Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 333 submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 182, S. 449.

I ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 327, which was received from the House.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the record.

Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9 a.m. on Thursday, December 15. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then proceed to the conference report to accompany the Labor-HHS bill, as under the order.

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the first 90 minutes be under the control of Senator Harkin. I further ask unanimous consent that following the use or yielding back of that time, the conference report be set aside, the Senate resume consideration of the PATRIOT conference report, and that the next 2 hours be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; provided further that following that 2-hour time period, the Senate stand in recess until 2:15 for the policy lunch to meet. I also ask unanimous consent that the time from 2:15 to 3:30 be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; provided further that at 3:30 the Senate resume consideration of the House message to accompany S. 1932, with all time having been considered used, and the Senate proceed to a series of votes in relation to the remaining motions in the order offered; that the order of motions would be DeWine, Kohl, Kennedy, and Reed; and finally, I ask unanimous consent there be 2 minutes equally divided between each of those votes.

Mr. President, tomorrow we will be considering several measures throughout the day. We will begin the day with debate on the Labor-HHS appropriations conference report. We will resume debate on the

PATRIOT Act conference report. At 3:30 we will begin the final series of votes with respect to the remaining motions to instruct on the deficit reduction bill. We also expect to stack the Labor-HHS conference report in that series of votes. Other votes may occur as we work on either executive items or on other legislative issues.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

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

I hope every Senator was listening to Senator Kyl's explanation of the important issues that have been raised. I hope the American people are listening. He served on the Intelligence Committee. He has been through these debates from the very beginning. He is a man of integrity, and he will be responsible in summarizing the matters that came before us.

He indicated that we hear allegations that things were black and white, when those of us who heard the briefings didn't hear them that way. They weren't black and white. The aluminum tubes--I ask the Senator from Arizona, regardless of the detail of it, whether he heard from those who debriefed us and got various opinions about that issue, and we were not misled. We were told there were various ways to interpret that evidence, were we not?

That was before 78 Members of this body--a majority of the Democratic Members along with a majority and maybe all of the Republicans--voted to authorize hostilities in Iraq.

We knew these subtleties and disagreements, and we were given the best estimate that the intelligence agency was given.

Let me ask the Senator this: The CIA is the Central Intelligence Agency. The Senator talked about the contradiction between saying at one point you should follow one or the other, or the minority opinion. Is one of the responsibilities of the CIA to review all intelligence and help advise the President, as that central agency, what he should take as reliable?

That is beautifully expressed. I think that is so important for us to know.

I want to drive home one point. The Senator from Massachusetts and other Senators have been complaining about these matters. I remember the briefings we attended. Every Senator was invited. Every Senator had the right to ask questions. People stayed late, if they chose to, and asked additional questions. They were given these nuanced opinions. It was only after all that, was it not, that this Senate, after full debate, voted to authorize military actions in Iraq.

Mr. President, again, I thank the Senator for his thoughtful

and thorough analysis of how we came to know what we knew and how we came to make the decisions about matters that came before us. We think there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. We know that. That is indisputable. Where it went subsequently I don't know, and people are shocked that we have not found them. We know that the French intelligence agency--the French Government opposed our entry into the war--believed he had weapons of mass destruction.

Those matters were very important. And what I am so glad about is people have heard what Senator Kyl said and discussed, which is relevant to this Senate. We knew these things, fellow Senators. We discussed these things. Grown people make decisions based on the best evidence they have.

We had many hearings, top secret briefings, and every Senator could go. We heard the argument. We heard the evidence. We cross-examined, and we heard the uncertainties and certain levels expressed by the authorities that came before us. Then we came into this body and we voted to send our soldiers to execute our policy in harm's way. And we owe those soldiers our support. We don't need to be undermining the President, or even ourselves and our system, as in this circumstance making the policy. We voted by a 78-to-22 vote to make it more difficult to achieve and to place our soldiers at greater risk.

I thank the Senator for his wonderful comments.

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

Mr. President, I would like to share some thoughts on the PATRIOT Act which, unfortunately, seems to have reached an impasse. That is distressing to me. I can't imagine that we have allowed this to happen. It is very disappointing. The American people need to understand how important the act is and how little it impacts the liberties which we cherish and how carefully it was crafted so as to not impact our liberties. I would like to share a few thoughts about that.

Many of the key provisions of the act are scheduled to sunset at the end of this year. We will now presumably have to try to come back, in the few days we have in December, to complete the work. That is a very risky thing. We should complete this work today. Remember, those who do not sign up for this legislation, this conference report, or support it and do it today, giving us time to vote on it before we leave for the year, are risking letting the PATRIOT Act expire. And with its expiration, the walls that prohibited our governmental agencies from sharing critical intelligence information will go back up. Those are the very walls that were structured between the FBI and the CIA and other agencies that blocked the sharing of intelligence information that, in retrospect, we believe could possibly have allowed us to find out about and stop the 9/11 attacks. Perhaps not, but those walls, those failures to be able to share intelligence between those agencies were a critical factor in our lack of cooperation prior to 9/11.

We passed the PATRIOT Act to fix that. It has worked extremely well. We should not go back to that time of the great walls.

The PATRIOT Act has, without doubt, made us immeasurably safer. I fully support the act's provisions as originally passed. The main goal of the act was then, and remains today, very simple: to give Federal law enforcement officers, the FBI, and other agencies the same tools to fight terrorists and agents of foreign powers as the tools they have-- and virtually every law enforcement officer at the county, city and State level have--to fight other type criminals, drug lords, murderers, and even white collar tax evaders.

I do not believe we acted too hastily in passing the PATRIOT Act. We were focused on this act. We made a commitment not to alter any of the great protections that we had. We negotiated it intentionally. People made the most outrageous allegations and had the most incredible misinformation about what was in it. By the time we completed the intense negotiations and debate for weeks, it was voted for in the Senate by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 98 to 1. The House voted it with a huge majority also, 357 to 66. This year we passed the bill unanimously out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, a contentious committee, a committee which has civil libertarians on the right and the left. We voted it unanimously out of that committee, and the Senate passed it by unanimous consent. As originally drafted, the PATRIOT Act does nothing to harm the civil rights and liberties of Americans.

I want to talk about that just a little. The Department of Justice inspector general, Glenn Fine, an appointee of President Clinton, has investigated all of the claims of civil rights and civil liberties violations received by the Department of Justice under the act. The independent inspector general found no incident in which the PATRIOT Act was used to abuse the civil rights or civil liberties of American citizens or anyone else.

I do not believe portions of this act must be significantly revised, or have additional so-called protections added. And, I do not believe that sections of this act should be sunsetted. I will share with my colleagues the words of Attorney General Gonzales which he gave in a letter to our conferees as we tried to work out the final words for this act. He wrote to us and said--and no truer words have been spoken:

The terrorist threat against this country will not sunset,

and neither should the tools we use to combat terrorism.

Let me mention a few of the provisions of the act that give us the tools that are so important. One is the roving wiretap provision. Roving or multipoint wiretaps have been available to criminal investigators for many years. But section 206 of the PATRIOT Act made sure that this tool was also available for fighting terrorism. It allows the FISA court, the special foreign intelligence court, to authorize a wiretap to move from device to device as the target of the wiretap, the target of the foreign intelligence investigation, changes modes of communication.

So let me tell you, though this has been approved as a legitimate law enforcement tool, and should continue to be a law enforcement tool, it is not that easy to obtain, you really have to prove you need a roving wiretap. I was a Federal prosecutor for over 15 years, a U.S. attorney, and I personally supervised and prosecuted a lot of cases. Let me just tell you how it works.

In my 12 years as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, I think maybe we had two wiretaps. These are very difficult to obtain. You have to have probable cause to believe that a person is involved in criminal activity. You have to identify how he is using communication devices and then submit to the court a memorandum--and the ones that I have seen were 60 to 100 pages of facts--to prove to the judge's satisfaction that we are not snooping on somebody who is innocent, but we are actually attempting to understand the scope of major criminal activity.

The way it is monitored and managed is incredibly important because you have to listen to it constantly. If they talk about their family, you are supposed to turn it off. You have to have people listening all the time so that you can catch the evidence you are seeking. It is very expensive. You don't do it unless it is very important.

So I have to say, Mr. President, it is so important in a terrorism investigation that agents have this tool when they are on to a group or entity that is not just selling drugs, as bad as that is, but are intent on blowing up and killing thousands of American citizens. And when you are on to them and they start using this phone and that phone and that phone and you have run back to court with your 60-page memorandum and find a judge and set up a hearing date and all that, by that time he has maybe gone to another phone, a cell phone, a pay phone, a phone in a motel, wherever he moves.

So it is perfectly appropriate to have a wiretap if it is approved by a court

upon sufficient showing of probable cause. That is no doubt. All this does is to say that you can get the ability to intercept communications on that individual and then can use whatever phone he is using. Previously, the tradition was that you would have the wiretap on a single telephone number. This makes it clear that the court decisions allowing roving wiretaps are the law of the land, and it also creates a standard as to how they should be approved and utilized.

So I think that is an important tool for investigators. Can you imagine how important that is to an investigative team that may be working on a dangerous terrorist cell? It could be the difference of life and death for thousands of American citizens.

Let me mention another provision of the act. The objections to this one are so amazing to me. It just breaks my heart that people seem to have as much confusion about it as they do. This is the delayed notice search warrant. Under section 213, the PATRIOT Act created a nationally uniform process and standard for obtaining delayed notice search warrants. The act's standard applies to delayed notice warrants sought in any type of investigation, not just terrorism investigations. Delayed notice warrants are explained by the August 29, 2005 letter from the Department of Justice. They said:

A delayed-notice warrant differs from an ordinary warrant

only in that the judge authorizes the officer executing the

warrant to wait for a limited period of time before notifying

the subject of the warrant because immediate notice would

have an adverse result as defined by statute.

We must remember that delayed notice search warrants have been around for decades. As a matter of fact, I was reading a book not long ago about an organized crime matter that occurred years ago and they referred to a delayed notice search warrant. They didn't have any statutory standards for it at that time, but they asked the judge to allow them to delay notice, and the judge allowed it, and that process has been approved constitutionally.

The PATRIOT Act did not create any new authority or close any gap in delayed notice law because there was really no gap to close. It simply set a uniform statutory standard for getting permission to delay notice.

It is absolutely false to imply, as many have done, that these warrants are a way for the Government to ``sneak and peak'' into a civilian's home, papers, or effects without ever telling them. The truth is that they have to be told, but there is a delay between the search and when they are told. The critics have continued to suggest that these warrants are done without approval of a court, they want you to believe that because of the PATRIOT Act, the government can go into your house without a warrant and see what you have and never tell anybody that they have been there.

Nothing could be further from the truth. That is why this bill passed 98 to 1. We didn't write those kinds of broad provisions in this bill. We maintained the classic standard of approval of a search warrant, the probable cause standard and all that goes with it. The PATRIOT Act simply set an objective uniform standard for delayed notice.

Why is this important? Well, I could go into detail, but I would just ask you to imagine that one is surveiling a group that you have probable cause to believe is going to try to blow up an area of the United States and that you have probable cause to believe that they have planned to make a bomb. You could go in this residence while nobody is there pursuant to a search warrant on probable cause issued by a Federal judge and conduct a search. Normally, the only difference in these warrants is that you would normally tell the person whose house is searched immediately, and immediately report back to the Court. Here you have make a report but you don't have to tell the person you have searched their house until a later date set by the judge.

You may find in their house bombmaking materials papers on how to make a bomb, explosive devices, triggers, and those kinds of things. And it may be that from that you could obtain information from their house on who else was involved in the cell, to identify the entire ring, the entire cell, and arrest them all at once at an appropriate time. If you have to tell the person immediately, in some cases you risk tipping the whole group off and having them spread out like a covey of quail. That is what too often happens if you don't have this kind of tool. It is critically important to investigators trying to protect the United States of America that we preserve this section of the PATRIOT Act.

Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act allows the FBI to seek an order for the production of tangible things--books, records, papers, documents, and other items for an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information. Basically, they are a form of subpoena authority. Section 215 orders must be preapproved by a judge and cannot be used to investigate ordinary crimes or even domestic terrorism. Opponents of section 215 have tried to create the impression that the FBI is using 215 to visit libraries nationwide in some sort of dragnet to check the reading records of everyday American citizens.

That is just not so. They have no interest in that whatsoever. Why would they? They are not doing that. I did get a letter from Rebecca Mitchell, director of the Alabama Public Library Service, who was critical of some of her colleagues who have been objecting to these provisions in the act. Her August 15 letter to me stated:

I want to personally thank up for your strong leadership

stand on the PATRIOT Act. Our libraries should not be a tool

for terrorism. I know you have received negative comments

from the American library association on your stand but this

is not the opinion of most librarians in our State. Please

continue to fight to keep our Nation safe.

Please understand that no provision of the PATRIOT Act, including section 215, even mentions libraries or is directed at libraries. Nevertheless, as Director Mitchell points out, it is important that library records remain obtainable as one of the tangible records that section 215 can reach. Intelligence or criminal investigators may have very good and legitimate reasons for extending to library or bookstore records. For example, investigators may need to show that a suspect has purchased a book giving instructions on how to build a bomb.

I prosecuted a guy who had already had one book written about him, and after the prosecution, they made a second movie about him. We conducted a search warrant, a lawful search warrant that was upheld. We found a book called ``Death Dealers Manual,'' describing how to kill people; and a book called ``Deadly Poison,'' describing how to make deadly poison. That was great evidence to use to show that he was more than casually interested in murdering people.

Andrew McCarthy, a former Federal prosecutor who led the 1995 terrorism case against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, recently elaborated on this point in an article in National Review Online. This is what he said:

Hard experience--won in the course of a string of terrorism

trials since 1993 [that he had personally been involved in]

instructs us that it would be folly to preclude the

Government a priori from access to any broad categories of

business records. Reading material, we now know, can be

highly relevant in terrorism cases. People who build bombs

tend to have booklets and pamphlets on bomb making.

For heavens' sake, I would add, of course they do.

Terrorist leaders often possess literature announcing the

animating principles of their organizations in a tone

tailored to potential recruits. This type of evidence is a

staple of virtually every terrorism investigation--both for

what it suggests on its face and for the forensic

significance of whose fingerprints that may be on it. . . .

If he [a defendant] claims unfamiliarity with the tenets of

violent jihad, should a jury be barred from learning that his

paws have yellowed numerous publications on the subject? Such

evidence was standard fare throughout Janet Reno's tenure--

and rightly so.

Of course, she was Attorney General under President Clinton.

So this occurs in every courtroom in America. Documents are obtained through subpoena. It is stunningly dangerous that we would not understand this concept and why it is needed in the context of terrorism investigations.

I will add just a few additional thoughts on obtaining records and documents. An American citizen has an expectation of privacy and it is the right of an American under the Constitution to be free from unreasonable--unreasonable--search and seizures is guaranteed by our Constitution.

Where do you have privacy rights? If you give someone your personal papers,

you turn them over to them, do you still have privacy rights if they were to read them? Certainly not. So the law has developed many years in this fashion. You have an expectation of privacy in those areas of your life where you have control--the inside of your automobile, the trunk of your car, the glove compartment of your car, your desk at your office, any part of your house, your garage, an outbuilding around your house that you have exclusive control over. Those are areas over which you have exclusive control, and you have an expectation of privacy. People cannot go into those places and seize anything you have there without probable cause or else it would be an unreasonable search and seizure.

But if you go to a motel and fill out a motel receipt and give it to the motel operator, it is not yours. It is the motel's document, it is a business record. If you go to a bank and you open an account and they keep all kinds of records of that account, they are the bank's records, not yours. Every person in that bank has access to those documents and records. If you make a telephone call, the words you use are yours, and you have an expectation of privacy between you and the person who receives the call. But the fact that you make a telephone call and the telephone company prints out a billing statement that has telephone numbers on it, that is available to anybody who works in the telephone company. That is not your record, it is their record. So you do not have the same privacy expectations, that is all.

The court has always understood that. This has never been in dispute. Every district attorney in America, all kinds of law enforcement officers, State and Federal, through subpoenas, without court approval, have been able to obtain those kinds of documents if the documents are relevant to an investigation they are undertaking.

I received telephone toll records in drug cases I prosecuted. These kinds of records could be relevant in a terrorist case, make no mistake about it. You check the telephone numbers they call, and they are calling a certain number in New York City. Maybe you have records from another person, and they are calling that same number at various times of the day, and maybe right before a terrorist attack occurred or right after an attack occurred, phone calls are going back and forth. That is real evidence of who may be involved in a terrorist cell or criminal drug enterprise. That is how investigators work every day. That is what juries expect to see when cases are prosecuted. To have this great fear that there is something in this act that in a significant way alters those classical powers of investigators to find out those who may be trying to kill us--it is just not true. It is an exaggeration. It is a concern that is not real.

This PATRIOT Act is about to expire. It would be an abdication of our responsibility as the Senate not to move this bill forward before the end of the year. Let's move it now. If we need to stay over the weekend, I am willing to do so. We can stay next week; I am willing to do so. It is important that we not allow this legislation to fail. I encourage the leaders on both sides to work toward achieving that goal.

Mr. President, I wish to take a personal minute to share some thoughts and to bid farewell to my chief counsel on the Judiciary Committee, William Smith, who is sitting beside me. I know the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Georgia, knows Mr. Smith and admires him. He has been a great friend and a tremendous asset to this Senate. He will be returning to Alabama to practice at one of our State's most outstanding and prestigious law firms, Starnes & Atchison. Even more importantly, he will return to Alabama, accompanied by his soon-to-be bride, Diamond, to whom he will be married in early January.

But I am going to feel a great loss. The things he has done for me are innumerable, including helping us to prepare and pass this great act, the PATRIOT Act. Each day we have worked together, William has shown an unwavering dedication to his State, to his country, to me, and to the values we share. His passion for the law is unmatched, and his commitment to the rule of law is unwavering. I trust his judgment, and I have relied on him to manage our staff and our issues, confident that his work ethic and his ideals are beyond reproach.

Before joining the Senate, William had a distinguished legal career, having served as staff attorney on the Alabama Supreme Court and having taught at both Duke University School of Law and the University of Southern California School of Law.

In 2001, he moved to Washington, DC, to be my deputy chief counsel on the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts. He became my chief counsel the following year.

When William leaves the Senate at the end of this session, he will begin a practice focusing primarily on medical malpractice defense and commercial litigation. I have no doubt he will do well in this next venture of his life, and I have no doubt his principled approach, work ethic, and dedication are going to be difficult for this Senate to replace.

It is obvious my loss will be the State's gain. His presence in Washington was all our gain. William's work on the Senate Judiciary Committee is almost legendary. The Judiciary Committee takes an enormous number and wide variety of complex and sometimes controversial issues. It is one of the most demanding committees in the Senate.

To be successful as an attorney on that committee, you must not only be hard working and intelligent, but a public servant who routinely works long hours. You must also be a tough negotiator, able to frame your arguments in a strong but respectful and intellectually honest way. William does all of this with seemingly effortless skill.

Evidence of William's dedication to and influence on the committee and its staff can most clearly be seen by simply looking at what his colleagues say about him.

Ed Haden, my former chief counsel of the Courts Subcommittee and currently a lawyer with Balch & Bingham in Birmingham, says:

William Smith is an example of a man who walks his

principles. He is a Christian who lives it. He is a

conservative who means it. He is a friend who is there for

you. In a legislative body that fosters compromise, he will

compromise on details, but not on his principle. How

fortunate the United States Senate, the Judiciary Committee,

and all of us who have worked for Senator Sessions have been

to know and love this man.

Rita Lari Jochum, chief counsel for Senator Grassley, says this:

William Smith is a smart lawyer, a shrewd strategist, a

dedicated public servant, and an all around great guy. He

sticks to his principles and values, and has been a rock

solid role model for many of us. The Senate will miss a much

respected colleague, and I will miss a true friend. Even

though he will no longer be walking the halls of the Capitol,

he will not be forgotten.

Stephen Higgins, chief counsel of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, chaired by Senator Jon Kyl, says this:

William Smith has an incredible love for this country and a

great passion for his job. He is a devoted public servant and

a forceful advocate for Senator Sessions.

Mary Chesser, chief counsel of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Corrections and Rehabilitation, chaired by Senator Tom Coburn, says this:

William is a great American, leader, mentor, and friend.

His diligent work on the committee constantly inspires his

colleagues. I feel honored to have worked with him. He has

always represented Senator Sessions and the people of Alabama

with impeccable character, wisdom, and insight. He will be

missed.

Chip Roy, senior counsel for the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship, chaired by Senator John Cornyn, says this:

William Smith has served the U.S. Senate admirably and with

conviction. He personifies conservativism and the simple idea

that there ought to be a limit to what we do here in

Washington. While many staffers and members alike, Democrat

and Republican, seem to succumb to the misguided notion that

more government is better, William stands solidly on his

strongly held belief that this simply is not the case. I will

miss his strong sense of patriotism and his strong Christian

faith, each of which serve as an example for all.

James Galyean, chief counsel on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, chaired by Senator Lindsey Graham, says this:

William Smith is a man of sterling character, devout faith,

and unwavering integrity. Senator Sessions, Alabama, and the

Nation have been well served during his time on the

Committee. And while his presence and influence will be

missed, we look forward to great things from him in the

future.

And indeed we do.

Ajit Pai, chief counsel on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Rights, chaired by Senator Sam Brownback, says this:

William Smith is a tenacious advocate, a firm defender of

principle, and an expert on the many rules of this

institution. To me and others fortunate to know him well, he

is also known as a good man and a great friend. He leaves the

Judiciary Committee with a solid professional and personal

record, and I wish him all the best as he makes a well-

deserved return home.

Amy Blankenship, legislative counsel to Senator Sam Brownback, says this:

Perhaps William's greatest gift is teaching. He exemplifies

the kind of staffer we all want to be--thorough, prepared,

and committed. Though some may disagree with his views, no

one can question his commitment to uphold the principles he

believes in.

The respect, loyalty, and friendship William has won from his colleagues extend well beyond the Senate Judiciary Committee and its staff.

Alan Hanson, my legislative director, says this:

Exceeding his commitment to the United States and its

Constitution, which is indeed great, William Smith is a

committed Christian and friend--both of which are in far too

short supply in this day and age. His happy departure is the

United States Senate's unfortunate loss.

Steven Duffield of the Senate Republican Policy Committee says this:

William is a real American who loves his country and

cherishes the Constitution. He never hesitates to stick his

neck out to defend both.

Allen Hicks, chief counsel for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, says:

William is an anchor for conservative principles in the

midst of shifting political winds. In leadership, we could

count on him to represent views on issues clearly and

articulately, without hesitation or equivocation. The Senate

will miss his candor and his passion, and we wish him and

his future bride all the best.

Ed Corrigan, executive director of the Senate Steering Committee, says this:

William Smith is known on Capitol Hill for his wisdom,

cheerful banter, and an unflinching commitment to principle.

Even his political adversaries have come to respect and

admire him. The Senate will miss William, as will the

countless number of us who are fortunate to call him friend.

John Abegg, legal counsel for Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, whom I see on the floor, said:

I have enjoyed working with William very much. William is a

man of high principle. He is devoted to the Constitution and

to his country. He is an excellent lawyer, a straight

shooter, and a real leader. He will be missed.

I will be pleased to yield.

I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his remarks. So many of the Senators whom I have talked to feel the same way. Many have come by, Chairman Specter, Senator Domenici, and others to speak to William.

He will be here a few more weeks, but we will be out most of that time so this is probably our last time to get together.

Let me keep reading what William's colleagues have told me about him.

Wendy Fleming, legislative counsel to Senator David Vitter, says this:

William Smith is truly a great American. He has a

tremendous respect for the Constitution and the courage to

stand-up for his core values. It was an honor to work for

him.

William Henderson, counsel for Senator Jim Bunning, says this:

Three of the things Americans cherish the most are God,

country, and family. That is as true for William as anyone.

Every day he lives his Christian faith. He works with a love

of this country and defends the Constitution. Now he is

leaving to start a family. William has been a great friend

and teacher to me, and I am better for knowing him.

Chris Jaarda, legislative assistant for Senator John Ensign, says this:

Every American should know the name William Smith and the

character that he possesses while working on their behalf.

His commitment to principle and respect for the rule of law,

is unquestioned. Were William your lawyer, you would be

served by a skilled advocate, committed to the highest

standard of ethics and professionalism. Were William your

judge, you would observe someone with the utmost respect for

the Constitution and our laws. Were William your friend, as

he is mine and countless others who serve in the Senate, you

would be blessed; better for knowing him.

Chad Groover, counsel to Senator Chuck Grassley, says this:

William and I came to the Senate Judiciary Committee the

same day, April 16, 2001. From that day on, William has been

a close friend, mentor, and encourager. His strong Christian

faith and unwavering commitment to conservative principles

have been an example to me. The American people are truly

better off because of William's service. He took to heart the

adage that ``the government is best that governs least'' and,

consequently, never let a bad bill go unchallenged. William

represents the best there is in public service. I'll miss

working with him on the Judiciary Committee, but I know that

in Alabama he will continue to serve his Country and his

Savior with the utmost distinction and fervor.

Drew Ryan, director of Government Affairs for The American Center for Law and Justice, says this;

William Smith is a man of character, a man of vision, and

best of all, a man strong in his faith.

Tim Chapman, senior congressional liaison and national political writer for Townhall.com, says this:

William Smith's steadfast adherence to conservative

principle has been an inspiration to me both personally and

professionally. He is a man of character who our organization

could always count on to put principle ahead of politics. His

absence from the United States Senate and from the Judiciary

Committee in particular, will not to without notice.

It is clear that William has influenced a great number of his colleagues and leaves behind a committed group of friends dedicated to advancing this great Republic's founding principles of federalism, liberty, and democracy. He will undoubtedly be missed by them, as he will be missed by me. He has served me and our State faithfully and tirelessly and in doing so has served our great Nation immeasurably.

Let me say I am already looking forward to working with him again after he goes back to the great State of Alabama. I have no doubt that he will continue to work toward the greater cause of service to his fellow man.

William, we appreciate you. No one has given more to this country. From the time you get up in the morning until the time you go to bed at night, you are committed to doing the right thing for this country. I love you for it. Your friends love you for it. God bless you in your future endeavors.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Friday, November 18, 2005, at 10 a.m., on Future of Science.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet in open Executive Session during the session on Friday, November 18, 2005, immediately following a vote on the Senate Floor (tentatively scheduled to occur at 9:30 a.m.), in the President's Room, S-216 of the Capitol, to consider favorably reporting S. 2027, the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation for Senator Craig's comments. I think they are so appropriate as we approach Veterans Day tomorrow, November 11. As he said, it is important that we give gratitude to these soldiers. But it is also very important--maybe even more important--that this Senate and this Congress give our support to them, we back them up, we affirm them in the courageous service they are giving and not undermine what they are doing by thoughtless and unfair criticisms. That is what is on my heart today and I

want to talk about it a little bit. I think it goes to the core of our integrity and our personal self-discipline as Senators.

I have to say, with great respect, that politics on too many occasions has overridden our commitment in this Senate to the soldiers who serve on the battlefield. We are a free and open society. We value and protect free and public debate in our country, and in the Senate one has the freedom to say or write almost anything he or she desires, whether wise or foolish. To secure and maintain that freedom and our other freedoms, on many occasions we have sent our soldiers to battle hostile forces around the globe.

Over 1 million personnel have died in combat to preserve the freedoms and liberties we take for granted today. Young soldiers, volunteers, and draftees have been called over the years to defend the values and liberties our Nation cherishes. As Senators, we are a key part of the process by which this Nation authorizes hostilities and calls them up. If there is any maturity of judgment in us at all, we understand that such a decision, when we make it, is a grave one and we know the lives of our military personnel will be placed at risk when we send them out. History and common sense tells us so. Any Senator not understanding this is not fit for the office they hold.

It is my view that there is and are no glorious wars. All war is bad. The Lord did not want His children to fight. But I am resigned to the fact that, throughout history, human efforts to maintain peace at any price have failed and that the option of war at certain times becomes better than the alternatives.

Let me speak frankly about the war on terrorism. We in this Senate are not children led about like the Pied Piper of Hamelin by President Bush or Vice President Cheney. We are not and were not ignorant concerning the situation we found ourselves in after 9/11. We cheered President Bush's strong and determined response to terrorism at that time, and even when he warned us it would be a long, protracted, and bitter struggle, which he said repeatedly, the Senate promptly authorized the attack on the Taliban, who oppressed their own people in Afghanistan and who harbored and provided training for al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. This Senate supported the President's demand on Mullah Omar that the Taliban cease these training bases and turn over bin Laden or face military action. We supported that. And when Mullah Omar and his oppressors refused, the Senate supported military action against the Taliban. When the war went so well, virtually everyone was pleased and said it was a good and proper thing we had done.

We are proud of what is happening in Afghanistan today. We have soldiers there, as Senator Craig said, working directly with the people of Afghanistan to try to lift them up and give them a period of sunshine and peace, after decades of war. These good results happened, however, not because we voted to authorize force but because this Nation was able to call on great soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines to go into harm's way, facing what they had to know would be great danger, to execute the policy we voted for and that the President was authorized to execute.

The military action in Afghanistan went well. But make no mistake, we Senators knew the mission was dangerous and most predicted far more casualties than occurred in that effort. The credit goes to our military's brilliant tactics.

At this same time, Iraq was continuing its systematic, illegal, and unconscionable actions against its own people, against the United States, and against the United Nations--continuing violation of 16 U.N. resolutions. These resolutions in essence were a result of Iraq's plea for peace after the coalition forces ejected it from the nation of Kuwait. Surely this Nation has not forgotten that. Surely this Senate has not forgotten that. Surely we remember that Saddam's Iraq had, by surprise and brutality, attacked and occupied its peaceful neighbor Kuwait. At that time, with the United States in the lead, the coalition demanded that Saddam withdraw or face military force.

In 1991, he refused and, in a brilliant strike, our forces, under the command of General Norman Schwarzkopf, forcibly ejected Saddam's military from Kuwait and liberated that nation. Then Kuwait's was a responsible voice on the world scene, as it is today.

To stop the coalition forces from moving to Baghdad to remove him from office, Saddam made a series of agreements under the supervision of the United Nations. He did not keep them, of course. First he declared he had not lost the war but was in fact the victor. Such a statement was a clear indication of his plans to continue his drive to dominate that region and to lead a fight against the west. When a U.N. plan was developed to allow the sale of Iraq's oil so food could be made available to the Iraqi people, he cheated on the Oil for Food Program to rebuild his military and his personal palaces, leaving millions of his own people hungry.

He attacked his own people, brutally repressing the Shiites in the south and the Kurds in the north. He had earlier used poison gas, a weapon of mass destruction, against his own people, the Kurds. He effectively ejected U.N. inspectors and refused to provide assurance that he was not creating or was not in possession of weapons of mass destruction. He had previously promised not to possess or develop these weapons. He fired missiles regularly at American and British aircraft as they sought to enforce the no-fly zones to protect the Kurds and the Shiites from oppression.

In response, President Clinton and President Bush authorized hundreds of military responses against Iraq, dropping bombs on military positions and carrying out missile strikes. Surely we have not forgotten--we were in a state of hot hostility with Iraq, leading up to our decision to remove him from power.

The megalomania of Saddam, and his brutality, presented the decent nations of the world with a direct challenge. With the growth of terrorism that had culminated in the 9/11 attacks, and which threatened the peaceful world, it became clear that the reconstituting of Saddam's forces in violation of the United Nations could not be allowed to continue. Once again, our Nation led a huge international coalition to demand that he comply with the U.N. resolutions. The vote in this Senate to authorize that and to insist that he comply and use force if he refused to do so was 78 to 22, with a clear majority of our Democratic Senators in support to authorize military force with or without U.N. approval if Saddam refused to comply with these resolutions.

Our decision was not taken lightly or in haste. The issue had been openly discussed for months. The Senate debate was full and free. Most felt there was no other option.

I remember the Economist magazine of London said the embargo was failing. We either give up or fight. They concluded in their editorial: Our choice is to fight. The British Government reached the same conclusion, as did many others.

Of course, our vote was consistent with the 1999 resolution of this Senate signed by President Clinton to make it the official policy of our Government to effect a regime change in Iraq, so bad had Saddam's actions become even at that time. Still, there was no rush to war. President Bush powerfully made his case abroad and at the U.N. Countless efforts were undertaken to bring Saddam into compliance, but they all failed. The demands on Saddam became more and more direct, the warnings more and more explicit, and his utter refusal to comply with the agreements on weapons inspections and other U.N. resolutions became more and more obvious. He had made up his mind. The stark reality became clear. He would not ever voluntarily comply.

He thought he could break the coalition, that we would not invade, that he could continue on with his fantasy that Iraq, under his leadership, would dominate this whole region of the world. Please remember, the Senate vote consisted not just of a majority of the Democratic Members but it included the Democratic Party's Presidential candidate, its Vice Presidential candidate, its leader, its former Vice Presidential candidate, and then and current leaders. The decision was a bipartisan decision. Only then did we send our finest soldiers into harm's way--a bipartisan decision, after extensive debate by this body.

Our soldiers, as a result of this process, were then directed to engage and

defeat one of the world's largest armies, to effect a regime change in Iraq. The men and women of our military heard their Nation's call, as they have for so many years. They responded with professionalism, courage, and determination. The challenge was great. The initial hostilities and military actions went exceedingly well, but it was very dangerous and there were important threats that they faced throughout that effort. Saddam's forces were vast, but they collapsed relatively quickly in the face of our aggressive forces executing General Frank's superb battle plan. While the effort was fraught with dangers, as our media told us every night, and indeed there was considerable tough fighting, our soldiers were again magnificent. We all rejoiced to see the Iraqi celebrations break out.

Some said, What happened to the celebrations? They were there. We saw them on TV, to see the fall of the statue of Saddam. The coalition then set about to help this exhausted nation, brutalized by decades of oppression, rebuild itself with freedom and prosperity.

While the initial military conflict went better than we could have hoped, our vision for a prosperous and democratic Iraq is still on track. But it definitely has presented more difficulties than most of us anticipated. It has been hard. It has been difficult. Suicide bombers persist in their hateful bombings. Terrorists are still active against our forces and the people in Iraq, attacking their own people. Still, despite the violence, initial elections were completed with blue fingers held high and a separate election ratified the Constitution. Now the first democratic elections are set for December and are on track.

Vicious, terroristic suicide bombers remain. While they will be able to inflict suffering and fear on the people of Iraq and death on our soldiers, their efforts are and must be doomed. The terrorists offer no hope, no plan, no vision. They simply desire, like Saddam, to seize power and run Iraq for their own purposes, to control the reins of power for their own radical and twisted purposes.

But, our military personnel, soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen, all one force, have performed magnificently. I have been to Iraq three times, and visited with active, Guard and Reserve units. I talked to the soldiers and we are so proud of them. They have not whined or advocated retreat. They want the war to be successful. Every day they go out on patrol placing their lives on the line to carry out the policies and directions we, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the President gave them. Our soldiers know their civics. They are placing their lives on the line for America. Because in this Republic, the proper governmental authorities of the people have spoken.

Consistently, they tell me, their parents, and their friends that they believe in what they are doing. They know the Iraqi people want a better life. They, by countless acts of kindness and courtesy, amid the violence and strain of war, work to create good will, to explain democracy, and promote harmony. They want to help the Iraqi people to have a better life, and then, then they want to come home.

You bet they want to come home. But they truly desire that our noble goal, their mission for a better Iraq, be realized.

Who, more than our soldiers, knows the dangers from hidden and sneak attacks? Who knows the reality on the ground better than they? Certainly not the television networks constantly focusing on violence and contention who drop in and bug out.

But, colleagues, the greatest concern our soldiers have is that this Senate, our Congress, will lose its nerve and pull back before the job is done. You see, losing our nerve will undermine what they have accomplished by blood and sweat.

While remarkably steadfast and determined, they do not like what they see and hear from Congress or the media. Their successes ignored, the problems exaggerated. Their errors are highlighted. I am particularly concerned that our Senate debate in recent months has become infected by personal animosity and political venom. The rhetoric coming out of Congress is astounding. It was somewhat understandable last year, when we were in a Presidential election campaign, that the political language would be overheated. But, now, after the American people have affirmed President Bush's leadership by reelecting him with the first majority vote for President in many years, there seems to be a blind force driving some of my Democrat colleagues to prove their votes for military force in Iraq were wrong, and that our election was not an affirmation of our Nation's bipartisan Iraqi policy, but that this policy was a result of ``lies.'' What false and damaging rhetoric this is. I urge my colleagues to remember that the world, our enemies, and our soldiers fighting for our policies are listening. While there were intelligence failures, our leaders did not lie us into war. We Senators heard the same intelligence estimates and we voted to authorize war. The truth is this: We all heard the intelligence and we authorized those hostilities. Some of the intelligence was wrong, but it was not wrong that an unleashed Saddam, freed from his box, would again become a dangerous threat to world peace. That is a true fact. That is a strategic issue we faced. As we wrestle over the intelligence failures that occurred, we must not overreact. This Senate should never parrot the false charges of our enemies. If we make errors, confront them honestly and fix them. But undermining our Nation's position in the world, encouraging the enemy to falsely believe the U.S. is divided, and leading the enemy to believe that we may quit if they can just kill a few more American soldiers or marines is wrong, wrong, wrong. Political animosity in some cases seems to have so infected our rhetoric that criticism has become not constructive but destructive.

So my plea to my colleagues is insistent. Please remember that the world hears what we say here. Please remember that exaggerated political charges can do more than sting officials at home. The world hears what is said, and many believe what is being said.

This war was not based on a lie. I have explained how we came to our final vote. The issue of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was important, but it was the strategic recognition that an unrepentant and triumphant Saddam, unloosed from the U.N. embargo and in acting violation of 16 U.N. resolutions, was the fundamental threat to us and to the world. And we certainly all knew that weapons of mass destruction would surely be his easiest tool for international intimidation.

The United Nations' final report when they exited the country concluded that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and virtually all intelligence agencies in the world, including the French that certainly were not under, our control agreed. The Intelligence Committee report, phase I, unanimously passed 17 to 0, concluded, however, that the intelligence given to the President and Congress was wrong in part. The report specifically concluded that President Bush was not lying to the American people. And, importantly, the report concluded that the intelligence community was not pressured to alter or shape their views to please the President or anyone else.

Another major report, the Robb-Silberman Report--Senator Robb, a former Democratic Member of this body, was cochairman--on weapons of mass destruction, was clear. They found ``no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs . . . analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgements. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments.''

So why do our colleagues continue to promote what I believe are falsehoods? Why call the President and the Vice President liars? Why accuse them of sending soldiers to death based on some secret agenda? We debated it openly here for months. For the life of me, I can't understand it. We all--all of us--know the facts today; we knew the situation then; we know the score. There was no mystery when we voted to authorize military force, nor is there mystery now. The going, though, is tough in Iraq now. The need, therefore, is even greater for us to all work

together to meet the challenge and successfully conclude our policies to create a better, positive, democratic, and prosperous future for Iraq. We must pull together and focus on the goal we endorsed when the war started.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to speak on the Dorgan amendment and share some thoughts about that. I think there has been a lot of misinformation, and the Senator has been misled in some of the allegations he is making and is certainly inaccurate in picturing our handling of the reconstruction effort in Iraq as being a wasteful enterprise. So much good has gone on. We need to talk about that. Where there are errors, as I will note, we are taking vigorous steps to correct them.

With regard to Senator Kennedy's remarks, he said it is not the soldiers, it is the policy. We decided the policy. This Senate voted 78 to 22 to establish a policy with regard to regime change in Iraq. We authorized the President to execute military action if Saddam Hussein failed to comply, as Senator Warner said, with the U.N. resolutions. We have a policy. He may not like it. He was 1 of the 22 who voted against it. But he ought not to be doing things that undermine the established policy of the United States, a policy that was bipartisan. A majority of the Democratic Senators supported it. The former Presidential candidate for the Democratic Party, its former Vice Presidential candidate, and another former Vice Presidential candidate all supported it. It is our policy. We established it, and we sent our men and women into harm's way to execute it. We don't need Senators undermining their ability to do their job and placing them at greater risk. It is wrong. Some people need to examine their conscience as we come up to November 11 tomorrow, Veterans Day.

I rise to speak on the reconstruction effort. Commander Paquette, who works with me, served in Iraq. He was there when the statue of Saddam fell. He had the responsibility for reconstruction in the northern third of Iraq. He is a good man. He put his life on the line for this country. He did what he believed was right. He didn't waste a dime of the American people's money. He had to pass out cash. That is the way you do business there--not to say there is something wrong with that. They don't have checks and banks. That is how you have to do business if somebody does work for you, you pay them in cash.

I am not by any means claiming that there have not been abuses, that contractors and others may have taken advantage of the difficult circumstances to exploit their profits. That is, unfortunately, the history of the world. We need to watch it constantly. I am a strong supporter of that and don't doubt that. But enough is enough. The reckless commentary we have been hearing has created in the media and with the American people a distorted view of the reality of what is happening on the ground in Iraq for reconstruction. It is the same thing that is occurring with regard to the detainee abuse scandal-- greatly exaggerated, without any recognition of the efforts that have been taken to make sure abuses don't occur.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are requesting yet another investigation. They wish to create a special committee on war and reconstruction in the middle of this war. This special committee will look into matters that are already being investigated by the Government Accountability Office, an independent agency--not a Department of Defense agency--which we call on in a bipartisan way to investigate complicated matters. The Department of Defense inspector general is investigating all allegations. The Defense Contract Audit Agency, the State Department inspector general, the Army's inspector general, and other organizations are watching what goes on there and conducting investigations into any allegation of fraud or abuse that may be presented. And a special inspector general's office was created already to increase accountability. This is important. It is the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, commonly called SIGIR in the theater.

The Senator from North Dakota offers examples of abuse that he claims need another investigation. I honestly believe these charges are exaggerated distortions of reality and overlook the great work that is being done there toward reconstruction. I could stand here and address many of these complaints, but I will take issue with three he has continually raised in recent months as evidence of the fraud and waste he suggests is occurring. We can consider the overall picture of how things are being done.

Point No. 1, the allegation that $85,000 brand new trucks were left on the side of the road to be torched and looted because they had a clogged fuel pump or because they had a flat tire--we have heard that, haven't we?

The decision to leave a vehicle behind in a combat zone resides with the convoy commander and his or her best judgment, not the Senate. There are cities in America where people would be hesitant to stay with a car at night. They would not want to stay there. They may have to leave that car if it broke down. Should the convoy commander call AAA? How about that--we are going to call AAA to come fix it. Waiting for a repair crew out there by yourself or a tow truck to arrive or leaving the whole convoy sitting in a hostile area is not a realistic scenario from a force protection standpoint. Speed and mobility are keys to life in the combat zone. Disabled vehicles are always planned to be recovered; however, on occasion, they may be destroyed by insurgents or criminal elements in Iraq if they break down. The life of each military member--what if it was your son or daughter, would you like for them to stay with a disabled vehicle--is worth more than any vehicle. I fully support the decision of our convoy commanders to abandon disabled vehicles to ensure the safety of the personnel under their command.

Point No. 2, contractors in Iraq are paid in large amounts of bundled cash.

These are Iraqi contractors who do work for us, and we want to use them wherever possible so that they can create jobs. They are paid in large amounts of bundled cash, as we heard the charges made. This is the quote:

When it was time to get paid, just bring a big bag because

we are going to give you cash.

The statement suggests the money is being given away, come and get it. That is simply not true. Payments for services in Iraq have to be made in cash. There is no central banking system in Iraq where checks could be processed or allowed for on some electronic fund transfer. A modern bank and currency system is being developed there now, but as of today, cash is the only way to effectively pay local Iraqis for their labor and materials. The average Iraqi worker performing under a Government contract is paid in U.S. dollars because that currency is accepted throughout that nation. The large bricks of money are needed because in many small towns and villages, paying workers in one hundred dollar bills is not practical. No one in these towns could break a one hundred dollar bill, so there was a need for payment in twenties, tens, and fives. Paying large contracts in small bills does create a large amount of dollars and necessitates bundling and transporting of money in bags and lockers. How else are you going to do that?

When I was in Iraq right after the war and was in the area in Mosul where Commander Paquette was working, I met personally with General Petraeus, commander of the 101st Airborne. He said the best thing he could do was to go out and see a problem in a neighborhood that could be fixed and to have his own discretion to engage a contractor and get that thing fixed. Maybe it is a bridge, a roof at the hospital, a door on the school.

Get it done right then and pay the person who did the work. He said that is the best way we can help create and reestablish this country. And he asked for more power.

Do you think General Petraeus is stealing the money? He was No. 1 in his

class at West Point. No, sir, this is a true patriot trying to serve our country to help Iraq and fix it up.

Point No. 3, they charge this. This is the quote and the charge

There is massive waste, fraud and abuse going on with

respect to contracting in Iraq . . . who is watching over

this massive amount of fraud, waste and abuse? Nobody seems

to care.

Nobody seems to care? That is not true. This statement is most misleading of all. It implies that U.S. tax dollars are just being wasted with no care or concern. However, 100 audits and management reviews have been performed to date by the GAO, the Defense Contract Audit Agency, the DOD inspector general, the Army Criminal Investigative Service, and so on. I met with the chief inspector general in Iraq, and he is a firecracker. I mean he is a totally focused man, dedicated to his job of establishing accountability and eliminating fraud.

Have there been instances of fraud? Sadly, yes. Those found guilty are being punished. Companies defrauding the Government have had payments withheld. They have been removed. Investigations and audits continue and those who violate criminal laws will be prosecuted. The Department of Defense and other Government agencies in charge of reconstruction in Iraq are reacting swiftly to the comments of the auditors and incorporating all of the recommended corrective actions.

There is even a special investigative body in Iraq, SIGIR, that issued the report I believe that Chairman Warner quoted from with respect to the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, a special inspector general for just Iraq.

Yet claims persist that no one cares, there is no oversight and no accountability. It is not true. It is a slander on our people whose lives are at risk serving our country in Iraq. As with detainee abuse allegations, time and again an objective review of the facts is slowly rolling back outlandish accusations that we have heard. Iraq is a war zone. It is a dangerous place in many areas. For too many in Congress and across the Nation we seem to overlook this fact, even while the media gives us all a daily count of fatalities.

As any soldier can tell you, paperwork is not always the first priority when someone is in combat. However, we place special trust and confidence in military officers and senior Government officials overseeing the expenditures of taxpayer funds. Continuing to claim fraud and abuse is rampant and that no one is accountable is directly questioning the competency and dedication of these professionals who are doing their best job possible in very difficult and many times dangerous circumstances.

There are areas in Iraq that are dangerous. And even the contractors' lives are in danger, as we well know. Their actions are making a difference. The most recent report to Congress from the SIGIR states-- this is the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. Listen to this:

The positive results achieved in the reconstruction program

are impressive . . .

The United States has made steady progress in its part of

Iraq's construction, despite the hazardous security

environment, the fluid political situation, and the harsh

realities of working in a war zone.

The media and the other side of the aisle spend too much time telling the negative side of what is going on in Iraq, I believe. To far too many Americans, the image of the conflict in Iraq is a burning humvee or the scene of a car bomb. I would like to show you a few before and after photos of how the reconstruction funds have benefitted the people of Iraq.

This first slide portrays reconstruction of the Ministry of the Environment Building. Here is the way it looked after the war. And here we see how it has been reconstructed. Somebody was paid for that. I hope it was an Iraqi contractor who had a family to feed. Commander Paquette says it was. This is a matter he has personal knowledge of, I believe. So somebody went out there and did a job similar to in the United States, did a great job of reconstructing this building that was utterly gutted.

Here is another one, the Az Zubayr Courthouse. Look at this courthouse here. Now, we have to have the rule of law. General Petraeus told me when he was in Mosul how he worked on that, had the Iraqis out here doing the work. Are they going to be paid or not? They don't want a check, I can tell you that. And here we have a new courthouse where we hope justice can be done.

I would be pleased to yield.

I thank the chairman. I did not do enough. Commander Paquette was in Iraq shortly after Saddam Hussein's government fell, when the statue fell and he was given the charge of handling the northern third of the reconstruction effort for the military. He was a Naval lieutenant commander then and that was his responsibility in our joint effort. We have Navy people, Air Force people there, Army and Marines, of course, and he worked on the reconstruction effort. Much of what I am saying, many of these photos he has had personal involvement with.

Here is a hospital operating facility. You can see what a pathetic, sad thing it was--one little chair. Now, after we have come in with reconstruction efforts, you have a fully functional hospital.

Here is a bridge replacement with a new structure. This bridge was totally destroyed, broken here, and you can see the old bridge here, but a new bridge has been constructed. Somebody had to be paid to do that work. You can't rebuild a bridge for $500. If you pay people in cash, you have to have a bundle of cash to pay the expense of building a bridge.

How about this one. This is one Commander Paquette mentioned to me. This is a street in a town he personally has visited, with sewage running down the main street there, kids wading in it, he said. And here, after our work to create a sewage system, we have a safe street for this lady to walk on. And of course, you have heard about the sabotage of electric powers. This one was sabotaged and here you have Iraqis climbing up there fixing it. Are you going to climb up to the top of a tower like that and fix it and not be paid? Somebody has to pay you. They are not going to take a check. We have to pay them in cash, and that is what is being done, in an effective way, I believe.

I could go on. There are hundreds of examples such as this from all around Iraq, thousands of them. Let's not politicize this conflict. It is important. We are a nation at war, and the mission in Iraq is vital to ensuring democracy, that democracy takes hold in a region of the world that has known far too many tyrants and despots.

I am proud of the accomplishments of our military, our civilian and contractor personnel in Iraq. Many of them were former military people who retired, who brought their skills and who had the courage to go into dangerous areas. They are dedicated to improving the quality of life for millions of Iraqis and Afghanis and are doing so under very difficult circumstances.

As we approach Veterans Day, the Senate should spend a little less time advertising allegations of wrongdoing, allegations that we are already taking vigorous actions to deal with, and spend more time talking about what is going right. We owe it to the men and women we voted to send into harm's way. We owe it to their families and to the families of the fallen to tell them that their mission is important, that their sacrifice is making a difference for nearly 50 million people in a region that has known so much suffering and violence.

I thank the Chair. I also want to express my personal appreciation to Commander Paquette for his service. He will soon be leaving us, going back on active duty. He has been a tremendous asset to my office and helped me craft the legislation I am most proud of to double the death benefits for soldiers who lose their life in defense of our country. We appreciate it, and I thank him also for helping us bring a personal touch directly from the frontline in our efforts in Iraq.

I yield the floor.

I thank the chairman. I note I did meet that special inspector general. He impressed me. I know Senator Collins has met with him and is thoroughly impressed with him. He is very present throughout Iraq to make sure our dollars are being spent wisely.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 30 seconds to respond?

I ask unanimous consent to make one point on this amendment.

Mr. President, he asked for 30 seconds, and I thought I would get 30 seconds after all time had expired.

The Department of Defense inspector general is working on this. I say this in response to the idea that nothing is being done and nobody cares. That is not true. The Army inspector general's office is fully engaged. The Army Criminal Investigation Department is engaged. The Defense Contract Audit Agency is engaged. The Defense Contract Management Agency is looking at these things. Most important, in response to Senator Dorgan's concerns and others, a Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction is engaged and is very tough and capable.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that CDR Richard Paquette, a Navy legislative fellow with my office, be granted the privileges of the floor for the remainder of the debate on S. 1042, the fiscal year 2006 National Defense Authorization Act.