Floor Statements

Mr. President, Dr. Rufus Judson Pearson, Jr., of Southern Pines, NC, passed away in Tamarac, Fl. on Sunday, May 11, 2008 after a prolonged illness and went to be with the Lord and to the side of his beloved wife, Emily.

Dr. Pearson, the former attending physician to the U.S. Congress, was born in Atlanta, GA, October 8, 1915, the son of Rufus J. Pearson, M.D., and Myrtle Padgett of Richland, GA. He attended the University of Florida and received his doctor of medicine degree from Emory University in 1938 at the age of 22. He trained at Kings County Hospital in Brooklyn and at Grady Hospital in Atlanta and subsequently had a year of intensive training in cardiovascular Diseases offered by Harvard Medical School at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, under the tutelage of renowned cardiologist Dr. Paul Dudley White.

Dr. Pearson was fellow of the American College of Physicians, the American College of Cardiology, the Scientific Council, American Heart Association, and member, American Medical Association. He was certified by the American Board of Internal Medicine and by the Sub-specialty Board in Cardiovascular Disease.

In May of 1939, following first year of internship, he married the former Emily Virginia Timmerman of Atlanta, GA, whom he met during his first year as a medical student at Emory.

During World War II, he served overseas as a naval medical officer, and after the war, he entered the private practice of internal medicine in Jacksonville, FL. Shortly after the outbreak of the Korean crisis in 1950, he was recalled to Active Duty and subsequently decided to make the Navy a career.

He rose to prominence in the Medical Corps while serving as chief of cardiology at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, MD, from 1955 to 1961 during the period when open-heart surgery was being pioneered. He later served as chief of medicine at the Naval Hospitals in Charleston, SC and Portsmouth, VA. In 1965, he returned to the al Hospital at Bethesda to serve as director of clinical services and chief of medicine. To each of these assignments, he brought a high level of professional competence, coupled with dynamic leadership, drive and imagination.

In 1966, at the request of speaker John McCormack and Senate majority leader Mike Mansfield and by joint concurrence of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, Dr. Pearson was assigned as the attending physician to Congress, a position he held for almost 7 years and only the second physician to ever hold that post. He brought to this unique position exceptional skill, innovation, and farsighted leadership, effecting numerous improvements to the health care delivery system in the Capitol complex. He was highly regarded by Members of the House and Senate, not only as skilled physician, but also as a friend and confidant to many, earning the respect of the Nation's legislators and their staffs.

On numerous occasions--his praises by Members of the House and Senate were made a matter of record in the Congressional Record. On such comment offered by Senator Aiken from Vermont is quoted in the Record:

Dr. Pearson will probably be missed as much as anyone who

as ever has worked in the Capitol. It did not matter what we

called him. We started out calling him ``Admiral,'' and

pretty soon we called him ``Doctor.'' Finally, he got to be

known as ``Jud'' and his wife as Emily. They certainly are

people with whom we could be very proud to have worked.

And another quote from Senator Mansfield of Montana:

Dr. Pearson has created a medical facility in the Capitol

that is almost unequaled. His main purpose was our health and

well being, but also he was there to offer his friendship and

advice whether it be for us, our families, or our staffs. No

task was too great, no hours too late, no burden too heavy

for ``Jud'' Pearson. . . . Dr. Pearson's integrity,

dedication, and deep devotion have been the cause of his

excellence in his present position.

He was chosen to accompany the majority leader and minority leader of the Senate on their historic trip to China in 1972 and was at that time one the first few American physicians to enter China since World War II. For his exceptional service to the country while serving at the U.S. Capitol, the President of the United States presented him with the Distinguished Service Medal. Following his retirement in 1973, the Pearsons retired to the Sandhills area of North Carolina.

Dr. Pearson was a most enthusiastic golfer and a member of Columbia Country Club and the Whispering Pines Country Club. He was also a highly skilled and avid bridge player and was invited to participate as a member of the Wolves Club in Southern Pines.

Dr. Pearson was a marvelous and compassionate physician-scholar as well as skilled in his profession. He was a wonderful father and strong patriarch, both generous and kind. But friends and relatives alike will attest that his many significant contributions and achievements pale in comparison to the remarkable example he set as a devoted husband to his beloved wife Emily, to whom he was united in marriage for 67 years, loving her, cherishing her and caring for her until her death at the age of 91. Theirs was truly a marriage made in heaven.

He is survived by his daughter, Mrs. Virginia P. Sudders of Tamarac, FL, and his son, CPT Rufus J. Pearson, III, and daughter-in-law, Elizabeth Pearson, of Wheaton, IL; eight grandchildren: Rufus Judson Pearson, IV, Matthew Allen Pearson, Andrew Clinton Pearson, Mrs. Kathryn Elizabeth Pearson Dickson, Mrs. Amy Sudders Wilke, Mrs. Barbara Sudders Andrade, Ms. Marylou Sudders, Mrs. Susan Sudders Kuper; and nine great-grandchildren.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be a cosponsor of the motion.

I yield to the Senator from Georgia.

I ask unanimous consent statements in opposition to the resolution of the Senator from North Dakota be printed in the Record at this point.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I join my friend from Hawaii in introducing the Non-foreign Area Retirement Equity Act. I thank Senator Akaka for his hard work on this important legislation that finally brings retirement equity to the thousands of Federal employees in Alaska and Hawaii.

Alaska and Hawaii are the only States in which Federal employees do not receive locality pay. Instead, they receive what is called a nonforeign cost of living allowance, or COLA. COLA was put in place in 1949, before Alaska and Hawaii were States. It is based on the cost of living in an area compared to the cost of living in Washington, DC. COLA was not available to employees in the lower 48 States.

When locality pay was established to benefit Federal employees in the lower 48, Alaska and Hawaii were not included because they were already under the COLA system. Locality pay brings Federal salaries closer to private industry salaries in an area.

The key difference between these two systems is how it affects a Federal employee's retirement. As you know, a Federal employee's retirement is based on their ``high 3'' years of service, usually the final 3 years of their base pay salary.

COLA is nontaxable income that cannot exceed 25 percent of the base pay. It is currently being reduced in Alaska and Hawaii by 1 percent each year. Because COLA is not taxed, it is not considered as part of an employee's base pay for retirement purposes. This means an employee in Alaska retires with a much lower ``high 3'' than an equivalent position in the lower 48.

Locality pay is taxable income, but is also considered part of an employee's base pay for retirement purposes. This makes a big difference in the amount of retirement benefits an employee receives.

Alaska has one of the highest costs of living in the Nation. Our Federal employees need to know they can continue to afford living in the State they call home on the money they receive in their retirement benefits. Many Alaskan Federal employees nearing retirement relocate to the lower 48 in order to receive locality pay for their ``high 3.'' This puts my State at a disadvantage because we are losing highly skilled, seasoned employees.

This is an inequitable and outdated system. It is time to bring retirement equity to all States. The bill Senator Akaka and I introduce today with Senators Inouye and Murkowski will do just that. Simply put, this bill will convert Federal employees in our States from the COLA system to the locality pay system. This conversion will not only benefit the Federal employees in these States, it will also save the Government money.

The COLA system requires that a survey be conducted every 3 years to determine an area's COLA. Our bill would eliminate these expensive and time consuming surveys. By changing to a locality pay system, employees will pay taxes on income they now receive tax free. Federal employees in Alaska and Hawaii have filed lawsuits to fight the inequity of the COLA system. With this change, the Government will not have to spend time and resources defending against this litigation.

The Office of Personnel Management supports replacing COLA with locality pay for all of these reasons.

This bill addresses several employee groups with unique circumstances, including postal employees. I am confident we can work closely with the U.S. Postal Service and the postal employee unions to ensure that postal employees in Alaska and Hawaii are protected.

Senator Akaka and I hope that all groups affected by this change will contact us so that we can ensure this bill takes everyone's concerns into consideration. Senator Akaka will be holding a hearing on this issue in Hawaii this month. Feedback from that hearing will be vital to improving our bill.

It is important we pass this bill before the end of this Congress to bring equality in retirement to all of our Federal employees. I urge Senators to support this bill.

Mr. President, I join my friend from Hawaii in introducing the Non-foreign Area Retirement Equity Act. I thank Senator Akaka for his hard work on this important legislation that finally brings retirement equity to the thousands of Federal employees in Alaska and Hawaii.

Alaska and Hawaii are the only States in which Federal employees do not receive locality pay. Instead, they receive what is called a nonforeign cost of living allowance, or COLA. COLA was put in place in 1949, before Alaska and Hawaii were States. It is based on the cost of living in an area compared to the cost of living in Washington, DC. COLA was not available to employees in the lower 48 States.

When locality pay was established to benefit Federal employees in the lower 48, Alaska and Hawaii were not included because they were already under the COLA system. Locality pay brings Federal salaries closer to private industry salaries in an area.

The key difference between these two systems is how it affects a Federal employee's retirement. As you know, a Federal employee's retirement is based on their ``high 3'' years of service, usually the final 3 years of their base pay salary.

COLA is nontaxable income that cannot exceed 25 percent of the base pay. It is currently being reduced in Alaska and Hawaii by 1 percent each year. Because COLA is not taxed, it is not considered as part of an employee's base pay for retirement purposes. This means an employee in Alaska retires with a much lower ``high 3'' than an equivalent position in the lower 48.

Locality pay is taxable income, but is also considered part of an employee's base pay for retirement purposes. This makes a big difference in the amount of retirement benefits an employee receives.

Alaska has one of the highest costs of living in the Nation. Our Federal employees need to know they can continue to afford living in the State they call home on the money they receive in their retirement benefits. Many Alaskan Federal employees nearing retirement relocate to the lower 48 in order to receive locality pay for their ``high 3.'' This puts my State at a disadvantage because we are losing highly skilled, seasoned employees.

This is an inequitable and outdated system. It is time to bring retirement equity to all States. The bill Senator Akaka and I introduce today with Senators Inouye and Murkowski will do just that. Simply put, this bill will convert Federal employees in our States from the COLA system to the locality pay system. This conversion will not only benefit the Federal employees in these States, it will also save the Government money.

The COLA system requires that a survey be conducted every 3 years to determine an area's COLA. Our bill would eliminate these expensive and time consuming surveys. By changing to a locality pay system, employees will pay taxes on income they now receive tax free. Federal employees in Alaska and Hawaii have filed lawsuits to fight the inequity of the COLA system. With this change, the Government will not have to spend time and resources defending against this litigation.

The Office of Personnel Management supports replacing COLA with locality pay for all of these reasons.

This bill addresses several employee groups with unique circumstances, including postal employees. I am confident we can work closely with the U.S. Postal Service and the postal employee unions to ensure that postal employees in Alaska and Hawaii are protected.

Senator Akaka and I hope that all groups affected by this change will contact us so that we can ensure this bill takes everyone's concerns into consideration. Senator Akaka will be holding a hearing on this issue in Hawaii this month. Feedback from that hearing will be vital to improving our bill.

It is important we pass this bill before the end of this Congress to bring equality in retirement to all of our Federal employees. I urge Senators to support this bill.

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

What is the situation parliamentarywise?

Is there any time agreement at the present time?

Are we still in morning business?

I thank the Chair.

Tribute to Lew Williams, Jr.

Our young State, Alaska, this past weekend lost one of our greatest 20th century pioneers when Lew Williams, Jr., the publisher emeritus of the Ketchikan Daily News, died while vacationing in Scottsdale, AZ.

Through his six decades in Alaska journalism, Lew brought news to much of southeast Alaska through a series of newspapers which he edited and owned. Five southeast Alaska towns were home to Lew Williams. Juneau was the first, when, as an 11-year-old boy, he delivered the Empire, the paper on which his dad was a reporter. Wrangell was next. His dad was the new editor-owner of the Wrangell Sentinel, and Lew became his 15-year-old apprentice. Later, after Navy service in World War II, Lew bought the paper from his father. Next the beautiful town of Petersburg, AK, claimed Lew when he and his bride Dorothy bought the Petersburg Press. From that time on, Dorothy remained his partner in newspapering, along with helping Lew to set the path that has been followed by his own three children.

In 1966, Lew took over the editorship of the Ketchikan Daily News and, a decade later, he and Dorothy bought that paper, settling in for the long run and spending the rest of his life in Ketchikan.

When the Daily Sitka Sentinel fell on hard times after major mechanical problems and a fire in 1969, Lew offered assistance to the beleaguered owners. That assistance turned into ownership of that paper also. But in 1975, he sold the Sentinel to the Poulsons, a young couple who had been hired to be editors. Thad Poulson was a former reporter in Juneau and an AP representative in Juneau. He remains with the Sitka paper today.

Despite his close ties to these five towns in our State's beautiful southeastern panhandle, Lew was truly a man for all of Alaska.

He was one of my close friends, and I mourn his passing.

Early in the 1950s, when the larger southeast daily newspapers were against Alaska statehood, Lew Williams joined the small weeklies in our fight to become the 49th State. The concerns that faced Alaska as a territory, and later as a State, Lew adopted as his concerns. No matter where the problem was in our 586,000 square miles, Lew Williams became acquainted with it and tried to do something about the problem. Whether the issue was minerals or timber, fisheries or lands, hundreds of other matters, Lew wrote clearly and forcefully in his paper, as editor, to help his readers understand the solutions he believed were best for all Alaska and Alaskans.

Critics who may have disagreed with his stand on any issue were unanimous in their praise for his writings. His columns were carried in papers throughout our State and many throughout the Nation, and they have continued to run, until a few weeks ago, in what we call Anchorage's Voice of the Times which is printed as an op-ed in the Anchorage Daily News.

Although Lew's paper, the Ketchikan Daily News, is the smallest daily in Alaska, with a weekend edition also, Lew was in the forefront when it came to technology. He beat out what we call ``the big boys'' in the larger towns when he was the first to offer offset printing and color and among the first with newsroom computers. Along the way, Lew collected dozens of honors for his papers throughout the Nation and for his community service. He served on boards ranging from the chambers of commerce to fish and game advisory boards, school boards, and the Rotary. He was appointed to the board of regents of our University of Alaska. He was a member of the blue ribbon task force for the Alaska National Interest Public Lands Act--we call it ANILCA--which was passed in 1908, and he served on the Alaska Judicial Council and the board of governors of the Alaska Bar Association, although he was not a lawyer.

And ``there's more,'' as the television commercial says. Lew founded the Alaska Newspaper Association. He was named businessman of the year for Alaska a few years ago. He founded the Southeast Alaska Conference and for 29 years was an adult leader of Boy Scouts.

These honors pale beside Lew's greatest gift to our State, and that is his three children who grew up in newspaper offices. What a tribute to their dad that they adopted his profession and are carrying it on. Lew III, Tena, and Kathy, his children, accepted the reins from their dad in 1990. But he still remained in that office and he gave his time to finish writing and editing a 700-page book called ``Bent Pins and Chains,'' a history of Alaska through its newspapers. He had begun this with the late historian wife of the publisher of the Anchorage Times, Evangeline Atwood, for anyone who is interested in Alaska. Alaskans are fortunate that the vibrant Williams younger generation carries on Lew Williams' commitment to good reporting, fine writing, dedication to community service, and making Alaska the greatest place in the United States to live.

Those of us who knew Lew Williams, who shared opinions and laughs and

disappointments and triumphs and many wonderful days, are among the luckiest of Alaskans. I always looked up Lew Williams when I was in Ketchikan, and he always had some news and advice for me. I usually followed it.

We do have the knowledge we could not have had delivered to us through a better, more loyal friend. I have to say, it is tough to lose a friend like Lew. The joy he brought to my life and to my family's life and to so many others cannot be measured in a statement of this kind. I tell the Senate that everyone makes a statement like this. Not often do we make a statement pertaining to someone who had so much to do with our lives and what we have done. When I first decided to run for the Senate, I went to Ketchikan to talk to Lew Williams to see if he agreed. That was back in 1962. I have known Lew Williams and Dorothy and the children for a long time. Catherine and I send our love and deepest sympathy. We know our friend and their loved one is gone, but he will not be forgotten by any of us.

I ask unanimous consent that recent editorials and comments about my friend Lew Williams be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we import more than 12.5 million barrels a day of petroleum--over 60 percent of

our petroleum energy needs. As a matter of fact, I think it is higher than that now, in the last 2 or 3 days. This is why our economy and the value of the dollar has weakened and our energy costs have skyrocketed. With oil at $117 a barrel--and it is more than that today--the United States spends nearly $1.5 billion each day on foreign oil. That is $533 billion each year that was not invested in our own economy.

Instead, that money is being sent--along with jobs--to other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Venezuela. For every million barrels of oil we import, 20,000 American jobs are lost.

Our country needs a real economic stimulus now. That stimulus will come when we stop spending hundreds of billions of dollars each year to import oil and, instead, invest that money in our own economy by increasing domestic production of our energy resources.

The area known as ANWR is a million and a half acres that was reserved for oil and gas development on the Arctic slope in 1980; it is the largest untapped oilfield in North America. We believe that is the largest trap for oil in North America. Oil companies estimate they will spend between $45 billion and $60 billion to develop this area. Combined with the construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline, which is expected to start soon, it will cost about $40 billion. These resources would deliver a massive influx of jobs and capital investment in the United States. Our economy would be stabilized, and the dollar would be strengthened.

ANWR and the Alaska gas pipeline are only the beginning. This infrastructure would help lead to further development of Alaska's Outer Continental Shelf. We have more than two thirds of that Outer Continental Shelf. It has been expanded another 100 miles north of Alaska, as we discovered a further extension of the shelf. The Chukchi Sea holds an estimated 16 billion barrels of oil, and there is an estimated 7 billion barrels in the Beaufort Sea off our State. Bringing these resources on line would add even more jobs and capital to our economy.

Full development of ANWR would result in at least 60,000 jobs. Opening ANWR alone would require the construction of a fleet of 19 new tankers to transport the oil to the Lower 48. Those would be American- built tankers. Under the law, they must be--under the Jones Act. This alone would create at least 2,000 direct jobs in the U.S. shipbuilding industry and approximately 3,000 additional jobs in other sectors of our economy. The energy industry estimates the Alaska gas pipeline alone will create 400,000 new jobs nationwide.

Senator Schumer made an interesting statement the other day. He suggested that opening ANWR would reduce gas prices by only pennies. He took a shot at the President, saying he takes out the old saw of ANWR, that ANWR would not produce a drop of oil in 10 years, and it is estimated that if we drilled in ANWR, in 20 years, it would reduce the price one penny.

I am afraid that shows how little the Senator from New York understands the oil industry. He ignores the long-term economic stimulus domestic production will bring through investment in our own country--raising household incomes and individual buying power, rather than sending money overseas. Senator Schumer would ask other nations, such as Saudi Arabia, to increase their production as a solution to our energy crisis.

I agree that increased production would help solve our problem but that production should occur in our own country. I think the Senator should realize what is happening in terms of the oil industry, and the key driver now to the cost of gasoline is not the supply and demand, it is the value of the dollar and the value of oil per se. The value of oil now is represented by paper on the New York Stock Exchange, which has replaced gold. People are speculating in oil. That is also what is causing the price of gasoline to go up at the pump. Senator Schumer should visit NYMEX and ask them to do something about that and stop the speculation in oil. I think it should be unlawful to speculate in anything related to energy in this country. I think soon we will do that.

This production has to come from our own country. The position of the Senator from New York would send more money in tax and royalty revenues outside our economy. I don't know how that will strengthen our dollar or lower prices at the pump at all. It is not a question of supply and demand, it is a question of a long-term commitment to restore our capability to produce oil and gas in this country.

Had President Clinton not vetoed the ANWR bill before, we would be producing at least 2 million barrels a day more out of Alaska right now. I don't like to be chided by the Senator from New York about why we don't have more production in this country. He is suggesting we ask the foreign producers to produce more oil and send it to us. That will send more money out of the country and take more of our jobs. I don't understand that.

In 1995, when we approved the amendment allowing development of the Arctic Plain, President Clinton vetoed that legislation, and we are paying for the consequences of that today. Had he not vetoed the legislation, the Trans Alaska Pipeline--which currently operates at less than 50 percent of capacity--as a matter of fact, it is even worse than that, about 38 percent of capacity. We are sending out about 700,000 barrels a day instead of 2.5 million barrels a day. We could easily have that pipeline--we call it a barrel--full and offset imports and keep our trade deficit down and keep jobs and money in our economy. In the long run--not short run--increased production does affect the price at the pump. We would continue to increase domestic production of oil and that, in effect, would give us competition against the price set by foreign producers, and we would be able to reduce the price at the pump in the long run.

Between the Outer Continental Shelf, ANWR, the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska--which is now ready to be leased--and the resources remaining in Prudhoe Bay, we believe we would have at least 45 billion barrels of oil left to produce. That is an estimate. When they estimated how much oil was in Prudhoe Bay, they estimated 1 billion barrels. We produced 18 billion. I remind the Senate of that. So we have produced more than that, and it is still producing. At full capacity, we ought to be able to deliver at least 2.5 million barrels to the daily market. We have oil from outside the Arctic, by the way. We can reduce the impact of sending more and more money out of the country and affect the American economy as we spend that money here at home. That money would generate tax and royalty revenues, fund research into alternative energy sources, create jobs, help strengthen the dollar, and lower our energy prices in the long run.

The weak dollar is what is causing speculation in oil futures and increasing the price of oil and gas at the pump. We need investment in our own country, which develops our own resources, instead of relying on those from other countries. By increasing domestic production, we would meet our own Nation's needs, strengthen the economy, and begin creating jobs and generating revenue, which would be reinvested back into our economy. That is the way to a strong economy, a stable dollar, lower energy prices, and to reduce the demand on foreign oil and the cost of gasoline at the pump. We have to stop sending our money abroad and sending jobs abroad to pay for energy resources, when we can use the money at home to develop the vast resources we have.

Alaska is the storehouse of energy for the future. It should not be cast aside as it has been. I hope we will find a way to vote on ANWR this year.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today as this Congress commemorated our National Commemoration of the Days of Remembrance for 2008 in the Rotunda of the Capitol of our Nation, Joshua B. Bolten, the Chief of Staff of President Bush, delivered the keynote address.

I note that Josh Bolten noted he will travel with President Bush later this month to Israel to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel, which he pointed out occurred just 3 years after the Holocaust.

I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Bolten's remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, last Monday evening I had the honor of attending a dinner of the Atlantic Council. At that dinner several distinguished individuals were honored: former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, News Corporation chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch, and Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for Distinguished International, Business and Military Leadership respectively.

During the evening, there was much discussion about the health of the transatlantic relationship. I was impressed with Rupert Murdock's comments as to how the alliance must change to meet future threats. He went on to say ``We must face up to a painful truth: Europe no longer has either the political will or social culture to support military engagements in defense of itself and its allies. However strong NATO may be on paper, this fact makes NATO weak in practice. And it means that reform will not come from within.

Those who want a reformed NATO must look to the outside. In other words, we need to transform this Alliance from a community formed around a map to a community based on common values and a willingness to take joint action in defense of these values.

Those who want a reformed NATO must look to the outside. In other words, we need to transform this Alliance from a community formed around a map to a community based on common values and a willingness to take joint action in defense of these values.''

I ask unanimous consent to have Mr. Murdock's entire remarks printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. Rupert Murdoch's Prepared Remarks for the Atlantic Council's 2008

Annual Awards Dinner

Good evening. Thank you, Henry, for that kind introduction.

Your words remind me of the definition of a diplomat: A man

who always remembers his wife's birthday--but never remembers

her age.

I also want to thank the Atlantic Council for this fine

award. By honoring me, you honor the work that News

Corporation's 61,000 employees are doing to connect people

across oceans, borders, and cultures. And you underscore the

importance of a strong private sector for a free society.

Few organizations have done more for the preservation of

our freedom than this Council. Tonight I want to commend Fred

Kempe

. . . General Jim Jones . . . the Council Board . . . and all

the Council members for the important work you are doing.

This Council was founded in the years following World War II.

Statesmen on both sides of the Atlantic recognized that the

defense of freedom would require the active engagement of a

new generation of leaders. By working to keep that Alliance

strong, you have helped the West prevail against Soviet

communism--and ensure the advance of democracy from the

Atlantic to the Urals.

Today we can be tempted to bask in our achievements--and

wax nostalgic about all we have been through.

But this is no time for nostalgia. At this moment in our

history, the Alliance that has been built up over decades now

finds itself threatened on several fronts:

First, by the growing appeal of protectionism on both sides

of the Atlantic . . .

Second, by the terrorists who target civilians in all our

countries . . . and finally, by the crisis of confidence in a

Europe that is losing its faith in the values and

institutions that have kept us free.

We see this crisis of confidence in many areas. Yet nowhere

is it more apparent than in the failure of nerve we are

seeing in Afghanistan. After the attacks of September the

11th, 2001, it was clear that America and its allies needed

to deprive al Qaeda of its safe haven. It was clear that we

needed to help the Afghan people replace the Taliban with a

free government that would build a more hopeful future for

its citizens.

Unfortunately, far from reflecting our unity, Nato's entry

into Afghanistan has exposed its divisions. Instead of

standing together as full and equal partners, a handful of

Alliance members are bearing the brunt of the fighting.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that the lack of

equal burden sharing threatens the future of the Alliance.

And he is right.

We must face up to a painful truth: Europe no longer has

either the political will or social culture to support

military engagements in defense of itself and its allies.

However strong NATO may be on paper, this fact makes NATO

weak in practice. And it means that reform will not come from

within.

Those who want a reformed NATO must look to the outside. In

other words, we need to transform this Alliance from a

community formed around a map to a community based on common

values and a willingness to take joint action in defense of

these values.

In short, a strong and successful Atlantic Alliance will

have to ground itself more on shared principles rather than

accident of geography. And we need to show we are serious

about defending those principles by standing with those who

are standing up for them.

NATO's agreement to invite Albania and Croatia to become

members is a welcome start. So is the somewhat weaker

commitment that Ukraine and Georgia will become members of

NATO at some point in the future.

But we need to go much further. As a rule, when an

organization expands, the expansion dilutes its principles.

For today's NATO, it is just the opposite. Expansion is the

only hope of invigorating an Alliance weighed down by those

who are no longer willing to commit themselves to defend its

founding principles.

Around the world, there is no shortage of nations who share

our values, and are willing to defend them. I am thinking of

countries like Australia, which sent troops to Iraq . . .

Israel, which has been fighting Islamic terrorism almost

since its founding . . . and Japan, which generally follows a

more ``Western'' policy than most of Western Europe.

Other countries have not reached the level of development

these countries enjoy. But some are working hard to get

there, and would be strong partners down the road. At the

very least, the United States needs to support them as they

struggle against the dark forces trying to pull them down.

Right now the United States has a test in our own backyard.

Colombia is a nation that is fighting poverty, battling the

drug lords, and taking on terrorists backed by foreign

governments. Its citizens have suffered tremendously from

violence, and who want peace and opportunity. And it is being

led by a brave and innovative President, who is bringing the

rule of law to people who have not known it.

What does this brave President ask of us? He asks that we

ratify the trade agreement we have negotiated with his

nation.

By ratifying this agreement, we would open an important

market for American goods. We would demonstrate to millions

in our hemisphere that the path to prosperity lies in freedom

and democracy. And we would give strong moral support to a

leader struggling to bring hope and opportunity to his

people in an important part of the world.

Everyone knows this. Even the New York Times says the

Democratic Congress should ratify this trade deal. Instead,

Speaker Pelosi has effectively put off the bill by not

scheduling a vote. We need to make clear to the leadership in

Congress needs to know what killing this trade deal would

mean.

Throughout Colombia, a defeat for the trade deal would be

confirmation that the United States is not an ally you could

count on.

Throughout Latin America, a defeat for the trade deal would

be exploited by thugs like Hugo Chavez, who would tell the

people, ``See, the Americans will never accept you as equals

and partners.''

And throughout the world, a defeat for the trade deal would

be taken as another sign that the U.S. will not stand by its

friends when the going gets tough.

The Mexican ambassador to the United States puts it this

way: ``The most important geopolitical mistake the United

States could do today . . . is not ratifying that treaty.''

The world is watching. The same values that we are trying

to uphold in the Atlantic Alliance are at stake now in

Colombia. And if we fail to support them in Colombia, it will

be harder to revive them in the Alliance.

Let me conclude with a little story. I was born in

Australia . . . I received my university education in Britain

. . . and I have made my home in America. Over a long and I

hope productive life, I have learned that shared values are

more important than shared borders.

If we continue to define ``the West'' or ``the Alliance''

as a strictly geographical concept, the Alliance will

continue to erode. But if we define the West as a community

of values, institutions, and a willingness to act jointly, we

will revive an important bastion of freedom--and make it as

pivotal in our own century as it was in the last.

Thank you for having me. And thank you again for this fine

award.

Mr. President, last week Jack Rhyner lost his courageous battle against cancer, and Alaska lost a pioneer in our telecommunications industry and I lost a very good friend.

As a young man, Jack worked alongside his father, Richard Rhyner, as he founded TelAlaska. At 16, Jack salvaged telephone equipment damaged in the Fairbanks flood of 1967. Using emery boards to smooth out the gold points on the mechanical switches and high-pressure water hoses and brushes, he cleaned and repaired each component.

Jack and his dad used that salvaged equipment to build the first telephone system in Fort Yukon. Until then, residents of that village shared a single phone line at the airport. Today, more than 300 residents have private lines in their homes and access to DSL Internet service.

In 1982, Jack took leadership of Interior Telephone. Over the years he worked with his wife Donna developing and expanding TelAlaska into a statewide, modern company connecting many of our rural villages to phone service for the first time. Jack's commitment and hard work resulted in dozens of villages--most of them inaccessible by road-- becoming connected to the world by telephone systems. In addition, TelAlaska provides DSL service to 12 villages and cable service to 4 small communities including my own hometown of Girdwood.

Jack was appointed to the FCC's Rural Task Force where he worked tirelessly to ensure affordable rates and reliable service in Alaska. As a respected leader in Alaska's telecommunications industry, Jack was often called upon to share his insight into our State's unique communications challenges with Congress, State, and Federal agencies.

Jack's contributions to the advancement of telecommunications in Alaska earned him the prestigious Kaguyak Award from the Alaska Telephone Association. The Western Telecommunications Alliance recognized Jack's dedication to rural telecommunications with the President's Award.

A true Alaskan, Jack was an avid outdoorsman. He enjoyed spending

time with his shooting team which won more than a dozen championships at Birchwood Shooting Park. He would smile when he talked about setting up visits to the communities served by TelAlaska's companies, checking the calendar to ensure that he would arrive in the right season for a day or two of fishing or hunting. It is no surprise, then, that he wanted his ashes spread in the fall at his favorite duck hunting retreat at Cold Bay.

Catherine and I send our condolences to Donna and their sons, Ryan and Richard II, and all who knew and loved Jack. He will be missed.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield me time, please?

Mr. President, the Veterans Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007 would recognize the service and sacrifice of Filipino veterans who fought under our flag in World War II. I join my good friends and fellow World War II veterans, Senator Inouye and Senator Akaka, in supporting the restoration of veterans benefits to these heroic individuals.

Filipino troops fought as American nationals, under the American flag, alongside American soldiers, and under the command of American GEN Douglas MacArthur, earning themselves the status of U.S. veterans.

Like most American troops, Filipino soldiers were effectively drafted into the U.S. military.

When war with Japan became imminent, President Franklin Roosevelt ordered the military forces of the Philippines into the service of the U.S. Armed Forces. The President held this authority because the Philippine Islands were a U.S. possession and the power was written into our law.

The position of these Filipino soldiers was similar to the thousands of courageous Alaskans who volunteered to serve in the Alaska Territorial Guard and protect Alaska before it became a state.

Nearly 60 years later, in 2000, Congress determined that the service of the Alaska Territorial Guard was ``active duty'' service, making them eligible for the same veterans benefits Filipino veterans now seek.

Just 10 hours after the attack on the U.S. at Pearl Harbor, Japan invaded the Philippines. In the years of war that followed, Filipino soldiers fought alongside American troops with uncommon valor and loyalty to the United States.

Stories of their heroism and sacrifice are abundant. Outnumbered by the Japanese and forced out of Manila, Filipino soldiers and U.S. troops held

their ground for months before being forced to surrender on the Bataan Peninsula and in Corregidor.

Nearly 80,000 Filipino and U.S. soldiers were taken prisoner and forced to walk to a prison camp over 65 miles away in what became known as the infamous ``Death March.'' As many as one in three of these men, weakened by disease and malnutrition and tortured by their captors, died before reaching their destination.

After their American leader, GEN Douglas MacArthur, was ordered to Australia, thousands of Filipino guerilla soldiers continued resisting Japanese occupation for nearly 3 years. When MacArthur and allied forces returned, Filipino soldiers fought fiercely until Japan's surrender.

One million Filipino combatants and noncombatants died in World War II. In comparison, approximately 400,000 U.S. troops lost their lives in all theaters of the war.

As President Truman would later say of the Filipino troops: ``Their assignment was as bloody and difficult as any in which our American soldiers engaged.''

Congress should remember the vital contributions of Filipino veterans to the success of the allied forces. Their resistance distracted the Japanese in the Islands, preventing them from deploying elsewhere and possibly reaching the U.S. mainland.

These soldiers bought precious time for General MacArthur to mount a successful counterstrike.

After the war, the U.S. Veterans' Administration determined these service members met the definition of ``active Service'' in the U.S. Armed Forces and were eligible for full VA benefits.

Under the Rescission Acts of 1946, however, many Filipino veterans' World War II service no longer qualified as `active duty' service. Congress stripped these soldiers of the benefits they had earned. Filipino veterans and their advocates have fought for the Restoration of these benefits for more than 60 years.

This bill contains provisions that would restore U.S. veteran status to all Filipino World War II Veterans, increase service-connected disability compensation, and provide a reduced flat rate pension to many Filipino veterans residing in the Philippines.

Nonservice-connected pension and death pension benefits are available to all qualifying U.S. veterans regardless of race, national origin, or citizenship status.

Many Filipino World War II veterans and their survivors have been excluded from receiving these benefits. This bill proposes a reasonable and fair way to assist to these veterans.

The expense of this reduced benefit is justified by the contribution of Filipino veterans to this country. If not for their service, the fate of the United States could have been very different. For this, they should be treated as American veterans.

The proposed benefit would cost only a fraction of what it would have if pensions were made available to alL Filipino veterans who were entitled. The Embassy of the Philippines claims there were 470,000 Filipino veterans after the war.

Today only about 18,000 of these veterans--most in their eighties-- still survive.

Filipino World War II veterans residing in the Philippines have been denied eligibility for pension benefits for more than 60 years. A pension benefit about one third the size of that available to veterans in the United States is not overly generous.

I hope Congress will recognize the service of all our Filipino World War II Veterans just as we have for the Alaska Territorial Guard.

It is time we show our Nation's gratitude for the role Filipino World War II veterans played in our history, fighting alongside soldiers from the U.S. and helping us secure victory over tyranny.

Mr. President, I am grateful to the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Akaka, for the comments he made. I do believe this is a matter of honor. I understand how some of the younger Senators might view this as being costly, but I wish to put it in perspective.

As I pointed out, there were approximately 1 million Filipinos killed in action in the defense of our country in World War II. Approximately a half a million survived. Actually, during the war, as I have also pointed out, President Roosevelt said all Filipinos were subject to service in our Armed Forces; in effect, he conscripted the Filipinos to serve.

Those who survived were treated at first as our veterans on the mainland. Subsequently, it was determined that those who came to our country, to the mainland, would be treated fully as veterans of all types in the country were treated. We have to remember, this was an all-male military, primarily a draftee Army of over 16 million men.

First the VA determined all Filipino veterans were subject to the same laws as in the United States. If a person came to the United States as a veteran from the Philippines, he was automatically given citizenship and entitled to full benefits of all the veterans laws, including the GI bill, the right to have money to build a home, and a lot of other benefits were involved in those actions taken by Congress to try and deal with the returning veterans and help them regain their lives.

Later, it was determined that those benefits would not be paid to many of those who stayed in the Philippines. We have been trying for many years to restore those payments. I commend the Senators from Hawaii for trying to do so.

Actually, we had a parallel situation in the Alaska Guard. The Alaska Guard was primarily made up of Eskimos and Alaska Native people who patrolled the borders of Alaska. I remind the Senate that we have half the coastline of the United States. Those people who were in the Alaska Guard patrolled with their dogsleds without any uniforms being issued to them. It took us a period of time until we were able to recognize them, and we did so. We finally awarded those people in the National Guard their rights as veterans of the United States military forces.

This is something we have to do, as far as I am concerned. The provision in this bill restores the benefits these Filipino veterans have earned. I do believe, as I pointed out the other night on the floor, the Senate should know that Senator Inouye and I went to the Philippines this year and met with some of these people. I am 85 this year and my friend is 84, and we were the youngsters at the meeting. These Filipino veterans who are surviving are our age or older. Most of them are infirm. There are 18,000 left out of the 470,000 plus, almost half a million survivors. This bill restores their benefits.

How long can they last? People who have talked about the cost of this benefit I think misunderstand the situation. This is not a cost of today's economy. This is not a cost for today's taxpayers. This is a burden that should have been borne before.

These people have not had these benefits during all of these years, and they have asked us now, as a matter of honor, to restore their rights before they leave this planet.

I, for one, appeal to the Senate. As I said, there are now only five of us from World War II left in the Senate. When I came here, there were more than 70. There would be no question--I didn't know this actually happened, I have to tell you. We discovered a year ago, when Senator Akaka raised it, that this situation exists in the Philippines. I do believe it is an action that must be taken. These people not only now are our allies, but they have warmly supported our efforts throughout the world. I do believe to recognize the service and sacrifice of these Filipino veterans who fought under our flag in World War II is absolutely essential. These benefits are going to the heroes of the Philippines who are now surviving.

Lastly, I again point out to the Senate, those who lived through that time know if they had not made this sacrifice, if they had not lost two-thirds of their men in World War II, we would not have had the time to rebuild America. We would not have had the time to bring in the forces, to train the people who finally carried the war throughout the world to two tyrants, to Hitler and to the Japanese.

We have not had a world war since that time, and I do hope the world will never see another world war. But these people were the keys to the Pacific. Without them, we would have certainly been at war another couple of years at least and certainly would have seen an exchange of atomic weapons by that time. They gave us the time to survive,

and I think we ought to give them their rights before they leave this planet.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, to help end the growing problem of phantom traffic, today I introduce the ``Signaling Modernization Act of 2008.'' Senators Inouye, Smith, Dorgan, Thune, Pryor, and Snowe cosponsored this bill. Phantom traffic is a phone call sent over the telephone network without the identifying information carriers use to bill each other.

When I call home to Alaska, that call is transmitted over several different carriers. Phone companies charge each other for the use of their networks. The funds generated by these charges are particularly important to carriers in Alaska and throughout rural America. Phantom traffic prevents carriers from collecting the funds they are owed, impacting universal service and raising rates for rural customers.

It's time Congress pulled back the mask on phantom traffic to discover who or what is behind this problem that has plagued carriers for several years. The Federal Communications Commission is actively analyzing the issue, but it is time we find a solution.

Yesterday the Commerce Committee heard from a member of the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association from rural Missouri. He told us that 11 percent of their traffic did not have sufficient information for billing, causing them to lose about $37 per line per year. This loss of revenue makes it more difficult for rural carriers to deploy broadband.

Our bill will require all calls from voice communications service providers to contain enough information to allow carriers to bill each other, including voice over internet protocol providers offering 2-way service and providers transiting the traffic between originating and terminating providers. Our bill also directs the FCC to establish rules implementing this requirement within 12 months of enactment, and gives it the authority to adopt enforcement provisions. Phantom traffic steals from rural carriers and customers. I hope Congress and the FCC will look at this issue closely and put an end to phantom traffic.

Mr. President, to help end the growing problem of phantom traffic, today I introduce the ``Signaling Modernization Act of 2008.'' Senators Inouye, Smith, Dorgan, Thune, Pryor, and Snowe cosponsored this bill. Phantom traffic is a phone call sent over the telephone network without the identifying information carriers use to bill each other.

When I call home to Alaska, that call is transmitted over several different carriers. Phone companies charge each other for the use of their networks. The funds generated by these charges are particularly important to carriers in Alaska and throughout rural America. Phantom traffic prevents carriers from collecting the funds they are owed, impacting universal service and raising rates for rural customers.

It's time Congress pulled back the mask on phantom traffic to discover who or what is behind this problem that has plagued carriers for several years. The Federal Communications Commission is actively analyzing the issue, but it is time we find a solution.

Yesterday the Commerce Committee heard from a member of the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association from rural Missouri. He told us that 11 percent of their traffic did not have sufficient information for billing, causing them to lose about $37 per line per year. This loss of revenue makes it more difficult for rural carriers to deploy broadband.

Our bill will require all calls from voice communications service providers to contain enough information to allow carriers to bill each other, including voice over internet protocol providers offering 2-way service and providers transiting the traffic between originating and terminating providers. Our bill also directs the FCC to establish rules implementing this requirement within 12 months of enactment, and gives it the authority to adopt enforcement provisions. Phantom traffic steals from rural carriers and customers. I hope Congress and the FCC will look at this issue closely and put an end to phantom traffic.

Madam President, last evening I had the honor of attending a dinner of the Atlantic Council, and at that dinner they honored the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, the Right Honorable Tony Blair. I want to quote from his speech, and I ask unanimous consent to have his whole speech printed in the Record after my remarks.

He said this:

The transatlantic alliance is, of course, a product of

historical connection, culture, language and tradition. But

most of all it is an alliance of belief, of shared values, of

a common outlook not just about nations and their common

interest but about humanity and its common destiny. Out of

the travails of the twentieth century, the alliance drew its

history and its strength. In the fight against fascism, and

communism, it confronted and defeated totalitarian ideology.

Millions of our citizens died for the victory. Through their

sacrifice, we gained our freedom.

More than that, we came to a profound understanding about

what it is to be free. We realized through the pain and

suffering, the difference between deferring to those in power

and deciding who they are; between the rule of law and the

caprice of dictatorship; between the right to speak out and

the silence of the fearful.

Now with those twentieth century battles over, it is

tempting to think that this alliance has served its purpose.

But here is the important point about it. It was never, and

is not now, an alliance only of interests. It was and is an

alliance of conviction. We, in the West, don't own the idea

of freedom. We didn't fight for it because of the

happenstance of birth in Europe or America. It is there, in

the DNA of humankind. It is universal in nature and appeal.

We developed it, but we didn't invent it.

Now is the time to stand up for it. If we want our values

to govern the twenty-first century, we must combine hard and

soft power. We must show unhesitating resolution in the face

of threats to our security; and we must show that our values

are indeed universal, that they encompass not only freedom

but justice, and not for us alone but for the world as a

whole. We must show these values are global. And build

alliances accordingly, starting with the renewal of our own.

And we need to do it with energy and urgency. In the Middle

East this is time critical. We must act now.

Two things I now perceive more clearly than in office. The

first is: the fundamental shift of the centre of gravity,

politically and economically, to the East, to China and of

course India, but more broadly to the Middle and Far Eastern

nations.

This evening I will focus elsewhere, but suffice it to say

that we are still, in the West, not in the state of

comprehension or analysis we need to be, fully to grasp this

shift. China and India together will over the coming decades

industrialize on a scale, and at a pace, the world has never

seen before. In China especially, the implications are huge.

Whatever the present controversies, a strong strategic

relationship with it is vital; as it is with India. We are so

much better able to fashion the terms of such a relationship

if we do it in unison. That alone would justify and re-

justify our alliance.

This is a challenge of diplomacy and statesmanship of one

kind.

The other challenge arises from the security threat that

occupied so much of the last years of my premiership. Today,

as we meet, our armed forces face the prospect of a

continuing campaign in Afghanistan and Iraq. I hope one thing

unites us all. Whatever the debate about the decisions that

brought us to these countries, there should be no debate

about the magnificent and sustained heroism of our armed

forces. British and American troops and the forces of

other allied nations deserve our full support and our

gratitude.

But this struggle is not limited to those fields of

conflict. Out in the Middle East, it is there in the

activities of Hezbollah in Lebanon, of Hamas in Palestine; it

is played out in the street of Arab opinion every day. It has

spread across the world. More than a score of nations have

suffered terror attacks in the last year, still more have

foiled them. They do not include only the usual list, but

Thailand, Nigeria, China itself.

In the Middle East, the ideology that drives the extremism

is not abating. The Annual Arab Public Opinion survey

published last week was not striking simply for its specific

findings but for its overall picture. The basic ideological

thrust of the extremists has an impact way beyond the small

number of those prepared to engage in terror. In sum, it

shows an alarming number of people who buy the view that

Islam is under attack from the West; the leaders to support

are those like Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad who are perceived to

take on the West; and there is a contrast between Governments

and their people that is stark.

The extremism is a tiny minority activity; the ideas,

prejudices and sentiments that drive it, are not. The truth

is that the roots of this global ideology are deep, far

deeper than I first thought in the aftermath of September 11.

I believe the eventual outcome is not in doubt. But it is

possible, dangerously, to underestimate the size of this

challenge. And it is possible completely to misunderstand its

origins.

This global ideology is based on a total perversion of the

true faith of Islam. Its revolutionary rhetoric and

attachment to so-called liberation movements is a sham

designed to hide its profoundly reactionary and regressive

character. It is totalitarian in nature and compromising with

it will lead not to peace but to a ratcheting up of demands,

none of which are remotely tolerable.

But it plays cleverly on the insecurities and uncertainty

deep within Islam. It speaks to a sense that the reason for

its problems is not to be found within, but as victims of

outside aggression.

So today the issue hangs in the balance. The Middle East is

without doubt a region in transition; but in which direction

will it travel?

Like it or not, we are part of the struggle. Drawn into it,

Europe and America must hold together and hold firm. Not

simply for our own sake, but for that of our allies within

Islam. If we do not show heart, why should they?

If they don't see our resolve, how much more fragile is

theirs?

So how is this battle won?

We have to recognize that though the circumstances and

conflicts of the twentieth century are very different from

ours, nonetheless, one thing remains true in any time and for

all time: That if under attack, there is no choice but to

defend, with a vigour, determination and will, superior to

those attacking us. Our opponents today think we lack this

will. Indeed they are counting on it. They think that if they

make the struggle long enough and savage enough, we will

eventually lose heart, and our will fade. They are fanatics

but they have, unfortunately, the dedication that accompanies

fanaticism.

We cannot permit this to happen. Where we are confronted,

we confront. We stand up. And we do so for as long as it

takes. This ideology now has a nation, Iran, that seeks to

put itself at the head of extreme Islam. They need to know

what we say, we mean and, if necessary, will do. If we

exhibit this attitude, peace is more likely; because they

will not miscalculate or misread our character. But if they

think us weak, they will fight all the harder and risk all

the more.

They need to see our belief. We should not apologize for

our values, but wear them with pride, proclaim their virtues

loudly; show confidence; ridicule the notion that when people

choose freedom this is somehow provocation to terror; and do

so together, one alliance.

This struggle did not begin on September 11th 2001. It

isn't the fault of President Bush, of Israel, or of Western

policy. The idea that we suppress Muslims in the West is

utterly absurd. There is more religious freedom for Islam in

London than in many Muslim countries.

Madam President, I found his statement very convincing. I urge Senators to read it.

Exhibit 1

Speech by the Right Honorable Tony Blair

The transatlantic alliance is, of course, a product of

historical connection, culture, language and tradition. But

most of all it is an alliance of belief, of shared values, of

a common outlook not just about nations and their common

interest but about humanity and its common destiny. Out of

the travails of the twentieth century, the alliance drew its

history and its strength. In the fight against fascism, and

communism, it confronted and defeated totalitarian ideology.

Millions of our citizens died for the victory. Through their

sacrifice, we gained our freedom.

More than that, we came to a profound understanding about

what it is to be free. We realised through the pain and

suffering, the difference between deferring to those in power

and deciding who they are; between the rule of law and the

caprice of dictatorship; between the right to speak out and

the silence of the fearful.

Now with those twentieth century battles over, it is

tempting to think that this alliance has served its purpose.

But here is the important point about it. It was never, and

is not now, an alliance only of interests. It was and is an

alliance of conviction. We, in the West, don't own the idea

of freedom. We didn't fight for it because of the

happenstance of birth in Europe or America. It is there, in

the DNA of humankind. It is universal in nature and appeal.

We developed it but we didn't invent it.

Now is the time to stand up for it. If we want our values

to govern the twenty-first

century, we must combine hard and soft power. We must show

unhesitating resolution in the face of threats to our

security; and we must show that our values are indeed

universal, that they encompass not only freedom but justice,

and not for us alone but for the world as a whole. We must

show these values are global. And build alliances

accordingly, starting with the renewal of our own. And we

need to do it with energy and urgency. In the Middle East

this is time critical. We must act now.

Two things I now perceive more clearly than in office. The

first is: the fundamental shift of the centre of gravity,

politically and economically, to the East; to China and of

course India, but more broadly to the Middle and Far Eastern

nations.

This evening I will focus elsewhere, but suffice it to say

that we are still, in the West, not in the state of

comprehension or analysis we need to be, fully to grasp this

shift. China and India together will over the coming

decades industrialise on a scale, and at a pace, the world

has never seen before. In China especially, the

implications are huge. Whatever the present controversies,

a strong strategic relationship with it is vital; as it is

with India. We are so much better able to fashion the

terms of such a relationship if we do it in unison. That

alone would justify and re-justify our alliance.

This is a challenge of diplomacy and statesmanship of one

kind.

The other challenge arises from the security threat that

occupied so much of the last years of my premiership. Today,

as we meet, our armed forces face the prospect of a

continuing campaign in Afghanistan and Iraq. I hope one thing

unites us all. Whatever the debate about the decisions that

brought us to these countries, there should be no debate

about the magnificent and sustained heroism of our armed

forces. British and American troops and the forces of other

allied nations deserve our full support and our gratitude.

But this struggle is not limited to those fields of

conflict. Out in the Middle East, it is there in the

activities of Hezbollah in Lebanon, of Hamas in Palestine; it

is played out in the street of Arab opinion every day. It has

spread across the world. More than a score of nations have

suffered terror attacks in the last year, still more have

foiled them. They do not include only the usual list, but

Thailand, Nigeria, China itself.

In the Middle East, the ideology that drives the extremism

is not abating. The Annual Arab Public Opinion survey

published last week was not striking simply for its specific

findings--but for its overall picture. The basic ideological

thrust of the extremists has an impact way beyond the small

number of those prepared to engage in terror. In sum, it

shows an alarming number of people who buy the view that

Islam is under attack from the West; the leaders to support

are those like Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad who are perceived to

take on the West; and there is a contrast between Governments

and their people that is stark.

The extremism is a tiny minority activity; the ideas,

prejudices and sentiments that drive it, are not. The truth

is that the roots of this global ideology are deep, far

deeper than I first thought in the aftermath of September 11.

I believe the eventual outcome is not in doubt. But it is

possible, dangerously, to underestimate the size of this

challenge. And it is possible completely to misunderstand its

origins.

This global ideology is based on a total perversion of the

true faith of Islam. Its revolutionary rhetoric and

attachment to so-called liberation movements is a sham

designed to hide its profoundly reactionary and regressive

character. It is totalitarian in nature and compromising with

it will lead not to peace but to a ratcheting up of demands,

none of which are remotely tolerable.

But it plays cleverly on the insecurities and uncertainty

deep within Islam. It speaks to a sense that the reason for

its problems is not to be found within, but as victims of

outside aggression.

So today the issue hangs in the balance. The Middle East is

without doubt a region in transition; but in which direction

will it travel?

Like it or not, we are part of the struggle. Drawn into it,

Europe and America must hold together and hold firm. Not

simply for our own sake, but for that of our allies within

Islam. If we do not show heart, why should they?

If they don't see our resolve, how much more fragile is

theirs?

So how is this battle won?

We have to recognise that though the circumstances and

conflicts of the twentieth century are very different from

ours, nonetheless, one thing remains true in any time and for

all time: that if under attack, there is no choice but to

defend, with a vigour, determination and will, superior to

those attacking us. Our opponents today think we lack this

will. Indeed they are counting on it. They think that if they

make the struggle long enough and savage enough, we will

eventually lose heart, and our will fade. They are fanatics

but they have, unfortunately, the dedication that accompanies

fanaticism.

We cannot permit this to happen. Where we are confronted,

we confront. We stand up. And we do so for as long as it

takes. This ideology now has a nation, Iran, that seeks to

put itself at the head of extreme Islam. They need to know

what we say, we mean and, if necessary, will do.

If we exhibit this attitude, peace is more likely; because

they will not miscalculate or misread our character. But if

they think us weak, they will fight all the harder and risk

all the more.

They need to see our belief. We should not apologise for

our values, but wear them with pride, proclaim their virtues

loudly; show confidence; ridicule the notion that when people

choose freedom this is somehow provocation to terror; and do

so together, one alliance.

This struggle did not begin on September 11th, 2001. It

isn't the fault of George Bush, of Israel, or of Western

policy. The idea that we suppress Muslims in the West is

utterly absurd. There is more religious freedom for Islam in

London than in many Muslim countries.

You can argue about the rights and wrongs of the military

invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, but to allow for a single

instant that this action justifies not simply terrorism but

the idea that the West is innately hostile to Islam, only has

to be contemplated, rationally, momentarily, for its nonsense

to be manifest. We get rid of two brutal dictatorships; put

in place a U.N. led democratic process; plus billions of

dollars in aid: Where exactly is the hostility to Islam? And

the only reason our troops are forced to stay is because of

terror attacks carried out by this ideology in defiance of

the democratically expressed wishes of the Muslim people of

both countries.

And if it is hard and bloody, how bizarre to blame the

allied forces, there under a U.N. mandate and who are trying

to keep the peace, rather than those using terror to disturb

it.

Yet this paradigm that it is `our' fault that this terror

threat is with us, has infiltrated a large part of Middle

Eastern public opinion and actually influences significantly

a large part of our own. It has to be taken on.

And here is the good news. The same poll shows most Muslims

want peace. Most support a two-state solution in Israel and

Palestine. The modern minded rulers of the successful Arab

economies are also admired. People in Iran don't hate America

even if its leader does. Go beneath the surface and there are

allies out in the region and within Islam; people who believe

strongly in their faith, but know that the twenty-first

century is not about civilisations in combat but in alliance.

In other words people are open to persuasion.

And here is the point. To win this struggle, we must be

prepared to confront; but we must also be prepared to

persuade.

This is a battle that can take a military or security form.

But it can't be won by military or security means alone. It

is a baffle of ideas. To win, we must persuade people of what

we stand for and why; and we must do so in a way that answers

their concerns as well as our own.

We believe in freedom and democracy. We also believe in

justice. We believe in equality. We believe in a fair chance

for all, in opportunity that goes beyond an elite and

stretches down into the core of society. That, after all, is

the American dream; free not just in politics but free to

achieve, to fulfil your ambition by your own efforts and hard

work, to make something of yourself, to give your children a

better start than you had.

To win this battle, we must demonstrate these values too.

That is why the Middle East peace process matters. It is the

litmus test of our sincerity. We should not in any way dilute

our commitment to Israel's security. We simply have to show

equal commitment to justice for the Palestinians.

In the coming months, we have a chance to put it on a path

to peace. It will require Israel to do more to lift the

burden of occupation and give the Palestinians a sense that a

state is possible. It will require the Palestinians to do

more to get the robust capability on security to give the

Israelis a sense that a state is possible. It will require a

different and better strategy for Gaza. And it will require a

relentless, insistent focus on the issues, from the U.S. and

the international community, macro- and micro-managing it as

necessary, to get the job done. President Bush and Secretary

Rice have made that commitment. This can be done. It has to

be done. It is not optional. It is mandatory for success.

The origin of this extremism does not lie in this dispute;

but a major part of defeating it, lies in its resolution.

Then, wider than this, we have to work with the modern and

moderate voices within Islam to help them counter the

extremism and show how faith in Islam is supremely consistent

with engagement in the twenty first century, economically,

politically, and culturally. There is a vast amount of toil

and time and energy to be expended in building bridges,

educating each other about the other, creating the civic

and social networks of reconciliation.

I would go further still.

In Africa, we have a cause of justice which cries out to be

pursued; one that is, at the same time, a moral imperative

and a strategic investment; one that needs the attention of

East and West. In climate change, we have an issue that

demonstrates that justice is also part of the compact of

responsibility between this generation and those of the

future.

My argument is therefore this. The struggle can be won. But

it can only be won by a strategy big enough and comprehensive

enough to remove the roots as well as the branches. The

battle will, in the end, be won within Islam. But only if we

show that our values are theirs also.

The problem with so much of Western politics is that the

argument is posed as one between the advocates of hard power

and soft power, when the reality is, we need both.

This is where America and Europe, united, should act.

America has to reach out. Europe has to stand up. Not a

single one of the global challenges facing us today is more

easily capable of solution, if we are apart; if we let the

small irritants obscure the fundamental verities; if we allow

ourselves to be assailed by doubt about the value of our

partnership, rather than affirm, albeit self-critically, its

strengths.

We need now a powerful revival of our alliance. In the

world so rapidly changing around us, we cannot take a narrow

view of our interests or a short-sighted view of our destiny.

We can't afford to take fright at these changes and go back

into isolationism. We can't avoid the challenges. But we can

master them. Together.

The transatlantic partnership was never just the foundation

of our security. It was the foundation of our way of life. It

was forged in experience of the most bitter and anguished

kind.

Out of it came a new Europe, a new world order, a new

consensus as to how life should be lived.

Today times are different. Every era is different. What is

necessary is to distinguish between what endures for one time

and what endures for all time.

In our history, we discovered the values that endure. We

learnt what really matters and what is worth fighting for.

And we learnt it together.

Today, the challenge to those values is different. But it

is no less real. Our propensity to avow those values will

shape the way the twenty first century is governed. Will

these values become, as they should be, universal values,

open over time to all human beings everywhere; or will they

be falsely seen as the product of a bygone age? That is the

question. It is fundamental. It is urgent. It is our duty to

answer it.

I wish to address another matter, as I have a moment. I understand there is no time limit now; is that correct?

Madam President, before the Senate now is a bill, the Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007. It is a very important piece of legislation. It would expand a series of benefits to our veterans, including traumatic injury insurance, adapted housing grants, and burial allowances. As a veteran, I am delighted this bill is here, and I am pleased the Senate has invoked cloture so we may debate it and find a way to reach an accommodation on it with those who may find some fault with it or some matter they may wish to try to change.

What I wish to address is the provisions for the Filipino veterans legislation. In this part of this bill, as far as I am concerned, we are talking about honor, the honor of the United States. In 1941, on July 26, President Franklin Roosevelt ordered all military forces of the Philippines into the service of the United States to fight the Japanese. They were a province of the United States at that time. They were not an independent nation right then. The President had the power to do that. He, in fact, conscripted all men 18 years of age and over into their military. He took them all, and they fought, they fought hard, they fought almost to the death as, really, I think any American knows who knows about the Long March and Corregidor and what it meant in terms of the time these people delayed the Japanese so we could find a way to rearm this Nation and find a way to eventually overthrow the threats of tyranny that existed as manifested in the attack of Japan on December 7, 1941.

After the war, these people were recognized as veterans by our U.S. Veterans' Administration. All of the Filipinos who went into the services were entitled to full VA benefits. In 1946, Congress changed that. They said that those veterans who came to the United States would get full benefits of being in the military service but those who stayed in the Philippines would not.

I think to deal with this you have to think about the fact that there were 470,000 Filipino World War II veterans still alive after the war. Millions died. Millions died in defense of our country. Yet here, today, there are 18,000 veterans still alive.

My distinguished friend from Hawaii, who is chairman of our Defense Subcommittee, and I went to the Philippines recently and visited with some of them. I am the oldest Member of the Senate on my side. My good friend is, I think, the second oldest on his side of the Senate. We found ourselves junior to these people who are still there. Those men who fought over there, who are still with us now, are very much in need of our help. They deserve what this bill would give them.

This benefit that this bill would extend to them is one-third the amount they would have received had they come to this country. That is what was intended to give them in the first place--one-third--taking into account really the cost of living and various other aspects of their life in the Philippines. They would get the benefits, one-third of the amount they would receive if they came to this country. If they came to this country, they would have been entitled to the veterans' benefits, to the GI bill, to all of the other benefits we gave the veterans after World War II.

Do you know why Congress gave that to those veterans? Because there were too many men seeking a job. They had to take the 16 million of us who survived and spread us out over the economy. They did so by giving us benefits--training as a pilot, we could build our own home and get the money to do that, we could go to school through the GI bill. These people thought they had that right, too, but Congress cut it off in 1946.

These people, who are the survivors now of that almost half-million people who survived as veterans, Filipino veterans of World War II, and who stayed in that country, those 18,000, have asked us for help, to finally be recognized once again for what they did.

The cost is really minimal. The Senate will hear all kinds of estimates on the amount. But 18,000 people--the youngest age involved is 82. They are just not going to be with us that long. Anyone who gives you some estimate of billions of dollars that it is going to cost to take care of these people and give them what they were entitled to long ago--I think it is overestimating it.

Again, I come back to my point. It is a matter of honor, the honor of the United States is at stake.

These people put on our uniform, wore our uniform, fought with our comrades, almost to the death, all the way to Corregidor, and the survivors were denied what they should have had.

If they came to the United States, they had the right to become citizens automatically. But if they stayed with their families and tried to reconstruct their country, we denied them that right, even though by staying at home they would have gotten one-third. If they got to come over here and be citizens they would have the benefits. There were no GI bills over there. If they came over here as citizens, became citizens, they had the full range of benefits.

Now, I do not get excited too many times on this floor. This one, this bill, excites me. There are very few of us left from World War II. When I came to the Senate, almost every person who was a Member had served in World War II. There are five of us left now. I hope the Senate will listen to the five of us because we are united. We say this is a wrong that has to be rectified. We urge the Senate not to change this bill, to support the bill that has been introduced by the distinguished Senator from Hawaii and his colleague with my cosponsorship.

Mr. President, on this vote, I have a pair with the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd. If he were present and voting, he would vote ``yea.'' I withhold my vote, which is ``nay.''

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) is necessarily absent.

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?