Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Bond pertaining to the introduction of S. 2658 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I join my friend and fellow cochair of the Senate National Guard caucus, Senator Pat Leahy, in introducing bipartisan legislation to strengthen one of our Nation's most important military and civilian resources--the National Guard. The Guard has a long and proud history of contributing to America's military away game, while providing vital support and security to civil authorities in the home game. Since September 11, 2001, our citizen- soldiers have taken on greater responsibilities and risks from fighting the war on terror to disaster assistance. Today, the Guard supports the Nation's military strategy overseas, functions as a primary line of defense here at home, and helps local responders deal with overwhelming natural disasters. We have seen the tremendous value of Guard forces as they confront terrorists in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other hotspots, and as they provide water, food, and health supplies to victims of Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters. More than 1,300 guardsmen from my home State of Missouri were deployed in less than 72 hours following Hurricane Katrina, providing medical, transportation, airlift, military police, engineering, and communications capabilities. For example, the 139th Airlift Wing evacuated 23 critically ill young patients from Children's Hospital in New Orleans and brought them to Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City for the high-level care they needed. Stories such as this were repeated all over the country in most if not all our States. Why was the Guard successful when other elements of the Katrina response were not? Quite simply, the Guard is the entity best organized and trained to initiate and coordinate a civil response to any disaster on the scale of Katrina. In addition, more than 200,000 Guard troops have left their homes, their jobs, and their families to participate in another critical mission: the global war on terror. The National Guard has provided as much as half the combat force and 40 percent of the total force in Iraq. I point out that the Guard is a tremendous value for the capabilities it provides. It gives 40 percent of the total military force for around 4.5 percent of the budget. Whether at home or abroad, the men and women of the Guard are performing their duties with honor and valor, often at great sacrifice to their families and their own lives. As they willingly make these sacrifices to preserve American lives and freedoms, we have a responsibility to support them as they carry out their unique dual mission. While serving abroad, National Guard troops serve under Air Force and Army commands under title 10 status. But when the Guard operates at home, they serve under the command and control of the Nation's Governors in title 32 status. There is a lot more we can do to make this work more smoothly. Despite their importance on the street, as it were, the Guard is often given short shrift back at Pentagon headquarters, which has proposed repeatedly to cut Guard personnel and equipment budgets. The Guard will play a critical role in response to another terrorist attack or natural disaster, but the Pentagon has allowed its equipment levels to sink to dangerously low levels. Currently, the National Guard has only about 35 percent of the equipment it needs. In Missouri, only one of two engineering battalions that were requested to assist with Katrina could respond because the other one did not have the equipment they needed. With the support of 75 of my colleagues, Senator Leahy and I led an effort to increase equipment funding for the Guard by almost $1 billion. We are going to continue that fight this year to ensure the Guard has equipment it needs to carry out both missions. Just a few months ago, the Army proposed significant cuts to Guard troop strength. Three-quarters of the Senate again joined us in a letter opposing this, and I thank all of our colleagues who joined us. We need to do more to empower the Guard. We need to give the Guard more bureaucratic muscle. Time and again, the Guard has had to rely on Congress, not its total force partners in the active duty, to provide and equip fully the resources it needs to fulfill its missions. That the Guard is left out of the Pentagon decisionmaking process is beyond dispute. In the most recent Quadrennial Defense Review, during the BRAC review process of 2004 and 2005, when the Army and Air Force reduced National Guard force structure in 2005, and when equipment levels of the Army and National Guard reached the dangerously low levels of 35 percent, Congress has had to step in. To remedy this, the legislation we introduce today to strengthen the Guard consists of three central planks. One, we will allow the National Guard Bureau to establish more formal relationships with the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs. We will give the Guard more muscle in existing relationships, elevating the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to a four-star position and providing a seat for him on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It goes without saying that to be a part of a big decision, you have to be at the table. Having a four-star Guard general providing advice to the SECDEF instead of a two-star major general will give our governors and 450,000 citizen-soldiers and airmen access to the highest level of the DOD and ensure key policy decisions are heard and taken into account. To put things in perspective, the Active-Duty Army has 12 four-star generals and 46 lieutenant generals. The Air Force has 13 four-star generals and 35 lieutenant generals. The National Guard, which represents over 40 percent of the entire force structure, is represented by three lieutenant generals and zero four-star generals. Can anyone tell me with a straight face how the Guard one four-star general and an additional three-star will endanger our national security? The only element endangered would be the Pentagon status quo which is outdated. Facts are stubborn things. Clearly, the facts demonstrate a glaring, disproportionate number of three- and four-star generals in the Army and the Air Force when compared with the Guard. Second, we will ensure that the Deputy Commander of the Northern Command is a member of the Guard, a new command with the mission of coordinating responses to emergencies within the United States. The Guard is the entity best suited to respond to major incidents, and they need that capability. With both the Guard and NorthCom's missions being defense of the homeland, it only makes sense to have substantive input through a lieutenant general as deputy commander. Finally, we must ensure the Guard plays a role in identifying and filling any gaps between civilian emergency response capabilities and those of the military. Current DOD policy prohibits procurement of supplies or equipment for providing military support to civilian authorities during emergencies except with the permission of SECDEF. That policy is outdated. It will give the National Guard Bureau, in consultation with the State adjutant generals, the budgetary power to research, validate, and make those equipment purchases. Neither the homeland support nor the military support missions of the Guard are likely to diminish. They are needed more now than ever. But we must strengthen the decisionmaking capability of Guard leaders within the Department of Defense. As we heard today from General Blum, Chief of the National Guard Bureau, before the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee when he was asked questions by Senator Inouye, he responded with a football analogy. When we asked him if he was in the huddle, he said he was ``not in the huddle'' during the QDR. This legislation would empower the Guard to respond in the affirmative the next time it is asked, ``are you in the huddle'' on this major decision. I thank my colleagues for their past support. I ask for their support of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that congressional findings regarding National Guard Forces be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I join my friend and fellow cochair of the Senate National Guard caucus, Senator Pat Leahy, in introducing bipartisan legislation to strengthen one of our Nation's most important military and civilian resources--the National Guard. The Guard has a long and proud history of contributing to America's military away game, while providing vital support and security to civil authorities in the home game. Since September 11, 2001, our citizen- soldiers have taken on greater responsibilities and risks from fighting the war on terror to disaster assistance. Today, the Guard supports the Nation's military strategy overseas, functions as a primary line of defense here at home, and helps local responders deal with overwhelming natural disasters. We have seen the tremendous value of Guard forces as they confront terrorists in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other hotspots, and as they provide water, food, and health supplies to victims of Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters. More than 1,300 guardsmen from my home State of Missouri were deployed in less than 72 hours following Hurricane Katrina, providing medical, transportation, airlift, military police, engineering, and communications capabilities. For example, the 139th Airlift Wing evacuated 23 critically ill young patients from Children's Hospital in New Orleans and brought them to Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City for the high-level care they needed. Stories such as this were repeated all over the country in most if not all our States. Why was the Guard successful when other elements of the Katrina response were not? Quite simply, the Guard is the entity best organized and trained to initiate and coordinate a civil response to any disaster on the scale of Katrina. In addition, more than 200,000 Guard troops have left their homes, their jobs, and their families to participate in another critical mission: the global war on terror. The National Guard has provided as much as half the combat force and 40 percent of the total force in Iraq. I point out that the Guard is a tremendous value for the capabilities it provides. It gives 40 percent of the total military force for around 4.5 percent of the budget. Whether at home or abroad, the men and women of the Guard are performing their duties with honor and valor, often at great sacrifice to their families and their own lives. As they willingly make these sacrifices to preserve American lives and freedoms, we have a responsibility to support them as they carry out their unique dual mission. While serving abroad, National Guard troops serve under Air Force and Army commands under title 10 status. But when the Guard operates at home, they serve under the command and control of the Nation's Governors in title 32 status. There is a lot more we can do to make this work more smoothly. Despite their importance on the street, as it were, the Guard is often given short shrift back at Pentagon headquarters, which has proposed repeatedly to cut Guard personnel and equipment budgets. The Guard will play a critical role in response to another terrorist attack or natural disaster, but the Pentagon has allowed its equipment levels to sink to dangerously low levels. Currently, the National Guard has only about 35 percent of the equipment it needs. In Missouri, only one of two engineering battalions that were requested to assist with Katrina could respond because the other one did not have the equipment they needed. With the support of 75 of my colleagues, Senator Leahy and I led an effort to increase equipment funding for the Guard by almost $1 billion. We are going to continue that fight this year to ensure the Guard has equipment it needs to carry out both missions. Just a few months ago, the Army proposed significant cuts to Guard troop strength. Three-quarters of the Senate again joined us in a letter opposing this, and I thank all of our colleagues who joined us. We need to do more to empower the Guard. We need to give the Guard more bureaucratic muscle. Time and again, the Guard has had to rely on Congress, not its total force partners in the active duty, to provide and equip fully the resources it needs to fulfill its missions. That the Guard is left out of the Pentagon decisionmaking process is beyond dispute. In the most recent Quadrennial Defense Review, during the BRAC review process of 2004 and 2005, when the Army and Air Force reduced National Guard force structure in 2005, and when equipment levels of the Army and National Guard reached the dangerously low levels of 35 percent, Congress has had to step in. To remedy this, the legislation we introduce today to strengthen the Guard consists of three central planks. One, we will allow the National Guard Bureau to establish more formal relationships with the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs. We will give the Guard more muscle in existing relationships, elevating the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to a four-star position and providing a seat for him on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It goes without saying that to be a part of a big decision, you have to be at the table. Having a four-star Guard general providing advice to the SECDEF instead of a two-star major general will give our governors and 450,000 citizen-soldiers and airmen access to the highest level of the DOD and ensure key policy decisions are heard and taken into account. To put things in perspective, the Active-Duty Army has 12 four-star generals and 46 lieutenant generals. The Air Force has 13 four-star generals and 35 lieutenant generals. The National Guard, which represents over 40 percent of the entire force structure, is represented by three lieutenant generals and zero four-star generals. Can anyone tell me with a straight face how the Guard one four-star general and an additional three-star will endanger our national security? The only element endangered would be the Pentagon status quo which is outdated. Facts are stubborn things. Clearly, the facts demonstrate a glaring, disproportionate number of three- and four-star generals in the Army and the Air Force when compared with the Guard. Second, we will ensure that the Deputy Commander of the Northern Command is a member of the Guard, a new command with the mission of coordinating responses to emergencies within the United States. The Guard is the entity best suited to respond to major incidents, and they need that capability. With both the Guard and NorthCom's missions being defense of the homeland, it only makes sense to have substantive input through a lieutenant general as deputy commander. Finally, we must ensure the Guard plays a role in identifying and filling any gaps between civilian emergency response capabilities and those of the military. Current DOD policy prohibits procurement of supplies or equipment for providing military support to civilian authorities during emergencies except with the permission of SECDEF. That policy is outdated. It will give the National Guard Bureau, in consultation with the State adjutant generals, the budgetary power to research, validate, and make those equipment purchases. Neither the homeland support nor the military support missions of the Guard are likely to diminish. They are needed more now than ever. But we must strengthen the decisionmaking capability of Guard leaders within the Department of Defense. As we heard today from General Blum, Chief of the National Guard Bureau, before the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee when he was asked questions by Senator Inouye, he responded with a football analogy. When we asked him if he was in the huddle, he said he was ``not in the huddle'' during the QDR. This legislation would empower the Guard to respond in the affirmative the next time it is asked, ``are you in the huddle'' on this major decision. I thank my colleagues for their past support. I ask for their support of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that congressional findings regarding National Guard Forces be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Mr. Victor Fontanez of Platte City, MO. Mr. Fontanez is a World War II veteran who served with distinction in Europe from 1942 to 1945. Mr. Fontanez joined the Army in January of 1941, 11 months before the attacks on Pearl Harbor. He recognized the need for soldiers to answer the call, and swiftly volunteered for service wherever he could be used. Joining Company B, 47th Infantry Battalion, 9th Division, Mr. Fontanez was quickly shipped to North Africa where he participated in the larger Battle of Tunisia against German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel's vaunted Afrika Korps. In April of 1943, near the town of El Guettar, his battalion was given orders to go over the top of an important hill. As he ran down the hill towards the enemy, a mortar shell exploded close to him, sending shrapnel into the left side of his body. Despite profuse bleeding, he continued on to the bottom of the hill and took cover near a large rock. Another mortar hit the rock, sending concussions through his body and making it difficult to breathe. After the attack, his fellow heroes helped him back to the headquarters, where he was patched up quickly and evacuated to an American hospital in Oran. For the wounds he suffered that day, he was awarded the Purple Heart. After his recovery, he was assigned to the 36th Infantry Division as a combat engineer. He was a crucial part of the landing forces at Salerno Bay, Italy. After securing their positions, they were given orders to help reinforce the Anzio beachhead, and then to take Velletri, one of the key cities that the Germans used in the defense of Rome. After the Nazis fell, his division marched through the streets of Rome to a hero's welcome. After the liberation of Rome, his division was sent off on ships to another crucial mission: the invasion of southern France. It was during Operation Dragoon on the beaches of France that Mr. Fontanez would earn his highest award for valor. While the troops advanced inland from the landing area, a low-flying plane dropped a bomb onboard one of the ships in the bay, causing explosions and major fires. After seeing a number of badly burned men jump from the ship with their clothes on fire--and with total disregard for his own safety--he entered the water and was able to swim several safely to shore. For this selfless act of bravery, he was awarded the Soldier's Medal. Later he rejoined his company and was able to help drive the Germans out of Cannes and Grenoble. Moving through the cold snow, they rested where they could. As Christmas 1944 approached, the 36th was hoping for a lull in fighting, but German forces launched an attack to the north. After successfully defending their positions, the 36th renewed the offense and crossed the Rhine River into Germany in late March 1945. It was shortly after this that Mr. Fontanez got his well-deserved rest, and was expedited home for extended leave. Like so many of his generation, Mr. Fontanez's success extended beyond the battlefield. He fathered two children: a son, Victor, Jr., who is now a retired military officer; and a daughter, Edith, who currently lives in Platte City and works with Support Our Troops & Vets. He is the proud grandfather of six grandchildren and great- grandfather of four, and counts a military chaplain, two Army soldiers, a Guardsman, an attorney, and a social worker in his lineage. Nearing 90 years of age, Victor Fontanez is a proud member and example of our ``greatest generation,'' and should be commended for his bravery in helping secure the freedoms we all enjoy. On this day, I encourage my colleagues to stand with me in praising the service of this true hero, Victor Fontanez.

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. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the achievements of an exceptional Missouri student. Second grader Ronald Seawright of St. Louis has taken it upon himself to lead his peers in the St. Louis Public School District in an effort to end school violence, particularly bullying. Using his personal experiences at Laclede Elementary School during his first grade year, Ronald published a short book entitled ``The Bully,'' which he hopes will guide other students to free themselves from bullying. Ronald's book, ``The Bully,'' explains who bullies are and what they do, as well as how to respond when you are frightened by a bully. Ronald's advice is sound: do not suffer the intimidation of a bully. He stresses the importance of communicating to trusted adults in order to help students overcome peer violence and abuse in its early stages before the school's learning environment is disrupted. With the aid of his mother and local leaders, Ronald continues to spread his message. On March 14, 2006, public schools across the city of St. Louis are celebrating Live Bully-Free Day. Ronald has invited other school children to join him in learning the personal and social skills necessary to protect themselves from bullies, gangs, and their tactics. Ronald deserves to be commended not only for his courage but also for his great service and leadership in our community. Mr. President, I encourage you and other Members of the Senate to join me in recognizing the initiative of this brave and creative young man, Ronald Seawright.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the filing deadline for first-degree amendments to S. 2271 occur at 12 noon today.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about the war on terror, progress in Iraq, and the PATRIOT Act. In spite of the negative press you see on the nightly news, Iraq is progressing toward the goal of being independent, free, and democratic. It has been nearly 3 years since our brave men and women in the military and our other agencies freed a people from the grip of a tyrannical and murderous dictator and began to work to establish a democratic society in the heart of the Middle East. In doing so, they are also making the world and all of us much safer. Since then, the people of Iraq have set up a constitutional government and braved death by voting in free elections. Surely more remains to be done, but let there be no doubt, progress is being made. But challenges remain. We recognize that and we must. The recent bombing of a mosque in Samarra has highlighted the challenges Iraq continues to face. Who did it? Following the attack, a prominent Iraqi Shiite cleric, al-Sistani, recognizing the hallmarks of al-Qaida, called, for the first time, for street demonstrations against the bombing, and thousands of his angry supporters protested, shouting slogans against al-Qaida and its supporters, accusing them of fueling hatred and violence, which is surely what they did. News of the attack only underscores why we are in Iraq and what is at stake. When our delegation met with Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd leaders last month in Baghdad, those leaders recognized, as our able Ambassador emphasized, the dangers of sectarian violence. They committed to work together, knowing that they have to bring about a national unity government. Recent news reports suggest that with the intervention of enlightened leaders such as al-Sistani, people are beginning to work together again. But the disturbing news of the bombing of the mosque and resulting reactions and killings simply seems to embolden all the hand- wringing naysayers who have incessantly talked of civil war in Iraq and American withdrawal. A greater lesson, however, lies within this tragic development. Simply put, what is the alternative? Is America to retreat from Iraq and simply seek to be left alone and leave the world's problems to others to fix? In the age of bin Laden, al-Zarqawi, and al-Sistani, that is a course America and the world cannot afford to take. We should have learned our lesson on 9/11. As the Wall Street Journal recently pointed out, the fact is that under the Bush administration's policy, four democratic governments have come to power in the Middle East--Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Palestine. Yes these democracies will face serious challenges along the way, from insurgents to bloody ethnic feuding. These are very serious challenges, and we are witnessing these challenges right now. Let us be blunt. There is always the possibility that a murderous dictator can come to power in a democracy. That is how Hitler got in, in Germany. No one said this approach is perfect. It isn't, especially when Hamas wins in Palestine. But democracy isn't supposed to be perfect or easy or smooth. It was not such as we set up our Government. But what is the alternative to promoting democracy, no matter how great the challenges become? I submit there is no viable alternative. It is democracy, and only democracy, that will offer these countries the possibility of greater civic freedoms, greater economic freedoms, and the hope for a politically moderate future. It is only because of American leadership, our brave soldiers, our brave civilians, and the hopeful leadership, the enlightened leadership of people such as Hamid Karzai, Jalal Talabani, and Saad Hariri that these countries and their people stand a chance of a better life and the world stands a chance to be a safer place. Along with it, America stands a chance of having important friends in a part of the world that in the past has been no friend to America. Some of my colleagues have said we need to get out of Iraq. I agree-- as soon as we train the Iraqi military and the police to ensure security but not until that is done. But even when Iraq is stabilized, we will continue to see the threat of violence from the Islamofascists such as al-Qaida, Ansar al-Islam, Jamia Islamia. As President Bush warned, this is going to be a decade-long war. Thus, our battles will go on overseas to deny foreign safe havens to murderous terrorist groups. At home, the threat is still grim. And with recent disclosures, regrettably, of our most sensitive intelligence, according to CIA Director Porter Goss, we have experienced very severe damage to our capabilities. It is even more important now that we provide our domestic law enforcement agencies the tools they need. That is why it is imperative we pass the PATRIOT Act as soon as possible. It is past time that we do so. 9/11 was not so long ago that we should have forgotten what it felt like that day. You know and I know what it was like. We all need to remember. The results of hamstringing our domestic intelligence abilities are not so distant. The reasons we passed the PATRIOT Act have not gone away. I am glad that an overwhelming number of Senators will join together to provide our terror fighters with the tools they need. For those for whom this was a hard decision, I applaud your courage. However, our actions pale in comparison to the courage exercised by those of us who protect us every day. It is to them we give these tools, to them we entrust our safety, to them we owe our freedoms, to them we owe our lives. Why would we not give them the tools they need to hold terror at bay? Why should we slow their hunt for terror suspects here at home? Why would we take from them the tools that have aided in the capture of over 400 terrorist suspects? Renewing the PATRIOT Act will do this and more. It strikes a balance between national security and personal liberties. In the words of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it is a better bill now than it was before. Negotiators have addressed many concerns. A balance has been struck on national security letters. Nondisclosure requirements prevent terrorists from learning the progress of investigations and investigative techniques. New language allows recipients of NSL letters to overturn the nondisclosure requirements, if a judge finds there is no reason to believe that disclosures may endanger the national security of the United States, interfere with criminal, counterterrorism or counterintelligence investigation, interfere with diplomatic relations or endanger the life or physical safety of any person. Could we allow anything else? Language was added clarifying that libraries, where functioning in their traditional roles, are not subject to national security letters. The agreement removes the requirement that a person inform the FBI of the identity of any attorney to whom disclosure was made or will be made to obtain legal advice or assistance. For those of us who care about port security--quite a few people have been talking about it--this legislation includes the Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports Act of 2005. Those who join me in supporting this measure will make it a Federal crime to use fraud or false pretenses to enter America's ports; establish a new, general Federal crime to interfere forcibly with inspections of vessels by Federal law enforcement or resist arrest or provide law enforcement officers with false information; add ``passenger vessels'' to the forms of mass transit protected against terrorist attacks under Federal law; make it a Federal crime to place any substance or device in the navigable waters of the United States with the intent to damage a vessel or its cargo or to interfere with maritime commerce; and make it a Federal crime to transport explosives, biological, chemical, radioactive weapons or nuclear material aboard a vessel in the United States, in waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction on the high seas or aboard a vessel of the United States. In addition, I care very deeply about fighting the drug scourge sweeping rural America, especially in the Midwest. Folks in my State know all too well that methamphetamine is perhaps the most deadly, fiercely addictive, and rapidly spreading drug the United States has known. It is cheap, potent, and available everywhere. During the past decade, while law enforcement officers continue to bust record numbers of clandestine labs, methamphetamine use in some communities has increased by as much as 300 percent. The PATRIOT Act reauthorization includes the most comprehensive antimeth package ever introduced in the Congress by my colleagues Senator Jim Talent of Missouri and Senator Dianne Feinstein of California. This Combat Meth Act will make certain legitimate consumers have access to the medicine they need while cutting off the meth cooks from the large amounts of ingredients they need to cook meth. For all of these reasons, we must reauthorize the PATRIOT Act now. Our terror fighters cannot wait, our ports cannot wait, and our communities suffering from the scourge of meth cannot wait. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

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

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to address some troubling information about natural gas, energy, and the prices of energy as well as its availability. This information came from a hearing held in the Air subcommittee of the EPW Committee last week, and I think it is of sufficient importance to all Members and all States in the Nation that I rise to speak to my colleagues about it. We all know that American families and workers are suffering from high energy costs. They will suffer even more if we do not balance our environmental concerns with their energy needs. That is why the hearing held last week in the Air subcommittee is all the more important. If we fail to heed the warning our families and workers are sending us about high energy costs and their lost jobs, their lost incomes, their lost standards of living, then we risk doing even more harm. The people I am talking about include manufacturing workers who used to make chemicals, plastic products, automobile parts or fertilizer. Many of them are now out of work because their employer moved to a foreign country with cheaper natural gas prices. The pain, obviously, doesn't stop with workers. Families suffer from lost wages. Most of those who are lucky enough to get a new job will be working for lower wages. Does that mean that those wages have to move even lower? Do they have to live with a broken-down car even longer? In addition, seniors on fixed incomes are particularly vulnerable to high natural gas prices. Across the Midwest, indeed across the country, many depend on natural gas to heat their homes in the winter and cool their homes in the summer. What do we tell them: Wear a coat inside during the winter and turn on a fan during the summer? We all know of the tragedies that hit our seniors in summer heat waves. What do we tell their families? Some have said we should tell our workers and their families that we are going to hurt them even more in order to fight climate change. We will pass proposals to cap carbon emissions which, by the way, will raise energy prices even more. For some, I guess today's energy prices are not high enough. Some are willing to drive power and heating bills even higher in their fight against global warming. Some do not care that there are no technologies currently available to capture and store carbon dioxide. But they are working on finding those. We are not there yet. Some are willing to stop using cheap and abundant fuels, such as coal, and force ourselves to use only the expensive and very limited supply of natural gas. Every year, recently, we have had an opportunity to vote on the McCain-Lieberman proposal. Every year we hear about how it will deliver a $100 billion hit or more to the economy. Thankfully, every year the Senate kills this job killer. Last year, as part of the Energy bill debate, we passed a sense of the Senate stating support for climate change strategies that did not hurt the economy. I think we can all agree with that. It sounds simple, but as we consider the ``McCain-Lieberman lite'' proposals, we have to look at whether a second generation of proposals will actually spare our families and workers from more pain. Since we still do not have the technologies to capture and store carbon, they will present other dubious arguments. Some will pin their hopes on projections that future natural gas prices will fall from triple historic levels, where they are now, to only double historic levels, where they were a few years ago. This will somehow make carbon caps affordable. Not only do I doubt that natural gas prices will return to historic lows, States represented by Members advocating these proposals are actively trying to block actions necessary to increase natural gas supply and get prices down. Government natural gas projections, which we found very dubious, include a prediction that natural gas prices will fall in the coming decades. However, that prediction depends upon liquefied natural gas imports rising by 600 percent by 2030, a sixfold increase in LNG imports. I find such hopes mind- boggling. How could we increase LNG imports by 600 percent at the same time we have coastal States from Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Delaware opposing or blocking LNG terminals? By the way, these Northeastern States blocking natural gas imports through their States are the very ones proposing we punish Midwestern States using coal by forcing them to switch to natural gas to make electricity--the natural gas that they will not allow us to get through LNG. Others who claim carbon caps will be affordable, pin their hopes on rosy economic analyses that say we can buy our way out of the problem. They propose, instead of cutting carbon emissions, powerplants will be able to purchase, hopefully, cheap credits from others who, hopefully, cut their own carbon emissions elsewhere. They are running models from MIT, Stanford, and Harvard that say the price of buying carbon cuts in other countries will be cheaper than forcing U.S. powerplants to reduce their own carbon emissions. I can't dispute these are smart people, but I wonder if they are reading the newspaper. Their models show a ton of carbon cuts costing just over $1 a ton. At that price, they say it would be affordable. Unfortunately, last week the price to purchase a ton of carbon reductions was $31. You do not have to be from Harvard to do that math. That is 31 times more expensive. Do we believe that the cost of carbon credits will drop by 97 percent after we impose our own cap, when you see the increasing demand for energy from India and China? That I do not believe is likely. Europe's system to cap carbon is certainly in a shambles. European countries are failing miserably to meet their Kyoto carbon-cut requirements. Thirteen of the fifteen original EU signatories are on track to miss their 2010 emissions targets--by as much as 33 percent in Spain and 25 percent in Denmark. Talks to discuss further cuts beyond that, when Kyoto expires, have only produced agreement to talk further. It sounds similar to the Senate these days. We can talk well, but doing things is difficult. If Europe is, for all practical purposes, ignoring their Kyoto carbon commitments and there is no agreement to continue with carbon caps after Kyoto, how can we expect the creation of enough credits? In the alternative, if Europeans suddenly decide to rush and meet their commitments by buying up massive amounts of credits to meet their shortfalls, how will there be enough credits for a U.S. demand bigger than all of Europe combined? While these questions are complicated, their consequences are simple. A mistake on our part could add significantly to the misery of our manufacturing workers. A mistake on our part will add to the hardships families face paying their heating and power bills. And one more thought: Iran and Saudi Arabia are furiously busy expanding their petrochemical industry, based upon their vast supplies of natural gas. I ask unanimous consent an article on that subject be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. BOND. This means that not only more cheap foreign chemicals, but it means potentially more closed U.S. plants. We must also ask whether we want to add to our oil addiction a new chemical dependency on Iraq, Iran, and the Middle East. Before we make any hasty decisions, I believe we must have answers to these questions, and we must answer these questions as we begin to debate further carbon cap proposals.

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for 8 minutes.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I certainly support the very powerful words of my colleague from Alabama. He has pointed out many of the compelling reasons for this program. I rise today to discuss this vitally important program for protecting our national security, and I do so regrettably because this is an open session on the floor of the Senate. This program, of course, is known as the NSA terrorist surveillance program. I say I discuss it regrettably because it is to the detriment of our Nation that this program was leaked to the media and has now been discussed openly for months. I submit to you that the year 2005, in intelligence and national security circles, will go down in history as the year of the leak. I will not repeat the full litany of those leaks, but we have all been continually reminded about the most damaging one.

Mr. BOND. Yes.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I say thank you to the Senator from Alabama. Let me get back to the remarks. For example, the allegation that the United States is running some secret prisons in Europe has caused European nations and other allies to question their cooperation with us on the war on terror for fear of international retribution; the barrage of books and articles disclosing alleged classified operations, like James Risen's book, ``State of War,'' where he takes every supposed leak he can find and churns it out for profit in a book; and the NSA terrorist surveillance program which tips off terrorists to our early warning program. On February 2, CIA Director Goss testified to Congress and the Intelligence Committee in open session about the damage to our national security. I asked him if these leaks had a significant impact on our capabilities to carry out our mission. And to quote him: I use the words ``very severe'' intentionally. That is my belief. He went on to say that foreign leaders chide him that the United States cannot keep a secret and that we have lost the confidence of many in the world who were desiring to assist us in the global war on terror. Do those who leak classified information with reckless abandon realize they are potentially aiding and abetting the enemy by allowing the enemy advanced warning of how to avoid our defenses as we seek to prevent another 9/11? Since so many have taken political advantage of the leak on the NSA terrorist surveillance program, the administration and those of us who agree with the concept of the program are now forced to speak openly to defend it to make sure Congress does not throw this vital program out with the bath water while reviewing it. Some say the program is illegal and even unconstitutional. How do they figure? The President has the inherent constitutional authority, so held by the courts, to conduct ``warrantless'' surveillance when it is reasonable for the surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. This is a constitutional principle which has been established for centuries. Go back to the writings of our Founding Fathers, and from our first President, George Washington, to our current, President George Bush. Presidents have intercepted communications to determine the plans and intentions of our enemies. A steady stream of Federal court cases has confirmed this Presidential authority, as Attorney General Gonzales pointed out on Monday before the Senate Judiciary Committee: In the face of overwhelming evidence for the President's authority, opponents retort that the President must then be breaking the law by violating the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA. But--and this is important--Congress cannot extinguish the President's constitutional authority by passing a law. We in this body cannot take away the powers the Constitution gives the President. If the law is read in such a way as to encroach upon his constitutional authority, then I question whether that part of the FISA act would be constitutional. This is not the first time a President has faced the issue of exercising his inherent constitutional powers for foreign intelligence surveillance in view of legislation that could be interpreted as infringing on that authority. In 1940, President Roosevelt wrote to Attorney General Robert Jackson that despite section 605 of the Communications Act of 1934, and in this instance despite a Supreme Court ruling upholding the prohibition on electronic surveillance, President Roosevelt said he believed he had the inherent constitutional authority to authorize the Attorney General to ``secure information by listening devices direct to the conversation or other communications of persons suspected of subversive activities against the government of the United States, including suspected spies.'' So does the President have carte blanche with respect to foreign intelligence surveillance? The answer is clearly no. Under the fourth amendment to the Constitution, the surveillance has to be ``reasonable,'' and it does not require a warrant. In the context of a war against al-Qaida and those who would do great harm by attacks on innocent American civilians within our country and with a constitutional resolution authorizing the use of ``all necessary and appropriate force'' to prevent attacks, who is the best to determine what is and isn't ``reasonable''? When surveying communications in real time, who is best to make that determination? A judge or a lawyer or an intelligence analyst who has spent his or her professional life observing, listening, studying, and tracking the terrorist personalities which make up groups such as al- Qaida? To me the answer is obvious: the analyst. Consider this: If someone listened to your voice on a telephone call, who would be the best person to assess it by the voice intonation and word usage, whether it is your voice on the other end or a lawyer or someone who knows you well? Of course, the answer is the person who knows you. And I submit that the Americans who know these terrorist personalities better than anyone else are the analysts who have spent endless days over the past 4 years studying them. Again, do the analysts have carte blanche to eavesdrop on international communications coming into or out of the United States to known suspected terrorists? No. Their decisions are reviewed by supervisors, and the program is reviewed by the NSA inspector general, the NSA general counsel, the White House Counsel, and numerous lawyers at the Justice Department who are ready to blow the whistle if they see anybody stepping out of line. The Attorney General also reviews the program, and the President reauthorizes it every 45 days with the determination that al-Qaida continues to pose a significant threat. Did the President keep the Congress in the dark? No, he didn't. He briefed the Congress in a manner consistent with the practice of Presidents over the past century. He briefed leaders of both parties in the House and Senate and the two leaders on each Intelligence Committee, Democrats and Republicans. These leaders were elected by their constituents to represent them in Congress and elected or appointed by their parties to serve in these incredibly important positions, so if any one of them ever questioned the legality of this program, they had the responsibility to bring the matter to the leadership, discuss it with the administration, and if necessary to cut off funding for the program through congressional authority. The reason the President briefed the Congress was to afford them the opportunity to do exactly that. Did anyone do that? No. There was a carefully couched letter written that simply expressed concern. There was no followup, no action taken, and no mention of it at all during subsequent program briefings, according to public statements by those in attendance. Some Members of Congress may feel slighted because they were not briefed on the program. I am on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Do I feel slighted? Absolutely not. To the contrary, I recognize that the President has to keep these very important programs top secret, which the President is doing to protect my family, my constituents, and myself. That is his responsibility. The bottom line is that I believe congressional oversight is a vital aspect of ensuring the proper execution of matters involving national security, and I believe there was adequate oversight. We are not talking about the U.S. Government listening to phone calls from me to you or from my constituents in Missouri to their relatives in or out of State. We are talking about our best intelligence officials having the ability to assess whether al-Qaida affiliates are communicating internationally where one end of the communication takes place inside the United States and the other end takes place outside the United States, maybe discussing another attack like 9/11 on America. These are times to stand up in arms over our civil liberties. I will do so when I believe they are infringed upon. This is not one. I thank my colleagues for their indulgence, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I thank the chairman.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to engage the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in a colloquy regarding a provision contained within the manager's amendment to S. 662, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. The manager's amendment offered by Senator Collins changes the language of section 3622 concerning rate and service complaints that are brought to the Postal Regulatory Commission. I ask the Senator to explain the purpose and intent of this change. I particularly want to be sure that this amendment to the bill is not intended to, and does not deprive the Postal Regulatory Commission of its power to consider complaints relating to rates and the provision of postal services.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, responding to the distinguished minority leader, I plan to speak about 10 minutes. I would be happy to allow Senator Durbin to go first. I have some obligations.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and commend the valiant efforts of our men and women who are serving overseas. Almost 4\1/2\ years after the dreadful events of September 11 seized our Nation, brave Americans continue to serve overseas in our response to those attacks. During the past 2 months, I have visited with our troops, agency operators, and aid workers in two areas I believe are the two fronts of the war on terrorism, the Near East and Southeast Asia. Those I met with in the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan all relayed to me, on the whole, very encouraging reports. In Iraq, our congressional delegation, which included Senator Bayh, Senator Obama, Representative Ford, and I, was told by intelligence officials that in spite of the increasing numbers of IEDs, improvised explosive devices, attacks, they see more reason for optimism this year than they did in the previous year, and they see it as no small achievement that many of the insurgent groups are joining the political process. From Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, to U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzan, to U.S. military commanders, intelligence officials, aid workers, and the Iraqi people themselves, everyone told us that this year will be a bellwether year for Iraq in which we see the potential for great achievements. But we need to make progress in three key areas: First, the Iraqis must ensure that a national unity government reigns in Baghdad. This was emphasized by President Talabani. The Sunni, Shia, and Kurds have to work together to incorporate all three parties in one governing structure. We were all greatly encouraged by the 77-percent voter turnout in the December general elections, as it evidences that more and more Iraqis are buying into the wonderful concept of democracy. Now they need to show us they are willing to work together as we provide them assistance and stability. Second, we need to focus our primary efforts in standing up Iraqi police and domestic forces this year. Civilian authority must reign in Iraqi cities for citizens to gain confidence in their new democratic form of government. Third, we must continue to provide maximum assistance for reconstruction efforts so that more Iraqis may gain access to electrical power, use water and sewer systems, and drive safely on their roads. This is not to say we have not already made significant gains in these areas, for everywhere I went our troops and workers expressed to me their disappointment that the tremendous achievements we have made have gone largely unreported in the U.S. media. One phrase I heard used often in our major networks is: If it bleeds, it leads. They talk about the tragedies and the losses, but they somehow fail to talk about the progress we have made. A few suicide bombings per day executed by wayward individuals, mindless terrorists, who are willing to sacrifice themselves, is apparently a higher priority in the media than acts of sacrifice, courage, and commitment by several hundred thousand coalition workers and over 26 million Iraqis. To be sure, Iraq is a dangerous place--the day before we arrived at one base, five of their marines had been killed--but it is also a place of tremendous transformation, and over the past year our progress is often crowded out on the evening news. But we must not lose our resolve. As the President said last night: In all these areas, from disruption of terrorist networks, to victory in Iraq, to the support of freedom and hope in troubled regions, we need the support of friends and allies. To draw that support we must always be clear in our principles and willing to act. The only alternative to American leadership is a dramatically more dangerous and more anxious world. The President also addressed his terrorist surveillance program. He said: This program has helped prevent terrorist attacks in our country. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al- Qaida, we want to know about it because we will not sit back and wait to let it happen again. That is what I hear from the people I talk to in my home State. In Afghanistan, also, phenomenal progress has been made. Yet what we hear about on the daily news are the incidents of terrorism that grab headlines. Today in London, the international community is coming together to chart the course for Afghan assistance for the next few years. This is a vital meeting where peace-loving nations will commit to invest in Afghanistan's newfound democracy. Afghanistan is in a very different situation from Iraq, yet it currently has two of the same pressing needs: the standup of strong, reliable, civil-controlled interior security forces and infrastructure development. I also heard from our leaders on the ground, including President Karzai of Afghanistan and our commander of that region, General Eikenberry, that Afghanistan desperately needs a viable agriculture and farm credit system. We need to get the farmers back on their feet so they do not turn to poppy production to feed their families. We have tremendous agricultural resources in our country, as the occupant of the chair knows. We can leverage these resources to help gain leverage for international security in Afghanistan. I have written the U.S. Secretaries of State, Defense, and Agriculture to encourage their cooperation in developing a joint venture to put Afghan farmers back on their feet. I envision a corporate venture between State, USAID, the Defense Department, the Department of Agriculture, land grant colleges and universities, and private sector volunteers, working together to provide Afghanis with viable forms of agriculture. This endeavor would counter the significant drug problems in Afghanistan and destroy the incentive that many farmers face in deciding to grow poppy. Existing counternarcotics funds in the Defense budget would be well spent in this area by giving farmers a way out of drug production. I am more than willing to encourage assistance from the colleges and universities in Missouri and to work legislatively with my colleagues on a proposal to move this initiative forward. In Afghanistan, there is now enough security in many areas to put less of an emphasis on warfighting and more emphasis on the livelihoods of the Afghan people we are there to serve. This is one of the most effective ways to invest in our national security for the future--making an investment in their infrastructure and assisting them to develop a viable economic means of earning a living, without turning to the production of poppy, which leads to the production of dangerous drugs. Finally, I will address an issue of great frustration to me. Over the past year, there seems to have arisen in our national security community an apparent absence of fear of punishment in regard to the arbitrary and senseless divulging of our most secret and classified intelligence information. I am talking about individuals who have taken solemn vows to protect our Nation, who are breaking these vows for their own particular purposes. In taking a vow to protect classified information, one must acknowledge that he or she will be privy to information that, if divulged, could be very harmful to their fellow Americans. They acknowledge a solemn trust by the people of the United States to protect classified information and thereby to protect their neighbors and themselves. I myself am under an obligation as a Senator, and particularly as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to protect classified information. I believe the access I have to such information is a privilege and a solemn trust, and how I handle that information has repercussions. For example, it has come to my attention from a variety of intelligence officials on the ground, on the front lines, who have told us that the leaks in the past year have adversely and significantly affected our intelligence operations and thus diminished our national security. It is my view that we are much less safe in our homeland because of some of the actions we have taken, some by legislation, but primarily by individuals disclosing information that has been classified for good reason. Potential sources in the regions I have visited are now refusing to speak with U.S. officers or to cooperate with them for fear of their information leaking. They see some of our most sensitive programs on the front pages of our newspapers and conclude that we are a nation that has no respect for classified information. As a result, we are less likely to get information we need because sources are rightfully fearful that disclosure of their information could lead to their identification and the assassination of the sources themselves and probably their families. Would you or I want to put our lives and the lives of our families in the hands of a nation that we believed could not keep a secret? Of course not. Last month, the Arab news network al-Jazeera aired a tape by Osama bin Laden warning the U.S. of future terrorist attacks planned for our Nation. On Monday of this week, his deputy, the infamous and deadly Ayman al-Zawahiri, taunted President Bush on videotape for not killing him at Damadola, a village in Pakistan--in the ungovernable and unreachable areas of Pakistan. These tapes demonstrate that the threat from al-Qaida is present and very real. From my personal visit to that area, I can tell you that that area of Pakistan, the tribal areas in which they operate, is truly a hostile environment to all foreigners, and not just to the United States, or British, or Australians, but to representatives of the Pakistan Government. When we drove out toward the tribal areas, we were faced with a sign that said ``foreigners not allowed.'' When we drove up to that checkpoint, five men with AK-47s stepped out in the road in front of us. I thought this was a good signal to turn back. We have a great difficulty in getting information on what is going on in that area. But leaks of our secrets and our top sensitive programs are killing one of our last lines of defense against pending terrorist attacks. I think any reasonable person would agree. This is an election year. Some may be content to play politics with our national security. I am not one of them. I don't think the people of America appreciate that. For me, I will do all in my power to ensure that we move forward in the work that needs to be done to strengthen our national security. I invite my colleagues, no matter their political persuasion, to join me in this endeavor. This, to me, is a very significant challenge, a challenge from which we cannot retreat. We must persevere and we must remedy the costs to our intelligence gathering that is so essential in a war against terror. We must help countries develop strong economies and democratic structures, recognizing human rights and civilian control of forces. This is a challenge that is ours to keep and we must not slack from that effort. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on the question of the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, when you boil everything down and clear away all of the other issues, the most important thing each of us wants from a judge is fairness and impartiality. None of us would want to go into a courtroom and think our judge had already made up his mind before hearing our case. Whether we are rich or poor, weak or strong, but especially if we are poor or weak, victim or defendant, we need to know we will get a fair trial. We would not get a fair trial if we faced a judge who had already made up his mind. Not only would the deck be stacked against us, we would be dealt a losing hand if we had to face a judge with an agenda different from our case. That is what justice means--impartial and objective. That is the kind of judge we want hearing our case, and that is the kind of judge Sam Alito is. Everything we have learned about Judge Alito, from his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, his lengthy record of decided cases, to the testimonials of his colleagues and peers, tells us that Judge Alito will be a fair, impartial, and objective Justice. Judge Alito has told us how he believes a judge cannot prejudge an issue, a judge cannot have an agenda, a judge cannot have a preferred outcome in any particular case. I was so glad to see that during his confirmation hearing Judge Alito would not allow himself to be forced into prejudging any cases. Now, many tried. They went down their list of issues and asked whether Judge Alito agreed with their agenda. They wanted to know how he would rule on one kind of case or another. They wanted him to decide cases before he even heard them. That would not be justice, and that would not be Judge Alito. Not only does Judge Alito know justice, Judge Alito knows democracy. Democracy means that laws governing the people can only be made by those elected by the people to make laws. He knows the Members of Congress are elected to make laws. The citizens of Missouri elected their Representatives and Senators to represent them in Congress, the legislative body. I am honored to be one of those so chosen. Judge Alito is not. The citizens of Missouri are not electing Judge Alito to make laws. Judge Alito knows he will not have the power to make laws. Judge Alito knows he is neither a Congressman nor a Senator who can pass his own legislation from the bench. That is not the role of a judge. Judge Alito knows he is not a politician advocating a program. That is not what a judge should do. He is not a politician responding to a stakeholder, carrying out the agenda of his constituency, whether it be New Jersey or any other State in the Nation, taking the pulse of voters or watching the polls. That is not how to be a judge. Judge Alito has told us he will look at the facts with an open mind and then apply the Constitution and the laws as written. He will not make up the law when he wants, he will not change the law when he needs. Judge Alito also knows the law, as many of my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee found out. At every stage of his life, he has excelled at knowing and applying the law. As a law clerk to a Federal judge, Department of Justice official, Federal prosecutor, and now a Federal appellate judge with 15 years experience on the bench, Judge Alito is one of the most qualified ever nominated for the Supreme Court. A very good friend of mine is an appellate judge, who in law school had the pleasure of supervising a legal document written by Judge Alito. He told me Judge Alito had the finest legal, judicial mind he had ever encountered. I trust his judgment. Judge Alito's peers and colleagues all agree that Judge Alito is supremely qualified for the Supreme Court. He comes highly recommended by his colleagues and members of the legal profession because of his legal knowledge and experience. Even those who have worked with Judge Alito and disagree with him on the issues or the outcome of his rulings consider him fair-minded and evenhanded. In short, Judge Alito will make a great Supreme Court Justice. Unfortunately, and regrettably, the Senate's vote will not reflect that. Perhaps it was a simpler time, less partisan, less subject to politics, less subject to the whims of shifting constituencies and pressure groups when we could overwhelmingly support those overwhelmingly qualified for the Court. For example, both Justices Ginsburg and Scalia received unanimous or near unanimous approval. One came from the left, nominated by a Democratic President, and an advocate for the ACLU; another is a brilliant legal mind, supported by the right. Partisan politics were put aside when we voted for these Supreme Court nominees. Unfortunately, there are those who want to use Judge Alito as a political football. I, for one, believe very strongly our judges and our justice system should be above partisan politics. Justice deserve better than to have the nominees dragged through the political mud. My focus is on the nominee himself and on his legal knowledge and experience. In that regard, Judge Alito should be on the Supreme Court, and I will proudly vote to place him on the Supreme Court. Every case he hears, he will approach with an open mind. Every case he considers, he will apply the law and Constitution as written. Every case he decides, he will check his personal feelings at the door and weigh the scales of justice. We can expect, and should expect, nothing more from a Justice, and justice deserves nothing less. I urge my colleagues to put aside partisan politics, to put aside pressure from special interests, to vote to invoke cloture, and then to vote on a majority vote to confirm Justice Alito to the Supreme Court. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to engage the chairman of the Finance Committee in colloquy regarding clarification of some Medicaid provisions relating to strengthening the government's ability to identify and collect payment from liable third party payors. Under current law, Medicaid is the payor of last resort. In general, federal law requires available third parties must meet their legal obligation to pay claims before the Medicaid program pays for the care of an individual. The conference report amends the list of third parties named in section 1902(a)(25) of the Social Security Act for which States must take all reasonable measures to ascertain the legal liability to include, among others, pharmacy benefits managers. Once only the back office to health plans, employers, and State governments, pharmacy benefit managers have expanded their business model to include serving as risk-bearing entities under the Medicare Part D program. I would like to clarify that the addition of pharmacy benefit managers to the definition of liable third parties is in the instance when they are at risk for the underlying benefit, such as operating as a plan sponsor for purposes of providing health benefits or as a riskbearing entity under the new Medicare Part D program as a stand- alone PDP. This addition is not meant to make pharmacy benefit managers liable when they are acting merely in an administrative capacity on behalf of a liable third party.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chairman. Bona Fide Services--Clarifying the Treatment of Distributor Service Fees under the New Medicaid Pharmacy Reimbursement Metric

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there are a number of subjects I want to address tonight. I appreciate the time. First, the Defense appropriations bill that is before us that is going to have to be clotured is very important. I want to make sure everybody understands what we are talking about. There are some very important things in there, including relief for the Katrina victims, and all of the victims of the hurricanes in the gulf coast over to Florida. These are important funds that need to be provided. It also includes the opening up of ANWR, which will provide revenues that will help us meet the needs of LIHEAP and also of the hurricane victims. Beyond that, it is going to help us meet needs that all Americans have for an adequate energy supply. Nine hundred thousand barrels of oil would have been coming out of the coastal regions of northern Alaska above the Arctic Circle had the previous approval of this bill by the Congress in 1995 not been vetoed. So ANWR is necessary if we are going to bring supply up to help meet the demand for energy. But most important, this provides $50 billion to support our troops in the war on terror. We have heard remarks recently on the floor about what our troops want. I can tell you one thing our troops want is to have the bullets, the supplies, the reinforcements, and the assistance they need to conduct the war. Our troops, by and large, are very enthusiastic about continuing to finish the job. What bothers them is to hear people in this body and in the media say that the President has failed and we ought to impeach him. Their Commander in Chief, they believe, has done the right thing in helping us clean out the murderous tyrant Saddam Hussein and carry the war on terror to the hotbed of terrorism that was and would be Iraq if we left. They are concerned that if we try to pull out the troops before they finish the job, it is going to be a disaster. I am going to talk more about that later on, but the people who claim to be supporting the troops should not be filibustering the Defense appropriations bill. Speaking of the related subject, let me turn now to electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists' conversations with al-Qaida abroad. That is a vitally important area that has been substantially mischaracterized by recent remarks on the floor. The National Security Act of 1947 requires the President to keep Congress fully and currently informed on U.S. intelligence activities to the extent consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods. This statutory requirement recognizes that some of the programs or activities may be so sensitive that the information is provided only to a few Members of Congress. Regrettably, a very effective program that the President authorized has now been fully exposed. I hope there will be a full investigation by the Department of Justice and appropriate prosecutions of those found to have leaked that information. Recognizing the need to protect sensitive programs and activities, Congress created the Intelligence Committee and worked with the President to balance the Congress's constitutional need for information and the President's constitutional responsibility to protect national security. Before we start calling the President's efforts illegal or unconstitutional, maybe people ought to take a look at the law and the Constitution. The President has the constitutional authority to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. This is what the President stated he has done. It was for foreign intelligence purposes. In the most recent definitive case addressing this issue, the 1980 Truong case from the Fourth Circuit, the Court upheld the Executive's warrantless electronic surveillance of U.S. persons for foreign intelligence purposes. The Court explicitly recognized a foreign intelligence exception to the warrant requirement based on the President's constitutional authority and responsibility to protect national security. Incidentally, the President, under whose authority that warrantless search--eavesdropping--was conducted was Jimmy Carter. The FISA statute that has been passed works with the President's constitutional authorities. It is one way to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance, but it is not the only way. You see, Congress cannot get rid of a President's constitutional authority by passing a law. The President can conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance because he is charged under the Constitution with protecting our Nation and conducting foreign relations. Under the fourth amendment, the surveillance still has to be reasonable; it just doesn't require a warrant. In the context of the war against al-Qaida and worldwide terrorism, the constitutional resolution authorizing the use of all necessary and appropriate force to prevent future attacks makes it clear that the President's determination of what is and isn't reasonable is entitled to some deference. When you are fighting a war, you have to be able to move quickly to respond to threats. The President has said he exercised the authority to maintain speed and flexibility to target terrorists when they are about to harm our country. If the Constitution provides for that agility, the President should use it. As the 9/11 Commission has pointed out, it was clear that enemy communications were made from the United States prior to the September 11 attacks. The Commission criticized our inability to link things happening in the United States with things that were happening elsewhere. We know, for example, that Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al Midhar, two terrorists who flew a jet into the Pentagon, communicated overseas to other members of al-Qaida while they were in the United States. We knew they were terrorists, but we did not know they were here until it was too late. Reflecting his constitutional responsibilities and authorities, the activities authorized by the President make it far more likely that such killers can be identified and located in time in the future to prevent that tragic occurrence from recurring. The lawful activity conducted under this authorization has given the United States a proven ability to detect and prevent terrorist attacks. It enables us to learn more about those who have a link to al-Qaida in a way that is agile and timely enough to prevent and detect further attacks. The program has been successful, but continuing public discussion of the nature and use of the capability simply will arm our enemies with the knowledge they need to prevent detection and will increase the danger to our country, our citizens, and our values. Speaking of giving the necessary tools to our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, there is the PATRIOT Act, which, again, is being filibustered by those on the other side. Over the past few days, opponents have raised a number of arguments and charges against two controversial provisions from the original PATRIOT Act--FISA business records and national security letters. Unfortunately, many of the arguments have been inaccurate and misleading, particularly the allegations that the conference report does not fix alleged problems with these investigative tools. Let me be clear, as my colleague from Arizona just pointed out, if the USA PATRIOT Act is not reauthorized, we will have done a grave disservice to our Nation's security. That is your and my safety, Mr. President, and the safety of our families, of our communities, of our country. We will be sending the wrong message to terrorists and spies who threaten our national security that we will not use every constitutional tool available. I don't want to send that message. It is far too easy 4 years after September 11 to put restrictions on the intelligence community that are not necessary or appropriate. When we needlessly restrict intelligence investigations, we increase the possibility that the next attack will succeed. The arguments of those who seek further to restrict the PATRIOT Act tools are not based on any factual allegations of abuse but, rather, on unsubstantiated allegations, inaccurate and misleading press accounts, and hypotheticals. To adopt their position and to reject the conference report is to legislate to the possible rogue FBI agent, the one-tenth of 1 percent who might go beyond the law and should be prosecuted if he or she does. If we take that step, we will deprive the other 99.9 percent of FBI agents of lawful investigative tools. Rather than basing their votes on inaccurate media reports or hypotheticals, I urge my colleagues to base their position on this important legislation on facts: the fact that terrorists continue to seek to kill Americans; the fact they continue to plot attacks; the fact they are determined to continue the war against us; the fact that this conference report provides significant increased protections for privacy and civil liberties; and the fact that our national security investigations have not abused the authorities provided under the original act. This bill is a compromise. Over the past days, many who have opposed the conference report have suggested we can quickly solve the matter by simply adopting the original Senate bill. They pointed to the Senate passage of this bill by unanimous consent. We did not object to the bill because it needed to proceed to conference quickly. If the Senate bill had been submitted to the conferees for signature, there are some who would not have signed it. That bill went too far, in my view. This conference report strikes the appropriate balance, and just barely. That said, the conferees considered the bill adopted by the Senate and the Senate position on NSLs and FISA business records. All of that has been debated and negotiated. In short, the legislative process resulted in the conference report presented to us. Many opposed to the conference report have made a great deal about what this bill is not. Well, I have a list of thing the bill is not as well. This bill does not place national security investigators on a par with their counterparts investigating criminal cases, regrettably, and it doesn't give them the same access criminal investigators have to our records. Unfortunately, we could not get that done. But neither does it compromise any American civil rights. Speaking, as I was, of the war in Iraq, let me point out that we have had a tremendous milestone. Last Thursday, there was a 70-percent voter turnout, the highest thus far. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an op-ed piece by a marine who spoke very eloquently about the reasons why he is signing up, why he is going back to Iraq, why significant numbers of people are reenlisting because they know we are making progress in the war on terror.