFETEA-LU is a carefully crafted approach to meeting our surface transportation needs, and will have a historic impact on transportation programs in my State of Missouri and across the country. I will make every effort to see that the final conference report on this legislation will honor the agreements reached in SAFETEA-LU between the various modes of transportation.

Madam President, my colleague from Michigan has an amendment that is a good amendment. Let me say that my colleague from Washington, Senator Murray, and I are hoping to finish business today. I know there are a number of amendments out there that people wish to bring up. We have been able to accept a significant number of them. If you have an amendment pending, please come down this morning and talk to us. I hope we will stay around however long it takes to finish up all of these matters and have a final vote. This bill has to go to conference, if we are to provide 2006 appropriations for the very important agencies covered by this legislation. This is going to be a difficult bill to conference, and we must have this bill finished, ready for the floor, I would hope before the end of this month so that they can get out from under a continuing resolution. But we must get it finished before Thanksgiving. It is vitally important. I urge Members to come to the floor. If they don't want to act on all of their amendments, that will be fine with us. We need to get this bill finished.

Congratulations to the Houston Astros

On a personal note, I conclude by saying our congratulations to the Houston Astros, who are a magnificent team. They did well. We are looking forward to a great battle between them and the White Sox, a central time zone World Series which many of us in the heartland think is going to be good. The St. Louis Cardinals were magnificent for over 100 games. But Busch Stadium, twice now, has failed us in October. We are going forward today, blowing up the stadium, and I wish I were there to participate. But I wish my colleagues the best, and we are ready to go.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Michigan. We worked with her on her original amendment. I think this amendment is now a good amendment. Obviously, the objective is one that we all share, and I believe with this modification, the concept that my colleague has put forth is a good one. We are willing to accept it on this side.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I will take a few minutes to talk about some events that are extremely important--not on this bill--but I think it is important to follow up some excellent remarks made by my colleagues from Colorado and South Carolina yesterday--I have a great professional and personal interest in it--and that is to recognize a milestone in a very significant event in the global war on terror, the war against Islamofascism.

This is extremely significant, and yet I do not believe the media has given it the attention it deserves. The milestone is an achievement that the world would not have thought possible 2 years ago, and it occurred this past Saturday, on October 15, as the people of a free Iraq voted in a national referendum on their national constitution.

This is a significant milestone no matter the outcome of the vote, the people of a free Iraq have voted on a framework of a nation. That is a significant milestone against tyranny in our time.

It is my hope that the constitution will pass, and years from now the people of Iraq and their children and grandchildren will know that this was a time when the nation was founded in freedom, similar to our forefathers, who were children in 1776, told their children and grandchildren after them.

The vote on the referendum occurred with surprisingly little violence. It drew an encouraging voter turnout. This proves that the Iraqi people and U.S. forces continue to make great strides toward peace and toward defeating both terrorists and insurgents in Iraq. I say terrorists and insurgents because both are active in Iraq, and

they are distinct groups. While there remains some Sunni Baathists who would like to bring back Saddam and who could generally be called insurgents, there is an ever-growing number of terrorists flooding into Iraq to fight what they see as the ultimate jihad, legitimated by their extremist interpretation of Islam. Iraq has become their Armageddon, as will become evident from my remarks in a few moments, and they are simply terrorists.

With regard to the referendum, I commend U.S. Ambassador Khalilzad for his tenacity and efforts in the constitutional process in his final days leading up to the referendum that enabled Sunni, Shi'a, and Kurds to come together for a vote. Early reporting indicates the constitution will pass, but we have to wait until all the votes are counted to make the final call. I believe the constitution's passage will deal a heavy blow to the Sunni Baathist insurgents who are waging an ``all or nothing'' fight to regain control of Iraq. It now seems more clear than ever that the insurgents have to join in the political process if they are going to have any hope of a future in mainstream Iraqi civil and political society.

While I am pleased to see some moderate Sunni elements joining the political process, we must be watchful of violent groups that may try to expand their sphere of influence by establishing political platforms in order to legitimize their sinister ideologies. We have seen this happen before in other areas of the world, such as Sinn Fein in the Irish Republican Army. As the saying goes: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

Let us not be shamed by militants who momentarily trade in black handkerchiefs that hide their faces for fine suits simply to gain a stake in the political power of their nation.

Critics of this administration, along with other naysayers, are convinced that several of the constitution's provisions are politically divisive because they grant the Kurds and Shi'a unfair advantages over the Sunnis regarding Iraq's oil and other resources. I note that our very own United States operated under the Articles of Confederation for about 7 years, until we were able to draft and ratify a constitution, and that Constitution has been modified, and significantly so, over the years.

We are often too impatient in our fast-paced, modern world, but let us not forget that democracy takes time and requires patient, deliberate action. Until Iraq's liberation in April 2003, Iraq suffered under a ruthless dictator whose kleptocratic regime offered its people little more than fear and terror. Now, for the first time in over 30 years, we can say that the Iraqi people are courageously embarking on their own journey toward political self-determination and individual freedom, and for that I applaud them and am greatly satisfied.

On Tuesday of this week, the Wall Street Journal had an op-ed piece by Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute. It is titled, ``With Freedom Comes Politics.''

Iraqis now see the fruit of foreign investment. A year ago

in Baghdad, Iraqis drank water and soft drinks imported from

neighboring countries. Now they drink water bottled in plants

scattered across Iraq. . . .

Cameras and reporters do not lie, but they do not always

give a full perspective. Political brinkmanship devoid of

context breeds panic. Beheadings and blood sell copy, but do

not accurately reflect Iraq. Political milestones give a

glimpse of the often-unreported determination that Iraqis

and longtime visitors see daily. Bombings and body bags

are tragic. But they do not reflect failure. Rather, they

represent the sacrifice that both Iraqis and Americans

have made for security and democracy. The referendum,

refugee return, real estate and investment show much more

accurately--and objectively--Iraq's slow and steady

progress.

Madam President, I will insert that article in the Record because that exactly reflects the views of the young men and women I know who are serving in Iraq. They see our national television too often focuses on ``if it bleeds, it leads.'' If there is a tragic loss of an American life, that is the only headline, nothing about the progress. But there is progress being made, and this election showed it.

My satisfaction with the progress in Iraq is not without reservation. I bring to my colleagues' attention a significant event with positive and negative implications. This is the intercept of a letter written on July 9 by Osama bin Laden's principal deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to al- Qaida's foremost lieutenant on the ground in Iraq, Abu Mus'ab al- Zarqawi. The letter was obtained by U.S. forces in a raid in Iraq this summer but only released by the Government on October 11 in order to avoid the compromise of ongoing operations.

The letter provides a broad look at al-Qaida's global strategy and plans for operation Iraq. The letter underscores that al-Qaida will not relent in pursuing its Sunni extremist agenda and reveals that al-Qaida views its jihad in Iraq as the focal point in its efforts to create an extremist global ``caliphate.''

President Bush has rightly called this Islamofascism. This is a war that will go on even after Iraq is stable.

Zawahiri writes to Zarqawi:

God has blessed you and your brothers, while many of the

Muslim mujahedin have longed for that blessing . . . and that

(blessing) is Jihad in the heart of the Islamic world . . .

he has blessed you with the splendor of the spearhead of

Jihad.

Zawahiri's recipe for creating this Sunni extremist state is in this order: evict the Americans from Iraq, create an Islamic extremist state in Iraq, swallow up Iraq's neighbors, and then destroy Israel. It goes on and on from there.

The letter reads like a Sunni extremist epistle written by a father figure to a young leader among the faithful. Zawahiri applauds Zarqawi's enthusiasm and acts of terror that have advanced their jihad. Yet he cautions Zarqawi to remember the power of world opinion and the subtleties of political influence and media persuasion. Similar to an expert teacher, Zawahiri commends Zarqawi for his enthusiasm and past deeds. Yet he gently persuades him to alter his tactics toward a better way.

Zawahiri asserts in his letter that while Zarqawi's violent tactics are justified, they do not play well in the media. And while he doesn't object to beheadings on any moral grounds, he notes ``a bullet to the head'' is more efficient and doesn't invite such negative press. He references Algerian brethren who are with him who worry that the war in Iraq could go the way of the Algerian jihad in the late nineties when the radicals lost their support among the general Muslim population due to their brutal acts of torture.

In addition, although Zawahiri describes the Shi'a as ``cooperating with the enemies of Islam,'' he criticizes Zarqawi for attacking the Iraqi Shi'a in ways that will hurt al-Qaida in the media, and he recommends Zarqawi avoid opening too many fronts in the jihad.

He also stresses that political warfare is needed in order to draw in the social elites to support their push for an Islamic extremist state.

In effect, Zawahiri recommends that the wolf put on sheep's clothing in order to mask the wolf's true brutality. To me this is troubling because it illustrates that we are at war with an enemy who is astute, deceptive, and wise in the ways of the world and the American media and its ability to influence American public opinion. It underscores that this enemy cannot be negotiated with and will never reform its way or be deterred from its path of violence. The only option we have with such an enemy, according to what we have seen, who want to slaughter American women, men, and children, is to eliminate it. There is no other choice. That is why we must flush the terrorists out and hunt them down.

There are some notable positives in Zawahiri's letter. The letter demonstrates that America's efforts in the war on terrorism have been effective in hurting al-Qaida and in disrupting its ability to attack the United States and its interests. Zawahiri's statements reveal that due to the pressure he feels in areas around him, he cannot depart his remote location, a location so remote that he complains of a lack of access to contemporary news reporting on Iraq. He also reveals that he is running out of funds and asked Zarqawi for $100,000 in order to open up new communications lines that have been shut down due to the apprehension of al-Qaida operatives this past summer.

Finally, he also expresses concern over Pakistani military operations in the tribal area and references the current Pakistani Army offensive in northern Waziristan.

Well, Allah be praised. We are at a crossroads in the war on terror because

we are at the point where our enemy believes we are about to tuck tail and run in Iraq. But we must press on. Al-Qaida is convinced that America will abandon Iraq. Zawahiri writes that al-Qaida must begin preparing now for what he likens to ``the collapse of American power in Vietnam--they ran and left their agents.''

Running is no option. We must fight on. So I ask today that we continue our support for our troops who are in harm's way, for the intelligence officials and aid workers deployed throughout the globe in the frontlines on the war on terror, and I ask that we forget not that our struggle is a fight to the death, for that is how our enemy sees it. And with every suicide bomber who takes more innocent life provides, they prove to us that they are prepared to die. May we recommit ourselves to this fight to show the world that we are prepared to fight so that we, our allies, and peace-loving peoples of the world may live.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the article I referenced called ``With Freedom Comes Politics'' be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, we would like to consider this amendment. I ask it be set aside until we see how the operations work with the rest of the amendments. This may be relevant to the others. I ask unanimous consent we set this amendment aside temporarily.

Madam President, we share the concerns of the Senator from Oklahoma. I think there are more efficient ways for HUD to conduct its conferences. Therefore, on our side we accept the amendment.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I see the Senator from Oklahoma has essentially proposed five amendments which all seek to do the same thing, amendments Nos. 2089, 2090, 2091, 2092, 2093. These essentially are targeted at economic development initiatives.

I wonder if we might have a full debate on all of them and combine them into one amendment so we could spare our colleagues having to have rollcall votes on five? Through the Chair, I ask if the Senator from Oklahoma would voluntarily agree to that.

Madam President, I will be happy to talk with the Senator later about that. Let me continue with some of the comments that I have in general, that are applicable to all these amendments.

Within this budget, in our committee and other committees, we have identified at the request of many Senators in the States, including the State of Oklahoma, including the States of Alaska, Washington, Missouri--priorities in the report to be eligible for funds under the Economic Development Initiatives Account, subject to Department review. My colleague, who is the author of this amendment, proposes that these are necessarily bad. I suspect, if we looked State by State, we would have 100 different definitions of how precisely to prioritize these initiatives.

The suggestion here is that Senators should not have any say in what is important in their States. My profession is serving the people of Missouri. I have been doing it for 27 years now. I do not have the skills or the expertise that the author of this amendment does. He, as I understand it, is a fine obstetrician. His commitment is to a high humanitarian calling, serving people in the obstetrics field. Certainly that is a fine profession.

I envy his ability to deliver assistance and deliver babies. We need professionals of this type. That is his profession. My profession is very different. I don't have the skills of a physician or an engineer or a physical scientist. My job, my profession, is serving the people of Missouri. And as I have said, I do it proudly, this being my 27th year, I believe. In that time, I have found that if you listen to the people of Missouri you learn a lot. You learn about the needs of veterans. We have done things nationwide to serve veterans. I have been honored to be recognized by the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

We have found out how important children's hospitals are, and we have worked to help children's hospitals. I am very grateful for the recognition from children's hospitals, and from in-home health care, which is very important, and from early childhood education, for which my initiatives have won national acclaim.

In addition to these matters that affect the entire Nation, I have committed myself to trying to build strong communities throughout Missouri.

I know the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma practices medicine, which is a wonderful practice, and does so with skill and provides a tremendous benefit. But do you know what I do when we have time off? I travel around the State. I meet with community leaders, local elected officials, concerned citizens, people who are trying to build a stronger community. Do they need a community health center? I have helped them get community health centers. Do they need something to help create jobs? Do they have projects which are properly supported by Federal funds that we make available through the Economic Development Initiative? Yes, in many instances they are. Do they have projects which require ground transportation which are properly funded by the rail transportation funds we have in this bill? Do they need water and sewers? I have been through many small communities. I hate to tell you that you can in the summer tell by the smell that they do not have an effective wastewater treatment system. They have waited in long lines for public health treatment, and we have helped them get the water treatment systems they need. This, I believe, is a legitimate function of the Federal Government--deciding where the highest priorities are.

When I am up here working, I have a dedicated staff back home who visits every county in the State at least once, and many others several times a year. I visit every county in my State and every city in my State every term I serve in office. I hear from them--leaders in the community, the people who are concerned about the particular problems and how best to solve those.

That is where I come back and say that from the EDI funds, from a portion roughly about 5 percent of the community development block grants, we will designate some of these high-priority needs which must be met for the good of the community and where we can help meet them through the addition of Federal funds targeted to those areas.

I believe it has been successful. The people of Missouri think it is successful. I know the Senator from Washington does the same thing. The Senator from Washington listens to her people. She knows how to build a strong community in the State of Washington. I believe that is her job. I wouldn't propose to go in and tell her what is a good use of the Economic Development Initiative or community development block grants in Washington. She has to answer to the people of Washington. Far be it for me to tell her what is good for the State of Washington.

When the Senator from Oklahoma asked me for something that is a high- priority project in his State, if it fits within the guidelines, I am happy to help that Senator determine what is best in Oklahoma. But I don't need a Senator from Oklahoma telling me what is good in Missouri or telling the Senator from Washington what is good for the State of Washington. We believe our job is to serve and represent and listen to the people of our States. I believe a vast majority of the Senators in this body know their job is to

serve their States, whether it is a vote on national legislation, whether it is a vote on something that is very important to their people, whether it is national, or whether it has to do with a specific activity within their State that they want to support. I think that is our job. That is our profession. We stand for reelection based on how well we serve our people. I am grateful for the tremendous honor and privilege I have been given by the people of Missouri. They know I am not a physician; they know I am not a physical scientist, but they know I am here to serve and represent them.

The suggestion appears to be that none of us as Members, those of us who work through our State and who listen to the people of our State, should have any say in what their priorities are. That suggests that the Senators are not in touch with the priorities of their own State. I don't believe that is true generally. I know it is not true in Missouri. I believe it is not true in Washington. My colleague can speak to that.

It might be that some Senators are too busy to understand or consult with their communities. But I understand what my State's needs are. I aggressively consult with leaders in my State. It might be some Senators believe that maybe the bureaucrats at the agencies understand their States better than the Senators themselves. I do not believe that should be the case because I spend more time in the State than I do here. I travel as many miles as I can squeeze into a schedule.

The amendments from the Senator from Oklahoma don't save money. They just say that a Senator shall not be able to determine what is a priority need in his or her State. Do you know something? I happen to think a Senator who is doing his or her job probably has as good an idea and should have a better idea of what is an important priority than some bureaucrat in HUD who will otherwise be spending that money.

I will finish shortly and then I will be happy to answer questions.

Again, I am not afraid to say that I know more about the needs of my State than the ``U.S. Department of Anything.'' I will be happy to be judged on that.

I know we ought to be reducing budget spending. According to the Budget Committee, we have defeated attempts to waive the Budget Act and have achieved reductions and savings of some $170 billion this year alone. I have provided recommendations to our Budget chairman for making significant reductions. We are waiting for the leadership and the reconciliation bill to decide how we save money.

But this amendment and the others like it makes excellent headlines and they will be welcomed by some newspaper editorials, some talk radio show hosts, but it would be a better headline if the Senator were actually attacking a project in his State. If he thinks that appropriations for museums is so bad, what about the money in there for the Ponca City Indian Museum? Does he feel that is an appropriate priority for the State of Oklahoma? He can answer that. I think that would make an even better headline.

But I am not interested in getting headlines for something that doesn't save money in the budget. I am more interested in what people say, what the Cape Giradeaux Southeast Missourian or the Joplin Globe or the St. Joe News Press say about what the needs are in their State-- not what somebody in New York or in California says about the projects. I know my colleague from Washington surely will have something to say about that.

I yield the floor.

No.

I have no knowledge.

Will the Senator yield?

Madam President, before I turn it over to the Senator from Washington, as I said to the Senator, we have a difference in philosophy. I commended him publicly for his tremendous service to Oklahoma--specifically the fact that he continues his practice of obstetrics. However, we have very different philosophies on how we serve our people.

If he has told the people of Oklahoma how he is going to serve Oklahoma, that is fine. I have told the people of Missouri how I am going to serve Missouri. I believe I am living up to that. Now, I don't say that he isn't living up in any stretch of the imagination to the pledge he made to the people of Oklahoma. What I am saying is, I am not going to tell the people of Oklahoma how their Senator should behave. I expect the Senator from Oklahoma would not be telling the Senator from Missouri how to behave.

If he is talking about saving money, this does not cut the budget. The CDBG pot is 8 percent lower. The Senator may or may not have been in private sessions when I proposed a major means of reducing the budget to be considered by the Committee on the Budget. We are staying in line with what the Committee on the Budget has proposed. The Committee on the Budget may come back with a recommendation, which I will be for if it cuts everything fairly.

We are talking about how money is actually spent, economic development initiatives. Yes, they can go to things like parks if they have them in communities. And the question is, Who makes those decisions? Well, for those decisions in Missouri, I spend enough time and my people spend enough time that I want a say in how funds are spent because I talk to and listen to those people. I hear what their requests are. It is a small fraction of the Federal money that goes to the State.

But I am proud of the progress we have been able to make by supporting local initiatives through EDI funds. HUD bureaucrats make some good decisions. If we cut all these out, they will make all the decisions. They may make some good ones, they may make some bad ones, but in Missouri, I can make those better than a bureaucrat. That is what we are talking about. We are not going to save a nickel. If any of these are agreed to, we will distinguish between the philosophies of service.

The Senator from Oklahoma has eloquently stated his philosophy. He believes we ought to restrain spending. And I agree: we ought to restrain spending. The question is, How do you prioritize the spending in the budget? That is where we have a disagreement.

We will have an opportunity for our colleagues to determine which philosophy they agree with. Do you want the bureaucrats solely to make the decisions, or should Senators be able to influence a small portion of those? That is the question, quite simply. It is not about saving money it is about who makes those decisions. We have two very different philosophies.

I have great respect for my colleague from Oklahoma. He has offered a different philosophy to his people in being elected than I have offered to my people in Missouri who have elected me.

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

Mr. President, we have spoken with the parties, and we believe we have come to an agreement to have a vote at 12:20, with the time equally divided between the Senator from Oklahoma and--how much time does the Senator from Oklahoma want?

Ten minutes for the Senator from Oklahoma, 10 minutes for the Senator from Nebraska, and I will reserve 5 minutes for the Senator from Rhode Island. I will take that time on his behalf if he is not able to make it. So that will make a vote at 12:15 in relation to the amendment or the amendment, as modified.

I thank my colleagues.

Unfortunately, Senator Chafee is tied up. We are expecting momentarily to get a full explanation. Our debate has focused on the difference in philosophy. The Senator from Nebraska, the Senator from Washington, the Senator from Rhode Island, and I all have the ability to establish priorities in the economic development initiatives. They are important initiatives and important priorities that can be set by Senators.

In the case of the provision for the Senator from Rhode Island, this happens to be construction of a building that is very important for the quality of life in the town of Westerly, RI.

Many people have different needs and one of the beauties of that is the people from those communities can talk directly to their Senator and tell their Senator what is important.

In this instance, the Senator from Rhode Island listened to the people. He listened to his constituents. He determined this was a priority. There is going to be a lot of other money that is going to be handed out by HUD bureaucrats under the economic development initiative for construction. What is wrong with the Senator from Rhode Island saying here is one pressing need that is very important for the Senator from Rhode Island because it is important to his constituents?

I reserve the balance of the time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma has modified his amendment to include the provisions dealing with the States of Washington, Nebraska, and Rhode Island. Is this correct?

Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Washington and myself, I move to table the amendment as modified and I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we thank our colleagues.

Mr. President, as far as procedure, there are a number of issues that will be debated. There may be additional amendments offered, but for the convenience of our colleagues, there are not going to be any votes until 2:30. I propound a unanimous consent request that at 2 p.m. there be 30 minutes equally divided in relation to Reed amendment No. 2077; provided further that the Senate then proceed to a vote in relation to the amendment, with no second degrees in order to it prior to the vote.

I thank the Chair. The floor is now open for debate and further amendment as requested.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I formally raise a point of order that the amendment violates section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. President, I would inquire if the Senator from North Dakota is prepared to move forward with his amendment?

Seeing no other Senators seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I believe before long, when they complete a markup, that the Senator from Alaska--probably both Senators will be here. They will have an opportunity to speak, and I am confident we will hear a very different side of that story. I do not presuppose to speak for the Senators from Alaska, but let me tell you my own personal observations on the situation.

No. 1, it certainly would not have been my priority. Right now, there are about 50 people on the island to which Ketchikan would be connected. The island has an airport on it. They view this as a major economic development area for the community of Ketchikan.

The town has been devastated because of the Federal cutoff of timber sales which used to be the major industry in Ketchikan, so they are looking to develop alternative sites. Ketchikan is right on the side of a very steep mountain. It is essentially one long narrow main street. Once you go off the main street, you are going up the hill. Not a great place for economic development.

I was there, and I spoke with the leaders in the town. They view this as their salvation. They think this is extremely important to their continued economic development. Nevertheless, I see some real problems with it because that bridge would go across an inlet which is a major floatplane landing area for floatplanes coming in and out of Ketchikan. In addition, large cruise ships 250 feet tall come through there. They would have to build a bridge over that.

I am not sure this would make sense. But the fact remains, this is not a decision which is being made by people from Missouri and Washington and other places. I did not like it, but I am an outsider.

The chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee made it a top priority. It is telling the people of Alaska that we are going to take away highway money, which was paid into the highway user trust fund, and put it into obviously a badly needed reconstruction project in Louisiana, which is going to be funded by the emergency appropriations bills that will be coming before us.

Secondly, I happen to believe that the money is not going to be spent unless the people of all of Alaska and their leaders are convinced it is the right place to spend it. Why do I know that? When I first came to Washington, I thought it would be a great idea to build a small road someplace. I put an earmark, a modest amount, in a bill for work on a little highway. The department of transportation in Missouri did not agree with it. That money never got spent. Roads get built, bridges get built in areas where the State transportation authority, whether it be the commissioner or the Governor, wants them to be built.

There is a study ongoing as to whether this bridge is needed, whether a tunnel would be more efficient, or whether a speedier ferry system would work out. The ferry is charming--not really fast going across from the airport to Ketchikan, but it will get you there. What is the best way to handle it? My own personal view is that the people of Alaska will make that decision. I question whether they would move to go ahead with that bridge. We will have an amendment, which is being prepared, that will say the bridge should not be built until the badly needed bridge between New Orleans and Slidell is built, during which time I believe the Alaska transportation authority is studying it before it would even begin to be built. I believe that is a more appropriate way to deal with this question.

I have heard lots of people complaining about this bridge, but, again, most of them do not know the situation in Ketchikan. While I question it, it is not my job to say what the transportation priorities of Minnesota are or Alaska or Washington or other States. It raises a question in my mind, and I understand why my colleague raised it.

I think before we move on this amendment, we will want to hear from the Senators from Alaska and look at an alternative amendment which I believe would satisfy most people's questions to make sure a badly needed bridge in Louisiana is completed and also that nothing goes forward on the Alaska bridge until there is a study completed and the transportation authority in Alaska makes a decision.

Mr. President, we have followed this discussion for a long time. This independent counsel has been working on this investigation since I was a very junior Member of the U.S. Senate. Not only has my hair gotten gray, but I think the independent counsel has gotten a lot grayer as well. Not only does the clock keep running, but the expense keeps running.

At the same time, there were very serious allegations raised to the independent counsel, and those, I gather, have had findings attached to them, whether they were accurate or not, and it is time we brought this to a close and find out what the independent counsel found because it goes to the operation of the Department of Treasury and other agencies in the Federal Government. If he found a problem, it is time we go about fixing the problem.

I know the Judiciary Committee and the Finance Committee are very much interested in this. Our committee is interested in it.

I thank my colleague from Iowa and my colleague from North Dakota. I ask to be added as a cosponsor because all good things come to an end, and even independent counsel investigations come to an end.

I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. President, I ask the pending amendment to be set aside.

Mr. President, I have 12 amendments that have been cleared on both sides of the aisle. We thank the sponsors of these amendments for working with our staff and the relevant committees for clearing these amendments. I call up on behalf of Senator Reed of Rhode Island amendment No. 2162. This amendment has been cleared on both sides. It requires the Department of the Treasury to submit a report on the application of Treasury regulations on arbitrage bonds to the reserve funds held by EPA clean water and safe drinking water State revolving funds.

It has been cleared on both sides.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Murray and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment relates to the GSA's rating system. I urge its adoption.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Next, I call up amendment No. 2146 with a modification on behalf of Senator Ensign.

Under the Ensign-Allen-DeMint amendment, the language requires the IRS to continue the Free File Program, which was created in 2002 as a public/private partnership between the IRS and a group of tax software companies called the Free File Alliance. This partnership has increased electronic tax filing by improving access to filing and making tax preparation and filing easier for taxpayers.

This language is not meant to disrupt or override current negotiations or the new agreement.

It is critical that the Free File Program and other IRS taxpayer services continue to evolve to meet the needs of taxpayers across the Nation.

I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor.

I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I call up amendments Nos. 2105, 2106, 2108, and 2120. I send up a modification to amendment No. 2108 on behalf of Senator Voinovich. I ask that they be considered en bloc.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I have amendments on behalf of myself and the Senator from Washington making technical corrections, having a division A and division B in this bill. I send to the desk two amendments and ask for their consideration en bloc. These are technical changes to the bill, and I believe both of them are agreeable on both sides.

They have been cleared on both sides. I ask for their immediate consideration.

I thank the Chair. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I send to the desk two amendments, one on behalf of myself and one on behalf of Senator Reid of Nevada. Mine is technical in nature; the other deals with a heliport. I ask for their immediate consideration en bloc.

I ask for their immediate consideration.

I move to reconsider the votes.

Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Senators Durbin and Obama and ask its immediate consideration. This amendment requires the Secretary of HUD to report on a housing project in the State of Illinois.

I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I send to the desk on behalf of Senator Murray an amendment on Midway Atoll and ask that it be considered immediately.

I move to reconsider the vote.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the only amendments in order will be those that are accepted to be in the managers' package. There is a Leahy-Coleman amendment, two amendments from Senator Landrieu. We have two amendments we are going to accept from Senator Coburn. We have an amendment we are accepting from Senator Bill Nelson.

Is there objection?

And Senator Bingaman's amendment. It is done?

The Leahy-Coleman amendment will be one of them.

Mr. President, we are going to try to resolve these amendments as quickly as possible. I know everyone wants to get out of here.

I suggest that perhaps Senator Landrieu can address her amendments very quickly. I am going to talk with Senator Leahy and Senator Coleman, and see if we can resolve those.

I yield the floor.

No objection.

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

Mr. President, we need to see the amendments from Senator Landrieu. I believe with modifications we can accept them. If she would share them with us, we would be happy to do that.

I would ask my colleagues, the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Minnesota, about the time they will need. They have an amendment I would love to be able to accept, providing more money for CDBG and other worthwhile activities. Unfortunately, there is not money to rescind. We were presented with a major rescission package by the administration, but neither the Department of Housing and Urban Development nor the Office of Management and Budget could justify any of those rescissions. We have taken the maximum rescissions we believe are feasible. This additional funding for CDBG is predicated on providing more offsets, plus it is $200 million above the budget. I regret that I will have to raise a Budget Act point of order. I ask what time limit they would need to speak on this amendment. I regret I must tell them that I will have to raise a Budget Act point of order.

May I inquire through the Chair?

If the Senator will withhold, the Senator from Louisiana is prepared to offer another amendment.

Mr. President, the suggestion of my friend from Vermont is a very good one. I think he knows--and he serves on our committee--that trying to fund these very vital programs is a top priority of my ranking member and of mine. We are in a position where we have not been able to identify any more dollars. We will look forward to working with them and their staffs. We will work in conference with the House to try to add money because these are high-priority programs. Community development block grants, public housing, Section 8, these are vitally important. Right now we can't find them. I would be put in a very awkward spot of having to raise a Budget Act point of order. I would appreciate the opportunity to work with the Senator from Vermont, the Senator from Minnesota, and other Senators. I know I speak for my colleague from Washington. We will work with the other original cosponsors of this amendment to try to accomplish that. I thank him very much for his understanding and willingness to work with us.

Mr. President, as part of a managers' package, I send to the desk amendment No. 2182 from Senator Levin on the use of funds for Federal contracts with expatriate agencies; amendment No. 2080, Senator Santorum, to modify provisions relating to certain Federal contracts; amendment No. 2122, to allow disabled and nondisabled tenants to keep their Section 8 contracts for properties postforeclosure by Senator Schumer, as modified; amendment No. 2083, as modified, by Senator DeWine, to appropriate $6 million for the new car assessment program; an amendment on behalf of Senators Frist, Dole, and Boxer to provide funding for Habitat for Humanity; an amendment on behalf of Senator Murray relating to the Spokane region high-speed rail corridor study; an amendment on behalf of myself to eliminate the GSA authority to retain proceeds from the sale or other conveyance of real and personal property; an amendment on behalf of Senator Nelson making appropriations for the Department of Treasury for the Financial Crimes Unit; an amendment on behalf of Senator Lott and Senator Lautenberg relating to Amtrak; an amendment on behalf of Senator Lautenberg on the owners and operators of airports certified under section 44476; two amendments on behalf of Senator Landrieu, one to make funds available for conducting a study and submission of a report relating to catastrophic hurricane evacuation plans and another amendment to set aside funds to provide grants to local governments to address increased transportation demands in communities that have experienced significant population growth; an amendment on behalf of Senator Coleman to improve the safety of all-terrain vehicles; and on behalf of Senator Coburn, we wish to include amendment No. 2084. Senator Coburn has an amendment on improper payments, and I would ask that he or his staff provide us copies of those amendments and that they be included in the managers' package.

I ask that amendment 2091 be withdrawn.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Washington. Her cooperation and her very active involvement have made all of this possible. We appreciate it. We will talk about our staff later.

I call up amendment 2103 on behalf of Senator Burns requiring air carriers to honor tickets for suspended air passenger service, and I call up modified amendment No. 2119 on behalf of Senator Stevens and Senator Ensign and ask that be considered and adopted.

We have the Coburn amendment, improper payments. I call up amendment 2150 on behalf of Senator Snowe relating to certified service station employees, the Federal Aviation amendment, and ask that be included in the managers' package, and amendment 2173 on behalf of Senator Coleman relating to purchase card payments to Federal contractors and ask that be included.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Michigan and concur with her that this is a problem that must be addressed in conference. I will work with the Senator from Michigan to ensure that the final conference report includes a fair distribution of this setaside funding for public housing agencies. As you know, we included a provision to protect the use of project-based vouchers in the distribution formula.

Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico is correct. The U.S. Court for the District of New Mexico faces an extraordinary need for interpreters, travel funds for judges, and improved courtroom technology, and I ask the Administrative Office of the Courts to consider these necessities in their allocation of fiscal year 2006 funds.

Mr. President, are there any others? I believe we have now covered all of the amendments we have agreed to accept. I think it is time to go to third reading, and I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate insist upon its amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees.

I continue to be grateful for the cooperation of the Senator from Washington and her staff. I was going to go down the list of the staff members on both sides. I will incorporate by reference and say once again our staff worked very well together. This is the first time anybody had dealt with a TTHUD bill. It has many interesting moving parts, and some of them move in different directions at the same time. We could not have done it without the tremendous assistance of all of the staff, plus the floor staff.

I want to say a special thanks to Lula Davis, Dave Schiappa, and all the people in front here for their unfailing willingness to sit and help us through all of these things. This was more exciting than I wanted it to be, and their help enabled us to get through.

We would also like to put in a special thanks to Mike Solon in the Whip's office for helping us work on a number of things and both the Appropriations Committee leaders, Chairman Cochran and Senator Byrd. Also, the majority leader and minority leader were a great help.

So we are most grateful, and we are delighted to be out of the way now, and we will go to conference. We look forward to coming back with perhaps an even better process and a good product.

I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 20, 2005, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on ``Implementation of the Exon-Florio Amendment and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, October 20, 2005, at 10 a.m., on Domestic Passenger and Freight Rail Safety.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, October 20, 2005, at 2 p.m., on pending Committee business. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, and Co- Chairman Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, have rescheduled this week's Full Committee mark-up for Thursday, October 20, 2005 at 2 p.m., previously scheduled for Wednesday, October 19, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. The mark-up is open to the public. A location for this mark-up will be announced when available. Following is the agenda, not necessarily in order of

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 20 at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1016, to direct the Secretary of Energy to make incentive payments to the owners or operators of qualified desalination facilities to partially offset the cost of electrical energy required to operate the facilities, and for other purposes; and S. 1860, to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to improve energy production and reduce energy demand through improved use of reclaimed waters, and for other purposes.

committee on foreign relations

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 20, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 20, 2005 at 2 p.m. in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, October 20, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing titled, ``Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans: A Flooded City, a Chaotic Response.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, October 20, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. in Senate Dirksen Office Building Room 226.

Agenda

I. Nominations

Susan Neilson to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit;

John Richard Smoak to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Florida;

Brian Edward Sandoval to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Nevada.

Harry Sandlin Mattice, Jr. to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee;

Margaret Mary Sweeney to be a Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims;

Thomas Craig Wheeler to be a Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims;

Wan Kim to be an Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division;

Steven G. Bradbury to be an Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel;

Sue Ellen Wooldridge to be an Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division; and

Thomas O. Barnett to be an Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division.

II. Bills

S. 1088, Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005, Kyl, Cornyn, Grassley, Hatch;

S. 1789, Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005, Specter, Leahy, Feinstein, Feingold;

S. 751, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act, Feinstein, Kyl;

S. 1326, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act, Sessions;

S. 1086, A Bill to Improve the National Program to Register and Monitor Individuals Who Commit Crimes Against Children or Sex Offenses, Hatch, Biden, Schumer;

S. 956, Jetseta Gage Prevention and Deterrence of Crimes Against Children Act of 2005, Grassley, Kyl, Cornyn;

S. 1699, Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act, Specter, Leahy, Hatch, DeWine, Cornyn, Brownback, Feingold;

S. 1095, Protecting American Goods and Services Act of 2005, Cornyn, Leahy;

H.R. 683, Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005, Smith--TX;

S. 443, Antitrust Criminal Investigative Improvements Act of 2005, DeWine, Kohl, Leahy;

S. 1787, Relief to Victims of Hurricane Katrina and Other Natural Disasters Act of 2005, Vitter, Grassley, Cornyn, DeWine;

S. 1647, Hurricane Katrina Bankruptcy Relief and Community Protection Act of 2005, Feingold, Leahy, Durbin, Kennedy, Feinstein; and

S. , Budget Reconciliation [Chairman's Mark].

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 20, 2005, for a committee hearing titled ``IT Management by the VA: Is it Ready for the 21st Century?''

The hearing will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 20, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed briefing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs be authorized to meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 20, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on U.S. Foreign Policy, Petroleum, and the Middle East.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``An Examination of the Constitutional Amendment on Marriage'' on Thursday, October 20, 2005 at 2 p.m. in SD226.

Witness List:

Panel I: Scott FitzGibbon, Professor of Law, Boston College, Boston, MA; Christopher E. Harris, M.D., Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN; Louis Michael Seidman, John Carroll Research Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC; Richard Wilkins, Professor of Law, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT; Christopher Wolfe, Professor of Political Science, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI.

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