Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Further, is it the expectation of the subcommittee that funding for the Arabadopsis 2010 program continue to be financed through the BIO directorate, yet separate from funds provided for the plant genome project as it has in the past?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the distinguished chair of the subcommittee and I have long been strong supporters of plant genomics in general and the Plant Genome Research Program undertaken at the NSF in particular. The Plant Genome Research Program produces basic scientific research by providing for peer-reviewed competitive research grants to qualified institutions. Maintaining significant support for fundamental research in crop systems is more important than ever as agriculture is trying to meet the demands of consumers worldwide by providing a safe and secure supply of resources for human and animal nutrition, fiber, green products, bioenergy, and plant-based nutraceuticals and other leading edge applications. This initiative has had strong backing over the years from the broad- based science community in conjunction with farmers and those up the food supply chain. Together, as leaders of the VA/HUD and Independent Agencies Subcommittee, we began this initiative in 1997. It remains critical that we protect the integrity of the program and ensure its remains a priority at the NSF. Is it the expectation of the subcommittee that the Plant Genome Research Program is funded at no less than $100 million?

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, does that include 10 minutes for my colleague from Texas? I will ask for 10 additional minutes for the minority side, which may have other subjects to talk about.

Mr. BOND. In that case, I withdraw my request.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. Most of all, I thank my chairman, Senator Rockefeller. I thank the chairman of the committee and all of the members of the committee to be able to pass this very important intelligence authorization bill. We have had a 3-year hiatus with no intelligence authorization bill. This came despite multiple attempts on the Senate floor. Today, we see, fortunately, the end of that cycle with the passage of the fiscal year 2008 intelligence authorization bill. Passing this bill is important and noteworthy because it is one of the committee's most important tools in providing strong congressional oversight of the intelligence activities the American people expect and deserve. This bill we have just passed contains important provisions that would improve the effectiveness of our intelligence agencies, most of which were requested by the intelligence community. It is not a perfect bill, and there are a few things in it that I may not totally agree with, but overall this bill will benefit the intelligence community and marks the important reassertion of congressional oversight over our intelligence agencies and operations. I commend Chairman Rockefeller for all of his hard work and the diplomacy, skill, and patience in putting together the managers' amendment that brought us to the floor today. In particular, we worked very hard to keep the bill clean and to strip it of challengeable and politically charged amendments, things that would have drawn objections from this side and the other side. Several Senators on both sides of the aisle had to give until it hurt to reach agreements, and I thank them for their flexibility and cooperation. We cannot get this bill done or any bill done in this Senate without bipartisan cooperation. With this bill, the chairman and I and our committee are making a great step forward in returning the work of the Intelligence Committee to nonpartisan oversight and away from the politics that have weakened it over the past few years. We have limited the bill to just those provisions that had strong bipartisan support. Chairman Rockefeller and I were also able to get a number of good-government positions into our bill that will improve the effectiveness of our intelligence agencies. Having said that, my colleagues should know that the chairman and I will fight very hard to keep this agreement in conference. If the House were to put in political amendments or other problematic amendments which the Senate would not support, I will not support the bill. Intelligence should be conducted behind closed doors. When we talk about our intelligence matters openly in other committees or on this floor, we hamper our intelligence ability. I asked the current Director of the Central Intelligence Agency at his confirmation hearing about 16 months ago: How badly have the disclosures of our most sensitive intelligence methods hurt our ability to deal with terrorists? He ruefully said: We are now applying the Darwinian theory to terrorists. We are only capturing the dumb ones. Every time we talk in public about how we capture information, it gives a roadmap to the terrorists to know exactly how to avoid being intercepted. Unfortunately, there have in recent days been more examples of such disclosures. But back to this bill. This bill provides for the empowerment of the Director of National Intelligence to conduct accountability reviews of the individual elements of the intelligence community in relation to significant failures or deficiencies. This provision will encourage the intelligence community to address their own internal failures or inefficiencies--something they have been reluctant to do on their own. In the event that they are reluctant or unable to do so, this amendment gives the DNI the authority he needs to step in and conduct his own reviews, authority the Director of National Intelligence currently does not have. The Intelligence authorization bill also contains a wide range of other important provisions that will improve the efficiency and accountability of the intelligence community, while at the same time providing the DNI with additional authority and flexibility, including creation of a strong, independent inspector general for the intelligence community; additional authorities for the DNI to improve information sharing in the intelligence community; measures to protect the cover of our clandestine intelligence officers; and measures to address excessive cost growth in major acquisition programs--a real problem we have seen in recent years. The intelligence community has now gone 2 years without the detailed guidance from the Congress that only this Intelligence authorization bill can provide. I hope we can move this bill expeditiously through a conference with the House to correct that situation. We must do a better job of asserting congressional oversight of the intelligence community, and one of the best ways to accomplish that goal is to pass the annual Intelligence authorization bill. I am proud to announce that today we have done that. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I want to talk more broadly about the war on terror and say it is with pleasure that we see the President's policy of bringing back troops home when they complete their mission successfully. Return on success is working. Marines are coming home after having pacified Al Anbar Province and turned the responsibility for maintaining security over to the Iraqi security forces. I know about that personally and it is working. The marines are coming home. We know they are coming home because there was a story this morning on television about how marines were held up for about 2\1/2\ hours by the TSA at one of the places they landed in the United States. They refused to allow the marines to go into the terminal because I guess they provided some kind of threat. In any event, the marines are now coming back to face additional challenges--not just the challenges of the TSA that we all undergo, but, regrettably, too many of them have mental health problems, TBI and PTSD, and in the Defense authorization bill we have passed provisions to assist the wounded warriors coming home. But they have been successful, and return on success means al-Qaida is no longer able to exercise control over Al Anbar. For those who think this is a diversion in the battle in the war on terror, all they have to do is listen to the leaders, Osama bin Laden and Zawihiri, who have said the headquarters of the caliphate from which they are going to conduct worldwide operations is the land between the two rivers. That is, of course, Iraq. If they win there, they are stronger, and they will establish their headquarters there. The intelligence community leaders, in January of this year, spoke in open session before the Intelligence Committee. They said if we withdraw before we have established relative peace and stability in the area--in other words, if we withdraw on a political timetable dictated by this body--there will be chaos. Three things will happen. There will be increased killing among Shia and Sunni, genocide and bloodshed. Two, that will bring in the other states in the region to protect their coreligionists, and we will see the potential of a regionwide sectarian war. Three, most frighteningly, al-Qaida will establish the safe haven they have sought in Al Anbar and elsewhere from which to embolden their efforts and attack the United States and United States persons abroad, and our allies. All you have to do to get an idea of the effectiveness of our new counterinsurgency efforts, led by General Petraeus, is to pay attention to what was found in the pocket of Abu al-Tunisi, the Tunisian al-Qaida leader in Iraq who was responsible for bringing foreign fighters into Iraq--the ones from Iran, Syria, Yemen, and others, with all of the resources they had. Al-Tunisi had written letters to his leader, saying: I am suffering. They are strangling us. I cannot get support. We have hurt them and we have hurt them badly. Yes, al-Qaida is a threat, but al-Qaida is not basing that threat from Iraq. Their leaders are probably in the mountains of Pakistan or Afghanistan. I can assure you we are doing everything we can--and we obviously cannot discuss what we are doing--to capture and kill those leaders. Right now, we have taken advantage and the counterinsurgency strategy is working. I commend our troops and General Petraeus. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. No objection on this side.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, has the time for the majority side expired?

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on behalf of my fellow Missourians, I extend my warmest congratulations to KCUR Radio, 89.3 FM, licensed to the curators of the University of Missouri and operating from the campus of the University of Missouri-Kansas City. KCUR Radio is celebrating 50 years of continuous service to our community on October 21, 2007. KCUR Radio entertains, enlightens, and informs, enhancing the quality of life for listeners by broadcasting and webcasting noncommercial radio programming 24 hours a day, including 20 hours of news each weekday. KCUR Radio has been recognized for groundbreaking features and extensive coverage of politics, the arts, health, and minority matters. KCUR Radio has grown from a station with 2 full-time employees and a signal range of 4 miles, to 23 full-time broadcast professionals and 17 part-time employees, reaching a 90-mile radius of northwestern Missouri and northeastern Kansas, and has raised funds to support staff growth, update equipment, and expand programming, largely through the efforts of its 200 tireless volunteers. KCUR Radio broadcasts original shows that have captured the hearts and minds of listeners nationwide. The KCUR news department informs the Nation about our community through KCUR's charter membership as a National Public Radio station. I am pleased to honor KCUR Radio on its 50th anniversary in October 2007.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair for 2 minutes so that we may bring in a distinguished visitor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate EPW Chair Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe for bringing a balanced and much needed bill to the floor. Normally this bill is a 2-year authorization, but there has not been a bill, a WRDA bill, during this administration. So I will call it the Water Resources Development Act of 2001. Now, my State has nearly 1,000 miles of Missouri and Mississippi River frontage in addition to our lakes. Our communities rely on Corps projects for affordable water, transportation, flood protection, energy production, environmental protection, and recreational opportunities. Nobody knows better than the farmers of Missouri and the Midwest how important river transportation is to serve the world market. This bill for my constituents means jobs, trade competitiveness, reliable and affordable energy, drinking water, and protection from floods, which can ruin property and kill people. This is not of minor importance to those out in the world, in the Midwest, who work for a living. I am delighted we are completing our long journey to permit modernization of the Mississippi River locks. These locks were built during the Great Depression for paddle wheel boats 75 years ago. They were designed to last 50 years. Well, they are 25 years past their design lifetime. This is a long, much needed, overdue investment in infrastructure, jobs, trade competitiveness, and environmental protection. Sixty percent of all grain exports move through the bottleneck of obsolete locks. Some 30 percent of oil is shipped by barge, by waterway, a significant amount of coal, of cement, of fertilizer. A single medium-sized barge tow carries the same amount of freight as 870 trucks. There is a comparison for railroad, but the railroads are so full they cannot carry any more; they are at capacity. But it carries something akin to 2\1/2\ trainloads. These facts speak volumes for the cost, pollution, and fuel efficiencies of river transportation. Throughout this long and arduous process to complete a 2-year bill in 7 years, we have been blessed with strong bipartisan support for modernizing the locks. I have already referred to the relationship of our EPW Committee. Senator Grassley has been supportive of this from the start. We would not be here today without Senator Harkin, the occupant of the chair, Senator Durbin, Senator Obama, Senator McCaskill, and others from the Midwest playing a key role in this becoming law. I express my gratitude. Outside Congress, modernization of the old bottleneck looks has won the untiring support of agriculture, the waterways community, industry, labor, and community leaders. I am concerned the administration may veto this bill because they say it is too big. Well, if it were a normal 2-year bill, it would be big. But this is a 7-year bill; taking into account three cycles which we should have and have not yet passed a WRDA bill. So it is big by historic standards. When we total the three WRDA bills passed during the 5-year periods of 1996 to 2000, a 5-year period, the authorization levels totaled almost the same as this 7-year bill, almost $21 billion. Now, if there is a veto, I look forward to overriding it on a bipartisan basis as soon as action can be scheduled. This is an authorization bill. Without appropriations, it spends nothing. As Senators know, this bill simply adds projects to the list of items eligible for appropriations subject to the binding budget limitations faced under the appropriations process. Put another way, this is a license to hunt. You still to have hit the bird and you can't go over the limit. So all it is is a license to ask for appropriations. The backlog of unfunded items often referred to by opponents of this bill is unfunded because many of the projects are not sufficiently high priority within tight budgets. Some may be very good projects but they do not make the cut given the limited budget. Does it make sense to say that bills passed many years ago have to be funded before we can take a fresh look at priorities facing our waterway infrastructure and other waterway needs? I don't think so. Priorities change. Right now these items in this bill are the priorities that have been thoroughly vetted by the Corps, by all those who have input, and by the Environment and Public Works Committee in our body and in the Transportation Infrastructure Committee on the other side. I urge my colleagues to support it. To oppose new authorizations is simply a way to pretend to save money without saving money, while unwisely assuming that all currently authorized projects are of a higher priority than the newly authorized projects contained in this bill. In many ways, this will cost money, and I will talk about that in a minute. But if there were to be a veto, the unfortunate message for water States and agricultural States in the Midwest is that water resources are not a high priority to this administration, despite the expectation of many supporters in 2000, when supporters of waterways in Missouri came out in record numbers to carry the State for the current President. The previous administration was not supportive and this administration is no better. Our concerns started with proposed construction budget cuts. Then they fired Mike Parker, a strong proponent of water resources. Then they underfunded flood control and navigation on the Missouri River. Now it would be capped off by vetoing WRDA. I truly hope that doesn't happen. They would get a grade for consistency, except that they say they support aggressive trade policies. But they say nothing about the transportation capacity vital to move the goods they want to trade, so they say. Bulk commodities can't be faxed or e-mailed or Fed-Ex'd or UPS'd in the real world to the rest of the world. Again, on our waterways in Missouri, one medium-size barge tow carries the same freight as 870 trucks with cost, pollution, fuel efficiencies, economic and environmental benefits that are obvious to all. I was interested to read a November 2005 article in the Washington Times which reported that the President noted during a press conference with Panamanian President Torrijos: `` . . . it's in our nation's interest that this canal be modernized.'' I know the administration does not oppose modernizing the Social Security-age locks on the Mississippi River, built during the Depression for paddle-wheel boats, but they also have not yet even endorsed it. Yet there was a rousing endorsement for upgrading the waterways in Panama. My colleagues and my constituents back home believe our midwestern exporters deserve as much consideration as Chinese exporters who transit the Panama Canal. I remain hopeful the administration will agree. While no two of us would write the bill the same way, I am pleased so much work was done for so long by so many to find a compromise that could serve the diverse needs of a nation that needs water resources to function. Among a very long list, this bill is supported by the National Corn Growers Association, the Carpenters, operating engineers, laborers, American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Soybean Association, and scores of members of the Waterway Counsel from coast to coast, communities large and small. Our staffs have been working tirelessly on this not for days or for weeks but years. It has been a long process. We have gotten to know them like family. There is almost some regret in knowing that our family will be broken up when this bill is signed into law. But maybe we can get back on schedule and have another WRDA bill in 2 years. The staff has been tremendous. They took on tough issues, set up difficult criteria, helped to sort through competing objectives, and they never quit. While there were many who worked very hard on this over the years, including Andy Wheeler, Ruth Van Mark, Angie Giancarlo, Ken Kopocis, Jeff Rosato, Tyler Rushford, Jo-Ellen Darcy, Mike Quiello, and others, I especially thank the bipartisan staff support of Let Mon Lee with the committee. Let Mon has been working with us for all these years. He is truly part of our family. We would hate to lose him, but if that is the price for passing WRDA, so be it. The success of our economy and its people owes a great debt to investments that were made by those before us. I urge my colleagues to make the investments now that will be providing the benefits for future generations and vote in favor of an opportunity and value for our future. We were reminded tragically a few weeks ago in Minnesota of the need to be vigilant in upgrading our infrastructure. When you see what happened in Minnesota, we saw a bridge collapse. There was a tragic loss of life. There was some disruption of commerce. But if one of these locks midway on the river between Missouri and Illinois at the bottom of the chain fails completely and bailing wire and chewing gum can only hold back the river so long and they leak not like sieves but by continuous sheets of water, if one of those locks were to blow out and fail, the impact on our economy, on commerce, would be huge, the impact we almost felt when Katrina shut off the mouth of the Mississippi River in Louisiana. Fortunately, they got that undone in a couple of days. But even papers that don't normally think about water commerce and agriculture were saying what a danger this was. A failure of one of these locks, one of these half-size, outdated, overaged locks could tremendously cripple our economy, put our rural economies into a significant downturn. I urge our leadership in this body to move quickly for a speedy override vote should a veto materialize. But again, my thanks, my congratulations, and deep appreciation to the Environment and Public Works Committee leadership and the diligent staff who have brought us to this point. It is time we pass the 2001 WRDA bill. It may be 6 years late, but it is even more needed now than it was in 2001. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleague from Missouri, Senator Claire McCaskill, to correct a small but important injustice in the National Trails System Act. The Trails Act Technical Correction Act of 2007 is a Senate companion to a bipartisan House bill sponsored by Representatives Carnahan, Akin, Clay, Emerson, and Graves. Our bipartisan bill will ensure that property owners are compensated for land taken from them as Congress intended. In 1992, the Federal Government confiscated property owned by 102 St. Louis County residents through the Federal Rails-to-Trails Act. The taking imposed an easement on their property for a public recreational hiking/biking trail. A trail easement was established on their property on December 20, 1992. After 12 years of bureaucratic fighting and delay, the Justice Department admitted the government's takings liability and agreed to pay the property owners a total of $2,385,000.85 for their property, interest and legal fees. However, 2 days before the U.S. Court of Claims was scheduled to approve the agreement, the Federal circuit issued the Caldwell decision regarding a Rails-to-Trails takings case in Georgia. That decision interpreted the statute of limitations for a taking in this program as beginning with a notice of interim trail use, not the commonly understood later date the trail easement was legally imposed on the property. Under the new date, the statute of limitations on the St. Louis County takings claim had expired. The Justice Department accordingly sought dismissal of the claims without payment and the court of claims judge agreed. Our bill clarifies in statute that the statute of limitations for a takings claim under the Trails Act begins on the date an interest is conveyed and allows for reconsideration of past claims dismissed because of this issue. This technical clarification--the takings statute of limitations starts upon the taking--makes the most sense. It also corrects a past injustice that deprived landowners of their rightful compensation. It makes no change to the substance of the Rails-to-Trails program and is supported on a bipartisan basis. I urge my colleagues to agree to its passage.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next speaker on our side be Senator Kyl. He has asked to be in line on this side.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I last came to the floor to speak on the subject of the way ahead in Iraq. Since that time, significant events, both good and bad, have occurred. First and foremost, General Petraeus has presented to the Congress a candid and encouraging assessment that the new strategy in Iraq has shifted the momentum in our favor. The testimony by the general and by Ambassador Crocker reinforced what I and my congressional delegation in May saw in Iraq and what I have heard directly from troops on the ground. The Petraeus counterinsurgency strategy, which is clear an area, move in with local forces, hold it, and then help them build their community, enlisting the locals in fighting the terrorist and showing them security is working--this is the strategy which, last year, I and many of our colleagues were asking for. The old strategy without enough people, without a permanent presence in the community, was not working. Well, it is starting to work now. But General Petraeus has proposed minor immediate withdrawals, withdrawals that are based on the commander's recommendations and security conditions, not Washington politics or micromanaging from this wonderful air-conditioned building. The President used the term ``return on success.'' That is the term I hope we will embrace. These brave men and women went over there as volunteers to accomplish a mission. We need to allow them to work with the commanders to accomplish that mission. Even General Petraeus testified that the new strategy had reversed the trajectory of the war. He said: ``Al Qaeda is on the run. Security incidents'' since the surge began have fallen in 8 of the last 12 weeks. Civilian deaths have decreased by 45 percent. Ethno-sectarian deaths are down 55 percent, and attacks in Al Anbar are down 85 percent. For all the attempts by the antiwar movement to discredit General Petraeus--and I will address that--he demonstrated enough military progress from his new counterinsurgency strategy to conclude that ``we have a realistic chance of achieving our objectives in Iraq.'' Secretary Gates on Monday gave a speech in which he said: For America to leave Iraq and the Middle East in chaos would betray and demoralize our allies there and in the region, while emboldening our most dangerous adversaries. To abandon an Iraq where just two years ago 12 million people quite literally risked their lives to vote for a constitutional democracy would be an offense to our interests as well as our values, a setback for the cause of freedom as well as the goal of stability. We must realize and recognize that the institutions that underpin an enduring free society can only take root over time. Secretary Gates was absolutely right. One only needs to look at our own history to understand this. After a long, bloody revolution, a civil war, a struggle for women's suffrage, and a civil rights movement, some 150 years later, democracy is still a work in progress. Just as Ambassador Crocker testified: Iraq is experiencing a revolution, not a regime change. Difficult challenges remain. Political progress in Iraq has been too slow. They have done some things. Actually, they have passed a few bills. In this body, we haven't passed an appropriations bill or a Defense authorization bill yet. We took August off ourselves. It is kind of tough for us to claim that the Iraqi Parliament is not doing its job when we can't seem to get our job done. On the political front in Iraq, the Government is already sharing oil revenues among provinces. They are reaching out to former Baathists, allowing them to participate in the army and the Government. As I said, millions turned out to vote. It will take time for them, just as America's revolution did, but the benefits of a stable Iraq as an ally to the United States in the most volatile region of the world would be a major blow to terrorism, al-Qaida, and Iran's religious extremists. Let me be clear: Our national security interest for the near and intermediate term is preventing chaos, genocide, and a regionwide war. That is our interest there, that is why our troops are there, because if they left, we could be facing far greater challenges, likely attacks on the United States and potentially a regionwide war. Our Intelligence Committee has long warned that precipitous withdrawal would create chaos and those impacts. If we were to be driven out of Iraq on the terms of terrorists and political timelines, terrorists from the Middle East to Southeast Asia to Europe to Africa would be emboldened to spread their fear, oppression of women, death and destruction, just as they were emboldened when we failed to respond appropriately to bombings of the USS Cole, Khobar Towers, embassies in Iraq, and the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center--all instances in which civilians and servicemembers were murdered. Despite General Petraeus's testimony, despite our intelligence community warnings, and despite Secretary Gates's recent remarks, some war opponents continue to want to cede defeat. They refuse to listen to the advice of commanders. They ignore the consequences of a political withdrawal and the problems about which the Intelligence Committee warned. I am very concerned about the amendment before us. I urge my colleagues to think about it and then vote against it. This is an amendment which would micromanage the war. Even a few of its supporters have been forthright enough to admit that it is a backdoor way of achieving what they want, which is defeat in Iraq by a premature withdrawal, because they know the chaos this would spread. They know what would happen if we tried to implement this into law. As Secretary Gates said on FOX News, such congressional meddling would mean force management, make problems that would be extremely difficult, and affect combat effectiveness and perhaps pose greater risk to our troops. He said when lawmakers intrude into this process, they could produce gaps during which one unit pulling out would not be immediately replaced by another, and as a result, they would have an area of combat operations with no U.S. forces, and the troops coming in would be at greater risk. Contrary to the notion of its supporters that the measure would give the Armed Forces relief, it actually might force greater use of the National Guard and reservists. I am concerned about the National Guard and Reserve; they have been overstressed. I am concerned about our military; they have been overstressed. You know what happened? After the first gulf war in the 1990s, we slashed the size of our military. We slashed it far too much. The President recommended; the Congress went along with it. We slashed it too far. We are starting to rebuild. We have a very dangerous world. We need to have a military ready to respond. Let me talk about the troops. I hear from a lot of them. I hear from my son, who is on his second tour in Iraq. He is a sniper platoon commander. He says he can only speak for 30 or 40 marines, but the one thing they understand is they want to complete their mission. They want to come home. Sure, they would like to be home. But they signed up for a mission. They don't want to withdraw, see all their contributions and sacrifices go for naught. They know that meddling in the war strategy, cut and withdrawal, cut and jog, or tying up the management of the war would be a disaster. They know that al-Qaida and the enemy is hoping that will happen. This amendment is not as straightforward as cutting funding or withdrawing the troops, but it is perhaps more dangerous. That is why I urge my colleagues to stand up for the men and women who might be put at greater risk, and our national security interests, by refusing the amendment. I want to talk about another part of this debate that is very shameful. MoveOn.org's attack depicting General Petraeus as ``Betray Us'' should be condemned, period. It was an attack on the integrity of an intellectual, distinguished, and patriotic officer serving his Nation during a time of war, with the confidence of his troops behind him. Make no mistake about it, discussing and condemning MoveOn.org's ad is not a sideshow or a distraction. In fact, it is paramount in a time of war we condemn the trashing of decorated military officers highly respected by their troops, and this one unanimously approved by this body, in order to achieve a political objective. Marty Conaster, commander of the American Legion said: As Americans, we all have a duty to speak up when our uniformed heroes are slandered. He went on to say: The libelous attack on a general is not the American Legion's primary concern about the anti-war movement. Our concern is for the private, the sergeant, the lieutenant and the major. If a distinguished general could be attacked in such a manner, what can the rank-and-file soldier expect when he or she returns home? Sadly, the MoveOn.org ad is emblematic of a broader struggle by opponents of the war to muzzle other experts and discredit their views. It is this tactic of desperation and, ironically, one that attempts to distract the American people from the realities of the threat our Nation and our allies face from terrorism. Sadly, Mr. Presiident, this effort is being used to attack another distinguished military man approved by this body. It has to do with the field of intelligence, and this is another area we learned is critically important on our Intelligence Committee delegation to Iraq in May. When we were in Iraq, one of our key generals expressed his great frustration that old provisions of the FISA law were blocking him from keeping our troops in the field safe. Well, I have some good news on that front, and I thank the Members of this body on both sides of the aisle who, on a bipartisan basis, approved the Protect America Act on August 3 and August 4. That has opened up the lines of communications, the lines of intelligence for our troops in the field, for our safety here at home and homeland security. It has been very important and it eliminated a blockage that was critical. Now, after we passed it, I have heard some critics, most recently, notably, in the House who have been trying to rewrite history and say the law did things it did not do. They have tried to discredit ADM Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence. I am compelled to set the record straight. As vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and sponsor of the Protect America Act, I was the lead negotiator during the final hours as Congress acted to pass a critical short-term update to our Nation's law governing terrorist surveillance. As one who was there, I dispute the misinformation being spread by some, and largely those who were not there, and I will outline the events as they occurred. For my colleagues and members of the press who are interested in the other side of the story, here is what happened. First, the timeline of events: In January, the President announced his Terrorist Surveillance Program was being put under the FISA Court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court. Our Director of National Intelligence, the DNI, subsequently stated that after that time the intelligence community lost a significant amount of its collection capability because of the fact that the law, as interpreted, did not square with the technology now in place and it was imposing unwarranted limitations we had not had when we were collecting radio communications, and he asked the Congress to modernize FISA sooner rather than later. As I said, when we toured Iraq in May, our Joint Special Operations Commander, LTG Stan McChrystal, told us the blockage in electronic surveillance by FISA was substantially hurting his ability to gain the intelligence he needed to protect our troops in the field and gain an offensive advantage. On April 12, the DNI sent his full FISA modernization proposal to Congress. On May 1, DNI McConnell presented it in open session to the Senate Intelligence Committee. Immediately following the admiral's testimony, I urged that our committee mark up FISA legislation. The reply was until the President turned over certain legal opinions from the surveillance program, Congress would not modernize FISA. That Congress would hold American security hostage to receiving documents from a program that no longer existed was disheartening. We have received an inordinate amount of documents from the Department of Justice and the DNI. Yet I do not dispute the desire or the right of Members to seek a few important documents from the executive branch. In fact, I have joined in requesting those. But I did disagree with holding up FISA modernization when those documents are not necessary to do that. Now, despite the urging from the DNI and knowing this outdated law was harming our terrorist surveillance capabilities, for more than 3 months Congress chose to do nothing. In late June, Admiral McConnell briefed Members of the Senate again urging us to modernize FISA. Finally, his pleadings began to gain traction. In mid-July, Members of Congress agreed to discuss a short-term, scaled-down version of FISA to protect the country for the next few months before we could address comprehensive reform this fall. Admiral McConnell immediately sent Congress his scaled-down proposal. Over the next week, Admiral McConnell was given nearly a half dozen versions of unvetted proposals from various congressional staffs across Congress and then pressed for instant support of these proposals. The admiral returned a compromise proposal, including some of the provisions requested. Finally, we in this body on August 3 and in the House on August 4 passed, on a bipartisan basis, the Protect America Act. I am pleased that the admiral and I could include in the measure we passed several important changes suggested by members of the majority party. We recognized this legislation still needs to be clarified, but it allowed the intelligence community to collect very important foreign intelligence targeted at foreign sources to keep our troops and Americans here at home safe. After the passage of the act, I spoke with a number of members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and I am confident now that we will be able to craft an improved, permanent version of FISA. So there is good news on that front. But now that I have laid out the timeline of sorts, I do need to address some recent attempts, primarily in the other body, to discredit our Director of National Intelligence, Admiral McConnell. As I said with General Petraeus, unfortunately, the M.O. for some is attacking military leaders. Here, as others attacked Petraeus, they are attacking personally another honorable man. I am disappointed with those who are charging Admiral McConnell with partisanship and duplicity for their own political gains. Despite accusations to the contrary, Admiral McConnell never agreed to any proposal he had not seen in writing by congressional staff. There were indeed several dialogs where concepts were discussed, but I noted that Admiral McConnell at the end of every discussion said he needed to see and review with these leaders the congressional language in writing before he could support it. It is a good thing he objected because I was present when several elements of FISA were agreed to that the DNI and I wanted but subsequently and notably were absent from congressional proposals later sent to the admiral. Unfortunately, this bait-and-switch during negotiations was not the only disappointment. There were efforts by some to circumvent the committee process and craft legislation behind closed doors without input from the relevant committee or from the minority side of the aisle. Even as the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I was excluded from most of the key meetings. Not only was I excluded, but most members of the Intelligence Committee, Republicans and Democrats, were left out of the process. Despite attempts to leave out key Members of Congress during the last negotiations, I think we are on the right track. I am confident the Senate Intelligence Committee can pass comprehensive FISA reform, and we have engaged in very positive and encouraging talks, not just--obviously, I have talked with the chairman, Chairman Rockefeller. The Democrats and Republicans in the Senate are making great progress. We are working on the issue, and I have confidence that colleagues on both sides of the aisle can come together on this issue. Unfortunately, again, today, another Member of the House is trying to demonize to the American public the Protect America Act that we passed in August, saying the bill went too far and was a power grab of executive power. They wrongly claim the law allows warrantless searches of Americans' homes, offices, and computers and reduces the FISA Court to a rubberstamp. That is absolutely flat dead wrong. While I agree, as I said earlier, the law can be improved, clarified, nothing could be further from the truth. Quite the opposite, the law gave the FISA Court a greater role than it was ever meant to have when FISA was passed in 1978. This Protect America Act in no way allows for warrantless physical searches of Americans' homes, offices, and computers. This sort of inaccurate fear-mongering should have no place in this debate. I am counting on cooler heads to prevail in the Senate Intelligence Committee, and in the committee we are making real progress. I think with the members we have on our committee, we have a great chance to get an even better bill forging bipartisan solutions that will deal with some questions probably not contemplated when the initial proposal came up to us. We have a lot of different opinions, but all our members want to do what is best for national security and best ensures privacy protections. The key is working out just the right balance, and I am optimistic we will do so. As we saw in the strong bipartisan support for the Protect America Act, we can act in a bipartisan manner to protect terrorist surveillance--a critical early warning system--while protecting the civil liberties of ordinary Americans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a brief editorial from Investor's Business Daily called ``Mettle Vs. Meddle,'' referring essentially to the amendment before us, printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. section 8 housing payments

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I raised this issue on the Senate floor on Monday. I certainly believe this is a real difficulty, and I certainly believe HUD needs to meet its contractual obligations. I also agree that we need to create provisions that will assure that HUD makes its housing assistance payments on time.

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I congratulate and thank Senator Murray for being such an agile partner and such an effective leader. We finished the bill in almost record time. For a bill of this complexity, I might even claim it is record time. The legislation is very complex. You have seen that it is controversial and can even be very political, as we saw with the Mexican trucking issue. As always, Senator Murray deserves a great deal of credit and accolades for her ability to balance the many tough and controversial issues that make up the legislation, and to do so with a smile and good humor despite circumstances that would have brought out a more difficult response from a lesser person. We also thank her crack staff, including Peter Rogoff, Bill Simpson, Rachel Milberg, Meaghan McCarthy, and Teri Curtin. I also thank my staff for a great job: Jon Kamarck, Ellen Beares, and Matt McCardle. Each of them brought special contributions, as well as hard work, to the bill, spending many late nights and weekends to make sure the HUD fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill would reflect a balanced and bipartisan approach to the legislation that could be supported by Members on both sides of the aisle. We thank the overwhelming majority who voted for it. A special thanks goes to our Republican and Democratic floor staff for bringing their special expertise and making us all look the part of respectable, hard-charging legislators and untangling the knots that sometimes occur in the process. As I did on Monday, I want to brag about our ability to include funding increases above the budget request for HUD's housing and community development programs. These are important programs to help build our communities and without which a number of persons--a significant number of persons--would be placed at risk of homelessness. That would have been a particular hardship on many seniors and persons with disabilities. I also want to repeat my gratitude that we were able to include $75 million in section 8 funds for the VA Affairs Supportive Housing Program. It is critical as service people continue to return from Iraq and face new realities that can include the need for housing and other services. This program will become even more worthwhile as young, disabled service men and women make the difficult adjustment to civilian life. As Members know, after 2 full days on this bill, with regard to FAA, this bill continues to support the beginning stage of the NextGen Air Transportation System. This bill also contains funds above the administration's request for flight inspection and certification personnel. These funds are needed and will ensure the continued safety of the National Airspace System. I also want to note the additional funds for the Airport Improvement Program, which has been and remains an important bipartisan priority for this subcommittee. In addition, the bill meets the guarantees of SAFETEA for highways and, and for the most part, transit. We include the revenue aligned budget authority, RABA, which was not included in the President's budget. In addition, we have included some $1 billion in obligation limitation as a starter account for the inspection of our aging bridges after those tragic deaths in Minnesota when the bridge collapsed. Finally, as I noted previously, there are some issues that we will have to address before the bill can become law. For example, we include the revenue aligned budget authority which was not included in the President's budget. The bill also contains a $2.89 billion rescission of highway contract authority apportionments to the states, used as a budgetary offset. The bill also includes an additional $43,359,000 in Admin CA and another $172,243,000 in an unused transportation innovative financing infrastructure account, TIFIA, contract authority for a total offset of spending of $3.495 billion. HUD also includes a rescission of $1.1 billion. Finally, I continue to be concerned over HUD's and OMB's failure to provide adequate funding for HUD's section 8 project-based housing program for fiscal year 2008. This is not an option but is a contractual obligation. Most important, this is a critical and important program that serves many of our most vulnerable citizens such as extremely low-income families, including seniors and persons with disabilities. HUD has been unable to fund fully or timely many of these contracts during fiscal year 2007, and I understand that this problem will only get worse in fiscal year 2008 with HUD facing a shortfall in its section 8 project-based account of $2 billion or more. I know this program enjoys wide support in this Congress and I would fully expect OMB to provide the necessary funds for the program through a budget amendment or as part of a continuing resolution or through emergency supplemental legislation. And while I am pleased with much of the bill, especially needed spending in critical programs, I am concerned that we are on a collision course with the White House on the spending levels contained in this bill. I fear that both sides are going to have to make adjustments. I just hope that any adjustments do not result in the loss of any of the positive investments made we have made in this bill. I will conclude by again thanking my colleague, Senator Murray, her staff, my staff, and the floor staff. Thanks for the help of everybody.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from Minnesota a couple questions? Obviously, we are all concerned about this collapse. We know the burden. We want to make sure we provide responsible help that is necessary. Senator Coleman has indicated he wants to speak on the amendment. I would like to know, No. 1, if this includes transit funding in that $195 million. Is it emergency highway funds, emergency bridge funds, or is it just designated as an emergency that does not come out of any of the existing highway or bridge funds?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate that. We need to work with DOT to make sure we have the details worked out. I appreciate the Senator agreeing to work with us so we can. Senator Coleman wants to be added as a cosponsor. We may get further information as we go to conference, but we will try to get this resolved today. If the Senator would add Senator Coleman, I would appreciate that.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. We have nothing on this side.

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2799

Mr. BOND. There is no further debate on this side.

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2803