Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, our efforts in Iraq are pivotal to our strategic interests in the Middle East and throughout the world. This past Wednesday, Osama Bin Ladin's principal deputy, Aman al-Zawahiri, in his latest video on the internet called for the insurgent groups in Iraq to unite in order to drive out the Americans. Zawahiri has stated consistently that the war in Iraq is his holy jihad and the battleground for establishing a worldwide, Islamo-fascist state. Terrorists like Zawahiri are clear on their goals for Iraq, let us be clear and steadfast in our resolve to defeat their diabolical plans and lay the foundation for a peaceful, free Iraq. As I outlined on the Senate floor earlier this year, Southeast Asia is of vital importance to the economic health and the security of the United States--and I have urged active engagement. Home to over 500 million people and two Muslim democracies, U.S. engagement is essential for strategic, economic and security reasons. I have just returned from my second trip to the region this year. In January of this year, I visited Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia, including a tour of Aceh in the wake of the devastating tsunami that hit that part of the country. I have just returned from a trip to the Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand. Throughout Southeast Asia, I spread the message that America has vital interests in the region and that we will continue to cultivate economic and security ties. Foremost, however, I made it known that the United States wants to participate in this and any future East Asian summits. The summit was initially billed as a meeting of East Asian countries, but it continued to expand until it was a meeting of ASEAN countries plus Japan, Korea, China, India, Australia and New Zealand--it has started to look like everyone but the United States. I can understand China wanting to take this opportunity to marginalize the United States while pressing aggressively their priorities in the region. However, I pointed out to the leaders with whom I visited in Southeast Asia that the United States was in Asia during World War II to liberate the region from Japanese aggression; we were in Asia to prevent the region from being taken over from the communists, and we are in the region to fight Islamic fascists bent in turning the region into part of an Islamic caliphate. We were in the region immediately to provide resources to save thousands of lives in Aceh and begin the rebuilding process. We have made a valuable contribution to the quality of life in Asia and we should not be excluded from such an important summit. The Philippines has a population of 87 million people and population is expected to double in the next 30 years. I saw a startling statistic that showed in the same time that median income increased over 2,000 percent in Korea, increased over 900 percent in Thailand and almost 700 percent in Indonesia, median income increased only 90 percent in the Philippines. Despite its longstanding ties to the United States and the presence of an English speaking population, the country has not advanced economically to the level it should have. The corruption of Marcos was a terrible setback but it is time to move ahead. The country is in need of U.S. Foreign Direct Investment but I heard from the American Chamber of Commerce that reforms are needed before more investment will flow, especially in area of judicial reform and intellectual property protection. We do have extensive U.S. Government presence that is actively working with the government on these and many important reforms. In an excellent meeting I had with President Arroyo, I commended her on the leadership role the Philippines has taken to pushing ASEAN finally to get tough on Myanmar. It is long past time for that country to improve its human rights record and move towards installing the popularly elected government. We also discussed and I thanked her for her support of our objective to advance free trade in Asia. Despite the massive undertaking, the rebuilding of Aceh is progressing. The U.S. remains involved, notably we have been integral to building a 60 mile road to cross the island of Sumatra, an essential artery to rebuilding the country. Between our efforts and between the waiver of military sanctions by the President, our standing in the United States is on the rise. Reviving military to military relations will pay more dividends than support for the United States. The reform-minded President of Indonesia is a graduate of Webster University in St. Louis, MO, but he is also a graduate of the IMET program. While his tasks are immense, he is committed to reform and he has taken on corruption in the government and needed structural reforms in the military. Change will never happen at a pace that will satisfy some in this Congress, but important reforms are advancing and I believe we should seize the opportunity to influence further the professionalism of the Indonesian military through more IMET participation. I also had the opportunity to dine with some very engaging, forward- looking members of the Indonesian parliament. They share my concern in the limitations of the Indonesian education system and the holes in curriculum that may be exploited by the paesantrans that are Saudi funded and teach an extreme version of Islam. President Bush has identified an important goal, improving the education system in Indonesia, and has proposed a four year, $157 million education program for Indonesia. USAID is implementing the program that will work on curriculum issues and train teachers. This program is targeted at introducing basic education and the teaching of skills to young Indonesians, so that they will leave school with the ability to find work--creating a capable Indonesian labor force in the process. Finally, I had an excellent visit to Thailand, a great and longstanding ally of the United States. Like the other countries in the region, we have active ties with Thailand on a number of levels. We are presently negotiating a FTA with the Thais, successful completion of an FTA will make Thailand our second free trade partner in Asia. But there is also a great deal of success in the region in the war on terrorism and many of the countries in Southeast Asia have been valuable partners. As I have stated on this floor, Southeast Asia has opened up as a second front on the war on terrorism. It is home to its own terrorist network, Jemaah Islamiyah, that has made a number of successful and deadly attacks, including the two devastating bombings in Bali. There have been numerous victories over terrorism in the past 3 years in the Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines. For example, last month on November 9, 2005, in Indonesia, Indonesian police tracked down and killed Dr. Azahari bin Husin, the Jemaah Islamiyah bomb expert who was known as the most feared terrorist in Asia. Azahari was responsible for the two Bali bombings, an attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta, and the bombing of the JW Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, among others. He was in the midst of planning a string of terrorist attacks when police assaulted his safe house in East Java. The termination of his terror campaign was the result of a culmination of numerous entities working together to fight terrorism in the region. U.S. assistance was and remains paramount to such efforts and is having great effect. In Thailand on August 11, 2003, Riduan Isamuddin, aka Hambali, was arrested by Thai authorities near Bangkok, Thailand, after extensive coordination between multiple agencies and authorities. The capture of Hambali truly is a testament to the effectiveness that we and the allies we support are having in the global war on terror. When the details of this operation are declassified in the future, the phenomenal tale of his capture should make for a dynamic, nonfiction movie. President Bush described Hambali as ``one of the world's most lethal terrorists'' and a key figure in al Qaeda's global operations. Hambali was a close associate of September 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, KSM, and it is no coincidence that the information we have gleaned from detainees like KSM has led to captures like that of Hambali. In the Philippines, a great success in the war on terror has taken place over the past year on the southern Philippine island of Basilan. I met with the Commander of the Joint Special Operations Task Force Philippines, JSOTF-P, and he briefed me on this tremendous success. One of the primary terrorist organizations in the Philippines is the Abu Sayyaf Group, ASG. The ASG is primarily a small, violent Muslim terrorist group operating in the southern Philippines. The group split from the much larger Moro National Liberation Front in the early 1990s under the leadership of Abdurajak Abubakar Janjalani, who was killed in a clash with Philippine police in December 1998. His younger brother, Khadaffy Janjalani, replaced him as the nominal leader of the group. The group's goal is to promote an independent Islamic state in western Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago, area in the southern Philippines heavily populated by Muslims. In April 2000, an ASG faction kidnapped 21 persons, including 10 Western tourists, from a resort in Malaysia. On May 27, 2001, the ASG kidnapped three U.S. citizens and 17 Filipinos from a tourist resort in Palawan, Philippines. Several of the hostages, including U.S. citizen Guillermo Sobero, were murdered. Philippine authorities say that the ASG had a role in the bombing near a Philippine military base in Zamboanga in October 2002 that killed a U.S. serviceman. In February 2004, Khadaffy Janjalani's faction bombed SuperFerry 14 in Manila Bay, killing approximately 132, and in March, Philippine authorities arrested an ASG cell whose bombing targets included the U.S. Embassy in Manila. Today, however, after a year of joint operations between U.S. and Phillipine personnel consisting of combat patrols, civil affairs assistance, and local interaction with the citizens on the island, the majority of ASG personnel and other terrorist groups have been squeezed out of the island. Not only have most of the nefarious characters departed, but as our troops built wells and provided educational assistance they gained the trust of the inhabitants. They showed them a better way of life and thus ensured that once they left the terrorists would not be welcomed back. Thus far the method has worked, and a haven for terrorism has been eliminated. Through establishing security, building infrastructure and winning the confidence of the locals, Basilan Island has transformed into a place where terrorists are no longer welcome, and although U.S. and Philippine forces have largely left, the terrorists have not returned. Rajadamri Compound Mr. President, on a number of occasions this session, I have addressed my colleagues about the critical importance of engagement and maintaining strong relationships with our allies in Southeast Asia. As I have described, an active U.S. presence is essential for a number of vital economic, security and strategic reasons. The United States has a number of strong allies in the region and these relationships are very important for promoting our policies pursuing peace, stability and prosperity in Southeast Asia. I remind my colleagues that the United States and the Kingdom of Thailand will soon celebrate 175 years of formal relations between the two countries, which makes Thailand our foremost and longest standing ally in Asia. It is in this context that I rise to address the significance of the Rajadamri Diplomatic Compound occupied by the U.S. Embassy in Thailand. After the end of World War II, the U.S. Government intervened with the Government of the United Kingdom on behalf of the Kingdom of Thailand. The United Kingdom was demanding war reparations from the Kingdom of Thailand, which was nominally allied with Japan during the war. However, the United States argued that during the war the Allies received very meaningful assistance from the Free Thai movement, which was composed of a significant number of the Thai leadership. In 1949, in acknowledgment of the U.S. role in assisting the Free Thai movement and in persuading the United Kingdom to forego pursuit of war reparations, the Royal Thai Government sold Rajadamri to the United States for a nominal sum and transferred title to the 17 acre compound. Rajadamri is a beautiful piece of property. Located in the heart of bustling Bangkok, around the corner from the U.S. Embassy and across from the famous Peace Park, Rajadamri is a magnificent setting where a visitor can simultaneously admire the imposing modern towers of downtown Bangkok and feed a Mekong catfish or pet the good-natured Chihuahua that lives on the grounds. The tranquil compound also houses three historic Thai homes that were built by the king for favored members of the royal family. Rajadamri represents a true gesture of friendship from the Thai Government and the people of Thailand. The granting of these royal residences to the U.S. Government is unprecedented and emphasizes even more so that this gift is a true symbol of the gratitude of the Thai people. This compound has played a significant role in the long relationship with our stalwart Thai allies. In addition to the close cooperation between U.S. Forces and the Free Thai during WWII, the Thai Government has stood by the United States during Korean, Vietnam, Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq wars. The Thais remain a very close friend in Southeast Asia and provide a variety of assistance beyond military, including delivering important assistance to Indonesia, Sri Lanka and other countries affected by the tsunami of 2004; and serving as the strategic center for our efforts to deal with Avian influenza and other pandemic risks. During the Vietnam War, the morgue used for transferring soldiers killed in action from Vietnam to the U.S. was initially located on this compound. Rajadamri has served as a base for regional U.S. financial operations. Rajadamri also continues to house numerous embassy support elements, along with other facilities supporting assistance programs, our war against terrorism, operations to eliminate trafficking in humans and drugs, and our operations to promote peace and stability in the region. As the Rajadamri compound was essentially a gift to the United States by a grateful Royal Thai Government, I believe it is our obligation to continue to use the compound in a manner that is consistent with the spirit in which it was given to the United States. The Kingdom of Thailand is one of the United States true friends in the world. In honor of that friendship, in an effort to strengthen our warm relations and in hopes that the relationship will grow as we continue to meet challenges in the region and the world, we must maintain Rajadamri as a centerpiece of our mission to Thailand. I urge my colleagues to support me on this point.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to honor SGM Frank Yoakum, who serves as the enlisted congressional, liaison for the Chief, National Guard Bureau. Sergeant Major Yoakum is the only enlisted legislative liaison in the Army, facilitating communication flow between the Army National Guard, National Guard Bureau, and elected officials on Capitol Hill, as well as their staffs and professional committee staff. He is on the personal staff of the Chief, National Guard Bureau. He began his military career by enlisting in the Regular Army in September 1971. He was trained in Infantry, Airborne, and Air Defense Artillery assignments, being released from Active Duty in July 1976. In June 1978, Sergeant Major Yoakum joined the Alaska Army National Guard and served in a military technician status as the administrative assistant to the state maintenance officer, and part-time as a flight operations coordinator with the 1898th Aviation Company, Attack. He moved to southeast Alaska and continued his service as a full-time Scout Battalion Attendant, Administrative Supply Technician, for Company B, 4th Battalion, 297th Infantry. He served in the Alaska Army National Guard until March 1981. In August 1983, he rejoined the Army National Guard in Phoenix AZ, working as a unit administrator and battalion supply sergeant. In October 1985, he entered Federal Active Guard Reserve status and was assigned to the United States Property and Fiscal Office Guam, where he served as military pay supervisor and logistics NCO. He transferred his membership from the Arizona Army National Guard to the Wyoming Army National Guard in March 1996. Further assignments in Federal AGR status included instructor/writer, operations NCO, force structure NCO, first sergeant, manpower NCO, training center liaison NCO, G-1 personnel policy sergeant major, and congressional liaison. Sergeant Major Yoakum holds an associate of arts degree in business administration from the University of Alaska and a bachelor of science degree in business administration from California Pacific University. He is a graduate of every level of NCO education up to and including the Sergeants Major Academy. Yoakum is a life member of the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States and a life member of the Wyoming National Guard Association. He has been inducted into the Honorable Order of Saint Barbara by the Field Artillery Association and the Order of Samuel Sharpe by the Ordnance Corps Association. As the former congressional liaison for the Chief, National Guard Bureau, my staff and I have found Sergeant Major Yoakum to be an invaluable resource and ally in advancing the interest of the Army National Guard. While his departure will be a major loss to the both NGB and the Federal Government, his new position as legislative director with the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the U.S. is well deserved. It is with admiration that I honor Sergeant Major Yoakum today and congratulate him on his retirement. I wish him and his family all the best.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 1 hour of debate in relation to the conference report to accompany H.R. 3058, the Transportation-Treasury-HUD bill; provided further that Senator Coburn be in control of up to 30 minutes of debate; I further ask consent that the two managers have up to 15 minutes each and that following the use or yielding back of the time, and when the Senate has received the conference report, it then be agreed to, with the motion to reconsider laid upon the table.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank all or our colleagues. This has been a long and interesting path that we have trod. Today I stand in support of the Transportation, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, and Independent Agencies fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill. This bill also includes the District of Columbia fiscal year 2006 appropriations act. Before getting into the details of the bill, I thank Chairman Knollenberg and his ranking member, Mr. Olver, on the House side. Particularly, I express my sincere appreciation to my ranking member, Senator Murray, for her hard work, thoughtful and bipartisan approach to crafting a good bill, and her unwavering commitment to getting the bill done on an expedited schedule as mandated by the leadership. As all who follow this place know, we have had some bumps on the road over the last several days which forced both House and Senate staff to work throughout a number of nights this week while completing a blitzkrieg schedule in order for us to be able to vote on this measure today. Despite these bumps, we have completed our work, and I compliment Congressman Knollenberg on his commitment and perseverance to work with me to overcome these problems. I do express my sincerest gratitude and thanks to our excellent staffs; on the Senate side, on the subcommittee, on my side, Jon Kamarck, Paul Doerrer, Cheh Kim, Lula Edwards, Josh Manley, and Matt McCardle; on Senator Murray's side, Peter Rogoff, Kate Hallahan, William Simpson, Diana Hamilton, and Meaghan McCarthy. Obviously, we extend our thanks as well to the House side staffers. Now, Mr. President, the staff had to work extremely hard, in a bipartisan manner, to make our recommendations and instructions a reality. This is not a simple bill. Yet it is likely a Rube Goldberg machine with many complex moving parts. This bill is the first real appropriations product of a new subcommittee that grew out of the reorganization of the Senate Appropriations Committee earlier this year. It is a substantial and complex bill that will have a significant and positive impact on every State and community in the Nation as it covers, among other things, every mode of transportation, financial services, and IRS requirements as guided by the Department of Treasury; it funds the Federal Government's role in housing and economic role under HUD; it funds the Executive Office of the President, Federal judicial system, and funds other related agencies such as the General Services Administration, Office of Personnel Management, and the Postal Service. I believe that given the circumstances and our budget allocation, this is a good bill. We started with a budget that was severely underfunded in many of the important programs in the bill. These are programs which historically have been strongly supported by Members of this body. Thankfully, in most cases we have been able to restore many of the cuts and shortfalls, perhaps not as much as some Members would want and certainly some areas not as much as I want. But I think all Members will understand and appreciate our efforts to fund the programs and activities that enjoy the greatest support. I wish to express a very special thanks to our chairman, Senator Cochran, who demonstrated his understanding and sensitivity to the needs of the Transportation-Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee. While we received significantly less budget authority for the conference, without Chairman Cochran's help the House would have demanded a much harsher and unrealistic reduction in our allocation, with the results we saw that happened in regard to the Labor-HHS fiscal year 2006 funding bill yesterday in the House. In particular, despite our fiscal limitations, we have worked diligently to ensure the transportation programs in this bill are adequately funded. One of my highest priorities in fashioning this bill was to provide the needed funding for the safety, construction, and maintenance of our highways, transit systems, and airports. Funding for our Nation's transportation infrastructure, and especially for our highways and road network, creates jobs and promotes economic growth. More importantly, it continues the continued maintenance and growth of our economic infrastructure by which we serve markets throughout the Nation and ultimately the world. The transportation system is the heart and arteries by which we pump our goods and products which guarantee our current and future prosperity in the national and international marketplace, and we cannot afford to shortchange this system. We also removed the designation on the Alaskan bridges. The funds remain with Alaska to meet their priority needs. These bridges were grabbing unreasonable and unwarranted attention which was beginning, in many ways, to undermine the very good work and the very necessary projects in this highway bill. In addition, this bill provides $14.4 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration, which is approximately $400 million more than the request. This recommendation includes $14.3 million to hire safety inspectors and restore inspector staffing levels on an accelerated basis. It also adds $4 million to restore engineering and inspector staffing at the Office of Certification so that new equipment and technologies can be approved for use in aviation and our Nation can retain its leadership in aviation. I am pleased also to announce that the bill does not cut the Airport Improvement Program, as proposed in the budget request. I am also happy to report we have been able to fund Amtrak at $1.315 billion, while making some incremental steps to reforming how Amtrak conducts its business. These reforms are critical, and it is my hope that these improvements will move to jump-start the efforts of Senator Lott, Senator Stevens, and others to pass a truly comprehensive reform package. Mr. President, I was troubled by the administration's demand of Amtrak reform with a budget request of $360 million. A $360 million-a- year appropriation would likely jolt Amtrak directly into bankruptcy, a costly financial and emotional blow to the Nation and send Amtrak into chaos. Many Members, including the occupant of the chair, our distinguished Senator from West Virginia, and Members throughout the Senate asked us to take strong action to avoid that problem. Thankfully, we were able to scrape enough funds together to ensure the continued existence of Amtrak, although it meant a number of other programs were underfunded, and when we received finally the recommended reforms at Amtrak from the administration, we were able to include them. Mr. President, I also should touch on another issue in the conference report, and that is the ongoing efforts to improve protection consumers have from being preyed upon by rogue household movers. I think we all know they are a small group of fly-by-night companies that purport to pack and transport family household possessions and then stealing them and holding them hostage for exorbitant fees or make unreasonable demands. This could be a devastating blow. In this past year's highway bill, additional requirements on movers were included, along with new provisions granting State officials, particularly attorneys general, new authority to help police the Federal law. Part of the problem has been the lack of the Federal enforcement. The Federal agency, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, has not had sufficient resources, and the U.S. attorneys, with the notable exceptions of the Miami and New York-New Jersey agencies, have also not made these crimes a priority; thus, the ideas of expanding cops on the beat by giving authority to State agencies and, thus, my work to make sure that while we expanded responsibilities, we did so in a reasonable and consistent way. First, we provided additional resources to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to help them do their job better. We restored $1 million to the Education and Outreach Program in order to help them train State officials as to how to look and find the risky carriers. We also reiterated our support for the strong State-Federal partnership which had been included in the highway bill to ensure effective Federal-State cooperation. Where we and some of our colleagues part company is on the scope and the venue. I strongly believe that Federal law should be enforced in Federal court, and thus the key provisions in the conference report will ensure that that will occur. There will be Federal enforcement on the major interstate activities. State law violations will continue to be enforced in State court. Federal law violations will continue to be enforced in Federal court. In order to ensure that the States target those typical rogue movers who seem to be too small for U.S. attorneys and thus are slipping through the cracks, the language makes clear that the responsibilities of the State agencies are focused on what carriers they have jurisdiction over. Namely, these are the highest risk, fly-by-night carriers or carriers who meet one or more of the following: The carrier is unregistered; or the license of the carrier or broker has been revoked for safety or lack of insurance; three, the carrier is unrated or received a conditional or unsatisfactory safety rating by DOT; or the carrier has been licensed for less than 5 years. This then accomplishes all the goals we have been discussing--tougher Federal law, additional consumer protections, State attorneys general and other State agencies have been granted the authority to be a cop on the beat to help enforce the Federal law. Their targets are the fly-by- night rogues and their venue is the Federal court and they are being asked to help enforce Federal law. Now, Mr. President, moving on to some of the other areas in the bill, for the Department of the Treasury, this bill provides $11.7 billion for 2006. This amount is about $50 million above the budget request and some $475 million above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. We think it is very important to provide resources for Treasury's efforts to fight the war on terrorism, and we provided full funding for the Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial intelligence. I know how important the Treasury's Antiterrorism efforts are, and I strongly believe they play a vital and unique role in cutting off financial assistance to terrorist organizations. Next, to help close the so-called tax gap, where those people who pay taxes as they should voluntarily have to carry a heavy burden for the small percentage who do not, we have provided $10.7 billion for the IRS, including $6.9 billion for tax enforcement. This amount is $443 million above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. These additional funds will help ensure there will be less fraud and that honest taxpayers will have a greater level of confidence in our tax system. We also have provided full funding for IRS's modernization efforts through their Business Systems Modernization Program. This program is correctly IRS's highest management and administrative priority. For the Federal judiciary, the bill includes a total appropriation of $5.7 billion, a 6-percent increase over the previous year, and this represents the funding necessary to meet the judiciary fiscal year 2006 funding needs. For HUD, the bill provides some $38.2 billion for fiscal year 2006, an increase of $2.1 billion over the request. These additional funds include almost $4.22 billion for the Community Development Fund and CDBG, which was slated for elimination through a reduction of over 30 percent of its funding and a consolidation of its activities along with other programs into a new grant program within the Department of Commerce. The bill also increased the Senate-proposed rescission of ``excess'' section 8 funds from $1.5 billion to $2.05 billion. After further review of the account, we firmly believe we have identified a one-time savings from section 8 that allowed us to increase the rescission to $2.05 billion. In addition, I am happy to report we have adequately funded HUD programs at a minimum of last year's level which is generally higher than the request. The bill basically funds the Executive Office of the President at the requested level. We have fully funded the High Intensity Drug Program at $127 million; whereas, the budget would have funded it at 100 million in the Department of Justice. This is a critically important program that has been successful throughout the Nation at helping to root out and eradicate methamphetamine production, marijuana, and ecstasy use, as well as heroin and cocaine importation. This program has been especially important in Missouri, where methamphetamine production and use have reached almost epidemic proportions. Mr. President, as I prepare to close, I wish to express my sincerest thanks to the ranking member of the full committee who has been a great friend and mentor of mine and who has helped Senator Murray and me as we have worked through this by gaining the necessary funds. I also thank--I feel his presence immediately behind me--the chairman emeritus of the Appropriations Committee whose birthday we celebrate, with very best wishes and, fortunately, no songs on the Senate floor. He has been of great assistance to us. I must say, one of my last thank yous is to my chief of staff, Julie Dammann, who has served me since I arrived in this body. I was going to say in 1897 but it was 1987. She has been with me for these years and has become very well known and respected. This will be her last bill and, as on all the other bills, not only was the appropriations staff working day and night, but we were communicating by BlackBerry in the middle of the night. She was working on the details with the appropriations staff and others. She was communicating with Senators' offices. We only came to the floor today because she had worked with other Senate offices, as Senator Murray and her staff had, to clear away objections which might be raised. So it is with great thanks that I note the contributions to this, her last appropriations bill, of Julie Dammann and wish her all the best. I also note that my partner, the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, has been working extremely hard on this. She helped clear the way of the remaining problems. I cannot think of how she could have been more helpful or more productive in this effort.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on the floor today. First, I thank Chairmen Grassley and Enzi and Ranking Members Baucus and Kennedy in crafting this important legislation. The pension issues we take up today are notoriously complex and could have a significant financial impact on both American families and American businesses. The leaders of the committees have done an impressive job in bringing us to this point, and I congratulate them on their efforts. One of the issues we address in this legislation is the validity of the so-called hybrid plans. Hybrid plans whether cash balance or pension equity--are a modern form of defined benefit plan that combines the best features of defined contribution plans, such as 401(k)s, with the best features of traditional defined benefit programs. Hybrid plans keep defined benefit plans relevant for workers in our contemporary, mobile economy. Indeed, these hybrid plans have been popular with both employers and employees, and today an estimated 8.5 million workers are earning secure retirement benefits through these plans. For the past several years, these hybrid plans have been called into question. These turn of events came about when one of our Federal district court judges determined in the infamous Cooper v. IBM decision that the hybrid plan designs are illegal because they pay compound interest. Somehow, this judge believes that it is age discriminatory for employers to pay interest on their employees' pensions. I, for one, have found his position hard to fathom. The judge reached this conclusion despite the fact that the Internal Revenue Service had approved interest-paying hybrid plans for 15 years and despite the fact that every other court addressing the issue found that these plans satisfy the age discrimination rules. In classic fashion in our litigation-happy society, this lone and misguided court decision has spawned a string of copy-cat class action suits. In these suits, plaintiffs assert hundreds of millions--even billions--of dollars in ``damages'' (over and above the benefits they have earned under the plan--to ``correct'' compound interest. So, the issue we need to address in the legislation before us is to make clear that this lone judge got it wrong and that the IRS and all those other judges got it right. Compound interest in a defined benefit pension is not illegal, and the hybrid plan designs satisfy our age discrimination rules. The legislation before us makes this important clarification but unfortunately only with respect to the future. While addressing the hybrid issue prospectively is constructive and must be done, failing to clarify the legal regime for the more than 1,500 or so existing hybrid plans and their 8.5 million or so participants will have a number of seriously adverse consequences. First, employers will continue to face the threat of truly business- busting litigation, which will drain resources from productive use and hamper their competitiveness. Ironically, despite the good efforts of our Senate committee leaders to insert ``no inference'' language in this bill, judges may read the legislation's prospective-only approach as suggesting the illegality of current plans, thereby worsening the litigation risk faced by employers. Second, in light of the unresolved threat to current hybrid plans, employers are increasingly likely to abandon their pension plans, denying additional retirement benefits to millions of American families and leaving new hires at these companies with no pensions whatsoever. Third, as the healthy companies that sponsor hybrid plans leave the pension system, they will aggravate the financial troubles of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, PBGC. Indeed, hybrid plan sponsors today pay 25 percent of the per participant premiums received by the PBGC. So, unfortunately, while this legislation is designed to shore up the PBGC, we have left unaddressed one of the central threats to that agency's solvency. In addition, while clarifying the age discrimination rules for hybrid plans prospectively and retroactively, it is my hope that the future conferees of this legislation will considering making a specific reference to pension equity plans--a type of hybrid plan other than cash balance plans--in the statutory language. The reason for this need is that the Cooper v. IBM decision deemed not only cash balance plans to be illegal, but pension equity plans as well. The legislation before us does not address pension equity plans, specifically. Rather, it leaves the issue of whether pension equity plans receive the same beneficial clarification as cash balance plans up to the Treasury Department in later administrative guidance. This will simply prolong the legal uncertainty that is driving many employers to consider ending their pension equity plans altogether. This leading variety of hybrid plan--the pension equity plan--is in equal need of the same congressional attention as cash balance plans. I urge the future conferees to address this accordingly and to be mindful that the conversion process in pension equity plans is typically different than that of cash balance plans. Mr. President, it is my sincere hope that as this important bill moves through the legislative process we can address the hybrid design issue in a comprehensive way. We must do so in order to remedy the significant harms to workers and employers that will result if we only address the issue prospectively. In addition, we must give equal consideration to both cash balance and pension equity plans as two legal regimes of hybrid plans. I look forward to working with Chairmen Grassley and Enzi, Ranking Members Baucus and Kennedy, and the future conferees on this bill to ensure a solution that will enhance rather than endanger the retirement security of American families.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President it is both with deep gratitude and regret that I announce to my colleagues the liberation of my Chief of Staff, Julie Dammann, from the public sector. Julie has been with me since I came to town in 1987 and has been a perfectly reliable source of sound judgment, energy, and friendship. Within any successful enterprise, there is the heart of the operation. In the case of Julie, she has been the heart, the legs, the mind, the backbone, and the can-do spirit of my staff. In addition to her professional service, she always subsumed her interests to mine, to the Senate, to the public interest, and most important, to our country. For the Nation, she has been a loyal public servant of the first order and a true patriot. For me, from the time she first marched into my office, she has been my friend. Remarkably, from that first day to the present, through 19 Congressional sessions, 3 reelections, marriage, motherhood, and her bravely defiant and prevailing fight against cancer, she has never stopped. Chemotherapy met its match. She never rested, and she never let me rest either. F. Scott Fitzgerald once said that ``action is character,'' In that case, Julie is character. Some who have dealt with her would say ``character'' is entirely appropriate. Among her many unique talents is what I have learned is referred to as multitasking. At any given time, she can be talking with me, listening to C-SPAN, Blackberrying instructions to staff, while checking out statistics of the previous Vikings game and evaluating the potential draft picks 9 months in advance. When she is talking, we all listen as fast as we can, but it can be very hard to keep up. Our great country sends a lot of talent and integrity to Washington to staff our congressional offices and Julie is as good as I have seen. Few understand the high-profile issues that are in the papers every day. Julie comprehends those ``big'' issues, but is extraordinary with the issues that are low on visibility and high on complexity. She has handled issues including farm credit, patent protection, voting reform, postal reform, highway transportation funding formulas, and California's clean air enforcement regulations, just to mention a few. Her intellectual dexterity has earned her extraordinary respect among her colleagues who have worked with her; and particularly those who have worked against her. Julie began her work for the Senate in 1979, as an intern with Senator Rudy Boschwitz, eventually coming to Washington in 1982 as one of his legislative assistants--where one of her first major assignments was the Highway bill. In 1987, after joining my staff as Legislative Director, she met Rolf Dammann at the National Republican Senatorial Committee who was apparently interested in more than her highly-regarded agricultural acumen. Rolfs new found interest in Budget and appropriations issues eventually paid off and they were married--after the 1988 election, of course. They both enjoy politics, history, golf, and German beer. As legendary Green Bay Packers coach once said, ``On third and long, I'll take the beer drinkers to milk drinkers any day.'' But more on the legendary Packers later. Rolf and Julie are the proud parents of two daughters, Monika who is now 10, and Paula 8. In 1997, Julie became my Chief of Staff. During consideration of the Fiscal Year 1988 Va/HUD appropriations bill, we were able to expedite completion of the bill by successfully appealing to Senators that Julie needed to leave the floor to have her second daughter who was due to arrive that very day. Betting on the Senate internally to be family-friendly was a bold strategy Julie suggested, but it worked. I noted to the Senate that: I want to make a special mention of my chief of staff, Julie Dammann, whose second child was due today and she stayed with us throughout all the proceedings and wanted to see the VA-HUD bill delivered first. She has been an invaluable help in all legislative activities and helped us shepherd this through, So, a very special thank you, and best wishes to Julie, to Rolf and their other daughter, Monika. Again, I express my appreciation. Senator Mikulski echoed the comments saying: I hope that she can go home, rest easy, put her feet up and we are looking forward to being the proud Godparents of Bond- Mikulski. Maybe we will name something after her in conference. In any event, the bill passed, and Paula arrived. Julie was born in Roseville, MN and graduated from the University of Minnesota while also becoming a diehard Gopher, Vikings and Twins fan. For those indiscretions, she was forced to undertake an amnesty program and extensive, but unsuccessful, Bond-office Missouri rehabilitation program. The fact that she was able to stay in my employ after the Twins- Cardinals World Series of 1987 an epic tragedy which occurred in the horrible chamber the twins call a baseball stadium, speaks volumes to her otherwise high value. In fact, the only successful indoctrination resulted in the staff being forced to root against the arch-rival Green Bay Packers. Even one of my leatherneck Marines on staff, a Packer fan, minds his football manners around Julie. Rolfs father, a native of Germany, bought Julie a 2-foot-tall Packers NFL action figure for Christmas one year as a joke--it sat in the garage unopened for over a year until it was re-gifted to a friend in Germany. Julie believes that the opposition should be given little room to breath and that U.S. citizenship is a privilege which should not be abused. But while competitive, she always respected the process and the people on both sides working diligently to pursue the agenda they were elected or hired to pursue. Through all the pressures, high expectations, and fast city life, I think that Julie may be proudest of her terrific family and, proudest that to this day, she quite obviously remains a small town Minnesota gal--hard work, loyalty, integrity, optimism, enthusiasm, and courage, which can often be misinterpreted in Julie's case as stubbornness. Her parents, the late Dr. Paul Hasbargen and Mrs. Ervina Hasbargen made Washington a better place by producing Julie and lending her to the Federal Government. For me, having Julie has been one of my greatest blessings in public life. In this case, it is unlike losing one member of the family because I am simultaneously losing a colleague, a trusted advisor, and, yes, at times a mother. We know that she will be very successful in the private sector, with her intelligence, experience and drive. Julie, with the deepest affection, we have been honored to be near you for so many years. We will miss you. We wish you and your family the very best. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Yes. If my colleague wants to make a brief statement, I will be happy to yield to him.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to address the valiant efforts of our men and women serving overseas in Iraq. Their service for our country is very close to my heart because I, like thousands of other American parents across the United States, have a son who is fighting for the cause of freedom in Iraq. Like every American, and especially for those of us with loved ones who are fighting overseas, I have carefully considered our actions in Iraq, and I am as committed to staying the course today as I was when I voted to authorize hostile action less than 3 years ago. Today, we see the wreckage of roadside bombs plastered across our media screens. We are constantly bombarded by a daily media barrage of every hint of bad news in Iraq. The old adage, ``If it bleeds, it leads,'' seems to be in full effect. What about the good that is happening as a result of our efforts? I can tell you this is the greatest concern our men and women in Iraq have. They are doing good work, they are making progress, but they don't hear any of the good things that are going on. This is disheartening, as are some of the comments made by a few in the United States who say they are not doing a good job, who denigrate their efforts. We owe them better than that. I could cite for you letters I have seen written to newspapers in my State by men who have served in Iraq saying precisely this. Has there been any progress made toward democracy this year? The Iraqis themselves answered yes, resoundingly, when last month, on October 15, an overwhelming majority of Iraqis voted peacefully to lay the foundation for their country with a national constitution. Ten days later, on October 25, the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq announced the approval of a constitution and stated that it had found no evidence of significant voter fraud, as some had alleged. The United Nations also participated in the referendum process and concurred with the Commission's conclusions. On the day of the vote, Sunni protests were minimal, with no violence reported. Not only did the referendum pass with 15 of 18 provinces providing a majority ``yes'' vote, but all governorates recorded a high voter turnout, the likes of which would put many of our voter districts in America to shame. I can tell you from personal reports that in Sunni areas, Sunnis were going out in record numbers to register. They were registering at registration places protected solely by Iraqi security forces without any violence against them. When we look at the election results, the Kurds in Dahuk posted an 86-percent turnout, while the Shi'a in Karbala and Najaf posted a 57- percent turnout. But let's consider the Sunni areas where critics say we are making so little progress toward democracy. Let's compare the percentage of voter turnout from last January's elections to the October referendum last month. In Anbar, voter turnout rose from 2 percent to 40 percent; in Diyala, from 33 percent to 67 percent; in Nayniwah, from 17 percent to 54 percent; and in Salahaldin, from 29 percent to 91 percent. Only two of those governorates voted overwhelmingly against the referendum, and all of them saw record numbers of citizens exercising their voices at the polls. This, Mr. President, is progress toward democracy. Have we forgotten that under Saddam, the Iraqi people had no vote, no opportunity to express themselves? I am not discouraged, as the critics say we should be, that there was not near universal agreement on the referendum in Iraq. We have had a hard enough time in our own country, the world's model for democracy, in achieving overwhelming agreement on anything. And certainly this body with its recent record of activity shows that democracies often generate strong disagreements. The only time a national vote purports to show universal agreement is when the election is held under the tight control and dictation of a dictator such as Saddam Hussein. So how do the critics explain this massive increase in voter turnout and still maintain that democracy is dead in the water in Iraq, when the people of Iraq for the first time in centuries now have a voice and a common marketplace of ideas in which to express themselves? And why isn't more attention given to the progress in Iraq for which our sons and daughters overseas are fighting? As for the media, it is my belief that the greatest threat to our efforts in Iraq today is the enemy's ability to manipulate press coverage of the conflict in order to influence U.S. public opinion to force a premature withdrawal of our forces. Last month, I spoke on the floor of the Senate about the acquisition of a letter written by Osama bin Laden's principal deputy, Ayman al- Zawahiri, to al-Qaida's foremost lieutenant on the ground in Iraq, Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi. The letter underscored that al-Qaida will not relent in pursuing its Sunni Islamo-fascist, extremist agenda, and it revealed al-Qaida views its jihad in Iraq as the focal point in its effort to establish a worldwide neofascist global caliphate. Zawahiri's recipe for creating this Sunni extremist state is in this order: evict the Americans from Iraq, create an Islamic extremist state in Iraq, swallow up Iraq's neighbors and then destroy Israel, and from there go on to bigger and better things. And how did Zawahiri advise Zarqawi to achieve these goals? By augmenting his terror campaign with political warfare and by manipulating the media. Zawahiri urged Zarqawi to tone down egregious actions, such as beheadings, because they do not play well on television screens. He approved of the violence but cautioned him to execute Americans with a bullet to the head instead. Isn't that nice of him? The Zawahiri letter so clearly unveils the insidious nature of this clever enemy we are up against. Therefore, I urge every American with access to the Internet to read the letter. Go to the Web site www.dni.gov, and look under ``News Releases.'' But Americans shouldn't have to go to a Web site to discover its content. It should have been dissected in painstaking detail on the nightly news or at least given a fraction of the time allotted to the critical coverage of the war. It amazes me how there is such a blinding skepticism about anything that supports our effort in Iraq today. Last week, my staff spoke to a respected scholar in London about what he thought about the Zawahiri letter. He said it must have been a fabrication. When asked what evidence he had for that assertion, he responded: None, but it just makes Bush's case, so the letter can't be genuine. As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I can tell you that we have absolutely no indication at all this letter was a fabrication. So I ask again, why isn't the media delving into this? We ought to take a brief look at the nature of the enemy we are fighting in Iraq. I believe President Bush said it well last week during his speech in Norfolk when he called their evil form of Islamic radicalism Islamo-fascism. We are fighting a radical ideology that has crept up over the past few decades that is taking hold in countries around the world. We see it in Palestine, in Indonesia, the Philippines and, yes, now even in Europe. For the past week, we have seen the signs of it with riots outside Paris. Rioters burned areas of the country for over a week, lashing out against the Western society in which they live. Arab experts explain the violence as an identity problem among young Arabs who see themselves first as Muslims looking for a country of their own, rather than French, English, or American citizens. Al-Qaida preys on such youth, encourages their unjustified acts of violence, and is now telling them that their new home will be in Iraq. This is why in Iraq today we see so many foreign fighters flocking to a radical cause. An insurgent fights within his country's borders to defend it from occupation or to oust a government with which he does not agree. This is the definition of an insurgent. A terrorist is one who travels outside his country to wage politically motivated violence elsewhere. While there remain many Sunni Baathist insurgents who would like to bring back Saddam, there is an ever growing and a proportionally lethal number of terrorists flooding into Iraq to fight what they see as the ultimate jihad, identified as their extremist neofascist interpretation of Islam. These are the terrorists who are fueling simmering insurgencies. These are truly the Islamofascists. Iraq has become the epic battle with the West that al-Qaida has been looking for and we must win it. We cannot afford to lose. This enemy cannot be negotiated with and will never reform its ways or be deterred from its path of violence. The only option we have with such an enemy who wants to slaughter American men, women, and children is to eliminate them. Last week former President Jimmy Carter appeared on ``Larry King Live'' and criticized President Bush for his policy of preemption in the war on terror. He claimed this policy was a break in U.S. national policy from all previous Presidents and administrations. Therefore, he declared our actions in Iraq radical. It is radical precisely because we find ourselves in dire circumstances. It is a break from the past because in the past we were not facing organized, ruthless bands of terrorists with declared intentions to annihilate Americans, whose acquisition of weapons of mass destruction was a distinct possibility. Every student of national security understands that threat equals capability plus intent. The intent of the terrorists to annihilate us is indisputable, as is their stated intention to acquire weapons of mass destruction to do so. Their power is only limited by their current capability. As David Kay said, in the Iraqi Survey Report which we discussed in the Intelligence Committee and has now been released, Iraq, despite our inadequate intelligence, was a far more dangerous place even than we knew because radical terrorists were running loose in an unorganized country that had the potential to produce weapons of mass destruction for them. We must erode the capability of those terrorists for if we sit back and allow it to grow, we will face threats to the future such as we have never seen before. Long-distance runners say there comes a time in the race when their bodies yearn to succumb to the temptation to give up the fight but they must press on. That is when they remind themselves of the reasons for their struggle and when they remind themselves why they run; they find strength to press on. Only those who are resolute and full of conviction win the race. Let us hold to our conviction that democracy is better than tyranny, achieving peace is worth our struggle, and those who are counting on us in Iraq have a reason to hope. We must maintain the course and be ready to fight neofascists and Islamo-fascism, wherever it exists. Right now it is Iraq, but there are other theaters as well. Southeast Asia could become one added to the list. Let us press on, for only if we do so will we one day win this long distance race. It is not a short one, but it is one we cannot afford to lose if we want to ensure that we have no more 9/11s or we at least reduce the likelihood we will have such tragedy on our shore. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2358

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Associated Students of the University of Missouri. Recognizing the need to establish a means by which students could become involved and impact the political process, the Associated Students of the University of Missouri, ASUM, began in June of 1975. While their first chapter opened in Columbia, ASUM has grown and extended to include student representatives from every branch of the University of Missouri system. As the student voice in State and Federal government, ASUM works diligently to encourage the student body to participate in the political process. Through their student advocacy, ASUM has achieved many accomplishments over the last 30 years including the establishment of the Bright Flight Scholarship Program, the appointment of a student representative to the Missouri Board of Curators, sales tax exemptions on textbooks, and loan forgiveness programs for teachers and medical/ veterinary doctors who serve in high-need areas of Missouri. It has been my pleasure to work with the ASUM specifically on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. I congratulate the Associated Students of the University of Missouri on their first 30 years of political advocacy for students and look forward to working with them for years to come.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, the Rosa Parks naming and the Bryant naming are very important measures. I would support both of them. But I believe as long as we have this rule in the committee, unless the committee will change the rule, I would be happy to join with my colleague from Virginia in suggesting a change in the rule to permit----

Mr. BOND. What was the judge's name?

Mr. BOND. I must renew my objection. I look forward to a discussion with the distinguished Senator from Virginia.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I agree with my colleagues that SAFETEA-LU is a carefully crafted approach to meeting our surface transportation needs, and will have a historic impact on transportation programs in my State of Missouri and across the country. I will make every effort to see that the final conference report on this legislation will honor the agreements reached in SAFETEA-LU between the various modes of transportation.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I see the Senator from Oklahoma has essentially proposed five amendments which all seek to do the same thing, amendments Nos. 2089, 2090, 2091, 2092, 2093. These essentially are targeted at economic development initiatives. I wonder if we might have a full debate on all of them and combine them into one amendment so we could spare our colleagues having to have rollcall votes on five? Through the Chair, I ask if the Senator from Oklahoma would voluntarily agree to that.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I will be happy to talk with the Senator later about that. Let me continue with some of the comments that I have in general, that are applicable to all these amendments. Within this budget, in our committee and other committees, we have identified at the request of many Senators in the States, including the State of Oklahoma, including the States of Alaska, Washington, Missouri--priorities in the report to be eligible for funds under the Economic Development Initiatives Account, subject to Department review. My colleague, who is the author of this amendment, proposes that these are necessarily bad. I suspect, if we looked State by State, we would have 100 different definitions of how precisely to prioritize these initiatives. The suggestion here is that Senators should not have any say in what is important in their States. My profession is serving the people of Missouri. I have been doing it for 27 years now. I do not have the skills or the expertise that the author of this amendment does. He, as I understand it, is a fine obstetrician. His commitment is to a high humanitarian calling, serving people in the obstetrics field. Certainly that is a fine profession. I envy his ability to deliver assistance and deliver babies. We need professionals of this type. That is his profession. My profession is very different. I don't have the skills of a physician or an engineer or a physical scientist. My job, my profession, is serving the people of Missouri. And as I have said, I do it proudly, this being my 27th year, I believe. In that time, I have found that if you listen to the people of Missouri you learn a lot. You learn about the needs of veterans. We have done things nationwide to serve veterans. I have been honored to be recognized by the Veterans of Foreign Wars. We have found out how important children's hospitals are, and we have worked to help children's hospitals. I am very grateful for the recognition from children's hospitals, and from in-home health care, which is very important, and from early childhood education, for which my initiatives have won national acclaim. In addition to these matters that affect the entire Nation, I have committed myself to trying to build strong communities throughout Missouri. I know the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma practices medicine, which is a wonderful practice, and does so with skill and provides a tremendous benefit. But do you know what I do when we have time off? I travel around the State. I meet with community leaders, local elected officials, concerned citizens, people who are trying to build a stronger community. Do they need a community health center? I have helped them get community health centers. Do they need something to help create jobs? Do they have projects which are properly supported by Federal funds that we make available through the Economic Development Initiative? Yes, in many instances they are. Do they have projects which require ground transportation which are properly funded by the rail transportation funds we have in this bill? Do they need water and sewers? I have been through many small communities. I hate to tell you that you can in the summer tell by the smell that they do not have an effective wastewater treatment system. They have waited in long lines for public health treatment, and we have helped them get the water treatment systems they need. This, I believe, is a legitimate function of the Federal Government--deciding where the highest priorities are. When I am up here working, I have a dedicated staff back home who visits every county in the State at least once, and many others several times a year. I visit every county in my State and every city in my State every term I serve in office. I hear from them--leaders in the community, the people who are concerned about the particular problems and how best to solve those. That is where I come back and say that from the EDI funds, from a portion roughly about 5 percent of the community development block grants, we will designate some of these high-priority needs which must be met for the good of the community and where we can help meet them through the addition of Federal funds targeted to those areas. I believe it has been successful. The people of Missouri think it is successful. I know the Senator from Washington does the same thing. The Senator from Washington listens to her people. She knows how to build a strong community in the State of Washington. I believe that is her job. I wouldn't propose to go in and tell her what is a good use of the Economic Development Initiative or community development block grants in Washington. She has to answer to the people of Washington. Far be it for me to tell her what is good for the State of Washington. When the Senator from Oklahoma asked me for something that is a high- priority project in his State, if it fits within the guidelines, I am happy to help that Senator determine what is best in Oklahoma. But I don't need a Senator from Oklahoma telling me what is good in Missouri or telling the Senator from Washington what is good for the State of Washington. We believe our job is to serve and represent and listen to the people of our States. I believe a vast majority of the Senators in this body know their job is to serve their States, whether it is a vote on national legislation, whether it is a vote on something that is very important to their people, whether it is national, or whether it has to do with a specific activity within their State that they want to support. I think that is our job. That is our profession. We stand for reelection based on how well we serve our people. I am grateful for the tremendous honor and privilege I have been given by the people of Missouri. They know I am not a physician; they know I am not a physical scientist, but they know I am here to serve and represent them. The suggestion appears to be that none of us as Members, those of us who work through our State and who listen to the people of our State, should have any say in what their priorities are. That suggests that the Senators are not in touch with the priorities of their own State. I don't believe that is true generally. I know it is not true in Missouri. I believe it is not true in Washington. My colleague can speak to that. It might be that some Senators are too busy to understand or consult with their communities. But I understand what my State's needs are. I aggressively consult with leaders in my State. It might be some Senators believe that maybe the bureaucrats at the agencies understand their States better than the Senators themselves. I do not believe that should be the case because I spend more time in the State than I do here. I travel as many miles as I can squeeze into a schedule. The amendments from the Senator from Oklahoma don't save money. They just say that a Senator shall not be able to determine what is a priority need in his or her State. Do you know something? I happen to think a Senator who is doing his or her job probably has as good an idea and should have a better idea of what is an important priority than some bureaucrat in HUD who will otherwise be spending that money.

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma has modified his amendment to include the provisions dealing with the States of Washington, Nebraska, and Rhode Island. Is this correct?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Washington and myself, I move to table the amendment as modified and I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.