Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. ALLARD. 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.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I yield to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. ALLARD. 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.

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

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

Mr. ALLARD. 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.

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

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

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD. 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 NATO.

Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD. 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.