Floor Statements

I thank my friend from North Dakota.

Mr. President, if anyone in this body said the Government could invest $40 million and, in less than a year, generate commitments to invest or leverage $1.2 billion in job-creating, productivity-enhancing and life-improving infrastructure in some of America's most rural and remote areas, I would suspect the Members of this body and the public at large would judge that to be a successful and exciting economic development strategy. That is exactly what has happened.

This broadband loan program is administered by the Rural Utility Service of the United States Department of Agriculture. In 10 short months the RUS broadband loan program has generated about $1 billion in applications, primarily in Treasury rate-of-interest loans that contain at least 20 percent equity leverage. That is a pretty good return.

Let me build on what my friend from North Dakota said. I was pretty small when the debate on REA started, the Rural Electrification Administration. There is not one Senator in this body who has not gone to an annual meeting of an REA. My first line is always: If it had not been for REA, in the country areas we would be watching television by candlelight. That is a truism. Now we are in a different era. We are in an era when there is an infrastructure of the deployment of broadband. Broadband expanded services is as important to downtown America as it is to rural areas because of their ability to communicate instantly and to move massive amounts of information instantly.

We have heard of the digital divide. This is a just one small step that closes that gap or that divide. It is working. Figures back it up. I was as surprised as anyone when this funding was taken out of the bill because it was not working. That wasn't the reason at all. Broadband technologies, whether delivered by fiber, licensed or unlicensed spectrum, or satellite, have the power to transform communities.

High-speed access to the Internet is becoming as important to the rural economic development as good roads or good sewers or even electricity itself. It opens worlds of opportunities for rural businesses, farmers, and ranchers and provides up-to-the-minute market information; and rural schools for distance learning.

We still have a boarding school in my State of Montana. You take your high school students to school on Monday morning and you do not see them until Friday night. That is remote. That is frontier.

This technology is also a way to expand curriculum and allow those young people to have the same educational opportunities as young people in the more urban areas.

Think about what it does to the rural areas as far as telemedicine. We know we have an aging population in rural areas. I have 14 counties that have no doctors at all. The delivery of health care is completely different than it was years ago.

We have as much obligation to make sure there is a buildup of broadband as we had with electricity after World War II. I know what was in our house. Our house didn't have electricity until about 1949- 1950. I know that it transformed rural America. This provides the same possibility.

With this amendment, we have restored a tool which investors can use to build up this important piece of infrastructure which will become very important to rural America.

If the Federal Government could invest $40 million and in less than a year generate commitments to invest about $1.2 billion in job creating, productivity enhancing, life improving infrastructure in some of America's most rural and emote areas, I suspect most members of the body and the public at large would judge that to be a successful and exciting economic development strategy.

That is exactly what has happened in the broadband loan program administered by the Rural Utilities Service RUS, of the United States Department of Agriculture. In ten short months, the RUS broadband loan program has generated about a billion in applications primarily for treasury rate of interest loans that contain at least 20 percent equity leverage.

Broadband technologies whether delivered by fiber, licensed or unlicensed spectrum or satellite have the power to transform communities. High-speed access to the Internet is becoming as important to rural economic development as good roads and sewers. It opens worlds of opportunity for rural business, offers farmers up to the minute market information, rural schools the chance to offer advanced placement courses and rural health care facilities access to the finest medical advice and services available.

While many areas served by companies and cooperatives in the RUS telecommunications program had modern advanced services, too many rural communities were far outside the service territory of these broadband pioneers. The RUS broadband loan program offered an exciting opportunity to close this digital divide.

As one of the co-authors of the broadband loan provisions contained in the farm bill, I strongly believe that

the Senate must keep faith with the carriers, cooperatives, communities and consumers who have been inspired to launch plans to bring broadband services to hometown America.

The broadband loan program builds on a proven sixty-eight year model which has brought modern telephone, electric and water infrastructure to rural areas. The farm bill added a new broadband title to the Rural Electrification Act. It also created a reliable, predictable multi-year stream of mandatory funding to instill confidence that sufficient funds would be available until expended to encourage investment.

Unfortunately, the funding for this program which is so vital to the economic health of rural America has been severely cut. We should be doing everything possible to incentivize broadband buildout in rural America rather than targeting this creative program which promises to bring huge benefits to vast areas of the country. I call on my colleagues to support the Dorgan-Burns amendment to restore funding to this critical program. It is very important.

I thank the Chair.

I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Prabhat Hajela, a congressional fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the consideration of H.R. 7623.

If the Senator from North Dakota will yield.

It is a good idea to give us time to work it out to the agreement of both sides. This can be done. We are going to have to offset it. We would work with the chairman and the ranking member.

I don't need any time prior to Senator Feinstein speaking. We can do that after because she has come, with all good intentions, to offer her amendment, and I think she should be allowed to do so.

Mr. President, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 added new a new provision of the Rural Electrification Act giving the Rural Utilities Service, (RUS), Administrator the authority to make loans ``to expand or improve 911 access and integrated emergency communications systems in rural areas.''

This new provision was in response to the pressing need in rural America to upgrade and improve the ability to communicate in times of individual and mass emergencies.

In the wake of 9/11 there is no higher telecommunications priority than to ensure that communications systems work best when they are needed most.

Senator Clinton and I proposed the emergency communications provision in the Agriculture Appropriations bill to give life to that new section of the Rural Electrification Act.

The Rural Utilities Service, through its talented staff of engineers, operations specialists can play an important role in ensuring that emergency responders can communicate in rural and remote areas.

The Burns-Clinton provision in this appropriations bill would not increase or decrease spending, but would give the administrator of the RUS the flexibility to use funding from several sources within the agency to give emergency communications projects in rural areas the high priority they deserve. It also gives the RUS Administrator a source of loan funds which compliment the grant funds available for emergency communications systems in the Community Facilities program.

That is correct. At any given time, there are authorities which are oversubscribed and others which are undersubscribed. This provision gives the Administrator flexibility to use underutilized funds for this high priority purpose.

As a member of the Agriculture Appropriations Committee, I will seek Conference report language to clarify that funding would be available to current and prospective RUS borrowers and that a wide range of projects be eligible for funding including 911 upgrades, broad emergency communications initiatives, statewide emergency communications projects which include rural areas and projects that provide a dual public safety and commercial uses.

The emergency communications amendment will help ensure that rural America does not fall on the wrong side of a public safety divide.

NRCS Clarifications

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Northern Border Lease Extension legislation. Currently, and since 1981, Northern Border Pipeline Company has leased tribally owned lands on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation for its gas pipeline, which carries gas from Alberta, Canada to consumers in the Midwest. This lease expires in March 2011.

Northern Border wishes to have the right to continue to lease tribal lands for up to fifty years beyond 2011 for its pipeline. They need to be assured as soon as possible their lease can be extended. If not, they must look for other options that would include constructing a new pipeline to go around the Reservation by 2011.

If the lease is not extended, not only will Northern Border be forced to build a new pipeline, but also the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation will lose over $20 million in payments from Northern Border. Additionally, if extended, the lease would provide tens of millions of dollars in additional payments, with the rental payments increasing at an annual rate of three percent per year every five years. These terms came about after negotiations between Northern Border and the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation.

This legislation would allow the Tribes to enter into a lease with Northern Border that would give Northern Border the right to continue to lease tribal lands for up to fifty years beyond 2011 for its pipeline. This is one of those great instances when both sides of a situation agree and are of one mind. This provision was included in a bill previously approved by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, but unfortunately for reasons not associated with this provision, is being held up. Therefore, I wish to introduce this important piece of legislation as a stand-alone bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Northern Border Lease Extension legislation. Currently, and since 1981, Northern Border Pipeline Company has leased tribally owned lands on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation for its gas pipeline, which carries gas from Alberta, Canada to consumers in the Midwest. This lease expires in March 2011.

Northern Border wishes to have the right to continue to lease tribal lands for up to fifty years beyond 2011 for its pipeline. They need to be assured as soon as possible their lease can be extended. If not, they must look for other options that would include constructing a new pipeline to go around the Reservation by 2011.

If the lease is not extended, not only will Northern Border be forced to build a new pipeline, but also the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation will lose over $20 million in payments from Northern Border. Additionally, if extended, the lease would provide tens of millions of dollars in additional payments, with the rental payments increasing at an annual rate of three percent per year every five years. These terms came about after negotiations between Northern Border and the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation.

This legislation would allow the Tribes to enter into a lease with Northern Border that would give Northern Border the right to continue to lease tribal lands for up to fifty years beyond 2011 for its pipeline. This is one of those great instances when both sides of a situation agree and are of one mind. This provision was included in a bill previously approved by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, but unfortunately for reasons not associated with this provision, is being held up. Therefore, I wish to introduce this important piece of legislation as a stand-alone bill.

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

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

Mr. President, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to bring this conference report to the floor, along with my good friend from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan. We have spent a lot of hours on this particular legislation, the appropriations for the Department of the Interior, also some portions in here for the Department of Energy, the Forest Service, the Indian Health Service, and several other independent agencies under the Interior Subcommittee's jurisdiction.

Both the House and Senate bills conformed to the same 302(b) allocation and our conference allocation is effectively the same. This means the priorities of both bodies, as expressed in their respective bills, had to be pared back substantially to bring this bill to the required level. Nobody should be surprised if they think they did not get everything they wanted in this bill. There is an old saying, ``I didn't get everything I wanted, but I wanted everything that I got.'' Nobody did get everything they wanted, including this chairman. But I can tell you the Members were treated fairly. I think the House and Senate had a good exchange during the course of our conference discussions.

That being said, this bill does a number of positive things. It has been a most difficult year. Generally speaking, we have tried to protect the core operating programs of the land management agencies, the Indian Health Service, and the other agencies in this bill. Where possible, we have provided targeted increases for high priority programs such as park operations and, of course, forest health.

Beyond that, we have continued our efforts to attack the maintenance backlog within the land management agencies: The BIA administration of the school system and the Indian Health Service. In a few cases we have invested in new facilities, where they are critically needed.

This bill also continues to fund a number of grant programs for a variety of purposes, from habitat conservation to energy conservation to the arts and the humanities. Most of these programs have been continued at around current-year levels. Advocates of these programs may be disappointed that we did not provide large increases, but the constraints of our allocation simply would not allow it.

There is a specific issue I would like to mention briefly and that is the Indian trust reform. The court recently issued an opinion in the Cobell litigation that would compel the Department of Interior to spend an estimated $9 billion to $12 billion--that is with a ``b,'' billion-- over the next 3 years, on an exhaustive historical accounting of individual Indian money accounts, an accounting that may or may not shed light on the ultimate solution to the trust problem. If there is one thing with which everybody involved in this issue seems to agree, it is that we should not spend that kind of money on an incredibly cumbersome accounting that will do almost nothing to benefit the Indian people. What we need to be doing is fixing the trust system and settling this case once and for all. The conference agreement provides that there is effectively a time out, so Congress can address this issue in a comprehensive fashion. I sincerely hope Congress will take advantage of this opportunity to act for the benefit of the Indian people throughout our country.

Finally, I express my thanks to staffs on both sides of the aisle who worked so hard on getting this conference report together: Larissa Sommer, Ginny James, Leif Fonnesbeck, Ryan Thomas, and Bruce Evans on my own subcommittee on this side. On the committee of course are the folks on the other side who worked so hard, and the rest of my committee staff. They have done a great piece of work bringing this difficult conference to a successful conclusion. Chris Heggem and Ron Hooper of my personal staff have also contributed a great deal to this bill on items that are particularly critical to my State of Montana.

I also want to thank Peter Keifhaber and Brooke Livingston of Senator Dorgan's staff for their cooperation and good humor. Given that Brooke is to be married Saturday, I think it is safe to say she is glad to get this item off the floor. We couldn't conclude it quickly enough. I am glad we can accommodate her on that schedule.

Again, I thank my good friend from North Dakota. We are neighbors. Our border is very porous. We always stand our ground, though, and thank goodness there was the Little Missouri River.

I yield to the ranking member of this committee, Senator Dorgan from North Dakota.

Mr. President, I assume that the minority leader----

I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, again, I express my gratitude to all of those who contributed to this appropriations bill. There are many in this body, in fact too many to mention. But Senator Dorgan and I appreciate their cooperation. We think it is a good bill.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Financial Management, the Budget, and International Security be authorized to meet on Monday, November 3, at 10:30 a.m. for a hearing titled, ``Mutual Funds: Trading Practices and Abuses that Harm Investors.''

Mr. President, I want to speak today about the need to pass the Senate's bipartisan amendment to H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.

Today there are over 190 million acres of forests at risk of devastating wildfire. The situation is the result of the general degradation of the health of our forests. This degradation is the direct result of past poor management practices, which have resulted in our forests being more susceptible to disease, insect infestation, and hazardous fuels accumulation. These conditions have resulted in at least 10 years of devastating wildfires and the reality that if we don't do something to address these conditions we will see decades of these devastating fires.

The decision we must be willing to make is to change the direction of management, because from where I am sitting, the current method is just not working, and it has not for the last 30 years.

Most people don't realize how much money we spend every year on litigation. Last year alone, taxpayers spent $21 million just on Forest Service litigation. And that doesn't count all the paperwork and time spent on trying to make every project litigation-proof. We know this process is stuck, and it's inefficient, and we're spending a lot of money foolishly, when we could instead be spending it on the ground improving the health of our forests.

Add to that the dollars we spend on fighting fires every year, which can easily reach into the billions. The costs associated with the suppression of these wildfires reaches into the millions per fire, and the billions annually--the cost is high partly because we have allowed the health of the forests to deteriorate to such poor condition. However, the cost of fire suppression is not the only cost associated with disease, insects, and wildfires. There are equally high costs associated with the loss and damage of wildlife and fishery habitat, clean air, and problems associated with the silting of rivers and streams, loss of critical infrastructure, and the loss of tourism.

We must not let the debate over forest health degrade into a political debate of cutting timber. There are people who simply have an objection to cutting down trees, but I wonder why it's all right to burn them down?

The Forest Service timber sale program is the smallest it has been since the 1940's. We are losing more trees, wildlife habitat, and critical healthy watersheds to fire, disease, and insects than we impact through timber sales. Yet, we continue to stand by and do nothing to stop the destruction.

The environmental community can no longer appeal and litigate every project designed to remove hazardous fuels, treat disease, and eradicate insects under the guise of protecting the habitat of fish and wildlife; yet turn a blind eye on the damage that insects, disease, and fire are doing to these same habitats.

We must provide the Federal land managers with the tools needed to address the extreme conditions of our national forests. We must address the issues associated with delays as a result of appeals and litigation.

We have before us a bill that reflects a bipartisan effort to finally provide the land managers with the necessary tools. It reflects a bipartisan effort to streamline the NEPA process, expedite judicial action, treat the wildland-urban interface along with other high risk areas, and address the urgent need to combat the spread of insects and disease in our forests nationwide.

It is time for this body to set aside partisan politics and stand up to the public's expectation that we act responsibly and quickly pass this legislation. We ought not to disappoint the

public and we ought not to be responsible for continuing to put our national forests at increasing risk.

I join my colleagues in noting the magnitude and urgency of this issue. As chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, which funds wildland firefighting, I know firsthand how disruptive this borrowing cycle can be on federal agencies. Public lands states like my home State of Montana are at risk for both ends of the fire disaster when accounts are not repaid quickly. As we work toward a solution, I believe it is important that we work with the Administration and the relevant Congressional Committees such as the Budget Committee. We should also address the very real concern that firefighting costs continue to escalate year after year. Congress needs to better understand why costs per acre continue to rise and how we can reverse that cycle. Efforts by the Wildland Fire Leadership Council and their current review of firefighting costs can help us with this challenge and we can use their knowledge as a foundation for our future policy decisions.

Mr. President, today I bring to your attention a truly remarkable program. In America, at this point in our history, most people are so far removed from their agrarian roots, they have lost all understanding of true ties to the land. This is one of the many problems that agricultural producers face in their battle for survival.

There is a sheep producer in Montana who is working to correct this problem. Pachy Burns is a true Western woman. There is nothing that she is not willing to face and, if need be, challenge. Pachy has created a program called Jam to Lamb. It is an all-women's lambing party that involves women from all over the United States. Women from every walk of life experience the true meaning of ranching by learning through doing.

Women who visit Pachy learn about delivering lambs, branding lambs, nursing bums, and all of the other necessities of daily ranch life. They learn the truth about issues impacting agriculture such as Federal lands and predators.

I ask that you all join me in recognition of Pachy Burns, a woman who is trying to open not only the eyes but also the hearts of people, who should have a better understanding of where their food comes from. Pachy is accomplishing this through leadership and friendship the true mark of a Westerner.

Madam President, I thank Senator McCain, the chairman of the full Committee on Commerce, for his diligence and insight on this, and the ranking member, Senator Hollings. He laid out the facts. I will not rehash everything he said because his numbers are right.

Also I thank my good friend from Oregon, Senator Wyden. We have worked on this bill for 4 years. It is not an easy piece of legislation to put together.

The simplest piece of legislation we ever put together, I say to Senator Wyden, was the E 9-1-1 which is probably the best public safety piece of legislation we have ever passed. It sounded like a no-brainer, and it only took 2 years, so this must have been really complicated. I thank you for your efforts. It was a pleasure working with you.

Also, two Senators not on the floor who have not been mentioned are Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy. We appreciate their cooperation incorporating a significantly expanded criminal package in this law.

The extent of bipartisan cooperation on this issue is no surprise, of course, given the deluge of spam to the consumers and what they face in their inbox each day. The cost of business, the cost to individuals, is escalating and wide ranging.

The chairman asked a valid question: Does this piece of legislation protect us from spam? It can have an effect on people thinking twice before they send it. That is the answer. I have contended all along, as my colleagues on the Commerce Committee have contended, that industry is going to have to come along and get together, talk about the technologies it takes to keep out unwanted mail or some organization or technology that ferrets out the bad people but allows some in the industry to be able to send some messages of what would be considered spam today.

This especially affects people in rural areas. In Montana we have people using the Internet who have to incur long-distance charges to their ISPs. Servers all over the country have difficulty in blocking spam. They are saying the systems are jammed up. The CAN-SPAM bill empowers consumers and grants additional enforcement authority to the Federal Trade Commission to take action against spammers and allows State attorneys general to take action if they see fit.

The bill also provides additional tools to end this online harassment, allowing users to remove themselves from mass email lists and imposing steep fines up to $3 million on spammers. In cases where outright deception is involved, penalties will be unlimited. That is a big point.

The chairman also brings up another point: unwanted and pornographic mail. In my State of Montana, something else is emerging regarding protection of our children: sexual predators. This has to do with how they work in our homes with our children. There are a couple of amendments we will deal with as they come up.

I have a constituent in Montana. If you do not think it does not cost companies money, Jeff Smith, who built a cutting-edge fiber hotel in Missoula, MT, says unwanted spam costs his business about $300,000 a year. His company is worth $2.5 million, so his costs are real.

Not only do we pass legislation, but I will participate in an I-SAFE conference in Billings on Friday at Castle Rock School on how to deal with this unwanted and pornographic mail that comes into our homes on the Internet.

I thank my chairman, Senator McCain, for his patience. I have worn him out a couple of times. He yells back, though, pretty well.

I thank my friend from Oregon, too, who has worked very hard on this issue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I might add, Senator Leahy and I serve as cochairs on the Internet caucus. We understand the ramifications of this new medium that has come upon us, its importance, and all it has to offer. Of course, getting rid of spam is one of those things that if we don't do it, then I am afraid it will be the one that chokes this very new way of communicating and brings us not only information but new services.

I appreciate the work of the Senator from Vermont and thank him for it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from North Dakota for his kind words. I tell all Senators, both here and watching, that the Boxer amendment has been withdrawn. That gets us down to where we could get this bill passed tonight.

I believe the pending business is the Hatch-Leahy amendment No. 1893. I call for its adoption.

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

Madam President, I associate myself with the words of the chairman of the committee. Four years ago we started on this, and it has blossomed. I think it was pretty obvious to a lot of us what the impact of the Internet would be on our everyday communications and the technologies and services and information it provides. But also starting then was this unwanted mail that would show up in your mailbox. It didn't mean much at first, but it was obvious to a lot of us, who have been working on this legislation for 4 years, that this was something that was going to be picked up by a lot of people--the good, the bad, and the ugly, so to speak.

So we went to work on it then and we have been working on it ever since. We thought we had a chance last year to pass it. I would say we had not really done all of our homework, and we didn't get it passed.

I appreciate the leadership of both the chairman and ranking member of the Commerce Committee and also my good friend from Oregon. We have worked hard on this legislation.

I really believe, with the debate going on in the House now, that the time has come. I don't go to a townhall meeting or meet a friend who doesn't say: Take care of that spam. I tell my friends also that this will not do it totally. The industry is going to have to come together using new technologies in order to get it done, and I think the industry will now because they know we are serious about criminal charges, fines, the result of violations of this law.

So I think we send a very strong message to those people who would use the Internet to do what is not acceptable to the American public.

I thank my friends and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I say to my friend from Maryland, if he wants to ask a question, I don't see any harm in that.

Mr. President, we just got back from Iraq last Saturday. I just want to share with you a couple of thoughts that I had while I was there and coming back because once you go and you look and you see and you feel what is going on in that country--I am going to oppose this amendment, but I am opposing the amendment, and I am opposing the idea, but not because some of my good colleagues, for whom I have the utmost respect, are promoting this.

There are as many Iraqis and more dying today than there are Americans. If we lose one American life, it is a tragedy. But their new police department that is on the street is doing a good job, and they are paying with their lives also.

I am not going to get into whether we can afford it or we can't afford it or whether they can afford it or they can't afford it. But this investment, my colleagues, is probably one of the biggest ones we will make. The returns in the next 20 years will be way beyond expectation. We are changing something in the Middle East that has not even been touched since the end of World War I.

We went into those communities where poverty is rampant, with trash, garbage. Kids are happy. They come up to you. We talked to parents in refurbished schools. And, by the way, we have refurbished 1,500 of them, done by an Iraqi contractor who hired 30,000 Iraqi workmen to do it.

We talked to parents. I talked to one woman there and asked: Do you want us to go away?

She said: No, absolutely not.

And I asked her: Give me one reason, one reason.

She said: My little girl is going to school.

Little girls did not go to school under Saddam Hussein. Think about that impact on that neighborhood. I am talking ground level, folks. This is not the palaces. This is not the CPA or the IGC. These are people who are on the street.

What kind of a message is this: ``Well, we will loan you the money, but expect you to pay it back''? And they will say: ``Gee, thanks. The last thing we need is another loan.''

We have all been down that street. We loan; we lose control of the money. Is it spent where it is supposed to be spent? Does it really build the infrastructure? Or do we see somebody going out and buying a Mercedes-Benz and putting it in their trunk and saying: ``Well, I have had enough of this''? We have seen that happen, too. That has been our experience with some of our foreign aid.

We control it. But I want to get back to this issue that we are going to change some things over there on the success of Iraq. We don't know whether their constitution will be like ours. I daresay it will not. But it will be some form of representative government, which to us is a baby step, but to them it is a giant step.

If you throw a map down on the floor and you take a look at all of the Middle East, here is what we have done: We have invested in a corridor that will be the economic road for not only Iraq but for Jordan, for Egypt, for all the countries that border Iraq because, for the first time, we will have a communications and transportation system that is free and open, and even in the fly zones that run from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 5 more minutes.

Will you give me another minute to close?

Mr. President, if you think, why is King Abdullah of Jordan so supportive of us? Why is Turkey so supportive of what we are trying to do? It is very simple: because the corridor of freedom is being opened.

Now you tell me if there is not a better investment in this world. And you have cracked closed societies. Would Saudi Arabia announce they are going to have free elections had we not done what we have done?

We cannot make it in the form of a loan because we lose control of it. Let's help those people. They want to do it. Their will for freedom is just as strong as ours. How strong is our will? How strong is ours?

I yield the floor.

I thank the Chair and I thank my friend from Texas. I also thank my friend from Louisiana because I think she brings up some very valid points.

If one visits Iraq--especially the neighborhoods, which are just like some of the neighborhoods across this country--one will see poverty that is rampant, as well as poor living conditions. These neighborhoods are no place that I know that any American, having the choices we have in this country, would choose to raise their children. But they will get better because of the benevolence of a great country, the United States of America. We opted to make that choice after

World War II in the rebuilding of a destroyed axis, both east and west. As it turned out, it was a very wise investment.

We have the same opportunity now in a part of the world where great changes are starting to take place. Because of our presence in Iraq and the actions we are taking there, Saudi Arabia is for the first time in its history going to offer elections. Have they done that because of what we didn't do in Iraq? I think one would have to question that.

I congratulate my friend from Kentucky. When he goes on a working trip--we had 8 days in the field. I mean it is getting up early in the morning, catching an airplane, and flying into an area where let's say most of the action was centered, working all day, and then flying back and getting a hotel even without dinner. That is all right. I can afford to miss a dinner or two. I can afford to miss a few meals. But we were ground level.

Central services are being reestablished in Iraq way ahead of schedule and are now at the same level or beyond what they were prewar. The plan that has been laid out--and everybody knows it and everybody reads it--is working. Fifteen hundred schools have now been refurbished and another 1,500 will be finished by the first of the year. We now see schools open, with kids and parents very happy. An Iraqi contractor used 30,000 Iraqi carpenters, painters, and people who refurbish in that endeavor. Iraqi people are picking up their own neighborhood because they have the freedom to do so and telling us that if we leave now, they cannot go with the job only partly done.

Is there a timeline? There is never a timeline for this kind of an operation. That is kind of like me going out and saying I am going to build a fence until the 10th day of November. Bad weather comes, and a lot of things intervene. I don't get the fence done. Come the 15th of November, am I going to quit building the fence? I don't think so.

So timelines on projects such as this are very slow but they are moving forward.

Are we talking about a lot of money? You bet we are. It is money that sometimes we think we don't have. But sometimes we make investments in things with money which we don't think we have either.

There is a powerplant that would be shut down in this country in a New York minute. There are six turbines and only two are operating. It was built in 1928, and not a nickel was ever invested in the O&M of that plant. There are no computers nor control rooms; it is entirely manually operated. Efficiency of producing electricity and even conserving electricity is not there. Central services of water, telephone, and even health care are back beyond what they were prewar.

We found out one thing: Saddam Hussein did two things really well. He built great palaces. We were in a couple of them. They are pretty good digs. He also built a good road system. But that is where it stopped. Irrigation systems around Mosul and along the Euphrates River are falling apart--not because of damage in an armed conflict but because of no investment in O&M. Now we are restoring those irrigation systems; people will be able to feed themselves.

We are making an investment in people who are educated and motivated and who want to have something to say about their own fate when it comes to the economy and to their political freedoms. That is what this is about.

Is this about establishment of a government that will look like ours? No. It will not look like ours. But at least it will be a representative form of government--another one in that region that changes the mindset of the entire Middle East. Elections in Saudi Arabia are just part of that. This is the cradle of terrorism. This is where it starts. This is where it is planned, and this is where it is financed. But with economies of scale, as they grow, terrorism diminishes. We take the fear out of doing business or going to school or doing shopping or even in recreation.

It will be Americans who will do that. Money is just a tool. It can be used for good. It can be used for evil. We have chosen to use it for good.

Talk to the parents of those children going to school. I talked to a lad of about 10 or 11 years. I asked him if there is any difference this year. He said: Yes; there are a lot of girls in my class. He had never experienced that before. Their eyes are bright; they are eager to learn; and their parents are happy that we are there. That is at the neighborhood level. It is not in some headquarter being briefed by the State Department or the military people.

Talk to the soldiers on the street. Do they understand what the mission is? Yes, they do. Are they motivated to carry it out? Yes. They understand that there is great risk, but there is always great risk with freedom. We have assumed that risk in this country. We assume a high level of risk for that very precious thing called freedom.

We have to rebuild the infrastructure with these appropriations, get their economy going, and then bring our troops home. They can come home faster than if we say we are just going to leave them alone. What kind of a signal does that send to the meeting next week in Madrid where we are calling the world's nations together to participate with us in rebuilding an infrastructure for a people who actually deserve it and which was denied by a tyrant for the last 25 or 30 years?

This is what America is about. I am proud to be a part of it.

I yield the floor.

The Senator from Florida has explained his amendment very well. I have no questions.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.