Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. General Maples also told the Senate Intelligence Committee that a withdrawal from Iraq could leave Iraq's vast oil reserves in the hands of jihadists. We can imagine what trouble that would lead to. If we are not using our power to cut off the funds and force a hasty withdrawal, what are we doing? Are we telling the 21,000 brave men and women who are going to Iraq we are uncomfortable with the dangerous mission they are about to undertake but not offering any alternative? I am sure they will find that very encouraging. They will be delighted to know we don't like what they are doing but they will have to do it anyhow. If the goal of the resolution is to let the American people know we are uncomfortable with the situation in Iraq, I guess that makes for good politics. But, personally, I think it is wrong and irresponsible. It is irresponsible because if we approve this resolution, the whole world will be listening, including the worst actors in Iraq. We will be telling the Sunni terror cells and the Shia militias that America's political will is wavering. If the members of al-Qaida in Iraq are finding themselves discouraged by the United States military's relentless pursuit, I am sure they will take comfort from these political gestures. If the Iraqis who support and encourage the Shia death squads are feeling the heat of United States-led and supported operations and are contemplating a compromise that might bring sectarian killing to an end, I am sure they will take comfort from the political gesture to hold on a little longer. One of the keys to a successful counterinsurgency campaign is to wear down the enemy's resolve. This resolution will do the opposite. It will encourage Sunni terrorists and Shia death squads, letting them know if they hang on longer, the United States will not have the political will to outlast them. One of the ironies of the resolution is that it condemns a recommendation that comes from a group the Senate requested in legislation. The Iraq Study Group's report recommended that the Iraqi government: . . . accelerate assuming responsibility for Iraqi security by increasing the number and quality of Iraqi Army brigades. While this process is underway, and to facilitate it, the United States should significantly increase the number of U.S. military personnel, including combat troops, imbedded in and supporting Iraqi Army units. As these actions proceed, U.S. combat forces could begin to move out of Iraq. So let me make sure I have this right. The Senate demanded the legislation. The Iraq Study Group put together recommendations. The study group came forward and made recommendations and the President had the temerity to accept some of them, and now we are going to vote out a resolution condemning them for accepting those recommendations? General Petraeus said this week to the Committee on Armed Services that he needs the 21,000 troops to get the job done. Are we telling him we don't think we should have those troops? I have to confess, even as a Senator, I can't tell you exactly what we are trying to say in these resolutions. Are we expressing concern and discomfort with the situation in Iraq? I can't imagine how that would help. But more importantly, I can imagine lots of ways in which it will not help. Look at the confusion within our Government in 1993 when the military had concerns about congressional intentions over our involvement in Somalia and how they prevented a request for armor that could have saved the lives of American soldiers. It is not a perfect analogy, of course, but I think it offers an important warning of the danger of mixed message like the one we will send with this resolution. Our commander on the ground in Somalia in 1993, General Montgomery, requested a small unit of tanks and armored vehicles, as a quick reaction force in case our troops got bogged down or surrounded in the dense urban sprawl of Mogadishu, as they eventually did. Les Aspin, the Secretary of Defense at the time, denied the commander's request. He told the Senate Armed Services Committee that ``Congressional concerns about U.S. military involvement in Somalia were a factor in his decision to deny General Montgomery's request for armor.'' General Montgomery also told the Armed Services Committee that he would have used that armor in October 1993 ``Blackhawk Down'' incident to rescue our troops who were bogged down in urban combat with Somali militia men. General Montgomery said that if he had that armor, ``we would have gotten there faster. We would have taken fewer casualties.'' My fear is that, in addition to the message this resolution will send to our enemies about our lack of resolve, it will also send a wrong and confusing message to our military commanders. Just like we did in Somalia in 1993, we are pretty much saying that while the President should not pull our military out of Iraq, they shouldn't bother asking for what they need to get the job done and protect themselves while they are there. General Petraeus raised this very same issue in his testimony this week in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said that he worried about what message this resolution. would send to his soldiers and himself. If we are going to leave our troops in Iraq, as we should, we should also give them everything they need to protect themselves and get their job done. Just as importantly, we should not leave them with the mistaken impression that they shouldn't bother to ask for what they need. Congress cannot, and should not micromanage the war in Iraq--the troops in the field like to call that the 8,000 mile screwdriver. If any Senator wants to propose legislation to compel a withdrawal from Iraq, so be it, and let's vote on the matter. If not, let's stop trying to micromanage by resolution, suggestion and gesture, put away the 8,000 mile screwdriver, and give the President's plan a chance to succeed. The Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Tom Fingar, told the Senate Intelligence Committee this week that gains in stability in Iraq could open a window for gains in sectarian reconciliation. I agree, and we have to give the President's plan a chance to succeed if we want to open that window. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have two pertinent articles printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kansas, who made the point well that we cannot afford to lose in Iraq. I thought my colleagues, and maybe those who may be interested--if anybody is paying attention and watching the floor--may be interested to hear what the intelligence community said in public. It is rare we have public hearings in the Intelligence Committee, but once a year at least we have the worldwide threat hearing. Last Thursday, we had that hearing and we spent about 5\1/2\ hours. It was very informative and mostly dealt with Iraq. Present were the Director of National Intelligence, Ambassador Negroponte; Director Hayden of the CIA; Director of the DIA General Maples; Mr. Foote from the State Department INR; and FBI Director Robert Mueller. Much of the questioning was about what is going on in Iraq. I think the consensus of the intelligence community was that while things have not gone well, the new commitment by Prime Minister Maliki and the rest of his Government--not just the Shia Prime Minister but the Kurds and the Sunnis--was to take over and take ownership of ending the insurgency in Iraq. That gave us the best hope of achieving a peaceful solution that would leave Iraq a stable country--not perfect by any means, with no guarantee of success, but this was the opportunity to get the three major elements in Iraq--the Shia, Sunnis, and the Kurds--to come together on what we believe will be and should be a long-term solution. Frankly, one of the real problems we have had has been the reluctance of the Iraqi Government to let us go in and eliminate Shia militia, such as the Moqtada al-Sadr Mahdi army. This has been a serious problem. The American forces have been held back. Now it is our understanding--and the intelligence community believes what they have told the policymakers in the executive branch--that this is now the best chance, because they realize time is running out, that while our commitment was strong to Iraq, it is not an unending one, infinite. They are going to have to take control if they don't want to see their country descend into chaos. So there was a lot of talk about the pros and cons of the policy the President announced to turn over the responsibility to the Iraqi military, for ending the insurgency in Baghdad, and to send our troops into the Al Anbar province to deal with radical Islamists, such as al-Qaida, who continue to stir up problems and who we believe were responsible for the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samara, which escalated the insurgency. So I asked another question and the answers, I thought, were very telling. They were not covered in the media. I asked what if we decided now or within 2 or 3 months to withdraw and turn it over to the Iraqi Government, and the consensus was uniform and frightening. Admiral Negroponte said: And I think the view pretty much across the community is that a precipitous withdrawal could lead to a collapse of the government of that country, and a collapse of their security forces, because we simply don't think that they are ready to take over, to assume full control of their security responsibilities. We think that that is a goal that can be achieved on a gradual basis and on a well-planned basis. But to simply withdraw now, I think, could have catastrophic effects. And I think that's a quite widely held view inside of Iraq itself. Later, I went back and asked what it would mean in terms of the worldwide terrorist threat of al-Qaida. Director Negroponte responded: I think in terms of al-Qaida's own planning, if you look at the letter that Zawahiri wrote to Zarqawi last year about establishing in Iraq a sort of beachhead for the expansion of al-Qaida's ideology throughout the Islamic world, establishing the caliphate, it would be the very sanctuary for international terrorism that we are seeking to avoid. In other words, the No. 2 man under Osama bin Laden, Zawahiri, wrote to the notorious, infamous butcher Zarqawi, who had beheaded Americans and others on television, to tell him to cool it; we are trying to establish a basis for al-Qaida to operate out of Iraq. This would be, in Zawahiri's and bin Laden's own words, establishing the range of the caliphate. What they mean by that is to establish a Taliban style of government, such as we saw in Afghanistan, on a regionwide and ultimately a global basis. I asked General Maples about the impact of withdrawal, precipitous or immediate, or politically, a timetable withdrawal, determined by what we want in Washington, rather than what is available on the ground. He said: . . . I believe that a failure in Iraq would empower the jihadist movement. It would give that base of operations from which the jihadist movement would expand. And it's consistent with the goals of al-Qaida in Iraq to establish that Islamic state, and then to expand it into the caliphate. He went on to say there would be regional impacts and that there would be a tremendous economic impact. He cited hydrocarbons and, obviously, we know Iraq is very rich in oil reserves, and it would make oil reserves available to fund the activities of al-Qaida and the international radical Islamist terrorist movements. He also said it would have an impact on the world market on oil, driving up the power of oil. He concluded by saying it would give Iran the power to expand its evil empire, which President Ahmadi-Nejad is urgently trying to expand not only in the Middle East but throughout Latin America. I think probably the best summary of the intelligence community estimates of the impact of the choices--and we are talking about choices--is there is nothing good in terms of choices. One option has been put forward by President Bush. I happen to believe it is the best available option to support the Iraqis who have committed to end the insurgency, to bring the Sunnis into a government that would share in the oil revenues and take responsibility for ending the insurgency, while our troops go after the external forces, the terrorists coming in from other countries and joining the al-Qaida movement. I asked General Hayden to give me a concise statement of his view and the view of the intelligence community on the second option, which would be to withdraw now, or to set a short timetable deadline in 2 or 3 months. I will read what he said: Yes, sir, Senator. When I went before the Iraq Study Group, I prefaced my remarks by saying I think I'll give a rather-- I'm going to be giving a rather somber assessment of the situation in Iraq. But before I do that, I said, let me tell you. If we leave under the current circumstances, everything gets worse. At that point, I commended him for being a master of understatement. He went on to say: Three quick areas. More Iraqis die from the disorder inside Iraq. Iraq becomes a safe haven, perhaps more dangerous than the one al-Qaida had in Afghanistan. And finally, the conflict in Iraq bleeds over into the neighborhood and threatens serious regional instability. I said, well, what would be the threat to the U.S. homeland? How does that affect us in Washington, in Rhode Island, Missouri, Kansas, New York, Los Angeles, and elsewhere? He said: The immediate threat comes from providing al-Qaida that which they are attempting to seek in several locations right now, be it Somalia, the tribal area of Pakistan or Anbar province--a safe haven to rival that which they had in Afghanistan. I have my views on this. This is the overwhelming consensus of the intelligence community. There are no great options, but the best option, they believe, is to provide American troops to support what the Government of Iraq has pledged to do, and that is to end the insurgency, to stop the Shia death squads, to cut the Sunnis in on a fair share of the Government, and take responsibility not only for clearing but for controlling the areas in Baghdad that have been the problem. So I think as we talk about the options available, it is vitally important that we listen to the intelligence community and their best assessments of what happens if we follow the President's plan or if we choose a course of continuing to do what we have been doing, without assisting the Iraqis to take control of their Government, or if we cut and run. I ask unanimous consent that the transcripts which I cited be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, first, I rise today to pay tribute to a much loved sportsman, businessman, civic leader, and family man, Lamar Hunt, best known as founder and owner of the Kansas City Chiefs, who, regrettably, passed away on December 13 of complications related to prostate cancer. Some might be surprised to learn that Kansas City was Lamar Hunt's adopted town, not his hometown. Born in Arkansas and raised in Texas, Lamar began his journey to Kansas City in 1959, when the National Football League unwisely turned down his request for a new franchise in Dallas. If you can't join 'em, beat 'em, to turn a cliche on its head. Shut out of the NFL, Lamar Hunt decided to create another football league. He found seven other men as passionate about football as he was, and together they created the American Football League, the AFL. At the time, theirs was considered a risky venture. They called themselves ``the foolish club'' and located their teams in Midwestern and Southern cities, places without a history of professional football. It has been said that leaders are visionaries with a poorly developed sense of fear and no concept of the odds against them. Lamar was such a leader and he fit that description. He was certainly visionary. His leadership in creating and expanding the American Football League helped professional football gain a nationwide following before merging to become today's NFL. I think he did understand the odds against him. He did not let them get in the way. He stuck with his plan for a new football league and succeeded. He first located his franchise in Dallas. In 1963, he moved the Dallas Texans to Kansas City, where they became the Chiefs. Lamar Hunt coined the term ``Super Bowl'' and was on hand to see the Chiefs win Super Bowl IV. Unfortunately, our Chiefs have not won a Super Bowl since, but Lamar never gave up on his team and neither will we, the fans. Lamar Hunt was a true entrepreneur, willing to take calculated risk on investments that would benefit the larger community. Since the 1960s, the Hunt family has been instrumental in the growth and development of Kansas City from a frontier town to a world-class city. The Hunts have contributed to the Kansas City economy through Hunt Midwest Enterprises, which, among other ventures, developed Worlds of Fun and Oceans of Fun, two recreational theme parks that draw hundreds of thousands of visitors each year. While he is best known for his love for professional football, Lamar Hunt was deeply involved in other sports. He was a part owner of the Chicago Bulls, he founded World Championship Tennis in 1969, and he spearheaded the development of soccer as a professional sport in the United States. He owned two Major League Soccer teams. While successful, Hunt remained modest. He never thought of himself as a the Chief's owner. He preferred the term ``founder.'' As he told Joe Posnanski of the Kansas City Star: To me, every Chief's fan has ownership in the team. They are just as invested emotionally as I am. I was able to bring the team to Kansas City, but it is Kansas City's team. In fact, since Mr. Hunt's death, the Star has run several stories, including examples of his love for players, coaches, and fans as individuals. Hall of Fame linebacker Bobby Bell remembered him, saying: He's a guy who never valet parked his car unless they absolutely made him. Chief's tight end Fred Arbanas recalled that Hunt, himself, served the team food and drinks and picked up trash on the plane to road games. He is said to have given the widow of an employee killed in a construction accident a book of blank checks bearing his signature. Despite struggling with cancer for 8 years, Lamar kept a strenuous schedule right until the very end. The last time I saw him was in November, during the Governor's Cup game, where the Chiefs played against the St. Louis Rams in St. Louis. The Chief's pulled out a 31- to-7 win. At that game, his illness had necessitated a car for transportation, but it had not affected his good nature, his friendliness or his optimism for his beloved Chiefs. In an era of rapid change and turnover in the sports world, Lamar Hunt stood apart. He remained owner of the Chiefs, or founder of the Chiefs, for more than 40 years, from 1963 until his death. He invested in the lives of people in his adopted town, and the benefits of those investments will be felt for generations to come. More than 1,000 fans have signed the Kansas City Star's online guestbook for Lamar Hunt, praising him for his honesty and sincerity, his class and his countless contributions to the Chiefs, to football, and to Kansas City. While his family and friends will miss Lamar very much, they can take heart in the tremendous legacy he left. I know his son Clark will continue to lead the Chiefs with the same love for the game and business sense his father had. We will always remember fondly Lamar Hunt. Iraq Mr. President, my colleagues and our staffs, people need to know about the worldwide threat hearing we had at an open session of the Intelligence Committee yesterday. In that hearing, we asked the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the CIA, the general in charge of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Mr. Fort of the State Department's INR, and Director Bob Mueller of the FBI what their assessment was of the situation in Iraq. Very simply, they said that, while it is not certain by any means, they believe the leadership of Iraq has bought into the concept announced by the President as a result of his telephone call from Prime Minister Malaki that Iraq is going to take over the responsibility for quelling the insurgency, the sectarian violence, and they will devote their own resources, heavily, into Baghdad, with district units headed by generals, brigades in each area supported by American troops on a 3- to-1 ratio, Iraqi to American. While this by no means is sure to work, and recent actions do not suggest it is a very strong bet, they believe it has apparently the best chance to succeed. In addition, since there was another idea on the table, I asked what would happen if we withdrew immediately, or within a very short timetable of 2 to 3 months, and the Director of National Intelligence and the Director of the CIA, first, said a precipitous withdrawal would bring about a collapse of the Government; that al-Qaida would establish a beachhead and a sanctuary in Iraq for the purpose of promoting the worldwide caliphate that it supports. That was the Director of National Intelligence, who, also, was joined by the Director of the CIA, General Hayden, who said if we withdraw, it would empower the jihadists to gain a safe haven, which would have a tremendous impact on the region. There would be a tremendous impact because they could be in control of the oil-rich Iraqi resources, and it would further empower Iran. In summary, he said three things very unfortunate would be likely to occur. No. 1, more innocent Iraqi civilians would die in sectarian violence. No. 2, there would be a safe haven for al-Qaida and its cooperating entities--a goal that has been stated by the leader of al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden, and his second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri. And third, this would very likely bring about regionwide conflicts because with the Shia in control in Iraq in the current Government, with the numbers they have, Iran has shown a very great interest and has been too actively involved in Iraqi matters already. Iran and its Shias, if they came in and heaped great losses on the Sunnis, could expect that Sunni neighbors in the region would respond to the threats of the Iraqi Shia, as the Iranians, and the danger of a tremendous conflict throughout that region would occur. So I appreciate the opportunity to address the Senate on these matters. I think all Senators need to know the seriousness of this issue, the reasons why I believe the President's option that he announced the night before last is the best option. Amendments Nos. 48, 49, 50, and 51, En Bloc, to amendment No. 3 Now, Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Coburn, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside in order to call up amendments Nos. 48 through 51 en bloc.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designating the new Federal Courthouse in Cape Girardeau, MO. as the Rush Hudson Limbaugh, Sr. United States Courthouse. When people talk about the American Dream, the ``Spirit of America'' and the people who helped make this country great, all one really has to do is mention the name of the late Rush Hudson Limbaugh Sr. Mr. Limbaugh led an extraordinary life in which he practiced law for almost 80 years until his death at age 104 in 1996. At the time of his death, Mr. Limbaugh was the Nation's oldest practicing lawyer and still came into work about twice a week at the law firm he founded over 50 years before in Cape Girardeau, MO. Known by his peers as a superb trial lawyer with impeccable character and integrity, he was a beloved icon of the Missouri legal community, especially in Southeast Missouri where he lived all his life. Born in 1891, on a small farm in rural Bollinger County, he was the youngest of eight children and attended school in a one room primary school house. It is said that a passion for the law first developed in Rush as a 10-year-old boy when a Daniel Webster Oration that he memorized inspired him to become a lawyer. Fourteen years later, he began a legal career that lasted eight decades. Throughout those 80 years, his interest in the law and his dedication to his clients never wavered. Rush paid his way through college at the University of Missouri at Columbia by working on the university farm and doing odd jobs such as carpentry, firing up furnaces, caring for animals and waiting tables. While in college, his oratory skills won him awards which he later utilized with great success in the courtroom. In 1914, he entered law school, and after two years, he skipped the third year and passed the Missouri Bar examination. In 1916, he was admitted into the Missouri Bar and his long distinguished legal career began in Cape Girardeau. Over his career, Rush argued more than 60 cases in front of the Missouri Supreme Court along with many prominent civil cases. He was a specialist in probate law and helped draft the 1955 Probate Code of Missouri. He also tried cases before the Interstate Commerce Commission, the U.S. Labor Board and the Internal Revenue Appellate Division. From 1955 through 1956, he was President of the Missouri Bar and later served as President of the State Historical Society of Missouri. In addition to this, Mr. Limbaugh was a leading member of numerous legal and civic organizations including the American Bar Association, the Missouri Bar Foundation, the Missouri Human Rights Commission, the Cape Girardeau Board of Education and the Salvation Army Advisory Board However, Rush's contributions were not just limited to Missouri. In the late 1950's, Rush served as a U.S. State Department special envoy to India where he promoted American jurisprudence and constitutional government among lawyers, judges and university students in that newly formed country. And in the 1960's, he served as Chairman of the American Bar Association's special committee on the Bill of Rights. Rush was truly an inspiration and mentor to many aspiring lawyers, especially the ones in his own family. His two sons, Rush Jr. and Steven, both practiced law with him for many years. His son, Steven N. Limbaugh, currently serves as a Senior Federal Judge in St. Louis. Four of his grandsons followed in his footsteps and pursued legal careers including his grandson Steven Jr. who is now a Missouri Supreme Court Justice. Perhaps the best measure of Rush Hudson Limbaugh' legacy as a lawyer and as a human being comes from the praise and admiration of his peers in the legal community. ``A top notch all-around lawyer; the epitome of what a lawyer ought to be said one colleague. ``A legend in his time,'' said another. However, his grandson Steven may have offered the best possible description of this great citizen: ``He was an extraordinary man, exemplary in every way, yet very humble. He was a lawyer's lawyer, a community servant and a gentle and kind man whose family was the very center of his life.'' It is only fitting that the new Federal courthouse in Cape Girardeau, Missouri be named after this great hero of American Jurisprudence. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designating the new Federal Courthouse in Cape Girardeau, MO. as the Rush Hudson Limbaugh, Sr. United States Courthouse. When people talk about the American Dream, the ``Spirit of America'' and the people who helped make this country great, all one really has to do is mention the name of the late Rush Hudson Limbaugh Sr. Mr. Limbaugh led an extraordinary life in which he practiced law for almost 80 years until his death at age 104 in 1996. At the time of his death, Mr. Limbaugh was the Nation's oldest practicing lawyer and still came into work about twice a week at the law firm he founded over 50 years before in Cape Girardeau, MO. Known by his peers as a superb trial lawyer with impeccable character and integrity, he was a beloved icon of the Missouri legal community, especially in Southeast Missouri where he lived all his life. Born in 1891, on a small farm in rural Bollinger County, he was the youngest of eight children and attended school in a one room primary school house. It is said that a passion for the law first developed in Rush as a 10-year-old boy when a Daniel Webster Oration that he memorized inspired him to become a lawyer. Fourteen years later, he began a legal career that lasted eight decades. Throughout those 80 years, his interest in the law and his dedication to his clients never wavered. Rush paid his way through college at the University of Missouri at Columbia by working on the university farm and doing odd jobs such as carpentry, firing up furnaces, caring for animals and waiting tables. While in college, his oratory skills won him awards which he later utilized with great success in the courtroom. In 1914, he entered law school, and after two years, he skipped the third year and passed the Missouri Bar examination. In 1916, he was admitted into the Missouri Bar and his long distinguished legal career began in Cape Girardeau. Over his career, Rush argued more than 60 cases in front of the Missouri Supreme Court along with many prominent civil cases. He was a specialist in probate law and helped draft the 1955 Probate Code of Missouri. He also tried cases before the Interstate Commerce Commission, the U.S. Labor Board and the Internal Revenue Appellate Division. From 1955 through 1956, he was President of the Missouri Bar and later served as President of the State Historical Society of Missouri. In addition to this, Mr. Limbaugh was a leading member of numerous legal and civic organizations including the American Bar Association, the Missouri Bar Foundation, the Missouri Human Rights Commission, the Cape Girardeau Board of Education and the Salvation Army Advisory Board However, Rush's contributions were not just limited to Missouri. In the late 1950's, Rush served as a U.S. State Department special envoy to India where he promoted American jurisprudence and constitutional government among lawyers, judges and university students in that newly formed country. And in the 1960's, he served as Chairman of the American Bar Association's special committee on the Bill of Rights. Rush was truly an inspiration and mentor to many aspiring lawyers, especially the ones in his own family. His two sons, Rush Jr. and Steven, both practiced law with him for many years. His son, Steven N. Limbaugh, currently serves as a Senior Federal Judge in St. Louis. Four of his grandsons followed in his footsteps and pursued legal careers including his grandson Steven Jr. who is now a Missouri Supreme Court Justice. Perhaps the best measure of Rush Hudson Limbaugh' legacy as a lawyer and as a human being comes from the praise and admiration of his peers in the legal community. ``A top notch all-around lawyer; the epitome of what a lawyer ought to be said one colleague. ``A legend in his time,'' said another. However, his grandson Steven may have offered the best possible description of this great citizen: ``He was an extraordinary man, exemplary in every way, yet very humble. He was a lawyer's lawyer, a community servant and a gentle and kind man whose family was the very center of his life.'' It is only fitting that the new Federal courthouse in Cape Girardeau, Missouri be named after this great hero of American Jurisprudence. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise on the floor to pay tribute to my very good friend and colleague, Senator Jim Talent, who will be leaving the Senate next month. I have known Jim for over 20 years, since he was minority leader in the Missouri House of Representatives. Throughout all these years, when he was in the State legislature and in the House as chairman of the Small Business Committee when I was chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee, I found Jim to be unfailingly a man of honesty, integrity, and hard work. He has been a wonderful friend and colleague. I am going to miss him very much, and many people in Missouri are. We all know that Washington can change a person, but it hasn't changed Jim. Jim still has the same commonsense Missouri values he brought with him to Washington. He still has the same calm, polite demeanor. He still has strong convictions and a work ethic. As I said to our folks back home in Missouri, in an arena of show horses he has been a work horse. I was with him on the night he got the news that he lost the campaign. He was a man of unfailingly good humor and courage. And still, he thanked his Lord, his friends, and graciously accepted his fate. I have a feeling and hope that public service will see much more of Jim Talent somewhere, sometime. And whatever he decides to do in the public or in the private sector, the qualities he has demonstrated to so many of us in the Senate will be one he will carry with him. He served in the Senate for only 4 years, but when you look at his record of legislative achievements, he has had so many positive impacts on people's lives. It is hard to believe he could cram all of that into 4 years. He has been a leader on national security, energy, and criminal justice. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Jim worked to extend production of the C-17 line, allowing 30,000 workers across the country to keep their jobs, and more importantly to give our military strategic lift capability which they need to move troops and equipment to very difficult to reach places. Jim also cares about our troops in battle. He sponsored legislation to end predatory lending to active servicemembers and their families. The new law just took effect 6 weeks ago. Some of our soldiers were paying almost 400 percent interest on money loaned to them. Thanks to Jim Talent, the rates are now capped at 36 percent. I trust that applies to the Marines as well. Last year, Jim worked very hard to include a renewable fuel provision in the Energy bill. On a bipartisan basis, under his leadership, the United States will produce up to 7\1/2\ billion gallons of renewable fuels with ethanol and biodiesel. That will be implemented by 2012. Jim's work in this area will only become more important as we see in the future America continuing to face high energy costs and our attempt to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Another accomplishment Jim will be known for is something which is extremely important in our State of Missouri, and this work--again on a bipartisan basis with the Senator from California--was to fight meth. Meth is a drug that has been destroying lives and communities across our State for many years and now even across the country. The Combat Meth Act has helped stop the supply of meth ingredients to dealers through the ban on over-the-counter sales. You see a significant reduction in meth lab busts. It shows that we are finally beginning to make progress against this drug. Obviously, I have to mention his other bipartisan successes, such as the sickle cell disease bill and the Emmett Till bill. On a narrow focus, Jim and I have worked together on many transportation and economic development projects to serve our State of Missouri, including the Liberty Memorial in Kansas City, the Page Avenue Extension in St. Charles, and countless others throughout the State. I should also mention that my friend Jim Talent has put forward some terrific proposals that he has been working on that have been enacted. His effort to allow small business employers to pool together to form association health plans comes to mind, and those of us who have been working to change the law so that small business employees and their families will have access to the same kind of insurance benefits that employees of major corporations have will not give up the fight. We are going to continue with his great leadership in mind. I am sure the next Congress will follow up. This idea should be central to any discussion of expanding health care coverage to the uninsured. Jim, as we prepare to say goodbye to you now from this floor, thank you for your years of devoted service to our State, to our Nation. With heartfelt gratitude, on behalf of my wife Linda and I, we wish you, Brenda, and your children the very best in future endeavors. And I know for a fact that there will be great successes ahead. I yield the floor. Appropriate Level of Military Funding

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman. Let me summarize by saying I visited Delhi in March right after the President had signed the historic agreements. I walked into a meeting of distinguished Indian officials asking if we could possibly confirm this treaty, this agreement. I knew nothing about it, so I did a tremendous amount of quick work with our agency to check out what the dangers might be. They came back and they told me India was the one most least likely to engage in nuclear proliferation. They saw this as a tremendous opportunity for us to improve on our relations with a country that had for too long been in the Soviet/Russian sphere. We have an opportunity to help them. They are a growing country. They have many needs. Civil nuclear power is the one most important thing they need because of their tremendous pollution problems. This enables us to help them reduce pollution. Not only are we interested in nuclear nonproliferation, we are interested in pollution nonproliferation. This moves us forward. Beyond that, securing a close relationship with India is one of our most important steps toward developing a peaceful environment and prosperity in south Asia. This opportunity cannot be wasted. This particular amendment, as has been stated, which is well- intentioned and reflects understandable concerns, is, nevertheless, a poison pill. Many countries have relations with Iran. We do not like them. But many of those countries with which we have good working relationships don't like our relations with Israel. We are not going to change our relations with Israel. We are not going to stop helping them. But we are going to continue to work with those countries. As the Senator from Delaware has pointed out, we have relations with Pakistan and there are lots of questions about that. If we want to work with the Indians and develop a good relationship so they will not deal with Iran, the best thing we can do is to defeat these poison pill amendments and confirm the treaty so we will bring India and the United States together. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendments and to support the treaty. I 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.

Mr. BOND

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 thank the manager of the bill for yielding me 5 minutes. There is no question that this bill, this military commissions bill, is absolutely essential if we are going to continue to have good intelligence and move forward with the program of interrogating and containing detainees in an appropriate manner that will maintain our standing, our honor, and puts tighter control on the United States than other countries do on their unlawful combatants. I respectfully suggest that the Rockefeller amendment is not only unnecessary, but the simple fact is, the unintended effect is it would complicate the passage of this important military commissions bill. It would either delay or perhaps even derail this bill, which is absolutely essential if we are to get our CIA agents back in the field doing appropriately limited interrogation techniques to find out what attacks are planned against the United States. The President has pointed out, the interrogation is the thing that has uncovered plots that could have been very serious. We need to have our CIA professionals under carefully controlled circumstances doing the interrogation that gets the information. As to the question about whether this is about oversight, well, our committee should be all about oversight. We need to be looking at these things. We need to be looking every day at what the agencies are doing, what the intelligence community is doing. But as I have said here on the floor before, unfortunately, for the last 4 years, we have been looking in the rearview mirror. It has been our fault, not the fault of the agencies, that we have not done enough oversight because when we spent 2 years in the Phase I investigation, we found out the intelligence was flawed, the intelligence was inadequate because our intelligence assets were cut 20 percent in the 1990s. We had no human intel on the ground. But, most of all, there was no pressure, no coercion by administration officials of the intelligence agencies, and there was no misrepresentation of the findings of the intelligence community--same intelligence that we in the Congress relied upon in supporting the decision to go to war against the hotbed of terrorism, Iraq. Now, I do not take issue with that first phase. But Phase II has cost us another 2 years, and we have not learned anything more than we learned in the first phase and with the WMD and the 9/11 Commission. If we would get back to looking out the front windshield, instead of looking in the rearview mirror, we should be doing precisely this kind of interrogation in the oversight committee. And I take no issue with many of the questions the Senator from West Virginia raises. As a matter of fact, I probably would have some of my own. But I do question the need for a very lengthy, detailed report every 3 months. If you read all of the requirements, this is a paperwork nightmare. They are going to have to comply and tell us how they are going to comply, and we are going to oversee them. I believe putting out this lengthy report gets us nowhere. Frankly, if our past experience is any guide, we will probably see those reports leaked to the press because reports have a way, regrettably, of being leaked and being disclosed. I think there is one big problem with the Rockefeller amendment. In the amendment, he requires every 3 months the Attorney General--any time there are any new interrogation techniques, the Attorney General shall submit an unclassified certification whether or not each approved interrogation technique complies with the Constitution of the United States, applicable treaty statutes, Executive orders, relations, and an explanation of why it complies. Mr. President, what we would just order in this amendment is to spread out for the world--and especially for al-Qaida and its related organizations--precisely what interrogation techniques are going to be used. Let me tell you something. I visited with intelligence agents around the world, some of whom have been in on the most sensitive interrogations we have had. I have asked them about that, and they have explained to me how they interrogate people. These interrogations I have learned about comply--even though they were before the passage of this law--with the detainee treatment law. They do comply, and I think they are appropriate. The important thing, they say, is that what the terrorists don't know is most important. They don't know how they are going to be questioned or what is going to happen to them. The uncertainty is the thing that gets them to talk. If we lay out, in an unclassified version, a description of the techniques by the Attorney General, that description will be in al-Qaida and Hezbollah and all of the other terrorist organizations' playbook. They will train their assets that: This is what you must be expected to do, and Allah wants you to resist these techniques.

Mr. BOND. Yes, I am happy to.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 10 minutes from Senator Warner's side on the bill.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to talk generally about the bill. I have already spoken about the importance of not affording habeas corpus to the unlawful combatants when they have more protections than international law requires, or than any other country provides. Speaking on the bill, for the last 5 years, our most important job has been to protect our families from another terrorist attack. Our children, our mothers, fathers, grandparents, and grandchildren-- none of them deserved to die in the 9/11 attacks; none deserve to die in another terrorist attack. That is why we are doing everything we can to protect our families by stopping terrorists, capturing them, learning their secrets, foiling their plots, and bringing the terrorists to justice. Through our hard work, there has not been another direct attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. We have worked hard to prevent and stop attacks in the last 5 years and must continue to prevent future attacks. We dramatically boosted airport and airline security. We hired new airport screeners, implemented new checks, and even put armed agents on flights where necessary. We added thousands of new FBI agents, thousands of new intelligence officers, and increased their budgets by billions to provide new armies against terrorism. We passed the PATRIOT Act to provide the tools needed to discover terrorist plots and stop them. We reorganized our intelligence agencies to bring a single focus and purpose against terrorism. We tore down the walls between law enforcement and intelligence to get terror planning and plot information to authorities as quick as possible. All of this is going on as I speak, as we sleep at night, as our children go to school, we are fighting the war on terrorism. The President recently highlighted some of the successes we have had because of our terror fighting tools and efforts. He recounted how we have captured terrorists, used new tools to learn their secrets, captured additional terrorists, connected the dots of their conspiracies, and foiled their terror attack plans. But now some want to tie the hands of our terror fighters, they want to take away the tools we use to fight terror--handcuff us, hamper us-- in our fight to protect our families. It's not new, really. Partisans have slowed our efforts to fight terror every step of the way. Many on the other side voted against the PATRIOT Act. Many blocked reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act for months. The Democrat Leader actually boasted, ``We killed the PATRIOT Act.'' Thank Heavens that wasn't true. Now, I know that they all love our country. They are not unpatriotic. They just don't understand the terrorist enemies we face. These critics are not willing to do what is necessary to protect fully our families from terrorists. You don't have to take my word for it, just look at their record over the last 5 years. Whether or not you would say terror war critics have a weak record on terror, they have certainly tried to block, slow down, and take away our terror fighting tools. Some congressional Democrats voted to cut and run from Iraq. Nothing would embolden terrorists more than to see the U.S. turn tail and run home. Osama bin Laden cited America quitting Somalia, and failing to respond to the U.S.S. Cole bombing, as signs of U.S. weakness and vulnerability. We all know what happened later. Democrats in the Senate have blocked the appointment of senior anti- terror officials. The 9/11 commission report recommended better coordination between law enforcement and intelligence officials. Only last week did Democrats stop blocking the appointment of the senior Justice Department official for National Security. Partisans readily spread classified information leaked to the public or the media. They call news conferences to highlight cherry-picked intelligence information, or quote newspaper articles betraying our Nation's secret terror fighting programs. Don't they think this encourages the enemy or demoralizes our troops or allies? Some propose to handcuff our ability to discover terrorist plots. They propose to make it hard to listen in on a potential terrorist calling from a foreign country, or to a foreign country to discuss terror plans. If al-Qaida calls in, we ought to be listening. That is authorized under the Constitution. The Constitution clearly gives the President the power to intercept phone calls under the foreign intelligence exception in the amendment. In my meetings with intelligence officials both abroad and here at home I have heard repeatedly how the disclosure, not only of classified information, but also of our interrogation techniques, are extremely damaging. Our personnel have encountered enemy combatants trained to resist disclosed interrogation techniques thanks to leakers in our media. If we lay out precisely the techniques that will be used and we print them in the Federal Register, they will be in an al-Qaida training manual within 48 hours. I'm pleased that with the current Military Commissions legislation moving forward, we have clarified our strict adherence to standards that forbid torture in any way, shape or form and we are allowing our CIA to move forward with a humane interrogation program whose techniques will not be published in the Federal Register, or even worse, in another newspaper disclosure. Critics support trial procedures that would give terrorists secret intelligence information. Why on Earth would we hand over classified evidence and information to terrorists so that information could be used against us in the future? Remember the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? The prosecution of terror suspects there involved giving over 200 names of terror suspects to the attorneys representing the terrorists. They gave them that in a trial, and some months later, after an investigation of the bombings in Africa, we captured the al-Qaida documents which had all of that information that had been given to the attorneys. So once you give it to a detainee or the detainee's attorney, you can count on it getting out. One other thing is important. Some would propose exposing our terror fighters to legal liability. They oppose giving our terror fighters certainty and clarity in how to go about their jobs. They leave them vulnerable to prosecution and handcuff their efforts and leave the rest of us vulnerable to terror plots that went undiscovered. Right now, these people are worried and they are buying insurance. People who are trying to carry out the very important intelligence missions of the United States, if they ask any questions, or if they don't give them four square meals a day and keep them in a comfortable motel, they are afraid they are going to get sued. We need to give protection to the people who are operating within the law as we are laying it out to make sure they don't cross over the line. The problem we have is that if the critics take away the valuable tools we have in breaking apart terror plots, we are going to be significantly less safe. As the President said, the CIA interrogation program has already succeeded in breaking apart terror conspiracies and preventing several terror attacks. Critics within the program are preventing us from punishing terrorists and gaining valuable information that could prevent future attacks. One thing I, along with the President and my Republican colleagues, share with the war critics is a strong opposition to torture. It is abhorrent, evil, and has no place in the world. What I oppose is how terror war critics would go soft on terror suspects, allowing them comforts they surely don't deserve. Critics are being tough on targets. Terrorists argue that we should treat them like prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. Article 72 of the Geneva Conventions on treatment of prisoners of war says POWs shall be allowed to receive parcels containing foodstuffs. Is that what critics think the 9/11 Commission conspirators deserve? Cookie care packages? Article 71 says POWs shall be allowed to send and receive letters and cards. Is that what opponents of the bill believe people who conspire to cut off our heads deserve--letters from home? ``Mail call Ramzi bin al-Shibh.'' Article 60 requires us to grant all POWs monthly advances of pay. It even says how much: below sergeant, 8 Swiss francs; officers, 50 Swiss francs; generals, 75 Swiss francs. Do the critics think Khalid Sheik Mohammed deserves 50 Swiss francs or 75? Critics of being tough on terrorists say that we should adhere to international standards of decency. Where was the decency when international troops withdrew without a fight from Srebenica, Bosnia allowing the genocide of its men and boys? Where was the decency when the U.N. allowed Sudan, guilty of genocide in Darfur, to serve on the Human Rights Commission, and allowed Cuba to help monitor international human rights? This was neither moral nor decent. Some say that the tough treatment we are debating will lead to bad treatment of America's soldiers in the future. That is a close cousin to the argument that if we leave the terrorists alone they will stop attacking us, or that America made them do it. Do we need a reminder of how badly they are already treating us? The Wall Street Journal reporter kidnapped by terrorists, Daniel Pearl, had his head cut off long before the criminal acts of Abu Grahib or news of the CIA prisons. The charred bodies of our Special Forces dragged through the streets of Mogadishu tell us what the vague standards of the Geneva Convention got us. As I said before, I support a torture ban. I also support provisions that clearly ban cruel, inhuman treatment or intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury. These are serious felonies, as they should be. But what we cannot do is give up tough treatment short of this that protects our families from attack. What do critics think would happen if we went soft on terrorists? Would they be satisfied with only name, rank and serial number? Would they have us say to our terror suspects, ``Oh gosh darn, I was so hoping you would willingly tell us your terror plots. Oh well, here's your 50 Swiss franc advance pay, don't eat too much from your cookie care package, we've scheduled a dentist appointment for you for Tuesday.'' Of course not, that would be absurd to think that terrorists will willingly tell us their plots. Terror war critics have been watching too many Law and Order TV shows if they think some hokey good cop--bad cop law enforcement approach will work on al-Qaida. These people flew airplanes into buildings for heaven's sake, or should I say for hell's sake. America must fight with honor. We must fight from the moral high ground. But do not tell me we lack a moral basis for our fight against terror. Show me someone who doubts America's moral basis in this fight against terror and I will show you someone who has lost their own moral compass. The compass of America's future points to this bill. We live in an age where we must fight terror. To win, we must fight tough in that fight against terror. We must give our terror fighters the tools they need and the protections they require to protect our families from terror. We cannot fall into the traps our terror war critics suggest: handcuffing our law enforcement and intelligence agents, blocking our terror fighting leadership, releasing and spreading our terror war secrets, giving terror suspects our terror fighting methods and techniques, granting terrorists overly-comfortable protections, going soft on terrorists who hold the secrets of their plots, their attacks. Our agents deserve better, our soldiers deserve better, our families deserve better. To start where I began, this is what all our efforts are about. Protecting our vulnerable families. Protecting our children, protecting our mothers and fathers, protecting grandparents and grandchildren. None of the vulnerable it protects deserved to die in the 9/11 attacks, and none deserve to die again in another terrorist attack. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are passing this bill so that we can detain people. If we catch someone like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, we have no way to hold him, no way to ask him the questions and get the information we need, because the uncertainty has brought the program to a close. It is vitally important to our security, and unfortunately the Rockefeller amendment would imperil it. General Hayden promised to come before the committee, and I look forward, in our oversight responsibilities, to hearing how they are implementing this act. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I wish to honor and recognize the immeasurable contribution Dr. James T. Cassidy has made to pediatric medicine in Missouri and across the United States. Born in 1930 in Oil City, PA, Dr. Cassidy received his both undergraduate and medical education at the University of Michigan. He completed 2 years of active duty in the U.S. Navy and 7 years in the Naval Reserve. He returned to the University of Michigan to complete his residency in internal medicine and a rheumatology fellowship in the Rackham Arthritis Research Unit under the mentorship of Dr. Roseman and Dr. Johnson. He went on to the faculty in 1963 and worked his way up the ranks becoming professor of internal medicine and pediatrics in 1974. In 1984, he was recruited as professor and chair of pediatrics at Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha, NE. Four years later he came to the University of Missouri-Columbia as a professor in the Department of Child Health and Internal Medicine and chief of pediatric rheumatology. He became emeritus professor in 1996 and continued to staff his arthritis clinics until this year. In 1991, Dr. Cassidy published with Ross Petty, M.D., the first ``Textbook of Pediatric Rheumatology,'' a textbook now in its fifth edition which remains the foremost authority in the field both nationally and internationally. He has received many awards, including ACR Master and the ACR Distinguished Clinical Scholar Award from the American College of Rheumatology. I am particularly proud of his work in Missouri. As a professor in the Department of Child Health and Internal Medicine at the University of Missouri-Columbia, Dr. Cassidy has inspired cutting-edge research and shared his limitless expertise in pediatric rheumatology. Yet Dr. Cassidy has done more than just teach, write, and research. Through his efforts, the Missouri Department of Health established the Juvenile Arthritis Care Coordination Program in 1993 to help families obtain family-centered, community-based, coordinated care for children diagnosed with juvenile arthritis. His efforts did not stop there. Realizing that there were children in Southern Missouri who were too poor or too sick to travel to Columbia to receive treatment, Dr. Cassidy and his wife Nan would get in their car every other week and drive to a small clinic in Springfield, MO, and see as many as 25 young children suffering from juvenile arthritis. It didn't matter that they couldn't pay, Dr. Cassidy insisted on finding a way to get the children the treatments they needed. As one doctor said, ``Dr. Cassidy will go to any length to help a child.'' Dr. Cassidy's support extended to his patients' families as well. ``He is an incredibly compassionate physician,'' said one mother, ``who ensures that each family understands how juvenile arthritis affects their child and what parents can do to help their child lead normal and healthy lives.'' Dr. Cassidy was instrumental in building a community of support across Missouri and the United States for families living with juvenile arthritis. In 1980, it was through the encouragement and support of Dr. Cassidy that a mother of one of his patients and two other mothers from other States formed the American Juvenile Arthritis Organization, AJAO, which eventually became a council of the Arthritis Foundation. Dr. Cassidy was instrumental in organizing the first juvenile arthritis educational conference for parents, children, and health professionals held in 1983 which became an annual national conference. He felt education for families of children with arthritis was critical to their care and helped coordinate many Missouri regional conferences in St. Joseph, Kansas City, St. Louis, and Columbia. Perhaps the best measure of Dr. Cassidy's legacy as a doctor comes from the praise and admiration of his patients. Twelve years ago, Dr. Cassidy began treating two young sisters who suffered debilitating pain from juvenile arthritis. Throughout the years he persistently encouraged them, to their chagrin, to wear braces and take their medicine. Recently, Dr. Cassidy received a letter from the girls. They are starting college as healthy, happy, young women--a circumstance virtually unthinkable when Dr. Cassidy began his career. They thanked him for supporting them and giving them the opportunity to live life as they never thought they could. Dr. Cassidy has led an extraordinary life in which he has practiced, researched, and guided aspiring doctors for almost 50 years. He has improved the understanding and awareness of pediatric rheumatology and changed the lives of thousands of children. On behalf of the children and families in Missouri and across the country, is my pleasure and honor to commemorate the distinguished career of Dr. Cassidy, a true pioneer in the field of pediatric rheumatology.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the amendment to give unlawful combatant habeas corpus rights to mirror U.S. domestic procedures is unnecessary and inappropriate. The amendment is unnecessary because the U.S. is already giving enemy unlawful combatants more rights to question their continued incarceration than they are entitled to under international law. Under Geneva Conventions Article 5, combatants captured during wartime are due a hearing to determine their lawful status only if such status is in doubt. The United States goes beyond this requirement to give every combatant a status hearing, even when there is no doubt as to their status. The U.S. gives combatants Combat Status Review Tribunal hearings, known as CSRTs, to determine their status and review the need for their continued incarceration. If this were not enough, there is a review process under the Detainee Treatment Act, passed last year, to which detainees are also subjected. There is no need for further review processes for these enemy combatant detainees. An enemy combatant detainee sounds a little sterile, but take a look at the name that is often referred to dealing with this. The Supreme Court case which brought about the need for this legislation deals with Hamdan. Let's be clear, Hamdan was Osama bin Laden's body guard and driver. This is the kind of person about whom we are talking. Giving unlawful enemy combatants such as these U.S. domestic habeas rights is inappropriate. These people are not U.S. citizens, arrested in the U.S. on some civil offense; they are, by definition, aliens engaged in or supporting terrorist hostilities against the U.S., and doing so in violation of the laws of the war. Some may not have been around long enough to remember that the U.S. detained hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese soldiers, captured on World War II battlefields. We didn't give these enemy combatants access to U.S. domestic courts or habeas corpus rights. Not only would that have been absurd, it would have totally bogged down the legal system. There has never been a legal question over the appropriateness of a separate military process for enemy combatants. We should not now start admitting them to the U.S. domestic legal process. Current military review processes are more than adequate. Indeed, they exceed international standards. Granting enemy combatants additional U.S. domestic habeas corpus rights is unnecessary and inappropriate. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the valuable efforts of the Missouri National Guard, Missouri School Boards' Association, and National Guard Bureau as they have collaborated to support Missouri's prototypical satellite/wireless communications efforts. They have significantly contributed to our knowledge and experience in delivering interagency, interoperable communications capabilities relevant to both the Nation and Show Me state. The Missouri School Boards' Association has closely collaborated with the National Guard to demonstrate that a limited amount of Federal funding can be leveraged to provide for the creation of interagency, interoperable, satellite/wireless, disaster response communications capability, creating reliable local, State and Federal communications infrastructure. This capability can support a number of initiatives, including first responder training, distance learning, telemedicine, and local law enforcement. It is significant to note that a critical component of this demonstration effort is to prove that various agencies can leverage common, shared infrastructure, which reduces sustainment costs and improves government efficiency. Every indication is that this model can successfully support information security and network defense requirements. Since beginning the Missouri effort, much has already been learned. Lessons learned include: interagency interoperability offers an opportunity to transform how we communicate and for significant cost avoidance, including the reduction of annual recurring costs; impediments to interagency interoperability are not because the technology is unavailable or because security requirements cannot be addressed; and challenges and opportunities related to successful interagency communications interoperability exist at all local, State, and Federal Government levels. The Missouri National Guard has validated the use of affordable satellite technology to create reliable, redundant disaster response network communications. The National Guard has leveraged existing resources and teamed with State and Federal agencies to confirm the reliability and capabilities of a planned network. Ongoing activities to support these efforts, resourced largely from federal FY05 funds, include defining the procurement process related to executing this effort; completing a foundational analysis, the development of ``white papers,'' to define the precise relevance of the effort; completing required Department of Defense accreditation of deployable communications capabilities; completing a national survey of communications requirements, capabilities, and existing shortfalls to confirm that there is a national need for this type of capability; providing deployable communications capabilities for testing/ validation. These capabilities will directly support the National Guard, as well as legitimize the concept that state government prior to and during times of emergency can leverage Guard equipment; and providing deployable communications capabilities to be shared with the Missouri School Boards' Association in order that the association, during nonemergency situations, can validate applications with schools. With remaining Federal funds appropriated in fiscal year 2005, the Missouri School Boards' Association will also coordinate an effort to validate the ability to leverage emerging wireless technologies in a defined geographical area in Missouri. This demonstration will also validate the relevance of IPTV, Internet protocol television, with wireless technologies so that field-based educational opportunities can be transmitted ``live'' to school classrooms. From Federal fiscal year 2006 funds, the Missouri School Boards' Association will coordinate a wireless demonstration project in a second defined geographical area in Missouri. This project will incorporate lessons learned from the initial demonstration project in a defined geographical space. Once again, I thank the Missouri National Guard, Missouri School Boards' Association, and National Guard Bureau for their work to support Missouri's prototypical satellite/wireless communications efforts. It is an outstanding example of collaboration.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today we are speaking about security. The major topic of discussion has been, are we safer today? Well, we are safer because of the actions this administration and the Congress have taken, backed up by our brave Americans in the military, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies. But recently, there has been another politically motivated selected leak of classified information. Regrettably, I am talking about the National Intelligence Estimate, a fraction of which was reported on in the New York Times and, I believe, misinterpreted. Beside the fact that leaks of this nature, 6 weeks before elections, are clearly politically inspired, these leaks are also illegal and they make the job of our intelligence agency operatives even more difficult. For example, how can intelligence operatives report on the strengths and weaknesses of our allies when those conclusions will be spread on the record? Our policymakers need to know, but what good is it to tell the world what we think about the people we depend upon? With that said, I have read the NIE in question. It is not what the paper and some on the other side and the media say it is. Some of our Democratic colleagues would like Americans to believe that the document confirms what the Democrats believe--that the war in Iraq is simply a distraction from and has nothing to do with the war on terror, and that is the reason for the growth of radical Islam. This is simply a pitiful election year misinterpretation of a serious document. It is clear that critics want Americans to have only a portion of the truth. That is unfortunate, but that is what happens when some people simply see intelligence matters as another tool to aid them in the fall elections. As I said, I have seen the NIE, which is a lengthy 35-page document. It remains classified, so we cannot discuss its contents, although the President announced that some of it will soon be declassified. Although it is a shame that dishonorable leakers have put us in this position, I believe declassifying the relevant portions of the document so that the American people will have a more balanced perspective on what the document truly says is necessary. The fact is the war on Iraq is a central front in the struggle against radical Islamists. Our successes in Afghanistan and Iraq have made us much safer in our homeland. There have been no attacks since 9/ 11. We have destroyed their safe havens, interrogated detainees, tracked terrorist financing, and listened in on al-Qaida calls in the U.S., followed up by agency, law enforcement, and military personnel. Iraq is not a distraction from the war on terror; it is now central to the war on terror. You don't have to take my word for it; that is the word of Osama bin Laden's primary deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri. He wrote this to the late head of al-Qaida in Iraq, Zarqawi. We intercepted that in a raid months ago. So their deputies echoed the sentiments. They believe the war in Iraq is their best chance in the war on terror, and I believe that once you see more of the NIE, you will see it conveys that message with a warning that if we lose in Iraq, terror threats from radical Islamists will dramatically increase. There is no greater motivation than success. If the radicals are able to claim success in Iraq, I believe we will see a geometric increase in radical recruitment as we have never seen before. At first, Democrats argued that Iraq had nothing to do with the global war on terror. Now they are grasping at a selectively leaked portion of an NIE, claiming that Iraq is central to terrorism because of our efforts there. You cannot have it both ways. Does Iraq or does it not have something to do with the war on terror? It is clear it does. Iraq supported terrorists before the war, and terrorists are there now. Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism and paid the families of suicide bombers. Was Iraq the primary backer of al-Qaida? No, but Saddam Hussein supported terrorism, and that is what this is about--all groups who use terror to attack America. And they must be dislodged. In April, about the same time the NIE was produced, current CIA Director Michael Hayden, then the Deputy Director of National Intelligence, best summarized why Iraq is crucial to winning the global war on terror. In his speech in Texas, he addressed the subject we focus on today. He said that while the war in Iraq may inspire or motivate terrorists now, the failure of the terrorists in Iraq would weaken the movement elsewhere. He continued saying that, should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, fewer fighters would step forward to carry the fight. He went on to explain the terrorists' greatest vulnerability--the fact that the terrorists' ultimate goal of establishing an ultraconservative religious state spanning the Muslim world is unpopular with a vast majority of Muslims. General Hayden stated that the emergence of a Muslim mainstream, such as the one we are building in Iraq, could emerge as the ``most powerful weapon in the war on terror.'' Whatever one believes about how we got where we are now, one thing is clear: The war in Iraq and the global war on terror are part and parcel of the same thing. Some on the other side of the aisle, and some in the media, may try to use selected leaks and political spin and half truths to cynically win votes in the election, but their efforts grossly distort reality. If we win in Iraq, moderate Islam wins and bin Laden and other extremists will have been handed a sound defeat that will have profound repercussions. The terrorists realize this. That is why they are there, and that is why we are fighting them on their turf before they have the opportunity to regroup and assault us on our turf. There is no way the United States can afford to let the terrorists have their way in Iraq. That means we cannot cut and run, or establish a politically driven withdrawal date, before Iraq's security forces can control the country. Were we to do that and were the place to fall into chaos, not only would sectarian strife arise, but it would become a training ground and feeding ground for terrorists once again, and they would be emboldened, as they were after we pulled out of Somalia. That sign of weakness would be a sign for terrorists to get mobilized and get working on it. Success in Iraq is essential. Sure, people are motivated on both sides by the war, but the only answer to that is to win, make sure that we prevail and protect freedom, democracy, and integrity throughout the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for up to 8 minutes.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor many times to talk about our great interest in the nations of Southeast Asia and to call for increased engagement and more attention to the relations between the United States and Southeast Asia. In the early winter of 2006, I spoke about the tsunami and the impact that had on the region. Many of us, particularly from farm country, remember what happened when Thailand's currency collapsed in 1997. It brought a tremendous decline in the region and a decline in our exports. We were previously exporting $12 billion of agricultural product--much from the Midwest--to that region, and that drop of $12 billion caused the precipitous drops in the prices of commodities sold by many farmers in the grain States. So we know that it is an important trading partner. But yesterday, a military coup took over the Government in Thailand while its Prime Minister, Thaksin Chinnawat, was in New York at the U.N. Prime Minister Thaksin had been a successful businessman. He had strong support from Thailand's largely rural population but with opposition to the urban dwellers. In 2005, his Thai Rak Thai--which means ``Thais love Thais''--I cannot understand why we didn't think of something clever like that as a name for a political party--captured 374 out of 500 seats in the House of Representatives. The opposition party boycotted it, however. There was discussion of potential corruption by the sale by the Prime Minister of his telecommunications and satellite business. He had controversies with the military, beginning when 87 Muslim protesters in southern Thailand died in security custody, and the Prime Minister was attempting to put his own people in charge of the military. After the election, the King stepped in and asked the court to review the election. They set it aside, and Thaksin essentially resumed power as Prime Minister even though the election was overturned. Now, it is with great concern and disappointment that we see the military coup. Our neighbors in the region have spoken out. They have expressed concern, great disappointment. And it is clear that for the cause of the country and the region, the constitutional process must be restored in Thailand and an election date set for a new democratic government very shortly. America has had in Thailand one of its best allies. We conduct numerous joint military exercises. Thailand was responsible for the capture of the infamous radical Islamic terrorist Hambali, who masterminded the Bali bombing. We have worked closely with them. Thailand has been the economic stronghold of Southeast Asia. It is also a constitutional monarchy, with well-developed infrastructure and a free-enterprise economy and proinvestment policies. I think the economy will recover. As far as democracy, King Bhumibol, a benign monarch who served for 60 years, exercised his considerable influence to keep Thailand moving in that direction. Thailand, which, during the late 20th century, experienced numerous coups and military coups, had not had one since 1991. I believe King Bhumibol will push for a democracy and will get back on the negotiations between Thailand and the United States for a free-trade agreement. As I said, Thailand is key in the region. I have described that region as the second front in the war on terror because al-Qaida- related radical Islamist groups have been conducting terrorist attacks here. It is set forth in a book by Ken Conboy, describing the most dangerous terror network. There is concern that since the bombings in southern Thailand have shown that there are insurgents--some 1,700 people have died--that this might become a haven, a breeding ground for the radical Islamists, rather than the insurgents in the three southern provinces of far south Thailand. My view is that is an overreaction. I think the insurgents have issues with the Government, but to this point, I don't see evidence that they will become a host for al-Qaida or other related groups. They generally have practiced the moderate Muslim viewpoint of Islam of the Southeast Asia region. Also, at the same time, I might mention, as we are speaking about the battle against terrorism and modern Islam, I visited Malaysia in August. Malaysia, again, has been a country that has been making great progress. It is a democratic nation committed to progress and development and has aspired to the peaceful and tolerant teachings of Islam. It is a key economic partner. It is our 10th largest trading partner overall. It has been growing at 5 percent annually. We are in negotiations for a free-trade agreement with them. Malaysia imports more from the United States than any country, other than Japan, in that region. I believe that a free-trade agreement will help build on that constructive partnership in fighting terrorism and ensuring other security issues. Despite all this, I saw a disturbing trend while I was there; that is, the possibility that some of the more radical views of extremism and intolerance in religion may be raising their ugly head in religion in Malaysia. Most recently, a Malaysian woman who was born Azalina Jailani, changed her name to Linda Joy, and has been waiting for the federal courts to approve her conversion from Islam to Christianity. It was reported that when her application came to change her religion, it was rejected, and she was sent back to the Sharia or religious courts. Her lawyer has been arguing before Malaysia's highest court that Joy's conversion be considered a right under the constitution and not a religious matter. We are watching this case with great interest. There are reports that provinces in Malaysia are going to change their law to implement the Sharia, or harsh religious law, as law of the province. Sixty percent of Malaysia's people are Muslim, and Christians of various denominations make up about 8 percent. The rest are Buddhist, Taoist, and Hindu. We look forward to seeing a decision reasserting Malaysia's commitment to democratic principles and a rejection of intolerant religious laws. Malaysia Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi has been an outspoken champion of tolerance. He has pointed out the obvious political dangers of taking that road, but I hope he will not succumb to the pressures that appear to be increasing to move down a path toward less tolerant and potentially more extremist forms of religion. The pressures for adopting harsh religious laws are also being applied to Indonesia where President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has been another strong advocate of tolerance, freedom, and democracy. The Muslim countries in that region, we hope, will continue on a path of secular, pluralistic, democratic societies or the choice is to see them turn from that path to a potential breeding ground for terror and instability. Speaking of terror and instability, one country where I am not fearful of that occurring is Cambodia, which I also visited in August. I was stunned to see the World Bank put out a list of ``failed states'' with the danger of becoming harbors for terrorism, and they listed Cambodia. To me, Cambodia is definitely heading in the right direction in terms of fighting terrorism. They are making great economic progress. We have been cooperating with them. They have contributed to counterterrorism efforts in the region. Prime Minister Hun Sen said: If we aren't active enough in fighting terror, we risk becoming the hostage. They set up a national committee to fight terrorism. After the attacks on the United States on 9/11, Cambodia offered overflight rights to support our operations. Cambodia has contributed peacekeepers to Sudan. The United States has provided international military education and training funds for the first time, and we are planning military exercises with Cambodia later this year. The IMET contribution of $45,000 is small, but it shows we are willing to work with them and ensure their military has civilian control, appropriate rules of engagement, and other means of conducting themselves in this very difficult time. There is an economic issue that I hope we can resolve successfully with respect to Cambodia because they are moving on the path toward what we would want to see, and that is democracy and human rights in this part of the world and free markets. The economy of Cambodia has been growing since 1999, boosted by a bilateral textile agreement, and we believe that has been a reason for the strong economic growth. Mr. President, I don't see any other Senators wishing to take the floor. I ask for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, Cambodia has adopted international labor rights and standards touted by the International Labor Organization as a model for other developing countries, and they are beginning to flourish. This is a country that has half its population under the age of 20 because of the unbelievable depredations of the Khmer Rouge in the late seventies and widespread murder and genocide. But it is on the right track. However, with the expiration of the bilateral textile agreement, countries such as Cambodia are now losing out in the competition with economies such as China and India. I strongly support and hope we can pass a measure to enhance economic opportunities such as the Tariff Relief Assistance for Developing Economies, or TRADE Act, that will allow least developed countries, such as Cambodia, to remain competitive by enhancing economic growth. They need to create a better investment environment. They are clearly not a Thomas Jefferson democracy yet. They have had a very colorful and very deadly past, but we think that with our help and support, they can redevelop what was once Southeast Asia's rice basket--prior to the Khmer Rouge's destruction of small irrigation infrastructure and the execution of anyone with agricultural expertise--again to a strong contributing economy. We must adopt initiatives such as these for Cambodia and for other countries in the Southeast Asia region. We have to work to continue improving education, emancipation, economic development, and promoting democracy in Southeast Asia, as around the rest of the world. Doing so is not only good neighborly, it will not only help the Southeast Asian nations move toward economic and political reform, but it will be the most important thing we can do against the war that radical Islam has declared upon our world and keep these countries from turning to the extremist violence, the terrorism we now see primarily in the Middle East and have seen too frequently, as noted in ``The Second Front,'' in Southeast Asia. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Reserving the right to object, first, let me clarify, this is not classification----