Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today out of concern for the Western United States. The Rocky Mountain West is currently facing a very real threat to one of its most rare and precious resources. Out West there are few things more important than water, and it is this very important and increasingly needed resource that is in peril. This threat was in part brought upon us by a scourge barely larger than my finger tip, the bark beetle. This devious little devil has chewed its way through nearly 7,500,000 trees in Colorado. The beetle left these drought weakened trees dead and dying. This threat is exacerbated by the additional 6,300,000 acres of hazardous fuels that have accumulated throughout Colorado.

This devastation is concerning enough on its own, but when you consider the fire danger that it has created, and the direct threat that a catastrophic fire would pose to our watersheds, the true weight of this situation becomes clear. Much of the precipitation that falls into the forests ultimately finds its way into streams, ponds, rivers and lakes. Changes to forested lands caused by fire can have strong and devastating repercussions on the quality and quantity of water in these bodies. A forest fire is one big chemical reaction which releases a myriad of chemical elements from forest materials into the ecosystem. These chemicals can be washed or leach into our water systems. Forest fires can cause immediate and lasting changes to the chemistry of forest water systems, this happens as a result of increases in water temperature and from the smoke and ash created during the burning process. These effects can last long after the flames have passed, effecting water quality for years after the initial fire.

Colorado should be called ``the Headwaters State,'' because it is the origin point of major rivers flowing both east and west and the source of a vast amount of the water of the United States. In fact the Colorado Rocky Mountains create the headwaters for 4 regional watersheds that eventually supply water to 19 Western States. Should the streams and rivers flowing out of Colorado become choked and polluted with ash and debris from a forest fire much of the United States' water supply would be affected.

The Federal agencies that manage the majority of the affected areas need to adopt an accelerated pace to reduce the public health and safety risk as soon as possible. To address this I am introducing The Headwater Protection and Restoration Act today that would work to help alleviate the pending threat to our Nation's water supply. My legislation takes into consideration the desperate need to create healthy forests in the lands around our Nation's water supply. This bill will not only help provide relief from this threat in the short term, but will help to create the necessary infrastructure to ensure that it does not happen again. It will give us a long term solution to this desperate problem. This would be achieved through steady, judicious, and effective forest management over time. This displays a much better and more cost effective strategy than dealing with the management of catastrophic events under emergency circumstances. Today we find ourselves poised in a position to take steps to help avert this potential disaster before it starts. It is my hope that I will be joined by my colleagues here in the Senate to act swiftly on my legislation before it is too late.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to respond to some of the comments that were just made by my colleague from Massachusetts. I want to start off by saying that I have been very supportive of the President on the war in Iraq because he has had a plan and he has stayed the course. That is what gives me confidence in the President. I think it is what gives confidence to many American people. They understand that he has made a strong commitment in Iraq to stick with the Iraqi people, and he has confidence in those people. Even though the political winds are twirling around, he has been able to ignore those and move forward. He is showing success. Sometimes it is not as great as we would like to see or as dramatic, but I think what we see today in the criticism of the President is individuals who are being spun in the political winds, unlike the President.

When my colleague from Massachusetts calls the strategy of today counterproductive and says we ought to pull out our forces immediately from Iraq, that is a catastrophic suggestion. It is not anything that we should consider very seriously. It wasn't that long ago when my colleague from Massachusetts was saying that it would be a disaster and a disgraceful betrayal of principle to speed up the process and simply lay the groundwork for expedient withdrawal of American troops, which would risk the hijacking of Iraq by former terrorist groups and former Baathists. This quote was in the runup to the 2004 election.

So we see some being spun in the political winds, while the President remains strong, forceful. The President truly is a leader in a very difficult situation in Iraq. That is why I feel so very committed to supporting the President. You cannot deny the fact that this President truly wants to see democracy survive in Iraq, and he truly believes in the Iraqi people.

Contrary to criticism coming from the other side of the aisle, he does have a plan, and he is sticking to that plan.

As we move through various phases of the President's plan, we have seen that criticism has changed from the other side. I think they criticize just for the sake of criticism, trying to get the President off course. But to his credit, he has stayed the course. I think that is commendable. That is what helps make him a strong and effective President.

I want to make this point: Al-Qaida is still a threat in Iraq, but we are making significant advances there. I have to base that on discussions I have had with troops that have come freshly out of Iraq. They all believe they are indeed improving our situation in Iraq. They think they are making a difference in Iraqi lives, and they truly believe the Iraqi people they associate with appreciate what is happening and appreciate their efforts.

There is a statewide elected official in Colorado, Mike Coffman, who has returned from Iraq. His mission was to help set up local governments throughout Iraq. We found in our military forces that we didn't have that expertise. And Mike, who is in the Reserves, could make a difference in Iraq. The military said: We need you, Mike Coffman, to help set up these local governments. He spent almost a year in Iraq helping set up local governments and the story he has to tell is one of progress in Iraq, that the people in Iraq are truly moving forward and trying to set up their local governments. He thinks that our soldiers are making a difference.

Not for one moment has he expressed any regrets in having taken a year out of his political life in Colorado to go to Iraq and make a difference in Iraqi lives and help support the President and the plan he has for stabilizing Iraq and a gradual withdrawal.

This is the point: my colleague from Massachusetts seemed to have learned the lessons of 9/11 when he warned against a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq in the past, but as the political winds have changed, he seems to have forgotten those lessons anew. Republicans will never forget the lessons of 9/11 and will continue to support the President's efforts to bring peace and stability to Iraq.

I am supporting the President because he is staying the course. He has a plan in Iraq. He is putting the plan to work. I think that in the long run he is going to make a difference. We are going to have a better world because of his efforts. We are going to have a more stable Middle East, and this President will truly go down in history as a great leader.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, in light of the fact that we have those who are calling for the immediate withdrawal from Iraq, I think we ought to sit back and look at what has happened in Operation Iraqi Freedom for the last 3 years. We have made remarkable progress in Iraq in the last 3 years.

On March 19, 2003, the United States and coalition forces launched Operation Iraqi Freedom. At that time, life in Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was marked by brutality and fear and terror. Iraqis had no voice in their country or their lives. Saddam devastated Iraq, wrecked its economy, ruined and plundered its infrastructure, and destroyed its human capital.

Let's look at what is happening today. Iraq has a democratically elected government. The reign of a dictator has been replaced by a democratically elected government, operating under one of the most progressive constitutions in the Arab world. Millions of Iraqis have joined the political process over the past year alone. Today, Saddam Hussein is facing justice in an Iraqi court.

The Iraqi people are holding Saddam accountable for his crimes and atrocities. I believe the next year will bring a consolidation of these gains, helping a new government stabilize and build a solid foundation for democracy and increased economic growth.

Iraq's elected leaders are diligently working to form a government that will represent all the Iraqi people. As the Iraqi Government comes together and Iraqi security forces improve their readiness, efforts to stabilize the nation will increasingly be Iraqi-led.

I point out that securing a lasting victory in Iraq will make America safer, more secure, and stronger--make it safer by depriving terrorists of a safe haven from which they can plan and launch attacks against the United States and American interests overseas; more secure by facilitating reform in a region that has been a source of violence and depriving terrorist control over a hub of the world's economy; stronger by demonstrating to our friends and enemies the reliability of U.S. power, the strength of our commitment to our friends, and the tenacity of resolve against our enemies.

Despite progress, the situation on the ground is tense. As al-Qaida's actions show, terrorists want to impose a dictatorial government on the Iraqi people. The coalition is united in support of the Iraqi people in helping them win their struggle for freedom. The terrorists know they lack the military strength to challenge Iraqi and coalition forces directly, so their only hope is to try to provoke a civil war and create despair.

The President's national security for victory in Iraq has three tracks. I would like to go over those briefly. They are a political track, a security track, and an economic track, and I would add that all three tracks are progressing.

On the political track, many are participating in Iraq's political process. Iraqis completed two successful nationwide elections and a national constitutional referendum in 2005. Each successive election experienced less violence, bigger voter turnout, and broader political participation. On December 15, more than 75 percent of the Iraqi voting-age population participated in the election for a new government--an increase of more than 3 million voters over the January election.

I will talk a little bit about the security track.

Iraqi security forces are increasingly in the lead. Three years ago, under Saddam Hussein's rule, the Iraqi Army was an instrument of repression. Today, an all-volunteer Iraqi security force is taking increasing responsibility for protecting the Iraqi people.

Iraqi security forces are growing in number and assuming a larger role. More than 240,000 Iraqi security forces have been trained and equipped. Over 112,000 Iraqi soldiers, sailors, and airmen have now been trained and equipped. More than 87,000 police have been trained and equipped. These police work alongside over 40,000 other Ministry of Interior forces.

Additional Iraqi battalions are conducting operations. Last fall, there were over 120 Iraqi Army and police combat battalions in the fight against the enemy, and 40 of those were taking the lead in the fight. Today, the number of battalions in the fight has increased to more than 130, with more than 60 taking the lead.

Let's briefly look at the economic track.

Iraq's economy is recovering, and the Iraqi people have better access to essential services. In 2005, the Iraqi economy grew an estimated 2.6 percent in real terms, and the International Monetary Fund has estimated it will grow by more than 10 percent in 2006.

Mr. President, 3.1 million Iraqis enjoy improved access to clean water, and 5.1 million have improved access to sewage treatment. More than 30 percent of Iraq's schools have been rehabilitated, and more than 36,000 teachers have been trained.

This is what our American soldiers in Iraq have helped accomplish for the Iraqi people and for America. We should be proud and thankful for their willingness to step forward for freedom. Freedom does work. It works for America, and I believe it will work for Iraq. The solution is not a hasty retreat; the solution is to carry on with the President's plan for victory.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I also have been working on a terrorist visa amendment. I call up that amendment, No. 3216, for consideration.

I am very disappointed we cannot get that amendment up. I have been working now for some time to get that amendment to move forward. It is an amendment I filed last week. It is a simple, commonsense amendment that denies visas to advocates of terrorism. Yesterday morning, I came to the Senate to speak on that amendment and asked for a vote.

Now, more than 24 hours later, we have still not had a vote on my simple, 14-line amendment. It is just one example of the Democrats continued obstruction of well intentioned efforts to debate and make improvements to the immigration bill.

Put simply, the Democrats are denying me a vote on my proposal to deny visas to terrorists. Any Democrat who says this is anything other than partisan obstructionism are themselves in denial.

To demonstrate the height to which this obstructionism has risen, I am again going to explain what my amendment does and how simple it really is.

My amendment is so simple, in fact, that it adds only 6 words to the entire Immigration and Nationality Act. And half of those are the word ``or.'' The other three are ``advocate,'' ``advocates,'' and ``advocated.''

These 6 words are narrowly targeted to address a loophole in our current visa system that is evidenced by the following statement:

Colleagues, believe it or not, this a heading from our very own Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual. The same Foreign Affairs Manual issued to the Department's 25,000 employees located in more than 250 posts or missions worldwide.

Even more alarmingly, this is from the chapter that instructs our consular officers to whom visas should be issued. Visas are, of course, the ticket that foreigners, including terrorists, need to enter the

Mr. President, I understand negotiations are going on between the leadership in both parties, and my understanding is the methamphetamine amendment may very well be included in a managers' amendment and we will not have to be necessarily voting on that particular amendment.

There is a second amendment, though, that is very important we do bring up for a vote. I know this is also being discussed by the leadership. That is the one which states that advocates of terrorism be denied a visa.

I have two amendments. My hope is we can get that particular amendment up for a vote. It is the one I just recently asked for a vote on and was denied by your side. But I also understand the leadership on both sides are negotiating. I understand they are negotiating seriously. So I appreciate the fact it is being considered.

Yes.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for indicating support for that. I just think we need to go and get more specific language in the bill that we will be considering and, hopefully, will be reported off the floor of the Senate. I am just trying to address that.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have an amendment I am ready to offer, and I would like to speak to that amendment. So the way the agreement is being put together now, I will be expected not to offer that amendment until after we have had more discussion between both sides; is that correct?

That will work out fine for me.

Mr. President, in this debate on immigration reform, there are three basic goals I have in mind. No. 1, and foremost, I want us to seal our borders. I wish to see us identify the illegal aliens we have in this country. We don't know for sure how many are in this country. We hear a lot of numbers thrown out. Originally it was 8 to 10 million and now it seems the common number being thrown around is 11 million. But when you get right down to it, nobody knows how many illegal immigrants we have in this country. We need to identify those individuals to help reach some reasonable conclusions.

The third goal is to do it in a manner that does not disrupt our economy.

And, finally, I don't believe we should have amnesty.

I have a couple of amendments I am going to be presenting to the Senate. The first amendment is an attempt to put together a plan. We direct the agencies to come together with a plan on how they are going to manage immigration, both from a diplomatic point of view as well as from a border immigration point of view. That particular amendment I hope will be accepted as a managers' amendment. I don't expect it to be controversial.

The other amendment I will talk about this morning I hope to call up later today for a vote. That is amendment numbered 3216. I will not call it up this morning, but I will debate it in the Senate and describe the amendment as to what it does.

I rise today to share with my colleagues six words I believe will be as surprising to others as to me. Those words are ``advocacy of terrorism not always exclusionary.''

Am I reading these from a terrorist handbook? No. Am I reading them from the United States law passed by the Congress and signed by the President? Most certainly not. Am I reading it from a how-to book on exploiting loopholes in the United States visa system? I may as well be.

Colleagues, believe it or not, I am reading from our very own Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual. The same Foreign Affairs Manual issued to the Department's 25,000 employees located in more than 250 posts worldwide. Even more alarming, this is from the chapter that instructs our consular officers to whom visas should be issued.

Visas are, of course, the ticket foreigners, including terrorists, need to enter the United States. This instruction says to the consular officer deciding whether to issue a visa that they need not deny a visa to an individual who advocates terrorism. I, for one, cannot imagine a more pertinent ground for denial. If advocacy of terrorism is not grounds for exclusion, then I don't know what is.

Not only am I concerned about the message this sends to our dedicated consular officers, I am just as concerned about the message this sends to terrorists. It says to them, feel free to lay the groundwork for an attack at home, apply for a visa, and come to America to finish the job. This is not the message the United States should be conveying to terrorists. This Congress has already passed important legislation denying visas to terrorists, including in the PATRIOT and REAL ID Acts. The REAL ID Act, signed into law on May 11, 2005, specifically states one who endorses or espouses terrorist activity is inadmissible. The REAL ID Act became public law on May 11 of last year, 8 days after publication of this manual. Yet today, more than 10 months later, the State Department is still instructing its consular offices that advocacy of terrorism may not be a ground for exclusion.

Certainly, the State Department needs to send a message that we in Congress are serious about securing our borders and particularly serious about preventing known advocates of terrorism, people who are most likely to wish harm to our country, from entering into the United States. Admittance to the United States is a privilege; it is not a right. My amendment says if you advocate terrorism, you lose the privilege of coming to the United States, recognizing, of course, that special circumstances under which someone who meets these criteria may nonetheless need to be admitted. My amendment does nothing to change the authority of the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security in consultation with the Attorney General to waive an individual's inadmissibility when they deem it in the interest of the United States.

I will urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this amendment that slams the door shut on the face of advocates of terrorism who seek to cross the borders into our country.

Mr. President, I am honored to recognize the University of Colorado--CU--ski team for claiming their 17th national ski championship title at the 53rd Annual NCAA Championship. I am also extremely proud that the CU ski team has been invited to participate in the National Student-Athlete Day activities at the White House on April 6. This is an incredible honor for these young athletes, their coaches, their parents, and the University of Colorado.

The CU ski team overcame insurmountable odds to claim their 17th national ski championship. This year's ski team was the first team in U.S. history to win the national title without a full 12-skier team. This year's team broke and set the largest comeback record in NCAA ski team history--winning the title after being ranked sixth following the first full day of competition. Battling injury, illness, and an underdog status, the CU ski team went on to claim a national victory with a 98-point lead--the fourth largest margin of victory in NCAA ski team history. CU team skiers also claimed four individual titles and eight All-American honors. These team members deserve national recognition for their focus, determination, and spirit.

It is this team's spirit, leadership, and record of achievement that will be honored by President Bush on National Student-Athlete Day, this April 6th. The CU ski team is being honored for their excellence in academics and athletics as well as for their contributions to their community. National Student-Athlete Day also represents an opportunity to recognize the parents, teachers, and coaches who have helped mold and challenge these outstanding student-athletes. This honor is representative of the University of Colorado under the outstanding leadership and commitment of University president Hank Brown, CU athletic director Mike Bohn, and Colorado ski team head coach Richard Rokos. Due to the talent, dedication, and leadership of the CU athletes, coaches, and university leadership, the University of Colorado is back on top of the collegiate skiing world.

Congratulations to the University of Colorado, the ski team, the coaches, and the community that has supported this team throughout this winning, landmark season.

On behalf of the State of Colorado, I am proud to honor and commemorate the University of Colorado's ski team and request that my colleagues join me in paying tribute to the University of Colorado and these outstanding young men and women.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 4, 2006, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``A Current Assessment of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Threats and Countermeasures.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 4, 2006, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Reform of FHA's Title I Manufactured Housing Loan Programs.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, April 4, 2006, at 10 a.m. on TSA.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, April 4, 2006, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Preparing Your Taxes: How Costly Is It?''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 4, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on International Operations and Terrorism be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 4, 2006, at 10 a.m., hold a closed briefing on Counterterrorism Priorities.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 4, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to continue to received testimony on health benefits and programs in review of the Defense authorized request for fiscal year 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 4, 2006, at 3:30 p.m., in open session to received testimony on the posture of the U.S. transportation command in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2007 and future years defense program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 4, 2006, at 10 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on missile defense programs in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2007.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the work of a good friend of mine and a distinguished public servant, Secretary of Interior Gale Norton. Today is her final day as Secretary of Interior. I am certain that her presence in that position will be missed.

Secretary Norton hails from my home State of Colorado where she built a reputation as a hardworking conservationist and public servant. In Colorado she served as the State's attorney general where she represented the State before the Supreme Court on several occasions. But arguing cases before the Supreme Court wasn't challenging enough for Gale, so when asked by President Bush to be the first female to head the Department of Interior she wholeheartedly agreed.

Throughout her time at Interior she employed a commonsense approach and an understanding of Western issues which has proven to be an asset to the agency and the Nation. It is vital to have someone who appreciates Western issues as Secretary of Interior. This understanding is so crucial because, on average, 52 percent of the land mass in the 13 Western States is federally owned, while the average for the rest of the Nation is 4 percent.

Secretary Norton has guided Interior through one of the most challenging periods in the Department's history with an enthusiasm, confidence, and expertise that will be difficult to match.

She saw the Department through some of the most devastating fire seasons in recent history, and in response

to this was charged with implementing one of the most important natural resource laws ever enacted, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. The benefits of this legislation and her actions are already being seen on the ground on public land throughout the Nation.

Secretary Norton also recognized the importance of domestic energy production before many others; her legacy will help decrease our dependence on foreign energy sources. This understanding of energy needs was priceless as she worked with Congress on the most comprehensive energy reform legislation in decades.

She also worked tirelessly to improve the efficiency of DOI, reducing duplicative measures and cutting bureaucracy while improving citizen satisfaction with the Department.

She excelled at pushing issues on a national level, but was also instrumental in several projects which are closer to my heart as they are located in Colorado.

Secretary Norton helped with the creation of our Nation's newest national park, The Great Sand Dunes National Park in Colorado. She also helped to create the largest Wildlife Refuge in Colorado, the 92,500 acre Baca National Wildlife Refuge.

Secretary Norton worked to help take the Rocky Mountain Arsenal and Rocky Flats and transform them from national defense sites to wildlife refuges.

As Gale steps down I am somewhat saddened. Her moving on signals the closing of one of the most productive chapters in the Department of Interior's history. But I am excited to see what new endeavors she will take on. In these new adventures I have no doubt that she will meet challenges head on and find the same success that she has seen as Secretary of Interior. I wish Secretary Norton all of the best in her new adventures. Thank you, Gale, for all your hard work.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes under Republican time.

Mr. President, today, I intend to offer an amendment to the immigration reform bill. This amendment aims to bolster our efforts to stop the illegal flow of methamphetamine across our borders.

Colorado, as well as the Nation, must deal with the epidemic of methamphetamine. In just 10 years, methamphetamine has become America's worst drug problem, worse than marijuana, cocaine, or heroin.

In the Senate, we have passed comprehensive legislation to combat methamphetamine. However, I believe this initiative can be improved by concentrating our efforts to expedite an effective plan to tackle methamphetamine that is smuggled across our borders.

Methamphetamine is a dangerous drug. The Mesa County Meth Task Force, in my home State, notes that methamphetamine is highly addictive, cheap, widely available, easier to make than LSD, and therefore more attractive to users. The number of users is increasing, and more methamphetamine is starting to come across our borders and into our States.

Colorado has been particularly hard hit by methamphetamine trafficking. Numerous local task forces, police departments, as well as the Drug Enforcement Agency, report that the availability of crystal methamphetamine has increased throughout Colorado. In recent years, Colorado has seen a significant increase in the amount of methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana being imported, stored, and distributed in the area. The use and abuse of this drug has spread because of the availability of high-quality imported methamphetamine.

According to the DEA, the Drug Enforcement Agency, over half of the methamphetamine available in Colorado is manufactured abroad and trafficked across our borders illegally. The Colorado Drug Investigators Association agrees, stating that most of the methamphetamine available in Colorado is produced abroad or comes from large-scale laboratories in California. In recent years, the potency of methamphetamine produced in other countries has risen dramatically.

The Department of Justice cites that domestic methamphetamine production is decreasing. National Clandestine Laboratory Seizure System numbers demonstrate that the number of reported methamphetamine laboratory seizures is on the decline. In fact, Colorado lab seizures from 2003 to 2004 fell by more than half.

However, methamphetamine availability within our borders is not likely to decline because of increased production outside of U.S. borders. Production abroad has offset recent declines in domestic production. Foreign sources of methamphetamine appear to be increasing domestic supplies.

According to estimates from the DEA, an alarming two-thirds of the methamphetamine used in the United States comes from larger labs, increasingly abroad, while only one-third of the methamphetamine consumed in the country comes from the small laboratories.

The methamphetamine production abroad is dependent on a steady supply of ingredients from other foreign sources. These producers are able to secure large quantities of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine from sources in other countries which export massive quantities of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine and increase means of production. These foreign laboratories are often termed as ``super labs.'' They are able to produce more than 10 pounds a day of highly pure methamphetamine. These labs then traffic their product into our country.

According to the National Drug Intelligence Center, the transportation of methamphetamine from abroad is increasing, as evidenced by increasing seizures along our borders. The amount of methamphetamine seized at or between U.S. border ports of entry increased more than 75 percent overall from 2002 to 2004. The sharp increase in methamphetamine seizures at or between U.S. border ports of entry reflects increased methamphetamine production abroad.

Methamphetamine has been a leading drug threat in Western States since the

early 1990s. The studies from the Department of Justice show that the trafficking and abuse of this drug have gradually expanded eastward with time. Methamphetamine now impacts every region of the country and is increasingly prevalent within the Northeast region. Without a sensible and timely effort, methamphetamine trafficking will continue to spread eastward and eventually encompass the entire United States.

Colorado is not just a hot spot for the distribution of methamphetamine. Often drug traffickers pass through Colorado on their way to other States. The majority of the methamphetamine that is distributed outside the Rocky Mountain region is destined for States generally to the north and east, such as Montana, the Dakotas, Nebraska, and as far away as Illinois.

The trafficking of methamphetamine across our country threatens the safety of communities. As distribution spreads, addiction will grow. Methamphetamine addicts are increasingly involved in violent crimes. The Mesa County Meth Task Force notes that methamphetamine-related crime ranges from auto theft, burglary, to murder. Methamphetamine users are unreasonable, erratic, and capable of causing great harm not only to themselves but others. We simply must protect our families and communities from violence.

We must recognize the immediacy of this issue and be able to curb the flow of methamphetamine into the United States. It is important that we protect U.S. borders to ensure national security and the safety of our communities. Therefore, I propose that we speed up our efforts to curb the flow of methamphetamine through our borders. We must have a formal plan that outlines the diplomatic, law enforcement, and other procedures the Federal Government will implement to reduce the amount of methamphetamine being trafficked in the United States.

The main thrust of my amendment takes a swift approach to fulfilling requirements for the international regulation of precursor chemicals as outlined in the PATRIOT Act. We must press upon the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security the immediate need for a firm plan of action. It is imperative that such a plan include, at a minimum, a specific timeline to reduce the inflow of methamphetamine into the United States.

There must be a tough standard for keeping excessive amounts of pseudoephedrine products out of the hands of methamphetamine traffickers. We must outline a specific plan to engage the top five exporters of methamphetamine precursor chemicals, such as pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine.

Also, we must be prepared to be able to address funding needs to secure our borders, ports of entry, and other methamphetamine- trafficking windows that are currently being exploited by drug traffickers. These controls are critical to help law enforcement officials eliminate the flow of methamphetamine into our communities. This plan calls for a detailed funding request that outlines what, if any, additional appropriations are needed to secure our borders.

My amendment requires the administration to deliver a plan within 90 days of the enactment of this act. This amendment also calls for a Government Accountability Office report to ensure that our Government is fulfilling its obligation to combat methamphetamine.

Our Nation has been hard hit by the illegal trafficking of methamphetamine across U.S. soil. This is a national issue which is growing at a rate that is outpacing our law enforcement officials. Through our work on the Combat Meth Act, we have provided them with the necessities to fight methamphetamine. Now we must be vigilant and establish a responsive plan of action.

In conclusion, I thank State Representative Josh Penry and State Senator Ken Kester from Colorado for working with me on this issue and for their efforts to combat the horrific issue of methamphetamine in Colorado.

I intend to offer this amendment later today. I ask my colleagues to join me in my effort to stop the illegal trafficking of methamphetamine and all dangerous drugs at the border.

I yield to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. President, will the Senator from Hawaii restate that unanimous consent request? He just yielded himself 10 minutes? I have no objection.

Mr. President, I wonder if I might take a few moments to speak in opposition, if it is all right with the Senator from Washington, and then also there are a couple of other housekeeping issues I would like to deal with.

No. 1, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time on the Burns amendment on both sides be yielded back. I have checked with the other side, and they agreed.

Second, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Mikulski be added as a cosponsor to the Burns amendment.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Akaka amendment. The reason I do is I am supporting the Burns amendment primarily because it negates the need for the fee proposals in the President's budget and increases funding for research. The President already provides an 11-percent increase from the fiscal year 2006 level, and over the years from 2001 it is a 69-percent increase. There may be some increased needs as we move through the next budget year for veterans. If that happens, then I see no problem with us going ahead, and the Senate historically has always been more willing to put that money in an emergency supplemental.

The concern I have with the Akaka amendment is that it increases taxes. There were a number of amendments that were offered--and I assume they will be offered on the floor--in the Budget Committee that raise taxes to take care of this program or that program. The point I would make is that the tax reductions we did a number of years back have served this economy well, and when you allow the economy to grow, then all these programs are going to benefit indirectly because you increase revenues to the Federal Government. I would like to elaborate on that just a little bit before the Senator from Washington makes her statement.

If I might just talk a little bit about some of the comments made by the other side, in particular Senator Conrad, as to what happens when we cut those taxes, reduced those taxes known as the President's economic growth package. It was predicted that when we would do that we would reduce employment. Senator Conrad noted for the record that the President has ``put us on a fiscal course that means lower employment.'' In reality, employment went up as reflected in this chart. He predicted that there would be ``a raise in interest rates,'' that the Republican budget would ``raise equilibrium real interest rates.'' That is Senator Conrad, again, in the Congressional Record.

In reality, interest rates have stayed down. The statement was made that ``the economic growth package will crowd out private sector investment.'' Again, the comments were proven wrong by what happened to our economy. We see here that the private business investment surges.

Then, the ``determining the economic growth'' comment that was made by Senator Conrad, again in the Congressional Record, that ``the budget will undermine potential gross domestic product and hurt economic growth,'' we see right here that we sustained economic growth.

So the bottom line is that when we cut taxes, we help the economy. So I think it is bad to try to increase taxes at a time when our economy is doing so well. That is the objection I have to the Akaka amendment.

I sympathize with him in making sure that we have enough money to take care of our veterans, particularly at a time when we are in conflicts. But I also need to make sure we have some accountability as far as taxpayer dollars are concerned, how they are spent. I think the President has been very generous with the 11-percent increase he is advocating from 2006 to 2007. He does that without increasing taxes. He has found a source of funding which negates the fees that were proposed in the President's budget a lot of us would just as soon not be there.

So I find myself supporting the Burns amendment and opposing the Akaka amendment pretty much based on tax issues that are in those two amendments. I just think this would be the wrong time to increase taxes, when it would have just the opposite effect of the tax cut we implemented a few years back.

So I just wanted to make that point. I think on this side you are going to find that we all support veterans. I can't recall a year when we haven't given substantial increases to veterans. But we also need to have some accountability in this process, and I think we restore that through the Burns amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Senator Vitter has asked to be added as a cosponsor to the Burns amendment.

Mr. President, I do not have any further speakers on this side of the aisle. I don't know whether Senator Akaka has any further speakers on his side or whether he is willing to yield back some time.

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

Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to comment on the trip that President Bush recently made to my home State of Colorado. The President visited several sites that are involved with furthering renewable energy. One of those sites included the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, or NREL as it is often called, in Golden, CO. Due to previous commitments, I was unable to join the President during his trip, but I want to thank him for visiting there, and thank him for the commitments he has made to the lab and to renewable energy.

NREL is on the cutting edge in bringing renewable energy technologies out of the laboratory and into the mainstream of American business and society. Although America has rivals in many Asian and European nations in investing in the development of these technologies, NREL deserves credit for many wonderful accomplishments.

In recognition of these accomplishments, I have, during my tenure in Congress, led a coalition to push for sufficient funding for both the Department of Energy's renewables budget and NREL. Earmarks have created problems for our national laboratories throughout the United States. The President has addressed the problem, and I am working to prevent this in the future.

The environmental benefits of renewable energy are well noted and widely praised. Not only are renewable sources of energy beneficial to our national security, but they reduce greenhouse gas emissions and decrease demands for other energy resources.

Wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, photovoltaic and other renewable energies have few if any harmful byproducts. It is simply good policy to do all we can to effectively harness and utilize the natural, clean, reusable sources of energy that are abundant all around us.

However we should also be looking at energy efficient technologies. There is a saying that energy saved is like extra

energy made. I think it is important that we continue investing in research and development of renewable energy and energy efficient technologies. Further developing these technologies is a win-win solution in every sense. Jobs are created, taxpayer money is saved, our national security is enhanced, and the environment is protected.

For example, a hog farm near Lamar, CO, is seeing both economic and environmental benefits from converting to a renewable energy source that they have in abundance. The farm was built with an anaerobic digester, which is fueled by hog waste, and uses its methane as a fuel to supply power to the farm operations. An example of how increased efficiency saves money comes from Harmony Library in Fort Collins, CO. The library is considered to be a showcase for state-of-the-art, energy-efficient technologies and building design. They are projected to use about 40 percent less energy than a comparable new building in Fort Collins. They estimate that this will save nearly $12,000 in annual operation costs. The library will be able to use these savings to increase stock and provide additional library services.

Renewable and efficient technologies are an important part of a balanced domestic energy portfolio, and our energy future and national security will be enriched by the technologies being developed and perfected today. We must maintain our commitment to funding the research and development that will bring those technologies to the market. The future of our security and prosperity depends on the commitments we make today.

I would also like to remind my colleagues of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus within the Senate. The caucus works to keep Members informed about issues important to the renewables and efficiency communities. We currently have 36 members, but we would like to have more.

I also want to thank the President again for his sincere interest in solar and biofuels. The visit to NREL by President Bush and his staff is appreciated by those of us who have been advocating a role in our energy policy for renewable energy. I will continue to work with the administration and my colleagues on the issues facing renewable energy resources.

Mr. President, I take a moment to recognize Senator Salazar, who just read Washington's Farewell Address to the people of the United States. This is an honor that is bestowed alternately between Republicans and Democrats on alternate years. By his selection to deliver Washington's Farewell Address, we are all very proud. We feel, by honoring him, you honor the people of Colorado. We thank the leadership in the Congress for bestowing that honor on my colleague from Colorado, as well as the people of Colorado.

Mr. President, I received a letter from the director, legislative liaison of the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, on behalf of the Air Force Chief of Staff. He called to my attention an essay that was written by a fourth class cadet at the U.S. Air Force Academy. His name is Joseph R. Tomczak. I was moved by this essay to the point that I want to take my time this morning to read it to Members of the Senate because it articulates, in a very succinct way, why our young people today look to the Armed Forces as a career, and why they make the decisions they do to fight for freedom and to fight for this country.

We all greatly respect all people who take the time to serve in our Armed Forces, whether it is during a short enlistment period or they make it their lifetime career. This essay is well stated, and I think not only does it speak as to why a cadet would decide to serve in one of our academies--in this case, it happens to be the Air Force Academy--but it gives us insight as to why people would pick the Armed Forces to serve in during part of their adult lifetime or why they would dedicate their entire life to a career in the U.S. Armed Forces.

So here is the essay. It is titled, ``Winter Break.''

So after our sunburns have faded and the memories of our

winter break have been reduced to pictures we've pinned on

our desk boards, and once again we've exchanged t-shirts and

swim suits for flight suits and camouflage, there still

remains the question that every cadet at the U.S. Air Force

Academy in Colorado Springs has asked themselves at some

point: Why did we come back? Why, after spending two weeks

with our family would we return to one of the most demanding

lifestyles in the country? After listening to our friends who

are home from State or Ivy League schools chock full of

wisdom about how our war in Iraq is unjust and unworldly, why

would we return? And after watching the news and reading the

papers which only seem to condemn the military's every

mistake and shadow every victory, why would we continue to

think it is worth the sacrifice of a normal college life?

Is it because the institution to which we belong is

tuition-free? Anyone who claims this has forgotten that we

will, by the time we graduate, repay the U.S. taxpayer many

times over. in blood, sweat, and tears. Is it because the

schooling we are receiving is one of the best undergraduate

educations in the country? While the quality of the education

is second to none, anyone who provides this as a main reason

has lost sight of the awesome responsibility that awaits

those who are tough enough to graduate and become

commissioned officers in the U.S. Air Force.

I come back to the academy because I want to have the

training necessary so that one day I'll have the incredible

responsibility of leading the sons and daughters of America

in combat. These men and women will never ask about my

academy grade point average, their only concern will be that

I have the ability to lead them expertly--I will be humbled

to earn their respect.

I come back to the academy because I want to be the

commander who saves lives by negotiating with Arab leaders .

. . in their own language. I come back to the academy

because, if called upon, I want to be the pilot who flies

half way around the world with 3 mid-air refuelings to send a

bomb from 30,000 feet into a basement housing the enemy . . .

through a ventilation shaft 2 feet wide. For becoming an

officer in today's modem Air Force is so much more than just

command; it is being a diplomat, a strategist, a

communicator, a moral compass, but always a warrior first.

I come back to the Air Force Academy because right now the

U.S. is fighting a global war that is an away game in Iraq--

taking the fight to the terrorists. And whether or not we

think the terrorists were in Iraq before our invasion, they

are unquestionably there now. And if there is any doubt as to

whether this is a global war, just ask the people in Amman,

in London, in Madrid, in Casablanca, in Riyadh, and in Bali.

This war must remain an away game because we have seen what

happens when it becomes a home game. . . I come back to the

academy because I want to be a part of that fight. I come

back to the academy because I don't want my vacationing

family to board a bus in Paris that gets blown away by

someone who thinks that it would be a good idea to convert

the Western world to Islam. I come back to the academy

because I don't want the woman I love to be the one who dials

her frantic cell phone call while huddled in the back of an

airliner with 100 other people seconds away from slamming

into the Capitol building. I come back to the academy because

during my freshman year of high school I sat in a geometry

class and watched nineteen terrorists change the course of

history live on television. For the first time, every class

currently at a U.S. Service Academy made the decision to join

after the 2001 terror attacks. Some have said that the U.S.

invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan only created more

terrorists. . . I say that the attacks of September 11th,

2001 created an untold number of American soldiers; I go to

school with 4,000 of them.--And that's worth missing more

than a few frat parties.

That essay has been submitted by Joseph R. Tomczak, cadet fourth class, U.S. Air Force Academy.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to take just a moment to say a few words in support of the President's intelligence program and associate myself with the comments that have been made both by the Senator from Georgia as well as the Senator from Kentucky. They focused a lot on the legal arguments, but I thought perhaps I would approach this from what is best for the security of this country and how the American people are reacting to the President's intelligence program. I will have to base my observations on town meetings I have recently held in Colorado. I had several town meetings. I think they help me better understand the issues of importance to my constituents, and I think my constituents in Colorado are a cross-section, pretty much, of the United States.

Interestingly enough, the top issues facing most Coloradans at those town meetings had to do with the war in Iraq, whether we should be in the conflict or not; the Federal deficit--we had a lot of discussion about getting the debt in order, getting the deficit in order--and obviously, because we are a cold weather State, there was a lot of talk about the cost of energy and our continued reliance on foreign energy resources.

The National Security Agency surveillance program was not a top issue. Indeed, it was hardly mentioned. This tells me a couple of things. First, it tells me that Coloradans are not particularly alarmed by the use of those tools that seem to be used by the President which are creating so much objection from the other side of the aisle. I think most Coloradans view this as just a commonsense thing. They know it is important to national security and we have to conduct such a program. They understand that we need to protect this country. I think they understand this Nation is at war. It is at war with terrorism. And I think they are beginning to understand, as I am beginning to understand, that this didn't start with 9/11, it started in the 1990s-- maybe even as far back as 1979 when we began to have terrorist attacks on embassies and ships and

planes and various symbols of prosperity in the Western World. Unfortunately, it took a devastating attack such as 9/11 for us to really begin to realize that this war is a war to the finish.

In the 9/11 attack there were more people killed than at Pearl Harbor. This was a serious assault on America. It was an attack on America. We began to realize that al-Qaida is not interested in talking about peace. As a group of extremists, they are not interested in conducting diplomatic relations. They don't want to compromise. They are fanatics who only want to kill, maim, and destroy.

Al-Qaida is a very sophisticated enemy that operates in dozens of countries, including the United States. They have global reach, as seen by their bombings in London, Madrid, and Jordan. This organization works clandestinely, in the shadows, and is very hard to track much less to stop. Most Americans realize that. We have been fortunate that we have not been attacked again since September 11. We all know those attacks could come at any time, but that does not make these attacks inevitable. These terrorists can be stopped. We have the tools at our disposal that we can and must use to defeat al-Qaida. The President's use of the National Security Agency program has to be one of those.

Let's be clear. The President promised after September 11 that he would direct every resource at his command--whether it is diplomatic, intelligence, or military tools--to disrupt and defeat the global network of terror. Americans all over stood up and praised him for stepping forward. The media praised him for stepping forward because we all realized this was unprecedented in American history, and it could not be ignored. It had to be addressed immediately.

The terrorist surveillance program is a very important tool in that effort. The program is narrowly focused. It only targets communications when one party is outside the United States and the reasonable information suggests that at least one party is a member of al-Qaida or an affiliated terrorist group. This program is not being used to listen in on communications of innocent Americans. Those people who want to put a slant against this program, they call it a domestic program. It is not a domestic spy program. It is an extension of our information gathering outside the borders of the United States. It just so happens that we have people in the United States who have aligned themselves with those terrorist groups to harm American citizens.

I think most Americans understand that if they want to have a secure home, if they want to have security for their families, these individuals have to be followed and we have to do what we can to prevent these catastrophic, terrorist-driven events from occurring.

The President takes full responsibility for moving forward. He even mentioned it in his State of the Union Address. But he has done it in a responsible way. He has followed the reauthorization process every 45 days to ensure that innocent Americans are not being targeted and that the program is working successfully. Republican and Democratic leaders of the Congress have been briefed on this program more than a dozen times since 2001, and no Member of Congress, Republican or Democrat, expressed any concern about this program until it was reported publicly in the press last December.

Here is a problem that this brings up: so many times reports about these intelligence programs, when they come out in the press, are wrong. I have served on the Intelligence Committee. I have taken the opportunity to be briefed on these intelligence programs. But most of what shows up in the press out there is wrong. Those of us who really know the story and would respond cannot respond because in the process of response you may actually validate the fact that it is an intelligence program--which you don't want al-Qaida or the terrorists to know. And the other thing is, if you respond to those accusations that are made in those news articles that are wrong, you have to bring out the facts which just fully discloses what our intelligence program is. With full disclosure, then you tip off the terrorists as to what we are up to.

I think it has been reported time and time again in the testimony before our committees that it is hurting our intelligence program. We are not gathering the information that we were gathering before because, in effect, the terrorists have simply shut down because they have realized what has happened and what our capabilities are in gathering this intelligence. At times, with disclosure of some of these intelligence programs, we have actually had Americans who are in the process of collecting information die as a result--perhaps individuals overseas who are acting on behalf of the United States.

We need to protect this tool because we all know that the enemy listens. They have not stopped their intelligence gathering and would love nothing better than for us to begin a discussion about the operational aspects of these sensitive programs. Compounding this difficulty is the fact that many of the press reports, according to Attorney General Gonzales, have in almost every case--and he confirms what I just said--been misinformed, inaccurate, or just outright wrong.

I support the President. I believe it is a responsible tool to use in the war against terrorism. If we do not use it, we are going to lose our ability to secure the homes of Americans. I think most Americans understand that. We must use these tools provided by law to combat our continued threat. We cannot sit and hope that terrorists will not attack us again.

We should not play into the hands of the terrorists. We now see the danger in front of us. We see what must be done. We simply must go out and do it and do it in a responsible way. The President's intelligence- gathering program is effective and it is responsible to support him if we want to have security for our families and our homes.

I yield the floor.

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