Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I rise to congratulate Seth Honerman, Robert Viste, Kevin and Kyle Roades, Dennis VerHey, Donald Nordlie, Adam English, Michael King, Jordan Richter, Bayard Carlson, Ryan King, Thomas Hieber, Jeffrey Wilkes, and Travis

Maholovich who have recently obtained the rank of Eagle Scout. The rank of Eagle Scout is the highest rank given to lifetime members of the Boy Scouts. This honor is not given lightly, and it represents their great drive and dedication to excellence.

These young men should be proud of their accomplishment. The rank of Eagle is given to only 2 percent of all Boy Scouts, and these young men find themselves among other great Americans including Neil Armstrong and Gerald Ford. I look forward to these Scouts going on to do great things as well.

I am proud to join the friends and family of these proud Scouts in congratulating them on their many and most recent accomplishments.

Mr. President, I rise to voice my strong support for the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Judge Alito has demonstrated and dedicated his life to public service, from serving in the Army Reserve to working as a prosecutor for the Federal Government.

For the past 15 years, Judge Alito has been a model jurist on the court of appeals, and his record reflects a deference to the political branches of our Government that is all too often lacking among some on the bench.

The guiding question for each of us in determining a nominee's fitness for this post should be whether the person is dedicated to applying the Constitution to every case considered by the Court and not adding to or changing the Constitution's text to suit his or her own personal policy preferences.

Judge Alito has clearly shown that he will approach every case with an open mind and apply the law as it is, rather than what he thinks it should be.

As Judge Alito has said, a judge cannot have an agenda and cannot have a preferred outcome in any particular case. I am convinced that he will not be an activist on the court and will conscientiously exercise restraint in his role as a justice.

Judge Alito has risen to his station in life from relatively humble beginnings. As he stated in his introductory remarks before the Judiciary Committee, his parents instilled in him a love of learning and, through their example, the importance of persistence and hard work.

I had the opportunity to meet with Judge Alito after he was nominated last fall. During this meeting, we discussed the role of the judiciary and some of the broad principles set forth in our Constitution. I was impressed by Judge Alito's quiet answers and thoughtful demeanor during that meeting.

Judge Alito is the kind of person who would fit in very well with my constituents in South Dakota. He is the kind of guy you would see at the local hardware store or at a school activity. Judge Alito would meet what I call the ``Murdo'' test. Murdo is my hometown. About 600 people live there. They are pretty plain spoken people. They use common sense to solve problems. They believe in the rule of law. And they have an inherent sense of fairness when it comes to making sure that the law applies fairly to all. If you listen to anyone who has served on the court with or worked with Judge Alito, those are the attributes they ascribe to him. He has tremendous respect from those who know him best.

Unassuming and unpretentious, Judge Alito is the kind of individual with whom I believe the people in my hometown and in my State would feel comfortable. And not just South Dakotans but Americans everywhere, at least the silent majority of Americans. The character attacks on Judge Alito by the loud left have backfired because the majority of the American people have figured it out. They don't need the Senator from Massachusetts or the Senator from New York to tell them what they need to know. Judge Alito told them everything they needed to know in the hearings, and the more the political left attacks and delays and demonstrates, the more partisan they appear to the American public and the more their true agenda is exposed.

Judge Alito's quiet and thoughtful demeanor was clearly on display during his confirmation hearings. During these hearings, Judge Alito was extremely forthcoming and candid in his responses to questions, all 650 questions. For over 18 hours he responded thoroughly and thoughtfully to the full spectrum of questions and questioners, both those who were sincere and those who were sarcastic.

All of these things have convinced me that Judge Alito has the ability and temperament necessary to be an outstanding justice on the Supreme Court.

It is unfortunate that some on the other side have decided to make the nomination process about politics rather than about qualifications. Sadly, it seems the other side is engaging in an effort to ensure a large opposition vote to score political points, rather than giving a well-qualified nominee like Judge Alito the strong vote he deserves.

When Justice Ginsburg, a former general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, was nominated by President Clinton, she received nearly unanimous support--96 votes--despite the fact that many Republican Senators strongly disagreed with her views. She replaced the much more conservative Judge White. Yet no one was complaining about her shifting the Court dramatically to the left. Senators voted for her based on her qualifications.

When Justice Breyer, a former staffer for Senator Kennedy, was nominated by President Clinton, he received 87 votes, and again many of those who voted in his favor strongly disagreed with his views.

Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer received strong support because of their qualifications and because Senators put aside politics in the interest of a dignified confirmation process.

Judge Alito is also well qualified. He unanimously received the highest rating from the American Bar Association, the benchmark that used to be considered the gold standard for evaluating nominees to the Federal Courts. Judge Alito is clearly a man of high integrity and intellect. No one disputes that. He deserves a large vote in the U.S. Senate, just as Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg received. I call upon my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to summon their better angels, put aside their desire to score political points, and instead work to ensure a dignified confirmation process.

The Supreme Court gets the last word on some of the most challenging and divisive issues of our day. That is why those on the Court must be dedicated to the rule of law and the principle of judicial restraint. Throughout his career in public service, Judge Alito has shown the qualifications and temperament essential to serving on the Supreme Court.

I ran for the United States Senate for the opportunity to cast votes like the one I will cast on this nomination. When I asked South Dakotans for their vote, I assured them that I would do my best to see that the courts are populated with smart, qualified, and principled people who understand that the appropriate role of the judiciary in our Constitutional Republic is not to make laws but to apply them fairly to all.

Judge Alito is eminently fit and qualified to serve as an associate justice on the Supreme Court. That is why I will vote in favor of his confirmation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield to the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Con. Res. 77 which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Presiding Officer of the Senate be authorized to appoint a committee on the part of the Senate to join with the like committee on the part of the House of Representatives to escort the President of the United States into the House Chamber for the joint session to be held at 9 p.m. on Tuesday, January 31, 2006.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 352 which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Senate Resolution 353, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:45 p.m. on Thursday, January 26; 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 executive session and resume consideration of the nomination of Samuel Alito to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States as under the previous order.

Mr. President, today we have had a full day of debate on the nomination of Judge Alito for the Supreme Court. This all-important debate will continue tomorrow and the balance of the week. Tomorrow, we will again be alternating hour time blocks for Members to speak, with the Democratic side speaking from 10 until 11 and the majority from 11 to 12 and alternating back and forth throughout the day. Members are encouraged to use this time to make their statements. As the majority leader announced earlier today, we are hoping we can work toward a time certain for a vote on the Alito nomination and will notify Members so they can plan their schedules accordingly.

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.

I am in full agreement with the chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee and I will be working closely with him and subcommittee ranking member Boxer on scheduling this hearing once Ms. Bodine is confirmed. I am committed to having Ms. Bodine, as the EPA witness, appear before the subcommittee

before Memorial Day recess, 2006. I look forward to working with Senator Boxer on scheduling a date and filling out the witness list.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly about the progress on the war in Iraq and, importantly, the well-being and morale of our troops in the field.

Last week, the State of South Dakota lost two of its sons in Iraq, SSG Daniel Cuka, 27, from Yankton, SD, and SFC Richard Shield, 40, from Tabor, SD. Both served in the 147th Field Artillery of the South Dakota National Guard and were killed by improvised explosive devices while riding in their humvees.

They were assigned the mission of assisting in the training of Iraqi police. Three other members of their battery were also wounded. South Dakota is now in the process of grieving for and honoring these two brave men who answered the call of duty.

One week after this tragic loss, an historic event occurred today in Iraq that gives particular meaning and value to the lives and sacrifice of these two men. Today Iraq held a national election to fill parliamentary seats and it appears that there was a massive turnout of voters from each of the major ethnic and religious groups, including from the Sunni population that only a few months ago rejected any participation in the political process.

This election is only the latest in a series of milestones giving testimony to the great progress that has already been made in our effort to transform this country into a true democracy. Granted, it will be a long road to the kind of democracy we have in this country. But it was a long and bumpy road in our own journey. The fact that this Iraqi election occurred at all, is amazing considering where the people of Iraq were 5 years ago, without freedom to determine their future and under the heel of Saddam Hussein's tyranny.

Despite the naysayers in this country, optimism among Iraqis is becoming infectious. Of course, optimism and support for what we are doing has always been prevalent among our troops. Thanks to them and the sacrifices they are making, we are on the cusp of delivering something very special into the hands of the Iraqi people--the ability to shape and control their own lives, lives free from the tyranny of dictators, free from radical Islamic intimidation, and free from hopelessness.

Let us dispell the fiction that America is not making progress in Iraq, right here and right now. Under United States training and guidance, 97 Iraqi battalions are now conducting security operations throughout Iraq. In July of last year, there were only 5 Iraqi battalions equipped and trained to fight.

Currently, 33 battalions have assumed their own areas of operation. Last year at this time, the Iraqi security forces did not have control over any areas of operation. Iraqi border police are now manning 170 border compounds and 22 ports of entry. Over 75,000 Iraqi policemen are patrolling Iraqi cities. In the last election in January, 130,000 Iraqi security forces successfully protected polling sites all over the country and inspired a wave of pride throughout the country and a sharp increase in recruitment. We anticipate that in the election that occurred today, over 225,000 Iraqi security forces provided security to the polling places.

In the January election almost a year ago, 8.5 million Iraqis turned out to vote, defying terrorists threats. In the October referendum, 10 million voters turned out. We expect significantly greater numbers in this election, including from the Sunni population whose Mullahs are now encouraging their people to get out and vote after opposing their participation in previous elections. Progress is clearly being made. To say otherwise is simply inaccurate and demoralizing to our troops in Iraq who are risking their lives to achieve these great milestones.

I would like to read a portion of an email sent to me by the mother of a South Dakota soldier stationed in Iraq.

Dear John, I am a commissioner in Corson County, McIntosh,

SD. I also, happen to be a mother of 2 children in the Army.

My son is now in Iraq, stationed at Ar Ramadi--not a very

nice place right now! The purpose of this email is to ask you

to pass on to Congress the fact that all their back stabbing

and finger pointing is very devastating to the families of

the sons and daughters now in Iraq. If they think they are

representing the families by doing what they are doing on the

Hill and in the press they are sadly mistaken. I don't want

my son to be where he is, but anyone with any kind of sense

knows that we cannot just pick up and desert the Iraqi's at

this point. . . . Please, Please get this message out that

this is not what the parents, husbands, wives, and families

need to hear from our leaders. We have enough worry every

waking moment knowing our kids are in harms way. We don't

need the politicians using our loved ones in order for them

to further their political future.

The two fallen soldiers who are being honored today at a memorial service in South Dakota gave their lives for a cause greater than themselves. Those family members they left behind deserve to know their sacrifices were not in vain.

We will win this war and Iraq will be a free independent democracy. When our work is finished, Iraq will provide a vision and a clear path for other countries in the Middle East to follow toward freedom and democracy. As Americans, we cannot leave the Iraqi people with anything less.

I ask unamious consent that a written statement honoring and paying tribute to Sergeants Cuka and Schild, two American heroes, be printed in the Record.

What they gave to the State of South Dakota, to this great country and to the people of Iraq should never be forgotten.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I recently announced a major railroad initiative in three different cities in my home State of South Dakota-- Sioux Falls, Huron, and Rapid City. This particular project is the result of legislation I authored as part of the recently enacted Transportation reauthorization bill. My amendment was improved and incorporated in large part through work with Senator Lott, who chairs the Senate Commerce Committee's Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee. I believe the changes that Senator Lott and I made, both during Senate consideration as well as conference deliberations, will have a major positive impact on my State's rail infrastructure needs and I think significantly alleviate some of our Nation's rail infrastructure problems.

Much of the language that ended up in the final Railroad Rehabilitation Improvement Financing--or RRIF--program originated from past legislation that Representative Don Young introduced. Building on Representative Young's bill language, Senator Lott and I made a number of changes to that legislation, but it provided a very solid foundation upon which to build.

The South Dakota project itself actually involves a major national initiative to build a second rail line into the capacity-strapped Powder River Basin, PRB, of Wyoming. The Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad DM&E, announced this project in 1997 and filed an application with the Surface Transportation Board, STB, in February 1998 to obtain regulatory approval. That process will be concluded in the near future, which I hope will allow the DM&E railroad to apply for a RRIF loan to finance construction of the project.

This project is strongly supported by virtually all of South Dakota's existing rail shippers and by the agriculture and economic development organizations throughout the State. It is also supported by the vast majority of communities served. And at the press events I participated in earlier this month--as noted in the Rapid City Journal article that I will later ask to be made part of the Record--even many of the landowners directly affected by the construction support it. I have supported this project since it was first announced in 1997, when I was serving in the House of Representatives, and have supported the project ever since in both the public and private sectors. It is incredibly important to the future of my State.

But on a national scale, it is also extremely important to our country's entire capacity-constrained rail system and to our national energy policy in particular.

Our national energy policy specifically states that:

[d]emand for clean coal from Wyoming's Powder River Basin is

expected to increase because of its environmental benefits.

However, rail capacity problems in the Powder River Basin

have created a bottleneck in the coal transportation system .

. . There is a need to eliminate bottlenecks in the coal

transportation system.

The new RRIF legislation requires the Secretary to prioritize projects that:

(8) would materially alleviate rail capacity problems which

degrade provision of service to shippers and fulfill a need

in the national rail system.

The national ``need'' criteria of the legislation was written specifically with this nationally articulated energy policy ``need'' in mind.

The new RRIF legislation also requires the Secretary to prioritize projects that:

(7) enhance service and capacity in the national rail

system.

Mr. President, as the National Energy Policy clearly notes, there is an overwhelming rail capacity problem in Wyoming's PRB. The Powder River Basin corridor is one of the most heavily traveled rail corridors in the world. Over 400 million tons of coal per year are shipped out, virtually all of it by rail. That number is expected to exceed 500 million tons soon, and to grow beyond that if capacity allows. It is therefore clear that, if completed, this 1,300-mile project in the West and Midwest would have a material impact on rail capacity in this region and throughout the country.

We also have a critical rail capacity problem throughout the entire United States. What happens in the PRB profoundly affects capacity elsewhere. It also affects the movement of grain and industrial commodities and general merchandise intermodal traffic. When this incredible flow of coal traffic increasingly merges with all this other rail traffic as it continues its flow eastward, it has a big impact. First and foremost, immediate and obvious traffic congestion occurs the further ``downstream'' into the traffic flow you go. The train of merchandise goods making its way from the west coast to Chicago has to pull off to the siding to allow another train to pass. Or less obvious, perhaps because of a crew or locomotive power shortage, the railroad will have to dedicate limited and locally available resources to one train over the other. This has a cascading effect because it makes it hard to recover when too many of your sidings are being used to park trains instead of being used for a quick meeting point so they can pass in the opposite direction.

A less obvious problem is the drain on resources from other regions to accommodate spot problems. Right now, for example, we are seeing a rail capacity shortage across the board. In addition to the long haul traffic that is mixed into these heavy haul coal lines, areas of the country that never come into direct physical contact with these lines are affected by their congestion problems. When those lines ``bottle up'' as they are doing now, it takes more locomotive power and more people to move trains. So resources are shifted. For example, we have dozens of loaded grain trains standing today with no power to move them. Grain orders are a month or more behind in my State and throughout the Midwest today. Locomotive power and other resources are being diverted to the PRB and elsewhere to address problems there, and

our farmers are suffering as a result. The same can be said for virtually every traffic commodity out there today--including coal and general merchandise traffic.

With the completion of this new rail line to serve a heavy traffic area, it will relieve pressure on one of the biggest problem spots, which in turn relieves pressure on the system throughout the country. This project will not only add more physical track to our system and greatly improve existing track, it will also result in more locomotives and equipment and people. Across the board, this project will relieve pressure on the rail system from northeast corridor to the southwest reaches of the United States.

In a very basic sense, the national railroad system is well beyond its capacity today. There is not a railroad in this country that is not backed up on its orders. We have more traffic to move than the system can handle. And, adding to that, the U.S. Department of Transportation projects that railroad freight traffic demand generally will rise 55 percent by the year 2020. We need to add capacity. That requires major investments of the kind envisioned in our new RRIF legislation.

The changes made to that program did more than authorize the amount that can be loaned. The improvements were specifically tailored to encourage large-scale investment of the type envisioned by the DM&E project. After all, a large-scale investment is needed if we want to have a material impact on the national capacity problem. For that reason, I think this project is critically important to the country. I hope others will follow suit and develop projects that are national in scope. Nothing is more important to our national rail system in my view than this basic need for capacity.

On a related issue, the rail industry has gone through a massive consolidation on a national scale. Thousands of miles have been torn up in recent decades and are never to be recovered. This has certainly increased efficiency on single line segments up to this point. But in the process, at least from a national rail system perspective, we have lost important redundancy in the system. If we have a problem in one area, it quickly ripples through the rest of the country because of traffic backups that have nowhere else to go. We need more pressure relief valves, and more alternatives that allow the national system a little more flexibility to recover from spot problems. We have seen melt down after melt down in the national rail system. That problem is never going to get better unless we have some alternative emergency routings developed. The DM&E project will also be of great help in providing a fairly dramatic pressure relief valve for this critical part of the national rail system. So on many levels, from a national rail system perspective, this project reaches well beyond its immediate track geography.

Going on to other aspects of the new RRIF program, perhaps the most significant change we made was in regard to the valuation and treatment of collateral. This legislation requires the Secretary to use the more realistic ``going concern'' valuation instead of ``net liquidation'' value the Secretary has used in the past in relation to collateral. This is important because collateral value is a critical component of the credit risk premium calculation. This language is intended to ensure that the Secretary applies a ``going concern,'' or market value, to the collateral when determining whether and to what extent a credit risk premium is required. In short, the question becomes, what could the government reasonably expect to get for the value of the collateral if it were sold as a `going concern' business? In the past, the Secretary has used a ``net liquidation'' or ``scrap'' valuation approach. But in the real world if we are facing a default situation under the RRIF Program, the Secretary is not going to ``scrap'' the collateral. He is going to sell it for its highest and best use value. So that is the way it should be valued when considering collateral during the application process. This is consistent with private sector lending practices. It provides protection for the Government, and also encourages greater rail infrastructure investment by avoiding artificial credit risk premium payments when they are not necessary. It also requires the Secretary to take into consideration what the value will be after giving effect to the improvements that will be made with the loan. That of course will be discounted based on the overall cost of capital for the project.

Along those same lines, another feature that was added to the original Young RRIF language was to provide for the loan repayment schedule ``to commence not later than the sixth anniversary date of the original loan disbursement.'' The intent was that this discretion should be used for those large-scale projects that require several years of construction before revenues are generated and where the revenue ``ramp up'' may be gradual. This is a pretty standard feature in large private sector loans, but under the former law the Secretary did not have any flexibility to do that. Under the new law, interest would accrue and compound during this period. It was primarily my intent to provide a reasonable breathing period so that a solid revenue flow would be established before payments would be required.

Senator Lott and I also added a provision to the RRIF improvements to allow the Secretary to charge, and for the FRA to collect and retain, a fee to evaluate loans. This provision was included because we want the process to be efficient, and not be a drain on the government. The best solution was to allow the Secretary to hire help and charge the cost to the applicant. It is hoped that this will make it easier to expedite these loans, and the expectation is that FRA will undertake best efforts to keep these fees to a minimum. The point here is to help expedite the process and give FRA a little more flexibility to get the job done quicker. The former RRIF Program was notorious for the amount of time it took to process. There was a particularly bad history there, which I think the FRA has already improved substantially. This, hopefully, will give them the tools they need to take the next step.

The $35 billion authorization level was in Representative Young's original legislation, as was the provision that prohibited the Secretary from limiting the size of a single loan, and the 90-day review period. Those were important provisions that we wanted to retain because they all go to this concept of encouraging major new rail infrastructure investment in this country, and I appreciate the efforts by the Senator from Mississippi and his staff to retain them and add my language to them.

In closing, the original RRIF Program got off to a very slow start, owing in large part I think to a certain degree of resistance from OMB. I am very hopeful that everyone recognizes this effort as a good faith attempt by Congress to send a clear message that we are trying to encourage major rail infrastructure investment in the United States rather than think up reasons to not do it. This is a program that is very much in the national interest. As former director of the South Dakota Rail Division, I believe strongly in the importance of and urgent need for major rail infrastructure investment in this country. I think most Members of Congress feel the same way, and I hope our colleagues in the administration receive this message and will support our recent action to strengthen the RRIF Program. I hope they will now join in the effort to make RRIF a strong engine for rail infrastructure investment as was originally intended and as we directed in the recently enacted legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that articles describing the proposed rail project--which appeared in the November 6, 2005 editions of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, and the Huron Daily Plainsman, and the Rapid City Journal--be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman, the Senator from Iowa, for yielding time off the bill. The issue we are debating obviously is one of great consequence, dealing with our budget and how we deal with the issue of the deficit and what we do to continue to keep the economy growing and creating jobs. That is what this debate is about.

I do, however, want to speak in response to something that was said earlier on the floor, also off the bill at hand that we are discussing today, and that has to do with the whole situation in Iraq.

The Democrat leader was on the floor earlier, once again attacking the President and the Vice President with respect to the issue of prewar intelligence. I think the American people deserve to know the facts in this debate. They deserve to know the truth. More important, our troops need to know we stand with them, we support them in completing their mission in achieving victory in the war on terror.

What we have seen instead is the Democrat leader come down here and accuse the President, because he is standing up and telling the truth to the American people, accusing him of deceiving and misleading on prewar intelligence.

Where is the evidence? Where are the facts to support those statements? The distinguished Democrat leader, as well as many Democrats who are still serving in this Chamber, back in 2002 had the same information, the same intelligence that the President of the United States had, the Vice President of the United States had, all our allies had, the United Nations had. Everybody came to the same essential conclusion, and that was that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the security of that region and the security of the United States, and we acted accordingly.

In this Chamber right here, 29 of the 50 Democrats at that time stood up and voted for a resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. In the House of Representatives, over 80 Democrats joined the Republican majority in the House of Representatives in support of the resolution for the use of force in Iraq.

What we are seeing now is an attempt to revise that history. You can try. You can disagree with the policy. You can disagree with the decisions that are being made by our commanders. But don't come to the floor of the Senate and don't go out to the public and attack this administration and this President for lying unless you have some evidence to demonstrate that.

There is no proof.

I believe the troops of this country, and our commanders who are valiantly and bravely and courageously leading the effort in Iraq and in Afghanistan to win the war on terror, are fighting to make this country more safe and secure and to make sure that country has a democracy. And all we focus on is the negative.

What about the positive things that are happening in Iraq? The fact is, today Iraq's GDP has more than quadrupled from 2003, Iraq's debt has been cut by more than a third from 2003, inflation and unemployment rates are down from last year while incomes have risen, Iraq's security personnel have doubled since last year, over 1,800 reconstruction projects have been finished, including schools and health facilities, the number of telephone subscribers has more than doubled since last year, and the number of independent television stations has doubled since last year.

We are making progress. It is hard work. The people who know that the best are the people on the ground in Iraq, the young men and women in uniform who are doing freedom's work.

I had the opportunity last week to go up to Walter Reed Army Hospital to visit with some of the casualties of that war, people who have lost limbs, amputees. I have to tell you it is inspiring, absolutely inspirational to see the courage and the determination and the spirit of these young people who have worn the uniform of the United States and have fought for something they believe in. They deserve to have elected leaders in this country, people in this Chamber, the Senate, and the House who are willing to at least acknowledge the good work they are doing and the progress we are making toward winning the war on terror, toward creating a democracy and standing up a government in Iraq, toward raising an army, a security force that can defend the Iraqi people.

What we do not need is demagoguery and people coming on the floor of the Senate and elected leaders getting up and making statements attacking the integrity and the credibility and the truthfulness of the President of the United States, our Commander in Chief, absent any evidence to support their claims. Furthermore, those are the ones who on this very floor have made statements in the past supporting our effort and concluding, based upon the intelligence that they received-- just like the intelligence the President and the Vice President and all our allies and the United Nations received--that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States and to that region of the world. What we are seeing here is the worst of politics, and that is not the conduct we ought to have in the Senate or the discourse that we ought to be putting before the American people. The American people deserve the truth, and the American troops deserve our support.

I yield.

Unanimous Consent Agreement