Floor Statements

Mr. President, as the U.S. Senate gets started for the second legislative session of the 109th Congress, I would like to take this opportunity and concentrate our attention on the milestones achieved in the global war on terror and take a look at the road ahead.

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, we and many others in the international community have been united in our effort to defeat terrorism wherever it has taken hold in the world. September 11 proved without a doubt that a network of extremists preaching hate and oppression were determined to cause our Nation great harm. It is clear these extremists were and continue to be committed to nothing less than the total destruction of our Nation and our way of life. This network of terrorism is embedded in many countries. It has penetrated hard working communities, valued institutions of education, and sacred places of worship.

As in any previous world conflicts, the global war on terror cannot be successfully prosecuted without extensive cooperation of the members of the international community. Given the potential catastrophic consequences of terrorist attacks, President Bush worked with our international partners and allies to identify terrorist networks, reduce their ability to communicate and coordinate their plans, and disrupt attacks before they occur.

With America in the lead, a full scale international campaign began in 2001. A total of 136 countries, including members of the European Union, Russia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Australia, countries of Asia and Africa provided and, in many instances, still continue to provide a range of intelligence and/or military assistance. As a result of this unprecedented multilateral cooperation, we have been able to kill or capture more than one half of the known al Qaida leaders and prevent possible terrorist attacks both in the U.S. and abroad.

Despite the many difficulties in this war, our Nation has not retreated nor walked away in the face of adversity. We sought out terrorists, cut off their funding, and disrupted their plans. Under the steadfast leadership of President Bush our country has taken the battle to the enemy and achieved significant successes.

In October 2001, the coalition forces launched a military campaign against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The regime was successfully removed from power and all known al Qaida training camps were destroyed.

With the help from the international community, the people of Afghanistan, many for the first time in the history of their nation, tasted the initial seeds of freedom. Let me pause here for a second. For the first time in history millions of people in Afghanistan are now able to express their opinions without a fear of retribution or punishment.

After several national elections, the people of Afghanistan adopted a new constitution, elected a president and held successful parliamentary elections. Efforts to revitalize Afghanistan's economy and education system have already produced significant results. Agricultural production, which is a way of life for 70 percent of Afghanistan's people, has nearly doubled. New roads are being built. Teachers are being trained and an increasing number of people, including women, have access to education.

Afghanistan was devastated by decades of war and neglect and is now being turned into a young democracy that will be an example to others in the troubled region.

A year after September 11, the President challenged the United Nations to confront another protector of terror: Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein failed to comply with more than a dozen of United Nations Security Council resolutions and he gave every appearance of continuing to hide large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

Based on Saddam's reported weapons of mass destruction and support for terrorism, Iraq represented a dangerous nexus that the international community could no longer ignore. President Bush bravely made the decision to liberate Iraq from the most brutal regime in the country's history and plant the seeds of freedom in the land that had only known decades of tyranny and oppression.

It is clear today that the terrorists view Iraq as the major battleground against the coalition forces, against the rule of law, and against peace and prosperity. During the last 2 years they have tried to derail the democratic process and threatened to kill those participating in it. Undeterred, the majority of the Iraqi people have bravely ignored this threat and joined the emerging Iraqi political process.

By the millions, Iraqis lined up to choose a transitional government that

drafted the most democratic constitution in the Arab world. By the millions, Iraqis approved that constitution in a national referendum. And by the millions, Iraqis elected a new Iraqi government under the Iraqi-written constitution for the Iraqi people. Let there be no doubt about it: the establishment of a meaningful political process and lasting democratic institutions will decide Iraq's future.

We can be proud of the fact that each national vote in Iraq has experienced less violence and produced bigger and broader voter turnout. President Bush put it best when he stated:

In all three aspects of our strategy--democracy, security

and reconstruction--we are learning from our experiences, and

we are fixing what hasn't worked. . . . we have witnessed a

transformation in Iraq that is virtually without precedent.

Iraqi security forces continue to show improvements in defending their fellow countrymen. In October of last year, Iraqi police and army personnel secured polling sites around the country, quickly suppressing any incidents of violence.

Growing in size and strength, Iraqi military units have become more capable and able to defend their country's emerging democracy. Today, Iraqi security battalions have assumed control over entire sectors of Iraq. These accomplishments demonstrate the willingness of Iraqis to stand up to insurgents and protect their fellow countrymen. Iraqis are gradually taking over the frontline in defense of their communities.

With each Iraqi soldier trained and equipped to carry out the mission, Iraq draws closer to being able to stand on its own and protect its own freedom.

A free society cannot exist without an independent and impartial judicial system. With slow but steady progress on all fronts, the Iraqi people are carefully building one of the country's most important institutions: its judiciary. With the help from the international community, the Iraqi people have begun the trial of one of the most brutal dictators in history, Saddam Hussein. Although none of Hussein's victims had a luxury of due process, the new Iraqi government decided to adhere to the highest standard of the rule of law and allowed its former dictator to stand trial by his peers.

None of these successes would have been possible if not for the sacrifice of America's finest men and women in uniform. Their pride, patriotism and perseverance have been the deciding factor on the battlefields far away from home. They have answered the call of duty in a noble but difficult task. Some have made the ultimate sacrifice. Their families will always be in our thoughts and prayers. We should honor their lives by defeating the terrorists.

The successful strategy for prosecuting the global war on terror set forth by President Bush is steadily moving forward. The road ahead will require additional sacrifice from America's leaders, members of the military and the American people. We must continue to unite behind our Commander-In-Chief, make the necessary adjustments, and move forward on the path of complete victory. The Global War on Terror demands nothing less.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 7, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., to receive testimony from combatant commanders on their military strategy and operational requirements, in review of the Defense Authorization Request for fiscal year 2007 and the Future Years Defense Program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, February 7, 2006, at 10 a.m., on Net Neutrality.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, February 7, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., on Nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, February 7, 2006, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``The President's Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Proposal.'' The following witness is scheduled to testify: The Honorable John W. Snow, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 at 2 p.m., to hold a hearing on

Mr President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial Nominations'' on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 at 4 p.m., in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Panel I: The Honorable Luis G. Fortuno, United States Representative, Puerto Rico, Resident Commissioner.

Panel II: Timothy C. Batten, Sr. to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia, Thomas E. Johnston to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia, Leo Maury Gordon to be a Judge of the United States Court of the International Trade, Aida M. Delgado Colon to be United States District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security be authorized to meet on Tuesday, February 7, 2006, at 3 p.m., for a field hearing regarding ``Federal Agencies and Conference Spending.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 7, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on contracting issues in Iraq, in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2007 and the future years Defense program.

Mr. President, I would like to say a few words on behalf of Dr. Bernanke. But before I do, I would like to state for the record what a great pleasure it has been to work with Dr. Greenspan. It was an honor to have had the opportunity to hear his testimony in committee and to work with him on public policy issues. I wish him well as he moves on to other endeavors. The country is forever grateful for his service as Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

I had an opportunity to sit down and visit with Dr. Bernanke. I was impressed not only with him personally but also with the conversation we had and his record. He is going to bring a lot to the Fed. I join the chairman of the Banking Committee in support of Dr. Bernanke.

Dr. Bernanke is known for his tough stance on fighting inflation. Many expect that Dr. Bernanke's views on interest rates will be similar to Dr.

Greenspan's because of his stance on controlling accelerating inflation with interest rate hikes. When I had a chance to visit with him, he stressed the importance of communication and transparency. As Chairman of the Federal Reserve, that is going to be a big part of his responsibilities.

He argued that the final say on debts and deficits lies with the President and the Congress. I couldn't agree more that we need to do more to control deficit spending and the debts we have accumulated over the years. Dr. Bernanke shared with me that his first priority will be to maintain continuity with the policies and strategies established during the Greenspan years.

We have to recognize Dr. Bernanke for what he has already contributed. He is one of the world's leading experts on the subject of how central banks, such as the Fed, should set interest rates and cause the money supply to expand or contract. The combination of Dr. Bernanke's academia, intellect, and his work for and with the Fed will greatly facilitate his transition as the new chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Wall Street and the investment world seemed to like the nomination of Dr. Bernanke as the new Chairman of the Federal Reserve. The Dow Jones Industrial was up some 169.78 points. It was the biggest 1-day point percentage gain since last April. So the response from Wall Street has been good.

Dr. Bernanke spent 20 years at Princeton as a professor of economics and public affairs. He also served as the chairman of Princeton University's economic department. Before being appointed to the President's Council of Economic Advisors, he served as a Governor of the Federal Reserve. His current and past positions have groomed Dr. Bernanke and serve as an apprenticeship to succeed Chairman Greenspan.

Dr. Bernanke was widely considered one of the leading candidates to replace Dr. Greenspan as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. I was glad to see the President make his appointment, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Dr. Bernanke as Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, my time to speak is not until 6:15. Since there is nobody else in the Chamber, I will proceed to speak on the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of Judge Samuel Alito, President Bush's nominee as Associate Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judge Alito has the experience, intellect, temperament, and integrity required of a Supreme Court Justice.

He has more judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in 70 years. In his 15 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Judge Alito participated in over 1,500 cases and authored more than 350 opinions.

Prior to becoming a Federal appellate judge, Judge Alito established a record as a tough Federal prosecutor while serving as the U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey.

As the State's top Federal law enforcement official, Judge Alito oversaw the prosecutions of drug traffickers, terrorists, and organized crime figures. He also cracked down on perpetrators of environmental crimes, creating a new position of Environmental Crimes Coordinator.

Prior to being unanimously confirmed twice by the U.S. Senate, Judge Alito proved himself to be an effective advocate on behalf of the United States while serving in the Office of the Solicitor General. There, Judge Alito participated in more than 250 cases, arguing 12 before the Supreme Court.

In sum, Judge Alito has served as a judge on one of the Nation's highest courts, as the top Federal prosecutor in one of the Nation's largest Federal districts, and as an advocate for the United States in the Office of the Solicitor General. His 30 years of public service spans the full breadth of the law.

Judge Alito is unarguably a highly qualified nominee. However, I told the citizens of Colorado that I would also evaluate judicial nominees on their judicial philosophy and commitment to the rule of law.

Specifically, I pledged to support judges who rule on the law and facts before them--not judges who attempt to legislate from the bench. Judge Alito's judicial philosophy corresponds with that promise.

Judge Alito recognizes the limited role of the Federal judiciary, having observed that ``although the judiciary has a very important role to play, it's a limited role. . . . It should always be asking itself whether it is straying over the bounds, whether it's invading the authority of the legislature, for example, whether it is making policy judgments rather than interpreting the law.''

Like his view of the limited role of the judicial branch, Judge Alito also recognizes the limits on the powers of the executive branch. Speaking on his understanding of the ``unitary Executive,'' Judge Alito explained, ``the idea of the unitary Executive is that the President should be able to control the executive branch. . . . [I]t goes just to the question of control. It doesn't go to the question of scope.''

Further, Judge Alito recognizes that ``[n]o person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law, and no person in this country is beneath the law.'' This statement reflects his commitment to a principle so fundamental to justice in this country that it is carved in stone over the entrance to the Supreme Court: ``Equal justice under law.''

Consistent with the principle of equal justice under law, Judge Alito does not

allow his personal opinion to decide the outcome of a case. He says ``[a] judge can't have any agenda. . . . The judge's only obligation-- and it's a solemn obligation--is to the rule of law, and what that means is that in every single case, the judge has to do what the law requires.''

I believe that each of my colleagues would agree that judges should be held to this standard. Yet, at the same time, some criticize Judge Alito's record for living up to it.

For example, in Doe v. Groody Judge Alito argued in dissent that a search warrant authorized law enforcement officials to search everyone inside a drug dealer's house, including the wife and daughter. Even though he personally ``share[d] the majority's visceral dislike of the intrusive search,'' Judge Alito's unwavering commitment to the rule of law led him to do what he believed the law required, despite his personal beliefs on the outcome.

In sum, Judge Alito will serve as an effective steward of the law and Constitution. His record evidences a deep respect for the separation of powers and other fundamental principles envisioned by our Founding Fathers. I have no reason to believe Judge Alito will be deferential to anyone or anything other than the law and the facts before him.

As a representative of Colorado, I also appreciate the uniqueness of the issues important to our State and the West. The departure of Justice O'Connor and Chief Justice Rehnquist marks the loss of a Western presence on the Supreme Court.

Earlier this year, I asked President Bush to nominate a judge who could capably decide issues important to Colorado and the West, such as water and resource law.

When I asked Judge Alito about his understanding of Western resource and water law, I was pleased to learn that he grew to appreciate the importance and complexity of these issues while working in the U.S. Solicitor General's Office. He assured me that he understands the uniqueness to the West of such issues as water rights, the environment, and public lands.

In conversing with Judge Alito, I couldn't help but be reminded of my meeting with now Chief Justice Roberts. Judge Alito is a man of great restraint, delivering thoughtful, careful, and thorough responses to my many questions--a further reflection of his view of the limited role of a judge.

Although America was already aware of Judge Alito's distinguished record, the Judiciary Committee hearings were helpful in shedding additional light on his character, temperament, and integrity, particularly in trying circumstances.

During the nearly 18 hours of questioning, Judge Alito was both open and candid. He answered 97 percent of the nearly 700 questions that were asked of him, declining to answer only 3 percent. By comparison, Justice Ginsburg declined to answer 20 percent of questions. Justice Ginsburg received 96 votes in favor of her confirmation.

Throughout the course of the demanding process, Judge Alito demonstrated great patience, humility, and respect--all attributes of a temperament desirable for a Supreme Court justice.

The hearings were also an opportunity for Judge Alito to set the record straight on scurrilous attempts to impugn his integrity. Laid to rest is the claim that he acted improperly by participating in a case involving Vanguard, his mutual fund company. Shares in Vanguard mutual funds are not an ownership interest in the Vanguard company, and Judge Alito had no legal or ethical obligation to recuse himself. His ultimate decision to do so--beyond what the law requires--should be praised, not attacked.

These and other attacks are nothing but thinly veiled attempts to distract from the impeccable record of a highly qualified nominee.

Judge Alito's jurisprudence and integrity have been praised by major newspapers, legal scholars, former law clerks, and colleagues from both sides of the aisle.

The American Bar Association unanimously awarded Judge Alito its highest rating of ``well qualified.'' The ABA's stated criteria for evaluating nominees are ``integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament.''

The judges with whom he has served on the Third Circuit offer their praise. Judge Tim Lewis, a former Clinton appointee, commended Judge Alito for his role in discrimination cases. Judge Lewis, testifying in support of Judge Alito, said that ``if I believed that Sam Alito might be hostile to civil rights as a member of the United States Supreme Court, I guarantee you that I would not be sitting here today.''

Major newspapers across the State of Colorado, including both the Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Post, offer their praise for Judge Alito.'''

The Rocky Mountain News says that Judge Alito ``personifies judicial restraint'' and ``deserves confirmation. . . . He has refused to elevate his ideology above the rule of law while showing deference to the crucial but limited role the Founders envisioned for federal judges.''

Commenting on the temptation for Democratic Senators to cave to the demands of ``left-wing interest groups [who] portray Alito as someone who should be under house arrest, rather than an accomplished nominee with a distinguished resume,'' the Rocky Mountain News points out that ``Senate Democrats have an opportunity to rise above the muck'' concluding that ``Samuel Alito should be confirmed.''

I ask unanimous consent to have the January 9, 2006 Rocky Mountain News editorial printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Colorado's other major newspaper, the Denver Post, proclaims that there is ``no reason to block [the] Senate's Alito vote . . .'' On the threat of a Democrat filibuster, the Denver Post says ``we don't believe the arguments against Alito merit a filibuster. . . . Alito has served capably on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for 15 years, and his confirmation should rise or fall on a majority vote.''

I ask unanimous consent that the January 17, 2006, Denver Post editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to see that these Colorado publications join me in recognizing that Judge Alito is the type of judge that Coloradans--and all Americans--deserve.

In conclusion, Judge Alito is one of the most qualified judicial nominees ever. He is deeply committed to the rule of law, he recognizes the limited role of the judiciary, and he has the judicial temperament fitting of a Supreme Court justice.

The Senate debate should reflect that the job of a judge is to review cases impartially, not to advocate issues. Judges should be evaluated on their qualifications, judicial philosophy, and respect for the rule of law.

It would be unfortunate and irresponsible for any of my Senate colleagues to continue to politicize the judicial confirmation process. Judge Alito is eminently qualified, and he deserves a swift up-or-down vote.

I intend to vote in favor of Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation as the 110th Justice to the United States Supreme Court and I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same.

I believe that Judge Alito will not be an activist judge and supports limits on the judiciary.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from attorney William Banta in which he discusses judicial independence, judicial activism, and judicial usurpation, now referred to by many of us as just judicial activism.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

I rise today to speak in review of the first session of this 109th Congress. I have served in the Congress since 1991, and I can say without exaggeration that this year has been the single most productive year I have participated in. As I will detail, we have passed numerous significant legislative items, some of which have languished in Congress for many years. We have stayed a determined course in the global war on terror, maintaining our commitment to our troops and to those eager to adopt a democratic way of life in place of tyranny. We have stayed a proven course to reduce the tax burden on Americans and on American business. Economic indicators in the markets, home ownership data, and employment all illustrate the wisdom of this course. This Congress has shown a very real commitment to principle. While there are those in this body and in the media who would like to deny it,

I am confident that this session of Congress will go down in history as singularly productive and representative of the will of the people.

The list of significant legislative items passed and signed into law this year is extensive. We got off on the right foot by passing a budget resolution out of the Senate on March 17, and the Congress adopted the budget conference report on April 28. This is amazingly early when compared to the struggles we have encountered in recent years. The Budget, as I have said many times before, is a vital blueprint for our work and a responsibility we must assume to serve the taxpayers. I am a member of the Senate Budget Committee and a former member of the House Budget Committee, and I am pleased to say that our chairman in the Senate has been as efficient and principled an advocate for good budgeting policy as I have ever worked with.

In previous years, we have also struggled to complete our work on appropriations legislation. The House, where appropriations measures are to originate, reported every single appropriations bill out of committee by June 21. The Senate passed every bill before October 27. Today, as we wrap up a few remaining issues, all but the Defense and Labor-HHS bills have been signed into law, but it is important to note that these bills were passed by the Senate in October. The leadership on both sides of the Capitol and the members of the various appropriations subcommittees certainly deserve accolades for making such quick work of these difficult legislative items.

Congress passed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act authorizing more than $286 billion of investment in our national infrastructure. The Congress also took a major step forward this year by passing a comprehensive energy policy. A comprehensive energy policy will help America meet long-term demands for energy. This policy will encourage greater domestic production, fuel diversity, research and development of new energy technologies, and an across-the-board improvement of energy infrastructure. One piece of this forward-looking policy includes the Oil Shale Development Act, which I worked on with my colleagues. This has been a prominent issue for years, but we have made the right policy decision, and it is one that will benefit millions of Americans in the decades to come. This year, Congress also addressed the energy needs of low-income families by increasing funds for the Low Income Heating Assistance Program, LIHEAP. Increased funding for this program will help those in need as winter grows more cold.

The work we have done on energy and transportation represents historic commitments to the public good. Virtually no aspect of our economic prosperity is unaffected by our fortunes in transportation and energy, and I am pleased to have been a part of these policy achievements.

After years of opposition that cost consumers untold millions, Congress finally passed the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, the first major revision to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code since 1978. This law will save approximately $3 billion a year for consumers through lower interest rates and better products and services. Consumers will further benefit from The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and the Class Action Fairness Act. The former puts an end to the frivolous lawsuits that sought to financially drain lawful firearms manufacturers for the acts of criminals, and the latter curbs abuses in our courts that have driven costs for consumers up without benefitting the public. Frivolous lawsuits forced the firearms industry to spend nearly $200 million a year to defend itself from third-party actions and class action lawsuits had grown over 1,000 percent nationwide. Lawyers were getting rich while consumers suffered. These two bills represent a major accomplishment for both consumers and American business. We also passed the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Implementation Act which will benefit American business, consumers, and our neighbors in this hemisphere.

I would like to highlight another recent achievement of this administration and of this Congress that we celebrated this week when the first shipment of U.S. beef since December 2003 arrived in Japan. As my colleagues know the Japan Government recently declared that U.S. beef is every bit as safe as Japanese beef and that the beef trade may resume. This is a tribute to sound science, the hard work of our beef producers, and the diligent work of policymakers. It is with some pride that I note the first shipment of beef to be shipped to Japan was sent from Denver, CO.

In addition to these notable and historically significant accomplishments, the Congress has also passed a more humble pair of consumer-friendly items in the Junk Fax Prevention Act and The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act. These aren't the kinds of bills that the Washington, DC, crowd may see as being vital national issues, but these are issues felt deeply by our constituents and the small business community.

It cannot be overstated that these policies have fostered continued economic growth and prosperity. More than 56,000 jobs were created in our economy in October this year, and more than 4.2 million jobs have been created sine May 2003. Unemployment continues to steadily decline as more Americans than ever are working. This is a remarkable feat by policymakers, investors, small businesspeople, and families across the country. Our economy is strong.

Congress continued the national commitment to our men and women in uniform in a variety of ways this year. Though we await completion on the Department of Defense appropriations bill, we have already passed into law more than $80 billion for the further prosecution of the war in Iraq, the reconstruction of Afghanistan, and aid for our international partners. We have increased the pay of our service men and women with an across-the-board 3.1 percent raise, increased housing allowances, increased bonuses for additional retention and recruiting, and increased specific bonuses for those deployed overseas. We have also increased the maximum life insurance allowed for an insured veteran or service member and secured more than $140 million for body armor and personal protection.

I am particularly pleased with the steps we have taken to support our troops. Too often policymakers talk the talk without regard to action. It is my hope that we will continue to be responsive and supportive of our troops. The people of the United States are grateful for their dedication and courage. We tackled important veterans health issues this year, as well, by passing the Veterans Medical Services Supplemental. This legislation provided $1.5 billion to meet our commitment to those who have served our Nation.

The same Defense supplemental appropriations bill included almost a billion dollars in aid for those impacted by the tsunami in the Indian Ocean almost a year ago, including more than $650 million for the Recovery and Reconstruction Fund.

Though not a legislative accomplishment, this would be a good time to mention the tremendous yield we have seen from the years of work by this administration, the military, and Congress. This year started with Parliamentary elections in Iraq to democratically select those responsible for drafting the framework of a free Iraq. In October, the Iraqi people approved their new constitution, and the mechanisms of democracy are still working. In Afghanistan, after many years of turmoil, we also witnessed the free election of a Prime Minister and of the new Parliament. We must stay this course.

In the past year, we have also enacted a series of legislative proposals to provide relief to families in the gulf region. The unprecedented impact of Hurricane Katrina demanded an immediate response. The Gulf Coast Emergency Water Infrastructure Assistance Act, The Community Disaster Loan Act, The Natural Disaster Student Aid Fairness Act, Pell Grant Hurricane and Disaster Relief Act, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Emergency Response and Recovery Act, and Katrina Tax Relief Act, among others, put us on the road to recovery. The pair of emergency supplemental appropriations bills that Congress passed total well over $65 billion and have provided needed infrastructure, security,

and humanitarian relief. While there is a great deal of work to be done in the Gulf States, Congress has and will continue to demonstrate an ongoing commitment to this region.

Congress also engaged in one of the most important debates we could hope to have as far as our national security is concerned, that of enhancing the security of our borders. This year's Homeland Security Appropriations Act provides unprecedented funding to protect our borders from those who wish to enter illegally. This year we passed more than $31 billion in new budget authority for the Department of Homeland Security, increasing border security accounts, providing an additional 1,000 border patrol agents, and providing more 220 detention beds.

Among the most high-profile issues of the year were the nominations, hearings, and thus far one confirmation for the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only did the Senate confirm John Roberts to the Court, but Justice Roberts was also named to be the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. In the time since Chief Justice Roberts came before the Senate, we have also worked through a pair of nominations, one of which we will take up as our first order of business in the new year. The Roberts nomination demonstrated the value of our system and all of its various parts, working together for a greater good. I look forward to the timely hearings on Judge Alito's nomination and an up-or-down vote on his nomination.

This has been an amazing year of accomplishment for the Congress. As I said earlier, there has not been a more productive year in my time here. As proud as I am of these many accomplishments I would also like to discuss a few accomplishments a little closer to my home, the State of Colorado, where we have had a pretty big year, as well.

One of the ongoing projects I have worked on for many years now is the cleanup of Rocky Flats. This year, we secured more than $560 million for the final stages of the cleanup. Contrary to what many may expect, this cleanup was completed ahead of time and below projected costs, serving both the region and the taxpayer by cleaning up this facility.

Another long-term project that I have worked on is the destruction of chemical weapons at the Pueblo Depot. By working with the Department of Defense, we have increased funding and maintained good management principles to meet our treaty obligations in the destruction of more than three-quarters of a million chemical weapons on site.

Just down the road from Pueblo is Fort Carson. I recently held a town meeting at Fort Carson to discuss a variety of issues important to that base and to that community, including the political process that accompanies BRAC. We secured more than $120 million in military construction funds for new barracks and training at the facility as well as securing funds to prevent encroachment at the base. Even further on up the road is another jewel in America's military infrastructure, the U.S. Air Force Academy. Our ongoing efforts to assess progress and address problems at the Academy have been very productive thus far, and we secured $18 million to upgrade academic facilities and family housing this year. It is with some pleasure that I can also say I attended all four board of visitor meetings at the academy this year.

This has also been a year of accomplishment for Colorado's space industry. This year we added $60 million for military satellite projects in Colorado, secured $12 million for the space control facility at Peterson Air Force Base, and $6 million for the space warning facility in Greeley. In keeping with these efforts to modernize and expand our posture in space I held four Space Power Caucus events. Space is indeed a great frontier, and it is one where we must maintain an aggressive stance. Just as it is important that the military sector be moving forward in space, it is equally vital that our workforce and our students learn about space science and perform cutting-edge research. This year we secured more than $10,000,000 for student space programs at the University of Colorado, Colorado State University, the Challenger Learning Center, and the Space Foundation. The students who will benefit from these programs are our future.

Students in my home State will likewise benefit from our continued support of the University of Colorado's Center for Micro and Nano- technology, which will receive three-quarters of a million dollars for cutting edge scientific research that dwells on the cutting edge. Congress has seen fit to support Colorado State University's Pueblo campus, as well, providing $250,000 for the Western Forensic Law Enforcement Training Center.

I spoke earlier of the importance of the highway bill and its impact on our Nation's infrastructure. In Colorado, this will translate in to a variety of projects. We secured $80,000,000 for the T-Rex highway improvement program, $5 million for the west corridor, and $9 million for the Colorado Association of Transit Agencies, a statewide coalition of agencies focused on the future of mass transit in my home State. Our successful year of investment in infrastructure includes a variety of projects around the State, including projects such as the Rio Grande bike trail in Garfield County, funding for the Pikes Peak Highway, State Highway 145 from Dolores to Stoner, the Ports-to-Plains Corridor, and Frisco's West Main Street.

In the Agriculture Appropriations Act we secured more than $300,000 for the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Services for the Russian Wheat Aphid Resistance, Stress Tolerance and Quality Enhancement Project, more than 800,000 for infectious disease research to the Center for Economically Important Infectious Animal Diseases at Colorado State University, and almost $900,000 for the National Beef Cattle Evaluation Consortium, comprised of Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Cornell University, and the University of Georgia.

Our efforts this year also yielded $400,000 for tamarisk eradication efforts, more than $10,000,000 for new science and technology facility at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and $10,000,000 for design and construction of a new NREL Administrative Facility, and more than $55,000,000 for the Animas-La Plata project. In addition to securing funding to help my home State combat chronic wasting disease, we worked this year to direct the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service at USDA to begin to promulgate rules for dealing with this disease.

Another ongoing project that I have been pleased to work on with my colleagues is the modernization and expansion of the Centers for Disease Control lab in Ft. Collins. This facility, which provides vital research on vector-borne disease, will receive $24,000,000 this year.

We have been very fortunate in the State of Colorado. I appreciate the efforts of my colleagues in recognizing the vital research, military, and educational facilities housed in Colorado.

On a more personal note, this year I opened a new State office in Durango, CO. I would like to urge colleagues, if they have not been, to pay a visit to this charming mountain community in southwestern Colorado. Durango offers terrific recreation in summer and winter, and I look forward to being able to enhance my constituent service with this new office.

Each of my State offices and my office here in Washington joined with the University of Denver and the University of Northern Colorado this year to host the sixth annual Allard Capitol Conference. This year, we hosted more than 100 Colorado citizens for 3 days of civic learning and participation. This annual conference is one of the most enjoyable things I am able to do with constituents each year.

It has been an extraordinary year of accomplishment for the Congress and for Colorado. We have a tremendous amount of inertia going in to the second half of the 109th Congress, and I look forward to the new year and all of its challenges.

Mr. President, thank you very much.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for yielding and also express my appreciation for his leadership.

Through these budget issues, there has been delay and obstruction all along the route. We are seeing delay and obstruction at the end of the session. We have just seen some of the debate going on as it applies to the PATRIOT Act. I do not want to debate the PATRIOT Act. But what I would like to do is talk about the budget because this is very important. It is a very critical piece of legislation.

This is the first time in 8 years Congress has attempted to control the rate of growth in entitlement spending. I have had an opportunity to deal with budget issues, both here and as a Member of the House. I was elected to the House of Representatives in 1990. Shortly thereafter, I was able to get on the Budget Committee.

I was fortunate enough to get on the Budget Committee when I came over to the Senate. I have seen a disturbing trend in our spending habits in the Congress. If we look at the 1990 fiscal year, when I first began to really look at the budget seriously as a policymaker, we had 48 percent in entitlement and mandatory spending. Another 23 percent was defense discretionary, and then we had some 29 percent or so that fell into interest, as well as nondefense discretionary. As the years have gone by, in 2000 we find our entitlements and mandatory spending are up to 55 percent from 48 percent in 1990. We see that defense discretionary is actually down to 19 percent from 23 percent. We see that our nondefense discretionary net interest rates are staying close to the same.

The real problem is in the future. As we look at 2010, we see that our entitlements are projected to go up to 58 percent--with another 17 percent on defense discretionary and nondefense discretionary and net interest is staying pretty close to the same range. This spells out problems for future generations. I want my children, who are now in their thirties, as well as my grandkids, to have an opportunity for economic growth. If we continue to push these obligations back and continue to allow entitlement spending to grow, it is going to take away from their discretionary spending. They are not going to have the opportunities my generation had. My wife and I have had wonderful opportunities. We were able to start a small business by ourselves. We were able to see our local community grow and the State grow, and we grew with them. If we continue to spend in the Federal budget as we are now, that opportunity is going to go away.

The budget reconciliation passed by the Congress earlier this year had a requirement of $34.7 billion in savings over 5 years. That is not much of a reduction in the rate of increase. Remember, these are all still increases that are happening. We only have reductions in the rate of increase.

Finally, we have a bill before us that is looking to save close to $40 billion. We have improved it. But you have to remember that this is actually just a reduction in the rate of increase. We are not cutting or eliminating any programs; we are just reducing the rate of increases. Only in Washington, DC, is a reduction in the rate of growth called a cut. In reality, year after year, you see spending increase. I have seen that happen in my experience in the House and now in the Senate. We have Members complaining about the cuts that are happening in the budget. Yet you look at all these budgets year after year, and they gradually increase. They are just not increasing as much as some Members want. It is like a kid saying, I want to have my allowance increased from $1 a week to $1.50 a week, and you say, No, I will increase it from $1 to $1.25. They would say that is a 25-percent cut. In reality, it is a 25-percent increase in the amount of money they are going to receive to spend. So the Senate needs to bring common sense to the budget process.

Yes, on the Senator's time.

I have probably about 15 more minutes or so.

I thank the Senator. I certainly don't mind working with him in lining up speakers as they come down. It is important to give Members adequate notice.

So, again, only in Washington is a reduction in the rate of growth actually called a cut. The conference report we have before us suggests that we reduce spending by some $40 billion. This is a reduction in the rate of increase over a 5-year period. For too long the Government has been on automatic pilot for mandatory programs. We have done a few things in an attempt to reduce spending in some of the entitlement programs--a very small amount. These entitlement programs are going to continue to grow, at least at the rate of inflation. We have begun to address the rate of spending and brought it down so that the rate of increase will be less.

If we look at the total budget, the entitlements take up a large percentage of the budget. Discretionary spending--it gets a lot of attention in the media, I might add--that part of the budget only runs close to 30 percent. Sixty percent or so--better than 60 percent is going into entitlement spending. Mainly, that is Medicare and Medicaid. I was astounded by the figure that Chairman Gregg put out in his comments when he was opening the debate this morning on the Senate floor. He noted that we have $51 trillion in unfunded liability. Much of that is Medicaid and Medicare. This doesn't paint a good picture for my grandkids when they are going to grow up and look at starting a business.

One of the big costs I had as an employer was the amount of taxes I had to pay toward Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security. As these costs get higher and higher--and they are going to if we don't control spending--it is going to be more difficult for small businesspeople like myself to get started in business. It will be more difficult for them to prosper and grow and to create an opportunity for their kids and generation after generation. So we need to make some decisions.

I don't think these are tough decisions, by the way. These decisions should be relatively easy. We have a large budget that we passed, and a $40 billion reduction over 5 years is a very small amount of reduction in the rate of increase. Mandatory spending is growing at an unsustainable rate.

Entitlements are the fastest growing part of the Federal Government. Unless Congress takes steps to address mandatory spending, future generations will be left with an unsustainable program. The Comptroller General estimated unfunded liability somewhere around $51 trillion, as I mentioned.

The Deficit Reduction Act provides a downpayment toward hurricane and recovery costs.

The act also takes steps to reform outdated, inefficient, and overly costly entitlement programs.

Medicaid is reformed to expand flexibility of State Medicaid benefit packages, expanded home and community-based services, and expanded services for disabled children.

Education for low-income students is strengthened through new grant aid for low-income students and extending certain loan forgiveness.

The point is that we have to set priorities, and I think one of the top priorities of this Congress should be an attempt to reduce the ever-escalating costs in spending, particularly on the mandatory entitlement spending side. We need to work on all areas, by the way. In discretionary spending, there are things we can do to bring in more efficiency. But the areas where we are seeing the greatest growth, and the areas that are going to cause the greatest liability for generations, is the growth in entitlement spending.

The other side is constantly complaining about not doing enough to hold down spending. Here is an opportunity to hold down spending. I hope they will join the Republican side in getting the Deficit Reduction Act passed, the bill we have before us right now.

The argument that comes from the other side is basically that they want to increase taxes, they want to increase Federal spending, and they believe that we will all be better off. But that doesn't work. We have seen the President's economic plan work very well in the last few years. We have seen the economy rebound. You can look at all the economic figures you want, but you have to come to the conclusion, whether you look at employment or growth of the economy, interest rates, or disposable income, it has all been a good picture. The President's economic growth package has worked, which says that we cut back on taxes.

The reason that works is because we allow small businesses, similar to what I had, or individuals to keep more money in their pocket. More money in their pocket means they can buy cars, they will buy homes, they will buy whatever disposable items they have. This keeps our economy turning. If you take that away from them, then it slows economic growth.

Time and time again, we have seen in our country's history, whether it started with President John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, or now President Bush, that when we have a high tax burden, and we reduce that tax burden, it is going to cause economic growth. In return that means more money coming in to State and local governments, and it means more money coming in to the Federal Government.

State and local governments around the country are now experiencing an unexpected return in revenues, and that means they can begin to address the needs of their communities and State.

We are seeing that there is an increase in the amount of revenue coming in to the Federal Government. Revenue is increasing because we cut taxes to keep the economy going. In spite of the fact we have had high energy costs, the economy is strong. When it has had to deal with high energy costs and the cost of the war, it is still showing growth figures, which is remarkable. It speaks strongly of an economic package that has been passed out of this Senate, out of the Congress, and pushed by President Bush.

We need to continue that effort. We should not backtrack. This bill keeps us on track. It says we have to look at holding down spending. The Federal Government doesn't create jobs. It does not create new wealth in this country. New wealth comes mainly from the small business sector. It comes from families who own businesses. It comes from individuals who own businesses who are innovative, who try to develop new ways to get into the market. That is where all our new technology comes from. We need to make sure we do everything possible to give them an opportunity to do that. When we increase the burden of Government on small business, we make it more difficult for them to make the investment they need to grow. When they grow, they pay more taxes, and that is going to mean more revenue to Government.

The problem is not tax cuts but spending. Tax receipts are growing. Yet we continue to have deficits because spending is growing even faster. The current Federal deficit is too high and out of control. Mandatory spending is threatening the economic security of future generations. This conference report will help keep the U.S. economy strong and growing. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 conference report. It will make a difference. It is a step in the right direction.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to comment on an event that may have understandably escaped the attention of my colleagues because our plate is full and the schedule is tight. I want to underscore the importance of what occurred on Tuesday night, December 13, shortly after 10 p.m. Washington time. It signaled a month of great achievement in our Nation's Missile Defense Program.

While many of us were turning on the late news that night, an operationally configured, ground-based interceptor missile, of the kind now emplaced in both Alaska and California, was launched out of its silo in the Marshall Islands and successfully completed all its major test objectives. It demonstrated smooth execution of the launch sequence, separation of the booster-kill vehicle, cryogenic cooling of the sensor, and positioning of the kill vehicle, among many other complex actions. For this test, there was a simulated target using data from previous launches. The interceptor successfully flew through its impact point, and had the target been real, it would have been destroyed.

This test was the latest in an extraordinary month. National attention had been focused on setbacks to our defense against long- range hostile ballistic missiles. However, this has been a month of successes for current and future elements of the Ballistic Missile Defense System that can provide a defense against both long-range and short-range threats. Perhaps these successes have flown under our radar screens, but now they deserve recognition.

In addition to this most recent test, there are at least three others that occurred in the past month worthy of note.

On November 17, an Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense SM-3 interceptor, launched by an operational crew from the USS Lake Erie off the coast of Hawaii, made a direct hit on an inert warhead that separated from a target missile 100 miles in space--a far more challenging scenario than previous tests. This was the sixth successful intercept by a SM-3 in the last seven such tests since testing began in 2002. The successful intercept of a separating warhead advances our defense beyond simpler, unitary, Scud-like missiles.

Just as important was the return to flight of the terminal high altitude area defense, or THAAD, interceptor. After its last two successful flights in 1999, the program and the missile were completely overhauled to make it more reliable and easier to manufacture. On November 22, the revamped missile was launched from the White Sands Missile Range without a flaw. The test validated the interceptor's launch from canister, rocket booster operation, shroud and kill vehicle separation, and control system that guides it to the target for a kill.

And not least, just last week, on December 6, the Airborne Laser Program successfully completed a full duration lase at operational power. This involved linking the energy output of six large laser modules into a single beam, powerful enough to destroy a missile in its boost phase at the distances we need to shoot to kill. Now that the laser has successfully completed ground testing in a surrogate aircraft, it is being disassembled to load it onto its flight test Boeing 747 for further testing. The significance of achieving this milestone cannot be overemphasized--this is a revolutionary weapon with the potential to change fundamentally the ways in which we can protect our Nation, our troops, and our allies and friends from the growing ballistic missile threat.

These are the more visible Elements of the integrated Ballistic Missile Defense System. What ties all these parts together is the Global Command, Control, Battle Management and Communications System, the brain and the nerves. It is less visible than radars and rockets, but our missile defenses couldn't work without it. The integration of far-flung parts, new and upgraded, often made at different times by different contractors, has been a great challenge, but it is one we are steadily and remarkably overcoming.

There have been many naysayers and doubters on missile defense. But I am proud to have supported the Missile Defense Agency over the past year as it has grappled in an intensive effort to track down and eliminate or minimize risks that have contributed to setbacks in the past. There is an emphasis on quality that is paying off, as witnessed by these last four successful tests. We learn from our mistakes, and we now bear the fruit of the combined efforts of a wide range of dedicated military, civilian, and contractor personnel. Testing will continue, we will encounter difficulties, but the program will move forward. We are succeeding in building an integrated and layered Ballistic Missile Defense System, our defenses will continue to improve, and our citizens will be increasingly protected and grateful.

Mr. President, last week I had the privilege of meeting privately with numerous soldiers from the 2nd Brigade Combat Team of the 2nd Infantry Division, which is stationed at Fort Carson, CO. These soldiers had just returned from their first tour in Iraq where they helped maintain the peace near the former terrorist hot-bed of Fallujah. I spent over an hour talking with them about their experiences, asking them about their challenges, and hearing their thoughts about whether we should stay the course in Iraq.

These soldiers spent the last year fighting the Iraqi terrorists, in some cases house-to-house. They helped train several Iraqi security units and participated in numerous reconstruction projects throughout central Iraq. Sadly, they lost 68 of their own while in Iraq. Yet, while they deeply mourn the loss of their comrades, they have no regrets about their time in Iraq.

Indeed, if there was one thing I took away from my meeting with the soldiers of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, it was that each and every one of these soldiers was proud of their accomplishments in Iraq. They completed their mission well and helped thousands of Iraqis better understand the value of freedom and prosperity.

And why shouldn't these soldiers be proud of what they achieved? The progress we have made in Iraq is breath-taking, and these soldiers have been a part of it.

Those who believe that the war in Iraq has become a quagmire certainly haven't been paying attention. The President's strategy is working and we are making progress.

The reconstruction accomplishments in Iraq are staggering:

Over 3,000 schools have been renovated and refurbished; 133,000 primary school teachers--a third of Iraq's educators--have received additional training and technical assistance; primary school enrollment is up 19 percent from prewar levels; nearly 250 health care centers have been renovated and another 563 have received new equipment; over 2,500 primary health care workers have received training to better meet the Iraq's health care needs; in 2005 alone, 98 percent of Iraqi children between 1 and 5 years old have been immunized against measles, mumps, and rubella; more than 3 million Iraqis now have clean water, which was not adequately supplied before the war; more than 4.5 million Iraqis benefit from sewage disposal projects the United States has funded; sewage in many areas of Iraq used to literally run down the streets; 30,000 new businesses have registered with the Iraqi government in the past year alone; Iraqis are buying televisions, air conditioners, microwave ovens, and cell phones--all goods that were nearly impossible to buy unless you were one of Saddam's cronies; the generation of electricity is significantly higher than prewar level, though this area remains a challenge because of the power-consuming goods the Iraqis are buying.

The training of Iraqi security forces is continuing at a brisk pace. Over 200,000 soldiers and policemen have been trained so far. As the soldiers from the 2nd Brigade Combat Team at Fort Carson will tell you, some Iraqi units are highly competent and very capable. Other Iraqi units have a long way to go. Yet progress is being made.

Just in the last 2 weeks, Iraqi security forces conducted nearly 100 company-level combat operations on their own without U.S. assistance.

On the political front, the progress in Iraq has been nothing short of amazing.

As President Bush pointed out in his speech 2 days ago, Iraq was in the iron grip of a cruel dictator who murdered his own people, attacked his neighbors, and continued his decade-long defiance of the United Nations just 2\1/2\ years ago.

Since then, the Iraqi people have assumed sovereignty of their own country, held free elections, put together a new constitution, and approved that constitution in a nation-wide referendum.

Tomorrow, Iraqis will again return to the voters booth for the third time in the last year. They will be choosing a new government under a new constitution, and they will be choosing democracy over tyranny.

Hundreds of political parties representing every element of Iraqi society, including Sunni, Shittes, and Kurds, are participating in this highly competitive, completely unprecedented electoral race.

Despite the constant danger of terror attacks, Iraq is buzzing in a campaign-like atmosphere. Baghdad, Najaf, and Mosul are full of signs and posters. Television and radio are filled with political ads and commentary.

Political rallies for candidates are being held around the country. Nothing the terrorists can do or say has stopped this march toward freedom and democracy.

Like Shittes and Kurds, Sunni politicians are now coming under attack by the Iraqi terrorists. But the Sunnis now know that terror will never overcome the political momentum that has been gaining speed in Iraq. They know that an agenda of fear and tyranny will only lead to more death and destruction.

They see that the future of Iraq lies not in the hateful ideology of extremism but in freedom, prosperity, and hope.

As the Denver Post in their editiorial today, tomorrow marks an important milestone towards self-government for the Iraqi people.

The elections in Iraq are a sign of tremendous political progress, but they are not the only sign. The development of the rule of law and building of new political institutions is just as important--if not more so.

The United States is helping build an independent, impartial judiciary system capable of protecting all Iraqis and is helping Iraqi lawmakers develop a body of law that will sustain Iraq through the challenges of the future.

In particular, the trial of Saddam Hussein has shown all Iraqis that even the most despicable criminals deserve due process and an opportunity to prove their innocence under the law.

Some have questioned whether the war in Iraq is really a part of the war against terror. The terrorists have made it abundantly clear that Iraq is central in their war against the civilized world.

They have also made it clear that they will not stop with Iraq; they will strike Iraq's neighbors as they did last month in Jordan; they will strike Europe as they did in the Madrid bombings; and they will not hesitate to strike America again as they did on September 11.

The soldiers of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team of the 2nd Infantry at Fort Carson understand the stakes of the war in Iraq. They know that if we run away, all of their work will go for naught. They know that if we give up, the lives of millions of Iraqis will be put at risk. And they know that if we surrender, the fight the terrorists will be emboldened to hit us where it hurts the most--here in the United States.

I applaud the soldiers of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team for their service to our Nation and to the people of Iraq. They have every right to be proud of their achievements, as does every U.S. soldier, sailor, airman, and marine who has helped bring freedom to Iraq. We owe the men and women in our Armed Forces a debt of gratitude--their courage and bravery has inspired me and should inspire every American.

Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this important issue.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the future of Air Force TSgt. Jamie Dana and her working military dog Rex.

When our Nation's leaders called thousands of men and women in uniform to liberate Iraq from its most brutal dictator, Technical Sergeant Dana was among those brave citizens for whom the duty to her country comes before all other luxuries. Technical Sergeant Dana joined the Air Force in 1998 and volunteered to serve in Iraq. Her assignment included supporting Army personnel by clearing vehicles at checkpoints and searching buildings for booby traps and explosives. Jamie was never alone while performing her duties in Iraq. She was accompanied by a working military dog, Rex, a 5-year-old German shepherd. The duo had trained together in the military fo 3 years and deployed as a team first to Pakistan and then Iraq.

Last June, after completing another mission, Technical Sergeant Dana and Rex were traveling in an armored humvee when a roadside bomb exploded under her seat. She suffered severe wounds resulting in massive internal bleeding that required 19 blood transfusions. ``The helicopter ride was the scariest 45 minutes of my life,'' remembers Major Paul Morton, a member of the medical trauma team who helped save Jamie's life.

Even when facing death, Technical Sergeant Dana never stopped thinking about her friend and comrade Rex. While recuperating from the injuries she suffered in Iraq, Rex has always been in Jamie's prayers. Although her future in the Armed Forces remains uncertain to this day, Dana never questions her decision to go to war. As she stated in a recent interview, ``I had begged for it. I wanted to deploy. You want to feel like you're a part of it.''

After her military duty is over, Technical Sergeant Dana plans to become a different kind of vet--a veterinarian, a profession that I admire. Dana asked the Air Force for permission to adopt her beloved friend, and I commend the leadership of the Air Force and Senator Warner for their efforts to find a legislative solution to Jamie's request. I fully support the inclusion of this solution in the Defense authorization conference report. The work of our Nation's military and political leaders demonstrates their willingness to express our humble gratitude to those who proudly wear our Nation's uniform and endanger their lives to protect the freedom that we often take for granted. Jamie's story traveled thousands of miles and warmed the hearts of her fellow Americans, as well as political and military leaders.

A simple act of Congress will allow Technical Sergeant Dana be reunited with Rex. Both Jamie and Rex gave their best in the fight to protect the ideals of liberty and courageously participated in the spread of democracy across the globe. The least this country can do to honor their service is to allow this friendship to continue.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Hurricane Katrina Recovery Homesteading Act of 2005. Modeled on the United States' 19th century homesteading initiatives and similar urban programs in the 1970s, this legislation will help us begin to rebuild the Gulf Coast areas destroyed by the hurricane and flooding, providing a fresh start for families victimized by this tragedy.

The new urban homesteading proposal will serve several purposes. First, it is an initial step towards rebuilding and revitalizing the hurricane ravaged Gulf Coast. While we have spent recent months appropriately focusing on rescue and clean up, we must now examine the long term need to rebuild and revitalize.

Second, the new urban homestead initiative will be one way to begin to address the housing needs of those displaced by Hurricane Katrina. But I want to make it clear that this program is not being introduced as the sole answer to all of the housing problems faced by hurricane victims. Getting all of those individuals back on their feet will require multiple efforts on a significant scale. This is one component of a comprehensive response to the housing needs of the Gulf Coast region. I believe the initiative is a very good start.

Third, the Hurricane Katrina Recovery Homesteading Act is a productive way of dealing with government owned properties. Through the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), Veterans' Administration (VA), and other programs, the Federal Government holds title to thousands of properties in the Gulf Coast region. Vacant government owned properties have the potential to be a blight on their neighborhoods, diminishing property values and acting as a magnet for crime and vandalism. Following Hurricane Katrina, vacant properties can also present health and safety dangers. Unless the properties are rebuilt and have families living in them, they will likely be a significant drag on the efforts to rebuild the region. The homesteading initiative will address the health and safety concerns and further the revitalization effort while putting the property to productive use.

I would like to briefly describe how the initiative will work. I am pleased that it is based on a Federal-local partnership, as well as a partnership between government, non-profits, and the private-sector. HUD will identify potential government owned property for transfer without cost to units of local government. The local government would establish an equitable procedure for selecting low income families affected by the hurricane for participation. HUD and the local government would work with partners, such as Habitat for Humanity, mortgage lenders, and others, to help the new urban homesteaders find resources to construct their new homes.

Participating families must agree to occupy the property for five years as their principal residence, to bring the property up to health and safety codes within one year, and to build a house to applicable code standards within three years. They must also agree to periodic compliance inspections. In exchange, the family would receive title to the property.

I would like to thank President Bush, Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson, and House sponsor Representative Jindal for working with me on this effort. I look forward to continuing to work with them, long with the rest of my colleagues, to enact the Hurricane Katrina Recovery Homesteading Act of 2005.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Hurricane Katrina Recovery Homesteading Act of 2005. Modeled on the United States' 19th century homesteading initiatives and similar urban programs in the 1970s, this legislation will help us begin to rebuild the Gulf Coast areas destroyed by the hurricane and flooding, providing a fresh start for families victimized by this tragedy.

The new urban homesteading proposal will serve several purposes. First, it is an initial step towards rebuilding and revitalizing the hurricane ravaged Gulf Coast. While we have spent recent months appropriately focusing on rescue and clean up, we must now examine the long term need to rebuild and revitalize.

Second, the new urban homestead initiative will be one way to begin to address the housing needs of those displaced by Hurricane Katrina. But I want to make it clear that this program is not being introduced as the sole answer to all of the housing problems faced by hurricane victims. Getting all of those individuals back on their feet will require multiple efforts on a significant scale. This is one component of a comprehensive response to the housing needs of the Gulf Coast region. I believe the initiative is a very good start.

Third, the Hurricane Katrina Recovery Homesteading Act is a productive way of dealing with government owned properties. Through the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), Veterans' Administration (VA), and other programs, the Federal Government holds title to thousands of properties in the Gulf Coast region. Vacant government owned properties have the potential to be a blight on their neighborhoods, diminishing property values and acting as a magnet for crime and vandalism. Following Hurricane Katrina, vacant properties can also present health and safety dangers. Unless the properties are rebuilt and have families living in them, they will likely be a significant drag on the efforts to rebuild the region. The homesteading initiative will address the health and safety concerns and further the revitalization effort while putting the property to productive use.

I would like to briefly describe how the initiative will work. I am pleased that it is based on a Federal-local partnership, as well as a partnership between government, non-profits, and the private-sector. HUD will identify potential government owned property for transfer without cost to units of local government. The local government would establish an equitable procedure for selecting low income families affected by the hurricane for participation. HUD and the local government would work with partners, such as Habitat for Humanity, mortgage lenders, and others, to help the new urban homesteaders find resources to construct their new homes.

Participating families must agree to occupy the property for five years as their principal residence, to bring the property up to health and safety codes within one year, and to build a house to applicable code standards within three years. They must also agree to periodic compliance inspections. In exchange, the family would receive title to the property.

I would like to thank President Bush, Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson, and House sponsor Representative Jindal for working with me on this effort. I look forward to continuing to work with them, long with the rest of my colleagues, to enact the Hurricane Katrina Recovery Homesteading Act of 2005.

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

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the situation in Iraq.

Critics of the Bush administration have recently gone out of their way to try to convince the American people that the President misled our nation about Iraq. Some are arguing most vociferously that President Bush purposely withheld intelligence information from Congress. Others accuse the President of deliberately fashioning U.S. intelligence to fit his own agenda. A few even suggest that the President had some kind of personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein and was willing to do whatever it took to remove him from power.

I can accept criticism leveled at our intelligence agencies for providing inaccurate intelligence. I can accept criticism lodged against the Department of Defense for not sufficiently preparing for an Iraqi insurgency.

I can even accept criticism that the Bush administration did not appropriately prepare the American people for the cost of the war in Iraq.

What I cannot accept, what I feel is so irresponsible, and what is so damaging to our nation are accusations that suggest that President Bush deliberately lied to the American people about either the intelligence or about his reasons for going to war.

I was a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee when the President requested Congressional authorization for the use of force against Iraq in 2002. I participated in numerous open and classified, bipartisan hearings and briefings on our intelligence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The conclusions that I reached, that President Bush reached, and that many Democrats reached, were the same.

We all agreed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. We all agreed that he had used such weapons in the past against Iran and Iraq's Kurdish populations. And, we all agreed that he would not hesitate to use them against the United States in the future.

The U.S. Congress and President Bush were not alone in this assessment. The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, and even France all believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The entire international community watched as Saddam used these weapons to murder thousands of his own people. Even the Chief United Nations weapons inspector, Han Blix, thought the chemical weapons he discovered prior to the war in Iraq were the ``tip of a submerged iceberg''.

The fact is that the debate in Congress over whether to authorize the use of force was never about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Everyone thought Saddam Hussein had them. In fact, even those who voted against the use of force in Congress never questioned the veracity of our intelligence information.

That is not because the Bush administration manipulated the intelligence that was presented to Congress, as some have alleged. Indeed, a number of independent commissions since the war began have investigated this issue and found the Bush administration did not distort intelligence information. The best known investigation was the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which stated unequivocally in its report that, ``the Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts

to change their judgments related to Iraqi weapons of mass destruction capabilities.''

Therefore, if we agree that the President did not lie about our intelligence on Iraq's WMD programs, then the critics can only argue that the President Bush's rationale for going to war at the time of the Congressional debate was somehow flawed and unjustifiable. Here I would again disagree.

During the debate, I joined with a large majority of the Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle who voted to authorize force. We did so because of two important facts--the same two facts offered by the President.

First, Saddam Hussein was in breach of more than a dozen United Nations Security Council resolutions. He continued to refuse to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors even after a decade of sanctions. He rejected proposal after proposal to conduct fair and transparent inspections.

When he finally allowed inspections, Saddam did everything he could to undermine, cajole, and otherwise manipulate the inspections process. He gave every appearance of hiding large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

Second, a large bipartisan majority of Members of Congress, including nearly 30 Senate Democrats and 81 House Democrats, voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq because, after September 11, it was clear that America could no longer afford to allow imminent threats to our nation go unhindered and unopposed. In most minds, Iraq represented a highly dangerous nexus between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. In the context of Saddam's decade-long defiance, it was a nexus that Members of both sides of the aisle in both the Senate and the House was no longer willing to ignore.

When critics try to cover up their vote in support of the use of force against Iraq, they damage the credibility of our government overseas and send a disheartening message to our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who are bravely defending freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When they falsely accuse the President of misleading the American people, they encourage the enemy who believes America will throw in the towel and give up when the fighting gets tough.

It is time for the President's critics in Congress to remember why they voted to authorize force against Iraq in 2002. It is time for them to acknowledge the progress our soldiers are making now in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is time for them to recognize the success we have had against global networks of terror.

And most of all, it is time for these critics to lay aside their own political ambitions and do what is right for America. It is time for them join our Commander-in-Chief in the fight against those who wish to destroy our Nation.

An agenda of disunity and surrender will never lead to victory. We need to unite behind our Commander-in-Chief if we are to defeat this enemy. It is my hope that the President's critics will see this imperative and finally do what is best for our Nation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in an era when college football players are almost universally derided as troublemakers, stories about football players who become leaders and role models off the field are indeed hard to find. One such leader currently exists at the U.S. Air Force Academy.

Earlier this week the Air Force Academy announced that Andy Gray, a senior cadet, has been selected to take over as the commander of the entire 4,000-strong cadet wing next semester. In this position, Andy will serve as the chief liaison between the academy's leadership and the cadet student body, akin to a student body president.

However, Andy is different than the average student body president. He has received extensive leadership training along with his fellow cadets. He has endured the rigorous cadet schedule of academics and military training. And, he has done it all while excelling as a member of the NCAA Division One Air Force Academy Falcon football team.

Andy is only the sixth football player to be chosen for this leadership role, and the first in 16 years. The last academy athlete to serve as the cadet wing commander was Delavane Diaz who played volleyball for the Falcons in 2003.

Andy Gray entered the academy in 2000 and played quarterback and defensive safety for much of his cadet career. In the fall of 2004, he was No. 1 on the depth chart as quarterback for the Falcons. This past season he played safety and had a big interception in the Air Force Academy's victory over UNLV.

Becoming a cadet wing commander is not easy and requires candidates to go through a rigorous screening process. Only the top two cadets from each of the academy's 35 squadrons are nominated to be considered. Then the pool is narrowed to 20. Each of the surviving candidates is closely interviewed by a board that includes members of the academy's leadership.

I commend Andy for his selection to be the academy's cadet wing commander. This selection is a real honor for him, and I know he will not take his new responsibilities lightly. I wish Andy the best as he takes up this important leadership position.

I also applaud the academy's football coach, Fisher DeBerry, for being such an outstanding role model for cadets like Andy. Coach DeBerry is a man of character who, for over 22 years, has turned hundreds of cadets into leaders while running a top-notch football program. I look forward to seeing in the future many more Academy football players become leaders in our Air Force.

I rise today to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the dedication and operation of the U.S. Air Force Academy, located in my home State of Colorado. It has been a privilege for Colorado to host the Academy for more than five decades. The Academy's outstanding record of turning cadets into officers of integrity and honor is a source of pride for many in Colorado.

Yet sometimes when we drive on I-25 and pass the Air Force Academy's beautiful campus, we assume that Academy has always been there. It is easy to forget the hard work it took to get the Academy to Colorado in the first place

It all began in May of 1949 when then-Secretary of Defense James Forrestal appointed a commission to evaluate the general education for each military service. This commission was chaired by Robert L. Stearns, president of the University of Colorado and father-in-law of Supreme Court Justice Byron ``Whizzer'' White. The commission also included other notables such as GEN. Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was then president of Colombia University. The Stearns Board quickly agreed that the U.S. Air Force needed an academic institution of excellence and that such an Academy should be established without delay.

Congress authorized the creation of the Air Force Academy in 1954. To determine a site for the new institution, then-Secretary of the Air Force Harold E. Talbott, appointed a team of individuals to assist him. The Air Force Academy Site Selection Board, as it was called, reviewed more than 580 locations in 34 States, and narrowed the field down to 7, 1 of which was Colorado Springs, CO. A year later, the majestic 14,000 acre area in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains near Colorado Springs was chosen by Secretary Talbott to be the site for the new U.S. Air Force Academy.

The selection of the site, however, would prove to be easy part. The design and construction of the permanent location would take years to complete. In the meantime, the Air Force had to find an alternate site so classes and training could begin. Lowry Air Force Base in Denver took on this mission and hosted the Academy until permanent buildings could be constructed.

The Academy staff was activated in the summer of 1954 when LTG Hubert Harmon, who had previously served as special assistant for Air Force Academy matters and was a member of the 1949 Air Academy Site Selection Board, assumed command. President Eisenhower, a West Point classmate and close personal friend of General Harmon, personally selected him as the first superintendent, stating ``Doodles'' Harmon would be the best man for the job.

The staff had only 11 months to prepare for the arrival of the first class in the summer of 1955. Due to space limitations, only 306 young men were admitted into the first class, the class of 1959. Thousands of applications were reduced to a few hundred, and those selected were truly America's ``cream of the crop''.

Dedication Day began with the arrival of 306 young men on July 11, 1955. The morning was spent processing such as fitting uniforms and getting haircuts. By 11 a.m. they were all lined up for intensive drill instruction. That afternoon, the stands were filled with over 4,000 military and civilian dignitaries, public officials, foreign attaches, cadets from West Point and Annapolis, press, and parents. With a flight of B-36 bombers flying overhead and the USAF band playing, the 306 cadets marched on the field in a near perfect formation.

At the time no one could have predicted that this small class would turn out Rhodes Scholars, numerous general officers and even All- American football players. Surprisingly, before they were to graduate, they would lead their football team to an undefeated season and a tie in the 1959 Cotton Bowl, one of the most underrated achievements in the history of major college sports.

LTG Hubert Harmon retired with lung cancer before the first class graduated in 1959. He will be remembered for his tireless work and dedication to the establishment of the Academy. He was the first person interred at the Air Force Academy Cemetery and is recognized by many as the ``Father of the Air Force Academy.''

Major General Briggs took over as the Academy's second superintendent, and during his tour of duty there, in 1958, the wing of 1,145 cadets moved to its present site from Denver. A year later, the Academy received its accreditation, and on March 3, 1964, the authorized strength of the cadet wing was increased to 4,417. In 1976, women were admitted for the first time into the Academy. The first class of women graduated in May 1980.

To date, more than 35,000 cadets have graduated from the Academy. The achievements of those who have graduated from the Academy have been many: 315 of these graduates have become general officers, to include former Chiefs of Staff of the Air Force, Generals Ronald Fogelman and Mike Ryan, 32 cadets have been selected as Rhodes Scholars, and 539 have entered medical school.

Even more important, 128 graduates have given their lives in the defense of our Nation, and 36 have been prisoners of war. We honor those who have served our Nation with such sacrifice and patriotism.

Over the years, the Air Force Academy has had to confront several difficult challenges. The institution has risen above these challenges and, in its quest for excellence, has become a model for other academic institutions

to follow. The Air Force Academy continues to be recognized as an invaluable proving ground for tomorrow's military leaders.

As we look back at the establishment of the Academy, we cannot help but be thankful to those who worked so hard to establish the Academy in Colorado. The citizens of Colorado are indeed honored to have this institution in our beloved State. We have stood by the Academy through both the good and tough times. We in Colorado continue to believe in the Academy's mission and support the institution's effort to train officers of integrity and honor. We salute the Air Force Academy's 50 years of success and look forward to many more decades to come.

Mr. President, I rise to engage my colleague, Senator Salazar, in a colloquy regarding the technical changes adopted in the manager's amendment to the reconciliation bill. We have worked hard to address unintended consequences relating to changes made to treatment of Type III organizations. This is very important because there are many fine organizations that support noble and much needed causes. I have some of these organizations in my State of Colorado, including one generously supported by the Reisher family.

Specifically, I am referring to the amendments providing for the special rule for certain holdings of Type III supporting organizations if the holdings are held for the benefit of the community pursuant to the direction of a State attorney general or a State official with jurisdiction over the Type III supporting organization. As some of us with interest in this provision worked to address unintended consequences, we thought it would be a good idea to have the AG or State official direction needed to ensure that the abuses that concerned the chairman would be addressed. As State officials issue this general directive, it is our intention that there is not any burdensome red tape and that once the direction is given for the Type III organization, the charity is not unnecessarily put in limbo by the need for a reissuance when the official changes. It is safe to say that we intend that once the necessary direction is given as part

of this compromise, then there is no requirement for renewals by that attorney general or subsequent attorney general that would put uncertainty at play for the organization. Isn't that my friend's understanding?

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his kind remarks. There is no question that we intend to encourage more charitable giving in this country. Mr. President, we are a generous nation, as evident from the amazing outpouring of private support for the recent unfortunate rash of natural disasters both here in this country and abroad. The donors and the organizations need to be able to rely on the direction of the State attorney general and their legal status and this amendment does that. I thank my colleague for engaging me in this colloquy. Mr. President, I yield the floor.