Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, today we pay tribute to Senator Craig Thomas, whom we unfortunately lost to cancer last night. Our thoughts, prayers, and sympathy go out to his wife Susan and their children during this difficult time. I had the opportunity to work closely with Senator Thomas on the Environment and Public Works Committee. He was a leader in the energy, agriculture, water resources and agricultural issues that affected his State. I highly respected his low-key, behind-the-scenes manner of getting things done. He was forward looking: he believed that ``clean technologies'' were a solution both to environmental pollution and to our dependence on foreign oil. On the Finance Committee, he was a dependable vote for fiscal sanity, tax simplification and cutting spending. It is said around here that there are ``work horses'' and ``show horses.'' By that measure Senator Thomas was certainly a work horse. He did not aggressively seek the limelight. Instead he worked quietly and diligently, with integrity, to get things done for Wyoming. We will miss his knowledge, competence, and his friendship.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, tomorrow at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History, Elsie the Cow will be present to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Borden Cheese. Borden Cheese started in 1857, when Gail Borden began selling his patented condensed milk that allowed milk to last much longer than the 3 days it would currently hold in its natural state. This condensed milk was used in large ration amounts by the Union Army during the Civil War. Gail Borden's modernization of dairy practices in the ``Dairyman's Ten Commandments'' created a model for modern health department regulations. Elsie the Cow entered the picture for Borden almost 90 years ago. Not only has she represented the face of Borden, but she also toured the Nation to support purchasing U.S. war bonds during World War II. Her support sold $10 million in war bonds. Today, Borden is a member of Missouri-based Dairy Farmers of America, a 22,000-member farm cooperative. I am pleased to honor Borden and Elsie on their important anniversary.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for allowing me to speak briefly. I have proposed an amendment which I believe is very important to this bill to cut the automatic path to citizenship. It is filed at the desk, and I will call it up later. Citizenship is the most sacred gift Americans can provide. It should not serve as a reward to those who broke the law to enter or remain in this country. The path to citizenship is at the heart of the amnesty criticism of this bill. Cutting this path cuts out the most severe complaint about this bill. I supported the Vitter amendment yesterday to strike the entire program proposed to deal with 12 million illegal aliens in the country. Unfortunately, that amendment was rejected. So today I propose a much more targeted, focused amendment to strike the controversial aspect of the proposal to give the award of citizenship to those 12 million illegal aliens. Whatever we end up doing with those 12 million illegal aliens, it does not require the further step of giving them a path to citizenship ahead of others. Those 12 million illegal aliens came to this country to work without the expectation of becoming citizens. More illegal aliens will come to this country on a temporary basis to work without expectation of citizenship. There is no need to grant these people the gift of citizenship. Specifically, my amendment will strike the contents of section 602 on earned adjustment of Z status aliens, replacing it with a prohibition on issuing an immigrant visa to Z nonimmigrants which is currently in the bill and a prohibition of adjusting a Z nonimmigrant to legalize permanent resident or so-called green card holder. In this way, the path to citizenship is cut off. I urge the Senate to call up and adopt this amendment. I believe it will enable other goals in the bill to be accomplished without giving the amnesty path to citizenship. I yield the floor and I thank my colleagues.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, in April, Ted Stevens became the longest serving Republican Member of the United States Senate in our country's 230-year history. I join my colleagues in congratulating the Senator and thanking him for his many years of service and our friendship. Much has already been said about Senator Stevens' sometimes grouchy and intimidating demeanor. But if we look past the hulk ties, the scowling countenance, the vigorous defense of any and all attacks on Alaskan priorities, and the cowed staff who fear that they have fallen on the wrong side of our esteemed senior Senator, we see another, more compassionate side. When I first arrived in Washington, DC, in 1987, my son was entering first grade at the same time as Ted's beloved daughter. Sam and Lily became fast friends, and so did their parents. Ted and Catherine were very close friends of ours and like godparents to Sam. Anyone who knows Ted well knows how important his family is and the high value he places on his children and their friends. He is truly a most kind, gentle, and readily approachable father, uncle, and godfather. His concern about others' children and family members is equally heartfelt. As he exercises his many leadership roles, Senator Stevens is always willing to take our family obligations into account. He realizes how important it is to schedule time for our families in the chaotic, hectic life we lead in the United States Senate. In addition to the close personal friendship we have enjoyed with the Stevens family, I have had the opportunity to work closely with Chairman Stevens as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. As chairman, Ted is solicitous of the concerns of even his most junior members. He is also a devoted friend of his partner--sometimes ranking member and sometimes chairman--Senator Dan Inouye. While there is never any doubt that he and Senator Inouye control the Defense Appropriations call, Senator Stevens is sensitive and receptive to the needs of other Members to the greatest extent possible. He is a very passionate defender of the Appropriations Committee, its prerogatives, and its responsibilities. Woe unto the person who attacks the appropriations process or the work that he does. One soon learns that such a position is not one to be taken lightly. One had better be prepared for a bruising fight. As President pro tempore, he was a faithful and dedicated leader of the Senate. Now that he is--temporarily--out of that position, he continues a close working relationship with his good friend and colleague Senator Robert C. Byrd, the current President pro tem. It is, indeed, an honor to have him as our leading senior Republican in the Senate. The Senator's influence extends far beyond the Senate to Alaska, the Nation and the world. Many of the accomplishments of the Senate over the last 4 decades bear the mark of Ted Stevens. He has been tireless in his leadership to secure a strong military--and has funded a strong personnel system, the most needed, up-to-date equipment and the most promising research. The current strength and superiority of the U.S. Armed Forces is due in no small part to Senator Stevens. He has also been a leader in the natural resources, transportation issues, and climate change issues important to all of America but that particularly affect his home state. Ted is passionate about Alaska--its natural beauty, its people, its needs and its fishing. Many of us have enjoyed traveling to Alaska with Senator Stevens and discovering first-hand the treasures it has to offer. The many roads, parks and buildings named for him are but a hint of all he has done for the State. His contributions are extensive and lasting, from improving the infrastructure to safeguarding the wildlife and natural resources Alaska has in abundance. Alaskans rightly dubbed the Senator the ``Alaska of the Twentieth Century.'' I am sure Senator Stevens would remind us that he is not done yet. Odds are he is a favorite to be ``Alaskan of the Twenty-first Century'' as well. It has been a tremendous honor and privilege to serve with Ted Stevens. I look forward to many more years of working together.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I congratulate Monroe City, MO, on the 150th Anniversary of its founding. Monroe City has had a long and proud history. The city was founded on July 4, 1857, by E.B. Talcott and John Duff at a picnic where town lots were sold. In 1869 Monroe City became an incorporated town, owing its existence to the Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad and the Wabash Railroad. Due to the drive of the community's many entrepreneurs Monroe City enjoyed continued economic, agricultural, and structural growth. In the early 1870s an educational system was created with both public and parochial schools. In 1918, a Carnegie Library was built that is still owned and supported by the city of Monroe City. Throughout its 150-year history, Monroe City has continued to flourish and has striven to maintain its concern for, and involvement in, the lives of its citizens. Members of this community have often assumed leadership positions in the community through participation in fire, police, and administration departments, as well as with their work with a variety of civic and church groups. I am pleased to join with the State of Missouri in congratulating Monroe City on this important milestone and wishing them continued growth and success for the next 150 years.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Teresa Kirkeeng-Kincaid, a remarkable civil servant who dedicated her entire career to making her community, the Upper Mississippi River Region and our Nation a better place. Teresa passed away last week at the young age of 48, after a courageous battle against cancer. Her legacy, however, will continue long into the future. Teresa dedicated her entire professional life to working for the Federal Government. Teresa joined the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a civil engineer with the Rock Island District in 1981, and continued with the Corps for 26 years. In that time, she served in many roles, including assistant chief of the planning, program and project management division. During her two and a half decades of service, Teresa earned a reputation on the Upper Mississippi Region and across the Nation as a person of great dedication and integrity. She played a leadership role in important projects including formulating navigation, flood damage, and ecosystem restoration projects throughout the entire Upper Mississippi River basin. She was the ``go to person'' throughout the Corps of Engineers on numerous planning issues. The team she led reestablished the Corps' Planning Associates program to train future planners for the Corps, a legacy that will last for many decades. I had the occasion to meet Teresa several times, and know the very high regard in which she was held by her coworkers, her countless friends, and her loving family. She will be missed.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am very pleased to rise following my good friend from Montana, with whom I served last year as the subcommittee leaders of the Environment and Public Works Committee. We worked in a bipartisan way, and I appreciate that working relationship this year again. The EPW has worked on a bipartisan basis on this very important bill, and we have shown it by the number of people who signed letters asking that they move the bill. We have seen it in the vote on cloture. I thank the leadership in this body, particularly Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe. This bill before us today and next week, the Water Resources Development Act, or WRDA, is long overdue and badly needed. As has already been said, it authorizes projects under the jurisdiction----

Mr. BOND. Yes, I am happy to.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the kind comments of my friend from Montana. I wish there were more issues on which we could work so closely, but this one I view as a vital investment in our Nation's future. This is something we ought to be able to come together on as Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, and say we need to build for the future. As my colleague from Montana has said, the programs administered by the Corps are of tremendous value to the entire Nation. They provide drinking water, electric power production, river transportation, recreation, flood protection, environmental protection and restoration, and emergency response. Few agencies in the Federal Government touch as many citizens as the Corps does. The Corps provides one-quarter of our Nation's total hydropower output. If you are looking for pollution-free power, it is hydropower. The Corps operates 463 lake recreation areas; moves 630 million tons of cargo, valued at over $73 billion annually through our inland system; manages over 12 million acres of land and water; provides 3 trillion gallons of water for use by local communities and businesses; and has prevented an estimated $706 billion in flood damage within the past 25 years with an investment one-seventh of that value. During the 1993 flood alone, an estimated $19.1 billion in flood damage was prevented by flood control facilities in place at that time. Regrettably, I must tell my colleagues that as we debate this bill on the floor, a flood is currently striking Missouri. I talked with a top Corps official from Missouri yesterday, who said the flood and its impact now may be as great as the disaster of the 1993 floods. I will be going there tomorrow to survey the damage. Floods are a fact of nature, and a good levee system can reduce the damage. The WRDA bill is a bipartisan bill traditionally produced by Congress every 2 years. As a matter of fact, you could say this is the 2002 WRDA bill about 5 years late. Better late than never. The bill makes possible all of America's major flood control projects, coastal protection, environmental protection and restoration, transportation and recreation on our major waterways. Despite its importance, however, we have not passed a WRDA bill since 2000. The longer we wait, the more unmet needs pile up and the more complicated the demands upon the bill become. I think the public voice is loud, clear, and spoken often regarding how they feel about our long overdue and much-needed WRDA legislation. We believe the bill before the Senate is a good one, balancing the needs of our States for environmental restoration of key waterways and for navigation projects that create economic growth and keep our economy going. The bill before us will create jobs, spur economic development and trade competitiveness, and improve the environment. It is financially responsible. To say it is widely supported is an understatement. It passed the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last year by a voice vote and, in the 109th Congress, 80 colleagues signed a letter urging floor action. A few weeks ago, the House cleared a companion bill with a vote of 394 to 25, and in the 109th Congress, they passed it with 406 votes. Last year, we merely ran out of time in conference. That is why I am glad the bill was passed out of committee and brought to the floor in a timely manner. We cannot afford to let the time run out on the bill in this Congress. In the last 20 years, environmental protection has become a primary Corps mission. Our water resources perform a variety of functions simultaneously. They can provide transportation and protection from floods and protect habitat for many species. Similarly, when it comes to Corps projects, navigational and flood control projects can and should be environmentally sound. Environmental restoration can help prevent or minimize flooding during the next major storm. The Corps is leading some of the world's largest ecosystem restoration projects. The commanding feature of this bill is its landmark environmental and ecosystem restoration authorities. More than half the bill consists of authorization for environmental restoration projects. Think of all the major waterways that are important to America, to our environmental heritage, to recreation, and to commerce. This bill affects all of them. Among the projects, this bill restores wetlands in the upper Connecticut River basin in Vermont and New Hampshire, restores oyster habitats in the Chesapeake Bay, restores fisheries in the Great Lakes, implements an environmental management program for the Rio Grande River, continues restoration of the Florida Everglades, restores areas of coastal Louisiana damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, restores habitat on the upper Mississippi and Illinois water systems, and restores oyster habitats on the Long Island Sound. Flood control obviously is important. If we learned anything about Mother Nature in the last 15 years, it is that we very often need protection from her storms. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita obviously are devastating examples. The good news is that Corps projects have prevented an estimated $706 billion in flood damage within the last 25 years with an investment of one-seventh that amount. During the 1993 flood alone, an estimated $19.1 billion in flood damage was prevented by flood control facilities in place at the time. This legislation authorizes flood control projects in California, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, Minnesota, Kentucky, South Carolina, Idaho, Washington, Missouri, Iowa, New Mexico, and Arkansas, to name a few. Transportation efficiency is another benefit. While the majority of this legislation is for environmental protection and restoration, a key bipartisan economic commission we include provides transportation efficiency and environmental sustainability on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. As the world becomes more competitive, America must also. From 1970 to 2003, the value of U.S. trade increased twenty-fourfold and 70 percent since 1994, an average annual growth rate of over 10 percent. We can expect demand for U.S. exports to dramatically increase over 34 years. We must ask ourself, or that part of our exports that are commodities: Will there be growth in transportation in the next 20 to 50 years to accommodate the growth in demand for commercial transportation? If we listen to the Department of Transportation, they are already predicting the congestion on our roads will double in the next quarter of a century. From where I sit, capacity on the rails is at a maximum. It is a lot tougher to build a new railroad than it is to maintain the locks on an existing waterway system. If we think our roads are congested now, think of what will happen if we cannot relieve the pressure on our highways. Water transportation is an inadequately tapped capacity, and it is good news because water transportation is efficient, it is safe, it conserves fuel, and it protects the air and the environment. One medium-size barge tow can carry the same amount of freight as 870 trucks. That fact alone speaks volumes to the benefits of water transport. With oil prices at a record $72 per barrel, consider the advantage of a twin engine barge that can carry the equivalent of 870 trucks. Over the past 35 years, waterborne commerce on the upper Mississippi River has more than tripled. It currently carries 60 percent of our Nation's corn exports and 45 percent of our Nation's soybean exports. It does so at two-thirds the cost of rail when and if rail is available. In Missouri alone, we ship 34.7 million tons of commodities, with a combined value of more than $4 billion, and it isn't just agricultural products. It includes coal, petroleum, aggregates, grain, chemicals, iron, steel, minerals, fertilizers, and other commodities. The sad fact is our navigable waterways are in environmental and economic decline. Jobs, markets, and the availability of habitat for fish and wildlife are at stake. The American Society of Civil Engineers grades navigable waterways infrastructure with a D-minus, with over 50 percent of the locks functionally obsolete despite increased demand. These locks were built 75 years ago with a life expectancy of 50 years. If you look at the locks when they are locking through a tow, they don't just leak, they shed tons of water. They are past the stage where continued application of chewing gum and duct tape are going to protect the water transportation infrastructure we need. This bill is a plan that gets the Corps back in the business of building for the future rather than haggling about predicting it. The legislation contains authorization for funding to improve navigation on a number of our waterways in several States--Louisiana, Texas, Alaska, Virginia, Delaware, Maine, Oklahoma, and South Carolina. My interest is a key piece of the bill that modernizes locks and dams on the upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. We authorize capacity on locks 20 to 25 on the Missouri River in Peoria and LaGrange on the Illinois. New 1,200-foot locks on the Mississippi will provide equal capacity in the bottleneck region downstream of the 1,200-foot lock 19 at Keokuk and upstream locks 26 and 27 near St. Louis. What happens with the 600-foot lock as now exists today? All the modern tows are 1,200 feet long, so we have to double lock through them, push half the barges in, lock them down, bring the water down, push the other half of the barge in, lock it down. That is a tremendous bottleneck, and even though 600-foot locks are in very degraded condition, half the cost of the new locks will be paid by private users who pay into the inland waterways trust fund. Additional funds would be provided for mitigation and small-scale and nonstructural measures to improve efficiency. There is lots of talk around here about wanting to increase trade. All the productive farmers, commercial family farms in Missouri know that trade is essential, not only for their well-being, but for the strength of the economy to bring revenue to rural communities and the rest of the world. But we can't have those without the basic transportation infrastructure necessary to move goods from buyers to sellers. New efficiency helps give our producers an edge that can make or break opportunities in the international marketplace. As we look 50 years into the future, we have to ask ourselves a fundamental question: Should we have a system that promotes growth or should we be confined to a transportation straitjacket designed not for 2050 but for 1950 or earlier with paddle wheel boats? Further, we can ask ourselves if dramatic investments should be made to address environmental problems and opportunities that exist on these great waterways. In both cases, the answer to me, and I hope a majority of this body, must be, of course, we must modernize and improve. Seventy years ago, some argued that a transportation system on the Mississippi River was not justified. But Congress bravely stepped forward and decided it would not try to predict the future but to shape the future and decide to invest in a system despite the naysayers. Over 84 million tons per year later, clearly the decision was wise. A couple years ago, a veteran chief economist at the USDA, talking about transportation efficiency and the ability of farmers to win markets and higher prices, said that transportation is fundamentally related. He predicted that corn exports should rise over the next 10 years by 45 percent, and 70 percent of that will travel down the Mississippi River. This decision to improve the waterways has not been taken lightly. All decisions have been documented and coordinated with an interagency Federal principles group, independent technical reviews and stakeholders and have been made available for public review and comment. The Corps of Engineers spent $70 million completing an anticipated 6- year study that actually took 14 years to complete. That was only three times over budget. During that period, there have been no less than 35 meetings of Governors' committees, 28 meetings of economic coordinating committees among the States, and a minimum of 44 meetings of the Navigation and Environmental Coordination Committee; additionally, 130 briefings for special interest groups, 25 newsletters, at least 6 sets of public meetings in 46 locations with over 4,000 people in attendance. There are some who say we ought to study it some more. Give me a break. To say the least, this has been a very long transparent and representative process, and while we have been studying, our competitors have been building. One of the saddest sights I have seen recently is a picture of exports from New Orleans. Rather than exporting American commodities, do you know what they are exporting? Barges. They are exporting barges and tow boats that couldn't operate efficiently on the existing lock system to Brazil and other areas so they can have modern transportation means that will eat our lunch both literally and figuratively. Given the extraordinary delay so far and given the reality that large-scale construction takes not weeks, not months but decades, further delay is no longer an option. That is why I am very pleased to join a bipartisan group of Senators who agree we must improve the efficiency and the environmental sustainability of our great resources. The transportation efficiency provisions are supported by a broad- based group of States, farm groups, shippers, labor, and those who pay taxes into the trust fund. Of particular note, I appreciate the strong support from the carpenters, corn growers, farm bureau, soybean growers, energy and construction materials industry. Additionally, I thank Senators McCaskill, Durbin, Obama, Grassley, and Harkin for their strong bipartisan support as well. As for the budget, for some, this bill is too small; for others, it is too big. It is important to understand the budget implications of this legislation in the real world. We are contending with difficult budget realities. It is critical that we be mindful of those realities as we make investments in the infrastructure that supports those who manufacture, grow, buy, and sell products so we can expand our economy, create jobs, secure our future, and pay the taxes our Government needs to continue providing support for the infrastructure. This is an authorization bill. It does not spend $1--not $1. It makes projects eligible within budget constraints. With the allocation provided the Appropriations Committee, the Congress and the President will fund projects deemed to be of the highest priority. The remaining will not be funded because of budget issues. This WRDA process simply allows for projects to be considered during the process of appropriations. Some will measure up, some will not, although the ones in this bill have gone through rigorous examination to get this far. I believe we strike a balance that disciplines the new projects to criteria fairly applied while addressing a great number of water resource priorities. This legislation is supported by the National Waterways Alliance, the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, the California Coastal Coalition, AASHTO, and 250 other organizations. My thanks to the Environment and Public Works Committee, its leadership, its staff, the staff of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure for their hard work and the commitment to bring WRDA to the floor in a timely manner. Again, I particularly thank Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe for their forbearance. I look forward to debate and final passage. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to report to my colleagues on a trip, an Intelligence Committee trip, that I led to Iraq this past weekend, with Senators Snowe and Chambliss and Congressman Issa. We found some very amazing things. We visited Tikrit, Baghdad, Ramadi, Balad. We talked to the commanding officers, sat down and talked with our troops, our soldiers, marines, and airmen. In Ramadi--which only a month or so ago had been a denied area, an area so hostile that heavily armed U.S. units could not even successfully go in. It was extremely dangerous. On Sunday, as a result of changes that have happened in Ramadi in the last several weeks, the four of us Members of Congress, with the general in charge of the area, General Gaskin, and a driver, and two marines with M-16s, went down to downtown Baghdad. We had no phalanx of troops around us, no helicopters flying overhead. We got out and walked in downtown Baghdad at ``Firecracker Corner,'' so named, as one might guess, because of the tremendous number of rounds that perpetually were going off in that area. It was quiet at the time. We went from there into the former Anbar college, which has become the security force headquarters for the area. That building is manned by Iraqi police units, Iraqi army units, and U.S. marines. They were living together, conducting missions together, and apparently they have been extremely successful because Ramadi has changed significantly. In the last 3 months, attacks in Ramadi have decreased by some 74 percent. I have a chart in the Chamber. You probably cannot see it too well. But the first part shows weekly attacks going from a high of 127, in February, down to 24 in the week of April 20 to 26. Indirect fire attacks went from 129 per week down to about 10. Improvised explosive device attacks--this is per month--went from over 320 last July, down to, in March, 67 per month; and in April to 28 per month. Now, what is going on here? Well, it is quite simply that the surge and clear-and-hold counterinsurgency strategy is beginning to work. The mistake we made previously is we would go in and take out al-Qaida and leave. Well, al-Qaida would come right back. And anybody who had cooperated with the coalition forces would be subjected to death or other severe penalties. Now, with significant new numbers of Iraqi police and army, backed up by the U.S. military, we are able to go in and clear and hold. That is why the marines, the Iraqi police, and army are stationed in downtown Baghdad. This is becoming--it is not yet a denied zone for al-Qaida. Now, one of the most important and amazing things that has happened is the tribal sheiks, the Sunnis in that area--if you have been following the Al Anbar progress, the Sunni sheiks run that country. They have concluded--having dealt with al-Qaida, and having had their family members killed, businesses disrupted--they have decided that the coalition forces--American, Australian, British--in cooperation with the Iraqi Army and police are far better hopes for security. By our making a commitment to go in there, they have made a commitment as well. Now they are volunteering large numbers of men to serve in the Iraqi police and the Iraqi Army. In just a couple weeks, 1,200 Iraqi young men signed up for the army. There are now over 10,000 Iraqi policemen. They are being trained, and they are taking over the area. As you look at the entire scope of Ramadi, there are 23 tribal areas. Last year, in one or two of the tribal areas, the sheiks were working with us. Now all 23 have joined with us to fight al-Qaida. There are no uncooperative tribes left. They are joining the military and the police force to help keep the area clear. In downtown Ramadi, the U.S. military has gone in and been able to repair and help reopen the largest, most important mosque in Ramadi, the mosque that is central for the Sunnis in Al Anbar. It had been closed since the start of the war. Now, this past Friday, hundreds of Iraqis were able to attend services. The U.S. military has supplied and set up mosque speakers in Ramadi to broadcast security messages in addition to messages from the local Imams. This is just one example we saw. In Baghdad, we learned the clear- and-hold strategy is working. Areas which had been highly dangerous, with a high number of attacks daily, now, because of the presence of the joint security forces--Iraqi, U.S., and coalition forces--have seen the incidents decline by more than two-thirds. What does this mean? Well, it means al-Qaida is being significantly degraded. Significant numbers of al-Qaida have been killed and detained, and others have been forced out of Baghdad and Al Anbar. Our coalition forces, with the help of the Iraqi military, are, I understand, doing a very good job tracking them down and eliminating them. Now, this is not conclusive. This is only the first results of the surge and the effective counterinsurgency strategy. It was recommended by the Baker-Hamilton commission last year, and it is being implemented by General Petraeus, who is an expert on counterinsurgency. I would say that Marine General Gaskin, who is running Al Anbar, is doing a magnificent job. I was impressed with what we heard from General Odierno and General McCrystal and others who are working to make sure they complete their job. We also met with the most influential leader of the Shia in Iraq, Ayatollah Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. He is the influential leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. We talked with him about the need for the Iraqis to find political solutions and to bring together a unity government of Sunnis, Kurds, and Shias to ensure the safety and stability of their country so they would have an opportunity to go back to normal lives and prosper. We have given them that opportunity, and they need to take that opportunity. We need to do a better job of telling people the difference, and our military is doing that. But at the same time, when we met with our troops, they kept asking us why we aren't getting the money. They know they are doing the job, and they asked us a question which is rather difficult to answer: You sent us over here to do a military mission. We are accomplishing that mission. Why are we not getting the money we need? Where are the Mine Resistant Ambush Protection vehicles that can reduce injuries and deaths so significantly? There was no answer, other than it has been delayed. Let me conclude by saying we are making great progress, and we cannot afford to tell our troops we are not going to support them by sending in a bifurcated budget, funding a month at a time, a month at a time, because they have a several months' long game plan. When they hear people say that the war is lost, they say: We are risking our lives every day, because the war is not lost. What are people in Congress thinking? We cannot tell the Iraqis and our troops that we are going to cut out of here in a couple of months because we will lose the cooperation of the tribal sheiks and the others who are helping us against al-Qaida if they think we are about ready to leave and leave them at the mercy of al-Qaida, which will come back in if we leave prior to establishing strength in the Iraqi security forces that will enable them to prevent al-Qaida from taking over their country. Make no mistake about it, that is the goal of al-Qaida. Our intelligence community unanimously says it. Ayman al-Zawahiri has said it, Osama bin Laden has said it. If we don't believe them, at least we ought to believe our intelligence community. We must pass this supplemental for the full rest of the year without timelines and provide the troops the support and the weapons systems they need. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, today I rise to acknowledge the very special and meaningful contributions of Ms. Heideh Shahmoradi, who is departing the U.S. Senate after serving as detailee for some 4 years from the Department of Transportation. I come to the floor today to thank personally Heideh for her assistance and professionalism as a detailee to me on both the Environment and Public Works, EPW, Committee and the Appropriations Committee. In my former position as chair of the EPW's Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Heideh provided me with invaluable advice and help in the development and passage of the highway reauthorization legislation, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users: or SAFETEA. Heideh played a key role in helping the committee understand the complexities and implications of SAFETEA which helped to ensure that the final legislation properly balanced these very complex policy and funding issues. And as a program expert from the Department, Heideh was able to provide valuable insights on the potential impact of the legislation on highway transportation activities. Heideh not only contributed significantly in analyzing the legislation but she also performed important duties, such as research, fact-checking, editing, and drafting report language and legislation. Heideh did it all with distinction and unflappable good humor. Her skills and performance on working on the EPW Committee made it an easy decision to bring her back from the Department to help me on the Appropriations Committee. Heideh not only continued to assist me on the Federal-aid highway programs on the Senate Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, but she also quickly became a resource and expert on all of the other modes under the Department of Transportation. Throughout her tenure on Capitol Hill, Heideh provided technical expertise and programmatic knowledge that was critical in policymaking decisions on both the authorizing and appropriations committees. Her ability to provide a reality check on legislation helped tremendously in protecting the best interests of our communities and taxpayers. She is simply a true professional civil servant that we are fortunate to have in government. Finally, Heideh is a quick study, adaptable, very good at working with others, and cool under pressure. She also is a person of absolute integrity, honor, and loyalty. To their credit, the leadership at the Department of Transportation has recognized her accomplishments and skills and will be giving her new challenges and opportunities. Her departure is a great loss to the Appropriations Committee and to my office in particular. She will be missed. I strongly commend Heideh for her service to me and the U.S. Senate and, while she is leaving us, she will always be part of the Bond office team. I personally wish Heideh, her husband Torrance, and her son Corey all the best.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, our job in this body right now for all of us is to fight and win the war that radical Islam terrorists have declared upon us. As I see it, Congress has three choices. First, Congress can and should provide the money it needs to support the troops. That is the only proper choice. There is money in this supplemental for additional mine-resistant armored protection vehicles--vehicles the Army reports will reduce casualties by 70 percent. Each day this Congress neglects to fund the troops and pass a bill that can be signed into law is an additional day our troops are without that protection. Second, if you want to stop this war, Congress can vote to cut off funding. However, doing so would tell the troops that even though 77 Members of this body said we should fight this war to keep America safe, we would now be telling all of our brave men and women in Iraq, their families, and the families of those who gave their lives, we did not mean it, that we did not want to finish this job, and that when the going gets tough, America gets going--out. We will tell America we are no longer concerned about keeping our homeland safe from a new 9/11, about denying al-Qaida the safe haven it has declared it is seeking in Iraq to prepare for new attacks on America. While that choice is deadly wrong, it is an honest choice under the constitutional power given to the Congress. Third, and most deplorable, Congress is delaying the funds by forcing vote after vote, while attempting to score political points, and trying to micromanage the war, even though war management is the President's constitutional responsibility. Most sadly, this is the course of action the Democratic leadership has chosen--a course that will result in ``death by a thousand cuts.'' Those who are attempting to end the war precipitously, politically, because they think it will score them seats in Congress or perhaps even the White House, are putting polls and politics ahead of our national security. Democratic leaders have stated they intend to pick up seats as a result of what they have referred to as a lost war. These comments were not just broadcast here in the United States; this talk about war loss was picked up and broadcast gleefully by al-Jazeera to our enemies and the world. The Los Angeles Times has reported a top House Democrat has said: Our goal is to keep giving them--Republicans--votes on Iraq. The article goes on to say: Democratic strategists also believe that repeated votes on the war will allow the party to expand its congressional majorities in next year's elections by continuing to link GOP lawmakers with the President and his war policies. I am sure our troops in the field appreciate very much that some of the Democratic leadership are working to win the war--not the war against our sworn enemies blowing up our troops and killing Iraqi children who rely on our protection but against fellow Americans in coming elections. Where is their strategy to win, to leave Iraq a stable and safe country? As I have said, the other side's leadership, by embracing a policy of repeated votes and delaying funding, is denying our troops the resources they need. Their enemy should be al-Qaida and its murderous insurgents, not the President and Republican opponents. Substituting Congress for General Petraeus's leadership and telling him how to run a war from 8,000 miles away is a disaster. General Petraeus is executing a new plan, a plan essentially recommended by the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, which last fall our colleagues on the other side of the aisle said we should follow. But now even if some generals in Congress think they are smarter than General Petraeus and can devise in legislation a better plan, which I strongly doubt, I am very doubtful they can adjust that plan to conditions on the battlefield. This is a sad reflection of how vested the Democratic leaders are in defeat--defeat for President Bush but defeat for our troops and our safety in Iraq. Congress attempts to put artificial political timetables on the management of the war and does nothing to accomplish the mission. The Baker-Hamilton commission explicitly rejected timetables for withdrawal, because they recognized--the bipartisan group recognized-- it was a disaster, and many Democratic leaders have previously stated a legislative timetable, laying out this strategy in legislation, is absolutely unacceptable. What the political timetable does is give al- Qaida the encouragement and information it needs to know when and where and how to attack our troops. This January, in open session, leaders of our intelligence community came before the Senate Intelligence Committee to answer questions about establishing a political withdrawal and the consensus was alarming.

Mr. BOND. I understand I had 7 minutes.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the intelligence community said withdrawing forces before we can provide security will result in chaos: more killing among Iraqis, an al-Qaida safe haven, and a possible regionwide declaration of war. We need a political solution in Iraq, not in Washington, to allow the leaders in the national unity government to come together, but to get that, we need to repel the terrorists, we need to rebuild the Iraqi security forces. What won't help General Petraeus is direction from armchair generals in Congress. What I would say to those who want to direct the war is: If you want to run it, you will own it. When a newly revitalized al-Qaida carries out a renewed 9/11 scale attack, you will own that one, too. Mr. President, hundreds of thousands of soldiers and their families at home will remember that. I suggest we support our troops. As my colleagues know, I hail proudly from the Show-Me-State. If all of the rhetoric in Washington about supporting the troops is true and I suspect it is, then I suggest that the Congress show our troops that we do support them, get them the funds and give them a chance to succeed. Comments like ``The war is lost'' do not help our troops, but they do embolden the enemy. Our actions should inspire our troops and the millions of Iraqi citizens who actually trust that Americans will not embrace defeat. Our action should not be one that inspires al-Qaida and the murderous insurgents. We should not pass legislation that provides our enemy the clear path to their victory, a victory which some in this body have already awarded them.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, in today's global economy, continued progress in math, science, and engineering, and the transfer of this knowledge, is vital if the U.S. is to maintain its competitiveness and keep good-paying, cutting-edge jobs here at home. New products, processes, industries and future employment opportunities depend on the advances in research and their movement into the marketplace. Missouri is a leader in a field of science that hardly existed 20 years ago--biotechnology. And I want Missouri to continue to be a leader in producing the best math and science minds in the country. How do we do that? One of our toughest educational challenges is helping our young people perform better in science and math. We know that America's fourth graders and eighth graders are performing above the international average in math and science. But when they get to high school, they fall behind. We need to do more. That is why I am pleased to support the America COMPETES Act, which strengthens educational opportunities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics from elementary through graduate school, with a particular focus on math and science teachers. In addition, this bill makes a bold Federal investment in basic science research at the National Science Foundation, the DOE Office of Science, NASA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. As many of you know, I have been a strong supporter of NSF over the years. NSF plays a critical role in the economic, scientific and intellectual growth of this Nation. It is one of our primary tools in meeting the global challenges of the 21st century by pushing the boundaries of scientific research and technology. NSF's work will give us a better insight into the world around us. This work will grow our economy and speed innovation, improving the quality of life for all people. NSF's impact over the past half century has been monumental, especially in the field of medical technologies and research. The investments have also spawned not only new products, but also entire industries, such as biotechnology, Internet providers, e-commerce, and geographic information systems. Medical technologies such as magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, digital mammography and genomic mapping could not have occurred, and cannot now improve to the next level of proficiency, without underlying knowledge from NSF-supported work in biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, and computer sciences. New NSF support for research in nanotechnology, high-speed computing, plant genome research, biocomplexity, and cognitive neuroscience will further advance the state of technological change and improve our quality of life through creation of new products, a better understanding of how humans behave, and how our ecological systems can survive. Unfortunately, the Federal Government has not always adequately supported NSF and the physical sciences with the dollars it deserves. While the Congress and the current and past Administration has strongly supported the life sciences, the physical sciences have been left behind. This has resulted in a major funding disparity between the life sciences and the physical sciences. This funding imbalance is alarming because it directly jeopardizes our Nation's ability to lead the world in scientific innovation. Further, we jeopardize the work of the National Institutes of Health because we are undermining the physical sciences, which provide the underpinning for medical technological advances. Inadequate funding for NSF also hurts our economy and the creation of good jobs. In recent years, there has been an outcry of outsourcing jobs to other countries. And, our high-tech industry has been struggling to fill high-tech positions with American born workers. The best remedy to this issue is not protectionism but investing in the education and skills of our future workforce. This means better math and science education and technological skills, such as computer literacy. This is also a major part of NSF's mission. My good friend Senator Barbara Mikulski and I, along with many of my other colleagues, were pioneers in the fight to double the funding of NSF. Thanks to this effort we increased funding for NSF significantly; however, we fell short of our goal to double funding. The bill before us today provides an important opportunity to refocus attention on this critical goal and I am pleased that this bill puts us on the path to double NSF funding. It is critical that doubling funding for NSF remain one of our highest priorities and as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I hope we can do our part. Future job and economic growth in the areas of health care, life sciences, defense, agriculture and transportation is directly related to scientific advancement. For these reasons it is important to support the America COMPETES Act and make an important investment in the economic security and growth of our country.

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, for over 50 years, Thomas W. Burns, MD, and Joan F. Burns have served the University of Missouri-Columbia with great distinction. To honor this service, on April 27, 2007, the university will dedicate the Thomas W. and Joan F. Burns Center for Diabetes and Cardiovascular Research at the University of Missouri- Columbia School of Medicine. Thomas W. Burns was one of the founding faculty members of MU's medical center, which opened in 1956 and graduated its first class of physicians in 1957. Since then, hundreds of physicians who trained under him have gone on to lead distinguished careers in medical care, education and research. MU's medical center has treated hundreds of thousands of patients from Missouri and beyond. Dr. Burns has been a pioneer in endocrinology and contributed greatly to MU's national reputation in diabetes care, prevention, and research. Dr. Burns was a key architect in establishing MU's Cosmopolitan International Diabetes and Endocrinology Center and for many years served as the center's founding director. The Cosmopolitan International Diabetes and Endocrinology Center established by Dr. Burns was the first public-private partnership at MU. Thousands of patients have received state-of-the-art care in Mid-Missouri as a result of Thomas W. Burns' tremendous contributions to medicine. Dr. Burns has received numerous awards from community, State and national organizations. The American College of Physicians, the largest internal medicine organization in the country, bestowed on him the title of ``Master,'' which is the ACP's highest academic honor, and presented him with the Laureate Award. Dr. Burns also received the University of Missouri Faculty-Alumni Award in 1986 and the University of Missouri Distinguished Faculty Award in 1992. Thomas and Joan Burns are leaders in recognizing that diabetes and cardiovascular disease are linked and that together the diseases constitute one of the most pressing health problems for Missouri and the Nation. Their contribution and legacy will allow MU to make potentially lifesaving advances in diabetes and cardiovascular research.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is very important that we move forward with this bill. We have given time for our colleagues to debate and raise other questions. We would ask that we be able to proceed in a reasonable timeframe to take up amendments which have been introduced by the chairman and the vice chairman together and reflect bipartisan agreement. As vice chairman, I am firmly committed to passage of intelligence reauthorization. I would say further it remains my intention to reduce the partisanship and politicization of intelligence matters. Events on the Senate floor yesterday, including direct personal attacks on me, indicate this remains a tall order. This bill makes getting a bill harder, and it is already hard enough. Given the kitchen sink provided in the administration's Statement of Administration Policy indicating a possible veto, the chairman and I are trying in good faith, as the chairman indicated, to work through 9, 10, or a dozen amendments to correct the major objections that the administration has. The administration must know that as we try to weigh their key priorities, they must respect our priorities and our fundamental oversight responsibility which I and the Members of this body should take seriously, as any Senator will. As for yesterday's events, Senator McConnell manages the floor for the minority. He did not want to end the debate prematurely and the opportunity to offer amendments by the minority, especially with 18 Members absent from the Senate due to bad weather. I supported him because it is the responsibility of our two leaders to manage the floor debate and to protect the rights of minorities and absent Senators. While the attacks on me were inappropriate and offensive, I will continue to work for passage of this intelligence reform measure, which is one of the most important bills we can pass in this session. The measure is too important to be derailed by personal and political attacks. My friends on the other side of the aisle want more oversight of intelligence. I agree. We got into problems prior to 9/11 because we didn't have good oversight. We have found that there are holes that need to be plugged in oversight. We need to move forward. But forcing an end to the debate with 18 Members absent was not the way to do so. I am hoping that we can show progress by adopting amendments and moving this bill forward to exercise our oversight to provide the intelligence community the direction they need. Our desire is to move forward in the regular order, work our way through amendments, work out a time agreement, dispose of amendments, and hopefully conclude with a bill that most, if not the overwhelming majority, of Members can support so we can get to conference and continue the process. I will continue to work with the chairman under the difficult circumstances that he and I both face. I am not for delay or any effort, real or imagined, to kill this bill, but I have honest concerns, as others, that there should be an opportunity to address through the regular order in a reasonable timeframe. If there are unreasonable delays, then we will pursue other options which are necessary sometimes to move a bill. Because of the difficult division present in recent years over these issues, we have been unable to get an authorization bill passed. I find that unacceptable, and I am committed to finding a bill, but it can't be just any bill. It must be the product of give and take and mutual respect and compromise between both parties and both bodies and one the administration can sign.

Mr. BOND. Yes.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I didn't mean to cut the Senator off. For the movement of this bill, we had hoped to be able to clear some amendments so we could show progress, but the Senator from Oklahoma is seeking recognition. I am sure he has some important things to say. I hope we will finish in time to allow us to pass the cleared amendments prior to 12:30. I apologize to the Senator from Oklahoma and thank the Chair.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman. We are moving forward now on the bill. As indicated, we have some drafting problems we are working out, but we also have high hopes of being able to adopt a number of the amendments that have been filed on both sides. Some of them may require modification. Mr. President, as we get ready to go to our policy lunches, I once again ask that Members with amendments come forward and let us know what the amendments are. We ask that they be germane, because nongermane amendments, even if they are passed, will not survive conference. We want to keep the proceedings moving forward, so we ask that amendments be germane. We ask Members to work with us so we can accept them or offer a compromise to make them acceptable. We want to do that. Otherwise, when votes are needed, and I am sure they will be, we ask that a reasonable time period be agreed on by both sides, the proponent of the amendment and the opponent, so we may get some orderly procedure so our colleagues will know how we are moving forward and we can show progress. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I regret we have come to an impasse. The chairman and I and the members of the committee have worked very hard to get a bill that is getting much better. I am very sorry that we were not allowed to vote on amendments this afternoon and to continue with our efforts to move this bill forward. The leaders are responsible on both sides for running this body, and we are in a position now where it appears to the minority that amendments will not--could be precluded under that circumstance. I am afraid there will not be the support for cloture. I regret that we have worked so long and hard and apparently will not be able to continue with this bill. I hope to do so at a later time. I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Rockefeller, in not only bringing before this body the Intelligence authorization bill, S. 372, but also offering the managers' amendment. This is an important first step for the Senate to return to and enhance its responsibilities of coordinating oversight and conducting aggressive oversight of intelligence activities and programs. The committee has not been able to pass an authorization bill in the last 2 years, which means the work that has gone on in the committee cannot be reflected in guidance to the committee or in carrying out our oversight responsibilities. Some Members may recall, others have been informed, that 30 years ago the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was formed to address a serious problem. There had been a complete lack of congressional oversight of U.S. intelligence operations. Then when we reviewed the attacks of September 11, the findings of our committee and the findings of the 9/11 Commission confirmed that congressional oversight of intelligence was not what it should be. We firmly believe that enacting S. 372 will move us a long way in restoring the Senate's legitimate role in oversight of U.S. intelligence. I believe we must be in a position where we can assure our colleagues and the people of the United States that the intelligence activities necessarily conducted in secret do comply with the Constitution, the treaties and the laws of the United States and other mandates and limitations placed on the exercise of that secret power. Make no mistake about it, intelligence in this global war on terror, which has been declared on us by al-Qaida and other Islamic groups, is one that can only be countered with effective intelligence. Intelligence is the most important weapon we have in keeping our homeland safe and protecting U.S. interests and citizens abroad. We need to make sure it is done properly. We need to make sure it is done effectively. Having studied the intelligence community and having gone through exhaustive reviews over the last 4 years of shortcomings pointed out in the intelligence community operations, we believe we can work with the intelligence community and provide necessary legislative support to ensure that the intelligence activities not only are staying within the road lines--staying on the road in the path--but also being carried out effectively. That is why we feel it is tremendously important we pass this legislation. The chairman has pointed out there are concerns that have been voiced by the administration about this bill. To be candid, there are some provisions in the bill I do not favor or at least question. I hope in the amendment process and in the House-Senate conference we can develop a good bill that will be signed into law. But it is important to remember--and my colleagues who have expressed concerns particularly about the administration's objections should know--that what has been outlined by the chairman in the managers' amendment begins to deal with the major questions they have. The chairman and I have agreed it makes sense, for example, to declassify the top line number of the intelligence budget. I have talked with leaders in the intelligence community and I said: Does that cause you any problems? They said: No. It is only when you get below that. Were you to go down the slippery slope of disclosing amounts going into particular units or particular programs of the intelligence community, you give away vital secrets. This body has twice gone on record and was stated by the chairman and the 9/11 Commission has recommended disclosing the overall number so that the people of America will know whether we are continuing to support the intelligence community adequately, whether we are supporting it with the kinds of resources needed. In our managers' amendment, we took out a study that would purport to look at the possibility of declassifying further details, other than the top line. We both agreed that should be out. The administration also was concerned about identifying certain sites, and we agreed, and in our managers' amendment we will take out any reference or any requirement of identifying those certain sites. The administration also was concerned about the number of people, the manner of informing members of the committee about certain activities that were highly classified. We are working to remedy that. The administration also had concerns about getting reports filed, the potential for a large number of requests being dumped on the intelligence community, and we have dealt with that. So there are other items the administration has concerns about, and we may be able to address some of those here. We may be able to address some of those when we get to conference, if they still are not properly solved. But I would say one thing. The administration, like every administration, sometimes feels that congressional oversight goes further than they would like. Well, our job is to conduct oversight, and we do so with an aim of improving intelligence, the products that come out, and also ensuring that procedures are properly contained within the rules of the road, and we will continue to seek those legislative oversight tools. We are going to accommodate the reasonable concerns of the Executive in every instance that we can because we want to make sure we don't, either by overt or inadvertent action, compromise intelligence sources, intelligence methods, or other essential intelligence programs that are necessary for the safety of our homeland and the safety of our troops in the field. In addition to the measures contained in the managers' amendment, I have filed nine amendments, some of which overlap with the managers' amendment that we can discuss on the Senate floor. Some of these may be necessary to ameliorate and alleviate the administration's concerns. We were disadvantaged in filing this managers' amendment because the time that we had to do it was the time when most Members were out of Washington, DC, in their home State, which has led to some confusion. I hope everybody who had a first-degree amendment that they wanted filed was able to file it by 2:30. We hope we will be able to deal with those amendments, and also we look forward to a good, robust debate on the floor of the Senate. I hope we will have ready a description, at least for our side, of the provisions in the managers' amendment. Most of the concerns I have heard about this bill are concerns that should be alleviated by the managers' amendment, so I would ask all of my colleagues to read carefully the provisions in the managers' amendment to ensure that we have resolved those concerns. In addition, Senator Rockefeller and I are always willing to discuss with colleagues, in this unclassified setting, the unclassified portions and our reasoning for it. Our invitation to Members still stands; that if Members want to be briefed on classified portions of the intelligence bill or on matters that cannot be discussed on the Senate floor, we stand ready with our staffs to have briefings set up in the intelligence facilities to fill them in on questions that they may legitimately have. We will look forward to conducting the debate in the time ahead. I thank the Chair, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his kind comments. As I said earlier today, we are most grateful to the leadership for having brought up S. 372. This is a very important and necessary first step for the Senate to return to its responsibility of conducting oversight of U.S. intelligence activities and programs. Enacting S. 372 into law will help restore the Senate's legitimate role in oversight of U.S. intelligence. As I said, the administration has voiced some concerns about provisions in the bill, and the chairman and I have made a good-faith attempt to address those concerns. We have a managers' amendment, plus several other amendments on which the chairman and I agree that we think are legitimate and measured modifications that don't change the basic purpose of our provisions but meet some of their objections. As I said before, there are provisions in the bill that we do believe need such changes. Should any Member, however, feel we have not gone far enough, we invite them to come to the floor and join in the debate. Is S. 372 perfect? I have never seen a piece of legislation that was and don't expect to see one. That being said, we should all remember that the perfect is the enemy of the good. There is no such thing as perfect legislation. We can today, however, begin the process of improving our oversight with a good piece of legislation. Again, will the administration agree with everything in the bill? No. On the other hand, I do not remember many times in my political career when any executive branch has invited the legislative branch, Congress--or a State legislature with which I am also familiar--to conduct rigorous oversight of its actions and policies. Unfortunately for executive branch officials, that is our constitutional role as laid down by the Founding Fathers. It does not mean we will refuse to accommodate the executive branch's legitimate concerns. After all, the President does have the power to veto any legislation that he feels unduly intrudes upon his authority. In an effort to ensure the administration's concerns are addressed, I have filed an additional nine amendments to S. 372, some of which overlap with the managers' amendment the chairman and I have presented. I believe the chairman and I are in agreement on almost all of these amendments, if not all of them. Through that process, I think we can alleviate the concerns the administration has with the bill. I am concerned, however, that the process by which we had to draft the managers' amendment, combined with the fact that the preparation had to be undertaken largely when Members were in their home State, has led to some confusion among our colleagues. That is why we are handing out a one-page summary that I hope all Members will review so they understand how this measure has been changed. We will be happy to talk with them privately or discuss it with them on the floor, and our staffs are available to work with their staffs if they have any other concerns. I also want to make it clear to all of my colleagues that I support full and open debate on S. 372 and the timely consideration of all germane amendments. We ask that the amendments be germane. We would have great difficulty in conferencing this bill on nongermane amendments and the possibility that they would be accepted in the final report I would say is doubtful. If confusion over the amendment filing process has prevented any Senator from getting a germane amendment considered, I will certainly work with that Member to see if we could get the amendment brought to the floor for consideration. Again, I thank my chairman who has worked in a very cooperative manner. We are seeking to achieve a good bipartisan consensus on how we in this body exercise our very important constitutional role of providing oversight for a critically important factor in our responsibility, and that is oversight and legislation with respect to the national intelligence program and the intelligence community which administers it. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.