Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to join wholeheartedly my National Guard Caucus cochairman, the distinguished Senator from Vermont, in urging the Senate to adopt these emergency appropriations for our National Guard.

We have had a lot of talk about emergency responders and people wondered, Did this group do their job? Did that group do their job? As Governor of Missouri for 8 years, I saw the National Guard respond, and respond fully, to every natural disaster we had. We had floods, we had tornadoes, we had some other civil disorders, and the Guard responded. They responded with the equipment they needed.

Since that time, I have served in the Senate as cochairman of the National Guard. I have seen the Guard continue to respond to State emergencies time after time after time. When they have been called upon to go abroad as part of the national defense mission, they have done so extremely well.

Unfortunately, the men and women of the National Guard, those vital citizen soldiers who volunteer to serve their country, have not been well resourced. It appears when equipment

is available the Pentagon obviously takes care, first, of the active. In this situation, we have seen a tremendous drain on equipment--not just from emergencies around the country but from the National Guard's participation and contribution of equipment to our overseas mission. As a result, the equipment readiness in critical areas of the National Guard has fallen to about 34 percent. We are asking the men and women of the Guard to go into situations--whether they be overseas military situations or a vital rescue mission such as New Orleans--without the equipment.

Our Guard, along with others, responded and responded promptly to the disaster of the gulf coast. They were in Louisiana. They went proudly. We sent an engineer battalion from Jefferson Barracks in Missouri. They went down there, and they performed admirably. They had one set of trucks, one set of communications equipment, and one set of night vision goggles. The need was great, and they asked for a second of the National Guard engineering units to be deployed. We had to refuse, not because we did not have the personnel ready--we did not have the trucks, we did not have the communication equipment. We absolutely could not respond in that situation because of a lack of equipment.

When we read the stories about the National Guard's participation, one gets a better understanding of how effective and how responsive the National Guard is.

As the Senator from Vermont said, we have requested that an emergency appropriation be added to the supplemental. I join with him today in asking the Senate to approve as an emergency appropriations measure the money we need. This money is critically important. It includes trucks. The big trucks the National Guard has can drive through flood areas. They can rescue people. They can also go in war zones. They need night vision goggles. You may think night vision goggles are necessary primarily in war. Think about going into New Orleans, which has lost all of its power, all of its lighting, and you are trying to find people who are in grave personal danger because of the rising floodwaters. You need the night vision goggles to see them. Most importantly, think about communications. How do they work with other units, other Federal units, other State units, when they are on a civil mission? When they are under control of the local officials who have the responsibility, who have the local command, how do they communicate with them? They cannot in too many instances.

That is why this particular appropriation is so important that we begin resourcing our Guard. We can all be very proud of the Guard in our States. We do not have every Member of the Senate as a member of the National Guard Caucus, but I have not found a Member of this Senate who is not extremely proud of his or her National Guard. They know when the chips are down, when lives are in danger, the Guard can and will respond. The Guard comes to our defense regularly. The very least we can do is make sure we support the Guard when they go in. Not giving them the equipment they need is not an answer. We are not going to send them into harm's way without the equipment to do their job.

This is an important amendment. This is a large sum. We, obviously, are very much aware of the needs. This is a pressing need, and the emergencies and the wartime situation we are in compel a response to the needs of the Guard.

I thank my colleague from Vermont for offering this, and I urge my colleagues to join in seeing that the National Guard gets the appropriation resources they need. I thank the managers of the bill.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, one of the minor procedural problems we have around here with an emergency clause is this has to go through several layers of clearance. It is not a higher pay grade, it is a different pay grade, it is a different responsibility. The distinguished floor managers are working on that. We have the budget committees and others who have to act on it.

I appreciate very much the work of Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye. I hope we will be able to resolve this very shortly. We have two of the best leaders in the Senate handling this bill. Whatever needs to be done I assure my colleagues will be done.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. President, I clarify with the desk that I am shown on the Leahy amendment; it is the Leahy-Bond amendment?

I thank the Chair.

Nomination Of John Roberts

Mr. President, while I have the floor, I will reflect a moment on the vote we took earlier today. This vote has such weight because of its place in our system of government. The Supreme Court is a final voice on the extent of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the demarcation of power between

the legislative and executive branch of Government, and the division of power reserved for the Federal Government and the governments of the individual States. As a Member of this legislative body and in a former life as a State Governor, I am acutely aware of the importance of the lines and the consequences when they are broached.

As a Member of the Senate, I do not welcome decisions overturning legislative acts that I support, but I frequently work with my colleagues to reject efforts to meddle in State affairs. As a Governor attempting to guide my State, I had to labor through many burdens placed in our way, the State's way, by an intrusive Federal Government.

The judicial branch of our Government--most notably the Supreme Court--has been designated by the Constitution as the branch to maintain these divisions of power and referee the tensions between our governments. After observing Judge Roberts during the days of hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary, I am convinced the power that comes with the vote of a Supreme Court Justice will be in wise and capable hands.

Throughout the strenuous sessions, Judge Roberts' intelligence, patience, and temperament were on full display. Judge Roberts made a convincing case through words and demeanor that he will approach his responsibility with modesty and humility.

Also, as Judge Roberts repeatedly reminded his inquisitors, he is not a politician. I commend him on his willingness to remind my colleagues that he was not before Congress to compromise or give hints on how he might vote on a hypothetical case in exchange for confirmation votes; rather, he confirmed repeatedly that the Constitution will be his guide to these questions.

I suspect that some of my colleagues have come to rely on the judiciary to advance changes that have no support in the duly elected member of our legislature, State and national; hence, their frustration with Judge Roberts.

Judge Roberts has clearly defined views of the role of the judiciary and the role of the legislature, and they do not appear to be blurred. As Judge Roberts put it so well:

If the people who framed our Constitution were jealous of

their freedom and liberty, they would not have sat around and

said, ``Let's take all the hard issues and give them over to

the judges.'' That would have been the farthest thing from

their mind.

As did the Founders, I do not believe State and National legislative bodies are incapable of settling tough and contentious issues. I do not believe it is benevolent or admirable for judges to remove questions from the public realm because they are divisive. Judge Roberts has shown the modesty and respect to refrain from that path.

Judge Roberts also has made it clear he finds no place for reflection on the public attitudes and legal documents of foreign lands in the consideration of constitutional questions. They do not and should not offer any guidance as to the words and the meaning of our own Constitution.

During his testimony, Judge Roberts displayed a respect for the Constitution and the rule of law as the principles that should guide him when ruling on a case. His view of the role of the judiciary is very consistent with my own.

Finally, I believe President Bush has executed his duties in a responsible manner that will serve our Nation well. He interviewed many distinguished and qualified judges and attorneys in the country. He consulted with Members of the Senate. After careful and thoughtful deliberation, President Bush returned to the Senate the name of John Roberts. I am very pleased today that 78 Members of the Senate agreed and confirmed him to the Supreme Court.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Community Partnership to End Homeless Act of 2005. I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this legislation because I believe that this bill will greatly assist the Nation's efforts on ending the long- standing tragedy of homelessness. I applaud the hard work of the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee's Housing and Transportation Subcommittee, Senators Allard and Reed for developing this important legislation.

As a former member of the Banking Committee, former chair of the VA- HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, and now the current chair of the Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, HUD, and Related Agencies (TTHUD) Appropriations Subcommittee, the issue of homelessness has been one of my main priorities. During my tenure on those subcommittees, I have learned a great deal about the causes of homelessness. The causes are varied ranging from the lack of affordable housing to mental or physical ailments to unforeseen economic problems.

The good news is that since the Congress first created the McKinney- Vento Homeless Assistance Act in 1987, there has been a great deal of research on homelessness and new approaches have been developed to solve homelessness. The most significant finding is the importance of permanent housing in ending homelessness. Due to this finding, I included a provision in the fiscal year 1999 VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act that required HUD to spend at least 30 percent of the homeless assistance grant funds on permanent housing.

Re-focusing HUD on permanent housing was something that senators on both sides of the aisle strongly and rightfully support. The 30 percent permanent housing set-aside requirement was established because HUD was not producing enough housing for homeless people. This was a problem because HUD is the only federal agency that provides permanent housing.

By 1998, just prior to the enactment of the 30 percent set-aside, only 13 percent of HUD homeless grant funds were being spent on permanent housing. Therefore, the 30 percent set-aside was created to re-balance HUD's homeless programs so that permanent housing was being provided. And, the set-aside has not hurt funding for supportive services since we have continually increased the HUD homeless account and the Administration has worked with other agencies, such as HHS and VA, to ensure that they are providing services to homeless people. In the Senate's fiscal year 2006 TTHUD bill, we have provided a $174 million increase over fiscal year 2005 for the HUD homeless account.

The focus on permanent housing was backed by sound research that demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of this approach. By focusing on permanent housing and especially those who were chronically homeless, HUD's programs became correctly focused on those most needy of this assistance, such as disabled homeless veterans. For those reasons, I am extremely pleased and supportive of the bill's provision that requires HUD to use at least 30 percent of funds for permanent housing activities. This provision is probably the most important piece of this legislation.

In addition to the permanent housing requirement, I strongly support the bill's provisions that require outcome-based performance evaluations, promote access to mainstream resources for supportive services, and consolidate HUD's competitive grant programs. I especially support the bill's efforts to encourage localities and grantees to participate and use the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), which was initiated by Senator Mikulski and me in the fiscal year 2001 VA-HUD and Independent Appropriations Act. I am proud that the vast majority

of continuum-of-care grantees have implemented the HMIS. This system is absolutely critical for developing an unduplicated count of homeless people and an analysis of their patterns of use of federal assistance programs.

This is a strong bill supported by members on both sides of the aisle. I hope that the Senate and the Congress can pass important legislation because this bill will help eliminate the tragedy of homelessness. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Community Partnership to End Homeless Act of 2005. I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this legislation because I believe that this bill will greatly assist the Nation's efforts on ending the long- standing tragedy of homelessness. I applaud the hard work of the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee's Housing and Transportation Subcommittee, Senators Allard and Reed for developing this important legislation.

As a former member of the Banking Committee, former chair of the VA- HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, and now the current chair of the Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, HUD, and Related Agencies (TTHUD) Appropriations Subcommittee, the issue of homelessness has been one of my main priorities. During my tenure on those subcommittees, I have learned a great deal about the causes of homelessness. The causes are varied ranging from the lack of affordable housing to mental or physical ailments to unforeseen economic problems.

The good news is that since the Congress first created the McKinney- Vento Homeless Assistance Act in 1987, there has been a great deal of research on homelessness and new approaches have been developed to solve homelessness. The most significant finding is the importance of permanent housing in ending homelessness. Due to this finding, I included a provision in the fiscal year 1999 VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act that required HUD to spend at least 30 percent of the homeless assistance grant funds on permanent housing.

Re-focusing HUD on permanent housing was something that senators on both sides of the aisle strongly and rightfully support. The 30 percent permanent housing set-aside requirement was established because HUD was not producing enough housing for homeless people. This was a problem because HUD is the only federal agency that provides permanent housing.

By 1998, just prior to the enactment of the 30 percent set-aside, only 13 percent of HUD homeless grant funds were being spent on permanent housing. Therefore, the 30 percent set-aside was created to re-balance HUD's homeless programs so that permanent housing was being provided. And, the set-aside has not hurt funding for supportive services since we have continually increased the HUD homeless account and the Administration has worked with other agencies, such as HHS and VA, to ensure that they are providing services to homeless people. In the Senate's fiscal year 2006 TTHUD bill, we have provided a $174 million increase over fiscal year 2005 for the HUD homeless account.

The focus on permanent housing was backed by sound research that demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of this approach. By focusing on permanent housing and especially those who were chronically homeless, HUD's programs became correctly focused on those most needy of this assistance, such as disabled homeless veterans. For those reasons, I am extremely pleased and supportive of the bill's provision that requires HUD to use at least 30 percent of funds for permanent housing activities. This provision is probably the most important piece of this legislation.

In addition to the permanent housing requirement, I strongly support the bill's provisions that require outcome-based performance evaluations, promote access to mainstream resources for supportive services, and consolidate HUD's competitive grant programs. I especially support the bill's efforts to encourage localities and grantees to participate and use the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), which was initiated by Senator Mikulski and me in the fiscal year 2001 VA-HUD and Independent Appropriations Act. I am proud that the vast majority

of continuum-of-care grantees have implemented the HMIS. This system is absolutely critical for developing an unduplicated count of homeless people and an analysis of their patterns of use of federal assistance programs.

This is a strong bill supported by members on both sides of the aisle. I hope that the Senate and the Congress can pass important legislation because this bill will help eliminate the tragedy of homelessness. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a man who has served over 36 years in the U.S. Air Force, with the vast majority of that service in the Missouri Air National Guard. CMSgt Charles T. DuBois retired on September 10, 2005, after a long and distinguished record of service to the State of Missouri and the United States. Chief DuBois enlisted in the U.S. Air Force on June 18, 1969, at the height of the Vietnam War. He served in the Air Force until March 12, 1973, and entered the Air National Guard on September 14, 1975.

As a member of the 131st Fighter Wing in St. Louis, MO, Chief DuBois has been associated with a unit whose history has spanned over eight decades and whose former members have included the likes of aviation pioneer Charles Lindbergh.

Throughout Chief DuBois' service at the 131st, he has seen the unit transition from F-100s to F-4 Phantoms to F-15As, and now upon his retirement, the transition to F-15Cs, the Nation's premier homeland defense and air superiority aircraft. As a crew chief, Chief DuBois was fully qualified on: the B-52D; C-141A; C-124; C-5A; F-100 C, D & F; F-4 C, D & E; and the F-15 A, B, C, and D models.

Throughout his career Chief DuBois remained dedicated concomitantly to the vital missions of the Air National Guard and to the paramount commitment of taking care of his family. It is the latter that Chief DuBois will continue to fulfill upon his retirement as a devoted husband, father and son. He and his wife Theresa were married in November of 1977 and have one son, Michael, who serves on my staff as an advisor on, among a number of other issues, the National Guard. Chief DuBois has one daughter, Kristine, who lives and works in northern Virginia. As a dedicated son of someone whom I have had the pleasure and honor to work with when I was Governor of Missouri, GEN Charles H. DuBois and his wife Ruth, ``Terry'' as Chief DuBois goes by in civilian life, remains dedicated to their well-being. The General, or ``Charlie Two Stars'' as I often referred to him, and his lovely wife Ruth, can rest assured they raised a son who has served both his family and the military with honor.

The honor in which Chief DuBois has served can be seen in the numerous awards, ribbons and commendations he has been decorated with throughout his career. He has received the Air Force Meritorious Service Medal, the Air Force Commendation Medal with two devices, the Air Force Achievement Medal with one device, the Joint Meritorious Unit Award for 2 AEF duty tours in Provide Comfort and Northern Watch, and the National Defense Service Medal with two devices for his service during Vietnam and Desert Storm. These accolades represent only a handful of the numerous other State and Federal service medals Chief DuBois has collected during his 36 years of service. As Chief DuBois retired, he was the most senior chief master sergeant in the U.S. Air Force and Air National Guard and was the youngest guardsman to make chief when he did so, just like his father who, upon his retirement, was the most senior major general in the Air Force and Air Guard and the youngest at the time to make general.

Again, I wish to extend Chief Charles T. DuBois my heartiest congratulations upon his retirement and my sincere thanks for the 35- plus years of service he has rendered to the State of Missouri and the Nation.

Mr. President, the tragedy that has befallen the gulf coast region, its impact on families and communities, has been truly staggering. Our thoughts and prayers are with each individual who has been affected by this hurricane. Yet even in our darkest hours and our most difficult days once again we have seen the emergence of an American spirit that takes pride in triumphing in the face of great adversity. The examples of this American spirit are too numerous to document. We have seen examples in every neighborhood, every city, and every state in the nation as Americans all over the country have rallied around those who are most in need. In Missouri, we have opened our doors and welcomed displaced families to our homes, our communities, our churches, our schools, our health centers, and our hospitals.

Today, I would especially like to highlight the efforts to bring some of New Orleans' littlest victims to safety in Kansas City. Confronted with no electricity, shortage of supplies and the growing security concerns in the face of looters, the New Orleans Children's Hospital was forced to evacuate and seek safer locations for all of their young patients. In the great spirit of the Show-Me State, the dedicated leadership and staff of Kansas City Children's Mercy Hospital didn't sit back and wait to be asked to help. Instead, Children's Mercy President and CEO Rand O'Donnell picked up the phone and called the CEO of the New Orleans Children's and asked how he could help. Children's Mercy threw open their doors to make room for 24 of these children ranging in age from 3 months to 23 years, from New Orleans Children's Hospital. These patients are being treated for a variety of conditions including asthma, cystic fibrosis, leukemia, kidney failure, and broken bones.

With the help of the Missouri National Guard, two C-130 military transport planes transported the patients and family members from New Orleans. The C-130 planes, part of the 139th Airlift Wing in St. Joseph, MO, were already in the region as part of national hurricane relief efforts. Children's Mercy also sent a smaller, fixed-wing aircraft capable of transporting two patients at a time. That plane and the Children's Mercy crew were used to transport a critically ill child to another children's hospital. Children's Mercy and MAST ambulances helped transport the children from the airport to Children's Mercy and Children's Mercy South. About 30 parents and other family members traveled with the patients. I am pleased to report that these children are doing well; in fact some of these children have already been discharged from the hospital.

Missouri, no stranger to disaster, wasted no time in showing folks that in difficult times we pull together, sending doctors, transport teams, supplies, and the National Guard to rescue these children and their families. Children's Mercy even arranged for lodging, food and transportation to be provided for the parents and families during their time in Kansas City. Thanks to the generosity and hospitality shown to these families by both the hospital and the community some of these families are considering a permanent relocation to the Kansas City area.

I rise today to salute the remarkable work of the staff at Kansas City Children's Mercy and the Missouri Air Guard on behalf of some of the hurricane's littlest victims and their families. In times of trouble, people look for leadership. During a week of great uncertainty, you pulled together as a team and led people from chaos to safety. Together you provided leadership and hope to those who desperately needed it. You were an inspirational example to others seeking to provide help. I have never been prouder to represent you and the State of Missouri.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of our committee.

I rise to ask my colleagues in the Senate to think about raising energy costs on American families and workers when we are suffering a significant energy problem. The American people already are struggling with high gasoline prices. The natural gas prices are going to go even higher. Winter is approaching, with heating bills regrettably expected to go through the roof.

This, in my view, is no time to hit our families with even more energy price hikes. To borrow a slogan from the other side, those are not family friendly.

Supporters of using the Congressional Review Act to overturn EPA's new mercury regulation will not mention the higher energy costs they will bring. The problem is, voting for this motion requires an impossible solution. The technology does not exist to accomplish what proponents want. They want to reduce mercury from coal emissions by 90 percent. The administration wants to reduce it by 70 percent. If I had a magic wand, I would be happy to wave it and support a 90-percent reduction. But I don't. And the hard-working workers and vulnerable families in Missouri and all the other States represented here would not be able to take the higher costs that would come with this.

Sponsors claim the technology exists and is used in Europe. But they might not mention the technology is used on municipal waste. The last time I checked, orange peels and coffee grinds were a little different from coal. Sponsors may say the technology is starting to be pilot tested in the United States. What they are testing it on is Eastern coal, Appalachian coal, not Western coal, which is a different chemical makeup. It may still seem like coal to you and me, but it makes extracting tiny amounts of mercury very difficult. Western coal is used overwhelmingly in Missouri, and many of our Western States do not respond to the same technologies pursued by the motion's sponsors.

Therefore, generators serving my State of Missouri and many other Western coal States would be forced to shut down their coal plants and switch to natural gas to make electricity.

Natural gas prices are three times what they were just a few years ago. Using it to make electricity, one Nobel laureate scientist said, is like burning your antique furniture in your fireplace to heat your home.

Manufacturers and employers who depend upon natural gas for a raw material are outsourcing their operations to China and other low-cost natural gas areas. That means Missouri workers and workers in States of my colleagues who make plastics, automobiles, chemicals, and metals will be losing jobs. Do we want to see even more workers hurt?

Farmers everywhere are already facing high prices for natural-gas- dependent fertilizer. Terrible drought has struck the Midwest's corn and soybean crops. On top of this, the Midwestern barge traffic is crippled by Hurricane Katrina. Do we want to put more burden on the agricultural sector?

Fixed-income seniors have little room in their monthly expenses for higher air-conditioning, power, and heating bills. Do we want to hurt these seniors even more?

Our low-income breadwinners must drive long distances from rural or urban low-cost housing to get to their good-paying jobs. Their gasoline bills have imposed a heavy tax. Do we want to hurt these vulnerable families more?

We all deserve clean air. We need waters free from contamination. We must have food safety. That is why this President imposed the first mercury emissions cuts in our Nation's history. The last administration had to be sued to take action on mercury. Now President Bush is requiring mercury cuts--70 percent cuts for acid-rain-causing sulfur dioxide, 70 percent for smog-causing nitrogen oxides, and 70 percent for mercury.

Under the President's Clear Skies plan imposed by regulation, nearly every American city will return to clean and healthy air. They will achieve Federal air quality standards without having to impose their own State or local regulations, killing jobs and hassling citizens.

We all care about the environment. Together, by defeating this motion, we can protect the environment, protect family budgets, and protect workers' jobs.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on the underlying resolution. We do not need to disapprove this regulation that would move our environmental cause significantly forward.

I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. President, mercury contamination is a critical environmental health issue. This is why I could not be more disappointed about the Environmental Protection Agency's so-called ``Utility Mercury Reductions Rule'' which was finalized in March of this year. The rule jeopardizes the health of our citizens, which is why I have cosponsored Senate Joint Resolution 20, a resolution that disapproves of the Administration's fatally flawed mercury rule. I will include for the Record a letter signed by 15 States, including Wisconsin, which urges passage of S.J. Res. 20.

The need for stringent mercury controls has never been more urgent. We know that mercury is a neurotoxin and that mercury exposure can cause a wide range of neurological problems and developmental delays. EPA's own scientists have discovered that twice as many American children are born at risk from mercury exposure than previously thought and the EPA has reported that 1 out of every 6 women of child-bearing age has so much mercury in her blood that it poses a risk to a developing fetus. These risks should not be overlooked. We are talking about the increased potential for developmental delays, lowered IQ, and attention and memory problems, as well as learning disabilities. In addition to the obvious and enormous emotional and psychological toll of such problems, a recently released peer-reviewed Mount Sinai School of Medicine study found that mercury-related brain development problems in children cost the United States more than $2 billion annually. Despite the well-documented health risks posed by mercury emissions, especially to women and children, the administration has moved forward with this flawed rule.

Thirteen million acres of lakes and 760,000 miles of rivers across the country have been contaminated by mercury emissions. In fact, in an attempt to protect their citizens, 45 States across the country have issued fish consumption advisories related to mercury. Anglers are warned against eating the very fish they catch because of widespread mercury contamination. Sadly, every one of the 15,057 lakes in my home State of Wisconsin is under a mercury-related warning, so I understand this problem all too well. And even if Wisconsinites didn't eat the fish they caught inside our State, many of them would still be at risk, according to EPA and Food and Drug Administration warnings, if they decided to consume saltwater species like tuna, shellfish, or swordfish. Given the situation in Wisconsin, I was not surprised when the State joined nine other States earlier this year in a lawsuit to force the

administration to scrap the mercury emissions rule. And still, even in the face of widespread mercury contamination of our streams, rivers, lakes, and even oceans, and outcry from many States, the administration refused to reconsider.

Unless Congress acts to disapprove the administration's rule, reduction in the amount of mercury emitted will be substantially delayed. Under the Clean Air Act, utilities are required to use the maximum available control technology to reduce mercury emissions by 2008. The rule we debate today--and that I hope we void--would turn that clock back by 10 years to 2018 and then wouldn't even achieve a target reduction of 70 percent. A 70 percent reduction would not be met until 12 years later. Clean air and water are critical to every individual's health and we cannot put off meeting our original deadline. Cost effective pollution control technology exists to limit mercury emissions and companies are already moving forward on installing such equipment. We should encourage this innovation and move forward to quickly reduce the health risks we know to be associated with this neurotoxin.

The administration's final mercury rule, with its cap and trade emissions proposal, also falls far short of what the Clean Air Act requires to protect people all across the country. This is in part because, as noted by a National Academy of Sciences study, ``hot spots'' of mercury are the inevitable result of such a cap and trade program. Companies wouldn't be required to control emissions at their source and could instead simply buy their way out of compliance. Although trading programs may work with other pollutants, it will not work with mercury. This flawed approach will lead to highly toxic areas peppered throughout each state instead of across-the-board emissions reduction at each site.

I am not only disturbed by the substance of the EPA's mercury rule but also by investigations that have determined that the process by which the rule was drafted was badly flawed and by the failure of EPA to consider all available data. First, in conducting its investigation of the mercury rule making process and prior to finalization of the rule, the EPA's Inspector General reported the rule's development was ``compromised and, therefore, may not represent the lowest emissions level that could be achieved.'' Second, and before the rule was finalized, the Governmental Accountability Office issued a report that severely criticized the EPA's rulemaking process, finding that it violated the Agency's own policy, as well as OMB guidance and presidential executive orders. Finally, the EPA chose to ignore a Harvard study, which had been commissioned by the EPA, that demonstrated substantial public health benefits to a more stringent mercury rule. Taken together, the three process problems are unacceptable and cause for serious concern. Discouragingly, even in the face of these reports and data, the administration forged ahead with its flawed rule.

Senate Joint Resolution 20 is the first step in protecting our citizens and the environment from the harm we know follows from mercury emissions. I am saddened that we must take this step, but I hope that we can quickly reverse the administration's rule. Swift action by this body and the House will reassure Americans that we are acting with their well-being in mind, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this important resolution.

I ask unanimous consent to print the letter to which I referred in the Record.

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

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

Mr. President, we are all very busily working on appropriations bills, and we are working in committees as individuals and leaders on the terrible tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, and our hearts and our thoughts and prayers go out to all the victims. We know a tremendous amount of work needs to be done, and we are just beginning to see how big it is and how difficult it is going to be. Certainly, the distinguished manager of the bill knows in his own State how terrible this crisis is.

But I believe it is important to issue a cautionary message that as we approach the anniversary of 9/11, we cannot lose sight of the fact that we are still at war and under attack by those who want to end our way of life and destroy our civilization and terrorize our citizens.

I have been asking myself: Are we safe from another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11? Is the Government doing everything it can to protect us? What can we do better? We have heard recently some very ominous warnings from leaders of al-Qaida that they are preparing another terrorist attack. Obviously, we have to maintain the appropriate means of defense, and we

have done a good job of making it more difficult for terrorists to strike commercial airlines, but we also know, from having seen the attacks in London in July, that terrorists are looking for soft targets.

It is not enough to protect what we know they have attacked in the past. We have to do a better job. I think President Bush was right in saying the best way we can keep our country safe is to carry the war on terror to those countries that harbor terrorists.

I heard some discussion recently about whether we should have gone into Iraq. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article by Christopher Hitchens in last week's Weekly Standard that lays out in detail, for anybody who is interested, why we had to go into Iraq, why it is the right war. I would incorporate that by reference because that article does a good job of outlining my own beliefs.

But more important, we cannot just play defense against the terrorists. We have to collect more and better information. We have to get information on the location and activities of the next attack that is being planned. Unless we do a good job of that, we cannot have a good chance of stopping the next major terrorist attack on the United States.

I believe one part of that vital solution is found in a robust USA PATRIOT Act that would continue to provide national security investigators with the tools needed to continue to keep our country safe.

The PATRIOT Act has been the subject of national controversy and has undergone many unsubstantiated attacks by its opponents. But the fact is that the PATRIOT Act saved lives, and its original content must be preserved. We need to continue to focus on making sure we have the intelligence and the investigative resources necessary to protect against further attacks. We not only need to make permanent the provisions that are already in law, but we also must modify the current House

version to include expanded authorities needed by national security investigators.

The men and women who are fighting the war on terror every day here at home say that without the PATRIOT Act, many of our Nation's most important successes would not have been possible. It addressed critical vulnerabilities in the pre-9/11 homeland defense posture. For example, it allowed national security investigators, pending a court's approval, to obtain and use a multiple wiretap to track a suspect's phone communications, even when a terrorist switches, changes, or abandons phones to avoid detection, a common terrorist tactic.

Specifically, according to senior law enforcement officials, during the summer of 2002, the act allowed our Nation's law enforcement intelligence communities to break up the Portland Seven terrorist cell. Members of that cell had traveled to Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002 to join the Taliban and al-Qaida against the United States.

In 2004, the act was used to protect the El Paso Islamic Center. When Jared Bjarnason sent an e-mail threatening to burn the center to the ground if hostages in Iraq were not freed, the FBI used provisions of the PATRIOT Act to identify him as the source of the threat. Without the provisions in that act, it would have taken 30 days to obtain a string of needed search warrants, while the threat of attack was only 3 days away.

Why is it that we need to make permanent several of the acts's provisions? Why do we need to modify proposed legislation to enhance further the ability of our Nation's law enforcement authorities? Some may argue: If it ain't broke, then don't fix it. But I am a show-me Missourian, and I can tell you that making permanent these provisions is very important.

Terrorism is the operative challenge we face. Over the last 4 years since 9/11, we have seen terrorism and specifically violent Sunni extremists waging war against us and our allies, led and inspired by Osama bin Laden and his lieutenant Ayman Al-Zawahiri. They are not a static, monolithic, or predictable enemy. They do not have a country. They are not identifiable as a nation or a state. They are a combination of stateless hierarchical and formalistic structures, equally lethal and fragmented. Because of the traits in the cultural and religious complexities, they are not predictable, quantifiable, or vulnerable to penetration. We have seen this in the Intelligence Committee, and we know that there is a great danger out there that we must continue to work to avoid.

These groups are highly organized and disciplined. They are inspired by bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri. They have been led, trained, and funded by graduates of al-Qaida training centers. Our enemy is determined to win. It is committed to victory. We cannot afford just to be hopeful.

As CIA Director James Woolsey once said: It is as if we were fighting with the dragon for some 45 years, slew the dragon, and then found ourselves in a jungle of poisonous snakes. The snakes are a lot harder to keep track of than the dragon ever was.

The PATRIOT Act is designed to be preventive. We know that the terrorists want to bleed us. Unfortunately, we have seen the blasphemy of Osama bin Laden taking the God of Abraham and claiming:

Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah.

This videotape was just released. And more recently his deputy, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, released a message saying:

The land and interests of the countries which took part in

the aggression against Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan are

targets for us. If you continue your politics against

Muslims, you will see, God willing, such horror that you will

forget the horrors of Vietnam.

This is the same kind of challenge and the same kind of threat we saw before 9/11. This, I am saying, requires us to be even more attuned and prepared for a potential terrorist attack.

I also note that in the recent BRAC proposals, we have gotten rid of many of the Air National Guard's air national defense missions. On 9/ 11, the Air National Guard flew 90 percent of the first 400 combat air patrols after the first 24 hours of the attack. We need to rethink our dismemberment of those critical assets.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their indulgence. We are still facing a danger that we cannot overlook as we deal with the very real and certain tragedies of Katrina. I hope we will be able to continue our efforts to make sure that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the kind of resources they need to root out, to ferret out, to discover and, we hope, to defend against future terrorist attacks.

I thank the Chair and my colleagues, the managers of the bill. I yield the floor.

Madam President, it has been a long road to get here on SAFETEA, and I am pleased to be here. I thank Chairman Inhofe, Senators Jeffords and Baucus, with a special thank you to my staff: Ellen Stein, John Stoody, and Heideh Shahmoradi; Senator Inhofe's staff, Senator Jeffords' staff, Senator Baucus's staff, the help of Senate legal counsel, employees of FHWA, who ran 1661 runs, Ross Crichton, Susan Binder, and Carolyn Edwards, and the staffs of the Banking, Finance, Commerce, and Budget Committees.

I might inform my colleagues from Arizona, this includes highways and bridges, mass transit, safety, and other items. I thank particularly my colleague from Arizona for mentioning a bridge across the Mississippi River. We have the largest truck traffic in the Nation coming east and west on Highway 70, the eastern edge of Missouri. If they do not have a bridge, they do not get to Illinois. That is one point people from drier States perhaps do not understand.

This bill is one characterized by equity, by safety. Environmental issues are addressed by getting environmental input early on and giving them an opportunity to resolve the problems before money is wasted. It brings the stakeholders to the table earlier. Under the CMAQ provisions, we allow in six States the use of clean-burning biodiesel fuel.

My colleagues and staff have worked tremendously hard in moving this bill over the last 2\1/2\ years and I want to highlight some of the key elements of this bill that I am proud of.

H.R. 3 achieves several major goals:

First, equity--this bill carefully balances the needs of the donor States while recognizing the needs of the donee States.

There are many sections in this bill that I am proud of supporting, such as the fact that all donor States will receive an equitable increase to, at the minimum, a 92 percent rate of return by fiscal year 2008.

The average rate of growth among States is 30.32 percent and all States will grow at not less than 117 percent over what they received in TEA-21 starting in 2005 ramping up to 121 percent by 2009.

I, along with Chairman Inhofe, both Senators Baucus and Jeffords, and our partners on the House side have worked diligently in trying to ensure that the bill remain fair and equitable among all States.

There are many States that continue to fall under the $1.00 rate of return, I am one of them. Due to the budgetary

constraints as well as balancing the needs of both the donor States with the needs of the donee States, we were unable to achieve any better.

Another key component of this bill is safety. This bill goes a long way to saving lives by providing funds to States to address safety needs at hazardous locations, sections, and elements.

Safety in this authorization is for the first time given a prominent position, being elevated to a core program.

Inadequate roads not only lead to congestion, they also kill people. We average more than three deaths a day in Missouri and I think that a large number of these deaths can be attributable to inadequate infrastructure.

Nearly 43,000 people were killed on our roads and highways last year alone. I am glad that the bill reflects the continued commitment to making not only investments in our infrastructure, but also to the general safety and welfare of our constituents.

I am hopeful that the level of funding provided toward the safety program and other core programs is a sufficient amount to address the growing needs of all states.

The passage of this bill comes at a very critical time, especially for my home State of Missouri. We have some of the worst roads in the Nation, with over 50 percent of its major roads in poor or mediocre condition, requiring immediate repair or reconstruction.

Environmental issues are also addressed, such as to ease the transition under the new air quality standards, the conformity process is better aligned with air quality planning, as well as streamlining the project delivery process by providing the necessary tools to reduce or eliminate unnecessary delays during the environmental review stage.

Another accomplishment of our package ensures transportation projects are built more quickly by bringing environmental stakeholders to the table sooner. Environmental issues will be raised earlier and the public will have better opportunities to shape projects. Projects more sensitive to environmental concerns will move through a more structured environmental review process more efficiently and with fewer delays.

This bill also ensures that transportation projects will not make air worse in areas with poor air quality, while giving local transportation planners more tools and elbow room to meet their Federal air quality responsibilities. Transportation planning will be on a regular 4-year cycle, require air quality checks for projects large enough to be regionally significant and reduce current barriers local official face in adopting projects that improve air quality.

Another accomplishment in the bill is allowing local areas to spend congestion, mitigation and air quality funds on the purchase of biodiesel fuel. Soybean based biodiesel provides another market for midwestern, including Missouri, farmers. The clean burning fuel reduces smog forming ozone, soot and hazardous air pollutants. Homegrown biodiesel also decreases our dependence on foreign oil. It's a win for the environment, energy security and farmers.

Lastly, jobs. We have all heard the statistics and this bill undoubtedly will create jobs.

The comprehensive package here before the Senate today is the key to addressing our Nation's needs in infrastructure development and improvement. I am hopeful that other Members of the Senate agree and pass this bill so our State transportation departments can get back in the business of letting contracts.

Mr. President, I rise to honor Dr. Mary E. Clutter who will be retiring in August from the National Science Foundation, NSF. To say that Dr. Clutter has had a distinguished career at the NSF would be an understatement due to her countless achievements in the area of biological science. Today's biological science has not only been assisted by Dr. Clutter but in many respects, it has been defined by Dr. Clutter, and her leadership in this important scientific area.

Dr. Clutter personifies the model public servant with a career at the NSF that spanned almost three decades. Dr. Clutter began her career as a temporary program officer at the NSF. Over the ensuing years, she has served with distinction in many important leadership roles at NSF: as the division director of Cellular Biosciences, Senior Science Advisor to the NSF Director, acting deputy director, and assistant director for the Directorate for Biological Sciences. She has served four Presidential administrations beginning with President Ronald Reagan to our current President George W. Bush. As a member of the Senior Executive Service, Dr. Clutter has received numerous awards, including the Meritorious and Distinguished Executive Presidential Rank Awards from Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and William Clinton.

During her career, Dr. Clutter has worked to develop a long-term and forward-thinking strategic vision for the biological sciences within NSF covering plant biology, environmental biology, computational biology, biodiversity research, long-term ecological research, and nonmedical microbiology. Further, these areas of research have influenced other scientific research areas and will continue to influence the biological sciences for years to come.

In my opinion, Dr. Clutter's most important achievement has come in the area of plant genome research. It is without question that what we now know and will know about plant genome research would not have occurred without Dr. Clutter's vision, leadership, and hard work. In 1997, I asked the Office of Science and Technology Policy, OSTP, to create an interagency working group to develop a new national plant genome initiative. OSTP wisely appointed Dr. Clutter to cochair the working group and, under her leadership, a plan for the national plant genome program was born in June 1997. Under the new National Plant Genome Initiative, Dr. Clutter brought together key Government research personnel from NSF, the Department of Agriculture, the National Institutes of Health, and others to develop and implement the plant genome program.

The plant genome research program at NSF has grown from an initial $40 million in fiscal year 1999 to $95 million today and Dr. Clutter has ensured that every penny has been spent wisely and, with this investment, the United States is the world leader in plant genome research. The plant genome program has already yielded tremendous results that will eventually contribute to better agricultural products that will improve human health and nutrition. For example, Dr. Clutter's leadership has contributed to the completion of the Multinational Arabidopsis Sequencing Project. This project was completed 3 years ahead of schedule and produced the first complete sequence of a higher organism. This work has further contributed to the sequencing work of other plants such as maize, soybeans, and other economically significant crops.

With this research, scientists are now beginning to understand the basic mechanisms underlying important plant traits such as cold tolerance, disease resistance, and seed development. Dr. Clutter's leadership has created a new scientific foundation on plant biotechnology that will eventually yield major breakthroughs in our understanding of plants, which will eventually lead to the development of new advances in agriculture, energy, and the environment. I strongly believe that the impressive research being done with plant genomics, led by Dr. Clutter, can eventually be a very powerful tool for addressing hunger in many developing countries such as those in Africa and Southeast Asia.

While Dr. Clutter's contributions to plant biology and genomics are extremely distinguished and too numerous to list in this tribute, I do want to emphasize the role she has played in broadening the participation of women and minorities in the fields of science. Countless number of today's scientists and our future scientists have been positively influenced by Dr. Clutter. She has promoted and emphasized international research collaboration between U.S. and foreign scientists and

provided opportunities for international research experiences for young scientists.

As the former chairman of the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, my staff and I have found Dr. Clutter to be an invaluable resource and ally in advancing plant genome research. I especially enjoyed her professionalism and passion for science, which never waned or wavered during the years I worked with her.

Finally, on a personal level, in addition to being a leading intellect, she is warm, engaging, enthusiastic, and has a high tolerance for the less knowledgeable. Dr. Clutter's new liberties are well deserved but her departure will be a major loss to the NSF and the Federal Government. She will clearly be missed by the science community, and I will definitely miss her in this capacity, both as a friend and a public servant. I wish Mary and her family all the best.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that addresses an inequity and helps clarify a tax exemption that exists for small property and casualty (P&C) insurance companies under the Internal Revenue Code Sections 501(c)( 15) and 831(b). These small P&C insurers, often originally organized as mutual companies to offer insurance coverage to specific groups, mainly serve rural areas and farming communities that otherwise may not have been able to obtain affordable coverage. This tax exemption helps to provide additional surplus and cash flow for these small companies.

The Pension Funding Equity Act of 2004, ``2004 Act'', amended the small P&C insurer exemption because there were concerns that certain investment companies offering only a small amount of insurance could use the exemption to improperly shelter investment income from federal income tax. Now, under current law, the exemption applies only to P&C (i.e., non-life) insurance companies if their ``gross receipts'' for the taxable year do not exceed $600,000 and if premiums make up more than 50 percent of those gross receipts. A mutual P&C insurance company also may be exempt if its premiums make up more than 35 percent of its gross receipts and its gross receipts do not exceed $150,000. Additionally, P&C companies that have direct or net written premiums, whichever is greater, exceeding $350,000 but not exceeding $1.2 million, Income Election Limit, can elect to be taxed under a similar tax structure on their net investment income.

While the 2004 Act helped to close a potential loophole, the special provisions for small P&C insurers are in need of further clarification or reform. The term ``gross receipts'' is not defined uniformly for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code and the Income Election Limit has not been adjusted for inflation since the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

Without a clear definition of the term ``gross receipts,'' many unanswered questions remain with respect to determining whether a small P&C insurance company qualifies for exemption under section 501(c)(15). For example, such a company typically invests a large portion of its assets in government bonds. If the gross proceeds on the sale of an asset are included in the measure of ``gross receipts,'' based on a broad cash-flow definition of gross receipts, the mere maturation of bonds and reinvestment could cause a small P&C insurance company to fall out of the exemption even though there has been no change in the size of the business and even if the company realizes a loss on the sale or redemption. On the other hand, this arbitrary result would not occur if a definition of gross receipts that includes gains from the sale or exchange of assets is used. Such a definition of gross receipts looks to the size of the business in terms of income and overall profitability, which in turn ties into the reason for the tax exemption.

If the Income Election Limit is not adjusted to keep pace with inflation, the impact could be severe. Take, for instance, a small P&C insurer in my State that started insuring the local farmers in the late 1980s. Over the ensuing years, the company's client base changed very little, but the insurance premiums increased gradually to keep pace with inflationary pressures. As a result, while the business itself has not grown in absolute terms, its premium base has, therefore resulting in the loss of the elective alternative and simpler tax on investment income.

For the farmers and consumers covered by the small P&C insurer, this loss of the tax exemption or a simpler, more limited tax structure is certain to mean higher insurance premiums, leaving the client with the choice of cutting coverage or paying higher costs, neither of which is a preferred option. This is the last thing our agricultural community needs.

The legislation I am introducing today addresses both of these concerns. This legislation would add definitional language for ``gross receipts'' clarifying that gross receipts means premiums, plus gross investment income. In addition, the proposal simply increases the Income Election Limit from $1.2 million to $1.971 million, and indexes it annually for inflation.

According to the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, this legislation will help hundreds of small P&C insurance companies nationwide. Under this proposed legislation, at least 56 of the 82 small insurance companies in my State will be covered, thereby enabling them to continue providing critical insurance coverage to small businesses across Missouri.

With this legislation, we have an opportunity to infuse some fairness into our tax code and at the same time help the thousands of farmers, homeowners, and entrepreneurs covered by small P&C insurers in this country. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and I look forward to working with the Finance Committee to see it enacted into law.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that addresses an inequity and helps clarify a tax exemption that exists for small property and casualty (P&C) insurance companies under the Internal Revenue Code Sections 501(c)( 15) and 831(b). These small P&C insurers, often originally organized as mutual companies to offer insurance coverage to specific groups, mainly serve rural areas and farming communities that otherwise may not have been able to obtain affordable coverage. This tax exemption helps to provide additional surplus and cash flow for these small companies.

The Pension Funding Equity Act of 2004, ``2004 Act'', amended the small P&C insurer exemption because there were concerns that certain investment companies offering only a small amount of insurance could use the exemption to improperly shelter investment income from federal income tax. Now, under current law, the exemption applies only to P&C (i.e., non-life) insurance companies if their ``gross receipts'' for the taxable year do not exceed $600,000 and if premiums make up more than 50 percent of those gross receipts. A mutual P&C insurance company also may be exempt if its premiums make up more than 35 percent of its gross receipts and its gross receipts do not exceed $150,000. Additionally, P&C companies that have direct or net written premiums, whichever is greater, exceeding $350,000 but not exceeding $1.2 million, Income Election Limit, can elect to be taxed under a similar tax structure on their net investment income.

While the 2004 Act helped to close a potential loophole, the special provisions for small P&C insurers are in need of further clarification or reform. The term ``gross receipts'' is not defined uniformly for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code and the Income Election Limit has not been adjusted for inflation since the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

Without a clear definition of the term ``gross receipts,'' many unanswered questions remain with respect to determining whether a small P&C insurance company qualifies for exemption under section 501(c)(15). For example, such a company typically invests a large portion of its assets in government bonds. If the gross proceeds on the sale of an asset are included in the measure of ``gross receipts,'' based on a broad cash-flow definition of gross receipts, the mere maturation of bonds and reinvestment could cause a small P&C insurance company to fall out of the exemption even though there has been no change in the size of the business and even if the company realizes a loss on the sale or redemption. On the other hand, this arbitrary result would not occur if a definition of gross receipts that includes gains from the sale or exchange of assets is used. Such a definition of gross receipts looks to the size of the business in terms of income and overall profitability, which in turn ties into the reason for the tax exemption.

If the Income Election Limit is not adjusted to keep pace with inflation, the impact could be severe. Take, for instance, a small P&C insurer in my State that started insuring the local farmers in the late 1980s. Over the ensuing years, the company's client base changed very little, but the insurance premiums increased gradually to keep pace with inflationary pressures. As a result, while the business itself has not grown in absolute terms, its premium base has, therefore resulting in the loss of the elective alternative and simpler tax on investment income.

For the farmers and consumers covered by the small P&C insurer, this loss of the tax exemption or a simpler, more limited tax structure is certain to mean higher insurance premiums, leaving the client with the choice of cutting coverage or paying higher costs, neither of which is a preferred option. This is the last thing our agricultural community needs.

The legislation I am introducing today addresses both of these concerns. This legislation would add definitional language for ``gross receipts'' clarifying that gross receipts means premiums, plus gross investment income. In addition, the proposal simply increases the Income Election Limit from $1.2 million to $1.971 million, and indexes it annually for inflation.

According to the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, this legislation will help hundreds of small P&C insurance companies nationwide. Under this proposed legislation, at least 56 of the 82 small insurance companies in my State will be covered, thereby enabling them to continue providing critical insurance coverage to small businesses across Missouri.

With this legislation, we have an opportunity to infuse some fairness into our tax code and at the same time help the thousands of farmers, homeowners, and entrepreneurs covered by small P&C insurers in this country. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and I look forward to working with the Finance Committee to see it enacted into law.

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

I thank my colleague from Utah for relinquishing the rest of the time, and I join my colleague in strong support of S. 397, the gun liability bill. But I also wanted to address a topic that continues to draw much heat and discussion here on this floor and in the media. In the heat of political rhetoric over Iraq and the administration's prosecution of the global war on terror, much has been lost and not all the facts are being presented in the matter. Unfortunately, some are quick to exploit the situation in Iraq and the global war on terror and, by extension, the brave men and women prosecuting these conflicts as cannon fodder in their attacks on the President from the media and others. These folks hope to undermine the administration's credibility with a keen eye on gaining political advantage. However, in the end, those efforts serve only to undermine the noble efforts of our Armed Forces, the men and women of our intelligence community who take the fight to the enemy every day. Most damning, however, is that we have yet to see those who strongly criticize the President's policies present any comprehensive, workable or viable alternatives.

This kind of politicizing only serves to erode the morale of the men and women in the field who do the heavy lifting. It is nothing short of shameful when these warriors' leaders in Congress bicker about nonsubstantive issues while they in the field are united and committed to the missions of freedom and keeping our country safe. The armed conflicts in which our young men and women sacrifice so much should be the topic of thoughtful debate.

However, there is no place for this kind of posturing in the business of war because it merely emboldens the enemy and belittles the efforts of our troops.

Let's look at the facts. Some argue there is no connection between Iraq and 9/11. Look at the facts. In late 1994 or early 1995, Saddam Hussein met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum. In March 1998, after bin Laden's public fatwah against the United States, two al-Qaida members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then bin Laden. ``One reliable source reported bin Laden's having met with Iraqi officials, who `may have offered him asylum'.'' These are quotes from the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report published in July 2004.

I do not think one could argue that these facts are either agenda- driven or biased. These facts demonstrate that prior to the 9/11 attacks, al-Qaida and bin Laden himself maintained contacts with the Iraqi regime and that the Iraqis even offered to harbor bin Laden.

Accordingly, a categorical denial that ``Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11'' cannot be made responsibly.

Next contention: Iraq had and has nothing to do with the global war on terror. That is flat dead wrong. Hardly anyone can refute the fact that Iraq has become the gathering place for Sunni extremists who wish to wage war against the United States. From their optic, the terrorists have a plethora of targets with the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq. They are also motivated to combat our policy of fostering a pluralistic, open, and democratic government in Iraq. True meaning.

Instead, the terrorists wish to distort Islam's true meaning, wage an unholy war against Iraq's Shi'a, and induce a sectarian civil war during the aftermath of which the terrorists would like to establish a Taliban-like state in Iraq. These same terrorists are also motivated by their desire to evict U.S. forces not only from Iraq but from the Greater Arab Middle East, and they view our mission in Iraq as an act of occupation when it is a battle of liberation. The battle is one of hearts and minds; a battle, however, that the Iraqi people are determined to win, along with our assistance, as demonstrated

by the 58-percent voter turnout in January, where they elected a new national government, and also by the continuing willingness of Iraqis-- to face the danger of terrorist suicide attacks--to sign up to serve to keep the peace.

But terrorism is not a new phenomenon in Iraq. Chief among the terrorists in Iraq today, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was known to have been in Baghdad since at least mid-2002. You might ask, how can a terrorist of Zarqawi's notoriety operate, let alone live, in a Stalinist police state such as that of Saddam's Iraq, without the former regime's knowledge, if not consent. The answer is simple. Saddam knew Zarqawi was there, undoubtedly.

When asked about Iraq's al-Qaida relationship by CNN's Wolf Blitzer, on February 5, 2003, the vice chair of our Senate Intelligence Committee agreed that his presence in Iraq before the war was troubling. He said, ``The fact that Zarqawi is very close to bin Laden puts at rest, in fairly dramatic terms, that there is at least substantial connection between Saddam and al-Qaida.''

However, long before Zarqawi descended upon Iraq, Abu Nidal, the secular Palestinian terrorist leader and founder of the Abu Nidal organization, lived in Iraq from 1998 until he died in 2002. Over the years, that organization carried out terrorist attacks in 20 countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people, including hijacking of Pan Am flight 373 in Karachi in 1986 and the assassination of a Jordanian diplomat in Lebanon in 1994. Abu Nidal was arguably the world's most ruthless terrorist until the rise of Saddam Hussein. He lived and flourished in Saddam's Iraq for 4 years.

In 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service directed and pursued an attempt to assassinate, through the use of a powerful car bomb, former President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. Kuwait authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 16 suspects led by two Iraqi nationals.

Finally, Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was indicted in the United States for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that exploded beneath the World Trade Center in 1993, arrived in Baghdad during July of 1994. Upon his arrival, Yasin traveled freely and received both a house and a monthly stipend from the Iraqi Government during his stay.

Next contention: Iraq did not present a danger to the United States at the time we commenced Operation Iraqi Freedom. Listen to the people who looked at the situation. During a July 28, 2004, Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, the former head of the Iraq survey group who went in and looked at the situation in Iraq after we occupied it, Dr. David Kay, noted, ``It was reasonable to conclude that Iraq posed an imminent threat. What we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place potentially than in fact we thought it was even before the war.'' He went on to say, ``I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and removal of Saddam Hussein. This may be one of these cases where he was more dangerous than we thought.'' The head of the Iraqi survey group.

Next contention: Iraq would have supplied WMD to terrorists. During that same hearing Dr. Kay added, ``After 1998, Iraq became a regime that was totally corrupt. Individuals were out for their own protection, and in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made Iraq a far more dangerous country than even we anticipated.''

The 9/11 Commission during the 1990s found:

Bin Ladin sought the capability to kill on a mass scale.

Bin Ladin's aides received word that a Sudanese military

officer who had been a member of the previous government

cabinet was offering to sell weapons grade uranium. After a

number of contacts were made through intermediaries, the

officer set the price at $1.5 million which did not deter Bin

Ladin. Al-Qaida representatives asked to inspect the uranium

and were shown a cylinder about 3 feet long and one thought

he could pronounce it genuine.

Al-Qaida apparently purchased it, and it turned out that it was not a legitimate one.

Given al-Qaida's demonstrated desire to acquire WMD and the Iraqi Government's likelihood of sharing WMD technology or actual devices with anyone for the right price, no one can dispute that the liberation of Iraq from Saddam's dictatorial and corrupt regime was a prudent offensive strike in the war on terror.

Finally, some would argue Iraq is a quagmire and not winnable. But listen to the troops. They say otherwise. These are the boots on the ground, the soldiers, the marines. During a recent trip to Iraq, journalist Michael Graham spoke to more than 100 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, with different ranks and duties, at their forward operating bases, and they overwhelmingly had the same things to say about the war in Iraq. And he went on to say that these 100 American troops made the following points: We believe in the mission. We are making progress. The Iraqis are making progress too. We are going to win.

I believe that says it all. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of his article be printed in the Record after my remarks.

I believe that article says it all. Michael Graham's sampling of U.S. military personnel was random, varied, not controlled by the Pentagon. The sample may be small, but 100 troops believe in the war in Iraq and that we are going to win.

History teaches us that the first casualty of war is truth. The first casualty of political battles can often be the men and women fighting the real battles while executing our Nation's policies. Let us not debase the memories of those who have laid such a sacrifice on the altar of freedom with meaningless finger-pointing exercises. Let's speak with truth about the issues and facts at hand.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Handing Over the Mic

Troops talk from Iraq

(By Michael Graham)

I just spent a week in Iraq and Kuwait cultivating a skill

that I, as a talk-show host, have found nearly impossible to

master: shutting up.

Turns out, it was easier than I thought, at least in Iraq.

When you're listening to a 20-year-old kid from Indiana tell

how he earned his second Purple Heart, speechlessness is the

natural reaction.

I was there as part of the much-maligned ``Truth Tour''

organized by Move America Forward, a conservative group based

in California. According to reports in the mainstream media,

I was part of a ``propaganda'' junket paid for by the

Pentagon to buy some desperately needed positive coverage of

the unwinnable military quagmire. All I can say is: If this

was a junket, it was the worst-run junket in the history of

public relations.

My radio station and I had to pay all my expenses, I slept

on a bare cot in a tent in the desert, and at some locations

the only available ``food'' (and I use that term under

protest) were MREs--which stands for ``Meals Ready to Eat . .

. assuming you've already eaten both shoes and most of your

undergarments.''

This alleged ``junket'' failed in another way, too. The

Pentagon didn't control what went out over the airwaves. Then

again, neither did I. I left it all up to the soldiers.

I traveled about Iraq from Camp Victory at the Baghdad

International Airport to Camp Prosperity on the very edge of

the Red Zone, then down the Baghdad Highway to Camp Falcon,

and on to the Command Headquarters in the heart of the city

and, eventually, to the deserts of Kuwait and Camp Arifjan.

And everywhere I went, I flipped on my mic, sat back, and let

the troops tell their story.

These soldiers weren't stooges from Public Affairs or

handpicked flag wavers foist on me by media handlers. I found

some in the mess hall, others working security checkpoints;

others sought me out because they have family living in the

D.C. area where my radio show is broadcast. The least

fortunate were the soldiers in Humvees stuck with ``tourist

duty,'' four friendly but serious young men who got stuck

with a couple of bonehead radio hosts riding along on patrol.

In all, I spoke to more than 100 soldiers, sailors, airmen,

and Marines, with different ranks and different duties at

their FOBs (forward operating base), and yet they

overwhelmingly had the same things to say about the war in

Iraq:

``We believe in the mission.''

``We're making progress.''

``The Iraqis are making progress, too.''

And, perhaps most important of all: ``We're going to win.''

I expected to hear this sort of positive assessment from

General George Casey, commander of operations in Iraq, when I

interviewed him at his headquarters deep inside the

International Zone. When he pointed out that, one year ago,

there was just one standing battalion in the Iraqi army, but

there are

107 battalions today, he was doing his job of supporting the

war. And I expected it from Lt. General Steve Whitcomb,

commanding general of the 3rd Army, as he talked about

successfully moving more than one million gallons of fuel

across Iraq every day, despite the best efforts of the

insurgents.

Generals are supposed to be gung ho. It comes with the pay

grade.

But I heard the same, positive assessments from 23-year-old

sergeants from New Iberia, La., and from PFCs from Wisconsin

and Alabama. I heard it from Lieutenant Li, whose Humvee had

been hit by IEDs so many times he'd lost count. I heard it

from Airman Truong, who was born in Vietnam and had recently

returned to his native country to marry. Two weeks after ``I

do,'' Airman Truong was headed back to Kuwait to do his duty

for his adopted country.

Again and again, from ``white-collar'' soldiers working in

the relative safety of Camp Victory at the Baghdad airport to

the ``real'' soldiers patrolling Route Irish (a.k.a the

``Highway of Death''), I heard that America and their Iraqi-

army allies are winning the war against the insurgents. I was

told again and again by the soldiers themselves that their

(our) cause is just, the strategy is working, and the enemy

they fight represents evil itself.

In other words, I heard things seldom heard on CBS or read

in the pages of the New York Times.

It was only a week, and I have my obvious Bush-supporting,

troop-cheering biases, but how much closer can a reporter get

to delivering unspun, bias-free objective reporting than

live-mic broadcasting instantly back to the states? No edits

or filters or editorial meetings. Just the young men in the

hot desert telling what they've seen, what they've heard, and

what they now believe based on those experiences.

Isn't it at least significant that not one in 100 thought

invading Iraq was a mistake? Was it mere coincidence that a

random selection of 100 soldiers all believe their mission is

worthwhile? Should we detect the hand of the Vast, Right-Wing

Conspiracy in the fact that the vast majority of the troops

find the media coverage of the war ignorant, harmful, or

both?

I'm proud to say that, for a week, the soldiers had their

say. If I were the editor of a major daily newspaper or a

national network, I would be concerned that what they said is

so contrary to what I am printing or broadcasting.

But the mainstream media don't need to hear from the

soldiers. They already know that the war was a terrible

mistake, that the world would be safer if we'd left Saddam in

power, and that there is no chance for victory in Iraq.

Me, I'm not so smart. I like to let the guys on the ground

tell their story. I believe it is completely possible that

they know something that I--and the New York Times editorial

page--do not.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Tom Dorr to be confirmed as Under Secretary for USDA Rural Development. He is a product of rural America from the greater northern-Missouri area often referred to as Iowa. He is a farmer, a businessman, and a tireless innovator who understands and holds true to the values that embody the very essence of life in rural America. Having had the privilege to meet with Mr. Dorr on several occasions, I have been impressed with his mind, his insight, his leadership, his passion, and his vision which is critical to the future of rural communities in Missouri and throughout the nation.

Mr. Dorr has lead USDA Rural Development's renewable energy efforts, from increasing value-added agricultural ventures to ensuring that our farmers, ranchers and rural businesses have access to capital needed to improve their energy efficiency and create new energy systems. He understands it is an effective way for utilizing our Nation's natural resources, and it is critical for the security of our country.

Most importantly, Tom Dorr has worked to build coalitions amongst Government agencies to share their expertise and resources to bring to the table a wider array of Government resources that can ensure that our Nation's renewable energy needs are met. We need his continued focus and leadership.

Tom Dorr has come to my home state of Missouri and met with community leaders and seen first hand how USDA Rural Development investments are making a difference. He has listened to our leaders, and he will use that insight to help him direct future rural development activities. Mr. Dorr understands that rural development doesn't happen in Washington, it happens in the community and he understands that the future innovative thinking.

With this confirmation process, he will never have to prove his patience and determination in any other way. I believe he is the creative and active force that is needed to ensure that rural America anticipates and seizes the opportunities of a rapidly-evolving future and I urge his approval.

Mr. President, on behalf of my fellow Missourians, I extend my warmest congratulations to my good friends the Hazelbakers on Jen Jen's naturalization as a U.S. citizen.

As this family is aware, the freedoms we share in this country are not to be found elsewhere in the world. To maintain these freedoms, we must exercise the responsibilities that are incumbent with these liberties.

As the English philosopher John Stuart Mill said, ``The worth of a state in the long run is the worth of the individuals composing it.''

Already an important figure in her community and active in this country's political process, I am confident that Jen Jen will serve her new home well and I am proud to welcome her.

We send best wishes for success in Jen Jen's future endeavors. We also wish this warm family continued success, happiness, and prosperity.

The Senator from Minnesota is correct. This is an important issue and I am committed on addressing with Senator Coleman on the Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006, and I look forwarding to working with Senator Coleman in ensuring that this is done.