Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Michigan. We worked with her on her original amendment. I think this amendment is now a good amendment. Obviously, the objective is one that we all share, and I believe with this modification, the concept that my colleague has put forth is a good one. We are willing to accept it on this side.

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

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I will take a few minutes to talk about some events that are extremely important--not on this bill--but I think it is important to follow up some excellent remarks made by my colleagues from Colorado and South Carolina yesterday--I have a great professional and personal interest in it--and that is to recognize a milestone in a very significant event in the global war on terror, the war against Islamofascism. This is extremely significant, and yet I do not believe the media has given it the attention it deserves. The milestone is an achievement that the world would not have thought possible 2 years ago, and it occurred this past Saturday, on October 15, as the people of a free Iraq voted in a national referendum on their national constitution. This is a significant milestone no matter the outcome of the vote, the people of a free Iraq have voted on a framework of a nation. That is a significant milestone against tyranny in our time. It is my hope that the constitution will pass, and years from now the people of Iraq and their children and grandchildren will know that this was a time when the nation was founded in freedom, similar to our forefathers, who were children in 1776, told their children and grandchildren after them. The vote on the referendum occurred with surprisingly little violence. It drew an encouraging voter turnout. This proves that the Iraqi people and U.S. forces continue to make great strides toward peace and toward defeating both terrorists and insurgents in Iraq. I say terrorists and insurgents because both are active in Iraq, and they are distinct groups. While there remains some Sunni Baathists who would like to bring back Saddam and who could generally be called insurgents, there is an ever-growing number of terrorists flooding into Iraq to fight what they see as the ultimate jihad, legitimated by their extremist interpretation of Islam. Iraq has become their Armageddon, as will become evident from my remarks in a few moments, and they are simply terrorists. With regard to the referendum, I commend U.S. Ambassador Khalilzad for his tenacity and efforts in the constitutional process in his final days leading up to the referendum that enabled Sunni, Shi'a, and Kurds to come together for a vote. Early reporting indicates the constitution will pass, but we have to wait until all the votes are counted to make the final call. I believe the constitution's passage will deal a heavy blow to the Sunni Baathist insurgents who are waging an ``all or nothing'' fight to regain control of Iraq. It now seems more clear than ever that the insurgents have to join in the political process if they are going to have any hope of a future in mainstream Iraqi civil and political society. While I am pleased to see some moderate Sunni elements joining the political process, we must be watchful of violent groups that may try to expand their sphere of influence by establishing political platforms in order to legitimize their sinister ideologies. We have seen this happen before in other areas of the world, such as Sinn Fein in the Irish Republican Army. As the saying goes: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Let us not be shamed by militants who momentarily trade in black handkerchiefs that hide their faces for fine suits simply to gain a stake in the political power of their nation. Critics of this administration, along with other naysayers, are convinced that several of the constitution's provisions are politically divisive because they grant the Kurds and Shi'a unfair advantages over the Sunnis regarding Iraq's oil and other resources. I note that our very own United States operated under the Articles of Confederation for about 7 years, until we were able to draft and ratify a constitution, and that Constitution has been modified, and significantly so, over the years. We are often too impatient in our fast-paced, modern world, but let us not forget that democracy takes time and requires patient, deliberate action. Until Iraq's liberation in April 2003, Iraq suffered under a ruthless dictator whose kleptocratic regime offered its people little more than fear and terror. Now, for the first time in over 30 years, we can say that the Iraqi people are courageously embarking on their own journey toward political self-determination and individual freedom, and for that I applaud them and am greatly satisfied. On Tuesday of this week, the Wall Street Journal had an op-ed piece by Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute. It is titled, ``With Freedom Comes Politics.'' Iraqis now see the fruit of foreign investment. A year ago in Baghdad, Iraqis drank water and soft drinks imported from neighboring countries. Now they drink water bottled in plants scattered across Iraq. . . . Cameras and reporters do not lie, but they do not always give a full perspective. Political brinkmanship devoid of context breeds panic. Beheadings and blood sell copy, but do not accurately reflect Iraq. Political milestones give a glimpse of the often-unreported determination that Iraqis and longtime visitors see daily. Bombings and body bags are tragic. But they do not reflect failure. Rather, they represent the sacrifice that both Iraqis and Americans have made for security and democracy. The referendum, refugee return, real estate and investment show much more accurately--and objectively--Iraq's slow and steady progress. Madam President, I will insert that article in the Record because that exactly reflects the views of the young men and women I know who are serving in Iraq. They see our national television too often focuses on ``if it bleeds, it leads.'' If there is a tragic loss of an American life, that is the only headline, nothing about the progress. But there is progress being made, and this election showed it. My satisfaction with the progress in Iraq is not without reservation. I bring to my colleagues' attention a significant event with positive and negative implications. This is the intercept of a letter written on July 9 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 was obtained by U.S. forces in a raid in Iraq this summer but only released by the Government on October 11 in order to avoid the compromise of ongoing operations. The letter provides a broad look at al-Qaida's global strategy and plans for operation Iraq. The letter underscores that al-Qaida will not relent in pursuing its Sunni extremist agenda and reveals that al-Qaida views its jihad in Iraq as the focal point in its efforts to create an extremist global ``caliphate.'' President Bush has rightly called this Islamofascism. This is a war that will go on even after Iraq is stable. Zawahiri writes to Zarqawi: God has blessed you and your brothers, while many of the Muslim mujahedin have longed for that blessing . . . and that (blessing) is Jihad in the heart of the Islamic world . . . he has blessed you with the splendor of the spearhead of Jihad. 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. It goes on and on from there. The letter reads like a Sunni extremist epistle written by a father figure to a young leader among the faithful. Zawahiri applauds Zarqawi's enthusiasm and acts of terror that have advanced their jihad. Yet he cautions Zarqawi to remember the power of world opinion and the subtleties of political influence and media persuasion. Similar to an expert teacher, Zawahiri commends Zarqawi for his enthusiasm and past deeds. Yet he gently persuades him to alter his tactics toward a better way. Zawahiri asserts in his letter that while Zarqawi's violent tactics are justified, they do not play well in the media. And while he doesn't object to beheadings on any moral grounds, he notes ``a bullet to the head'' is more efficient and doesn't invite such negative press. He references Algerian brethren who are with him who worry that the war in Iraq could go the way of the Algerian jihad in the late nineties when the radicals lost their support among the general Muslim population due to their brutal acts of torture. In addition, although Zawahiri describes the Shi'a as ``cooperating with the enemies of Islam,'' he criticizes Zarqawi for attacking the Iraqi Shi'a in ways that will hurt al-Qaida in the media, and he recommends Zarqawi avoid opening too many fronts in the jihad. He also stresses that political warfare is needed in order to draw in the social elites to support their push for an Islamic extremist state. In effect, Zawahiri recommends that the wolf put on sheep's clothing in order to mask the wolf's true brutality. To me this is troubling because it illustrates that we are at war with an enemy who is astute, deceptive, and wise in the ways of the world and the American media and its ability to influence American public opinion. It underscores that this enemy cannot be negotiated with and will never reform its way or be deterred from its path of violence. The only option we have with such an enemy, according to what we have seen, who want to slaughter American women, men, and children, is to eliminate it. There is no other choice. That is why we must flush the terrorists out and hunt them down. There are some notable positives in Zawahiri's letter. The letter demonstrates that America's efforts in the war on terrorism have been effective in hurting al-Qaida and in disrupting its ability to attack the United States and its interests. Zawahiri's statements reveal that due to the pressure he feels in areas around him, he cannot depart his remote location, a location so remote that he complains of a lack of access to contemporary news reporting on Iraq. He also reveals that he is running out of funds and asked Zarqawi for $100,000 in order to open up new communications lines that have been shut down due to the apprehension of al-Qaida operatives this past summer. Finally, he also expresses concern over Pakistani military operations in the tribal area and references the current Pakistani Army offensive in northern Waziristan. Well, Allah be praised. We are at a crossroads in the war on terror because we are at the point where our enemy believes we are about to tuck tail and run in Iraq. But we must press on. Al-Qaida is convinced that America will abandon Iraq. Zawahiri writes that al-Qaida must begin preparing now for what he likens to ``the collapse of American power in Vietnam--they ran and left their agents.'' Running is no option. We must fight on. So I ask today that we continue our support for our troops who are in harm's way, for the intelligence officials and aid workers deployed throughout the globe in the frontlines on the war on terror, and I ask that we forget not that our struggle is a fight to the death, for that is how our enemy sees it. And with every suicide bomber who takes more innocent life provides, they prove to us that they are prepared to die. May we recommit ourselves to this fight to show the world that we are prepared to fight so that we, our allies, and peace-loving peoples of the world may live. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the article I referenced called ``With Freedom Comes Politics'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, we would like to consider this amendment. I ask it be set aside until we see how the operations work with the rest of the amendments. This may be relevant to the others. I ask unanimous consent we set this amendment aside temporarily.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, we share the concerns of the Senator from Oklahoma. I think there are more efficient ways for HUD to conduct its conferences. Therefore, on our side we accept the amendment.

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

Mr. BOND. I will finish shortly and then I will be happy to answer questions. Again, I am not afraid to say that I know more about the needs of my State than the ``U.S. Department of Anything.'' I will be happy to be judged on that. I know we ought to be reducing budget spending. According to the Budget Committee, we have defeated attempts to waive the Budget Act and have achieved reductions and savings of some $170 billion this year alone. I have provided recommendations to our Budget chairman for making significant reductions. We are waiting for the leadership and the reconciliation bill to decide how we save money. But this amendment and the others like it makes excellent headlines and they will be welcomed by some newspaper editorials, some talk radio show hosts, but it would be a better headline if the Senator were actually attacking a project in his State. If he thinks that appropriations for museums is so bad, what about the money in there for the Ponca City Indian Museum? Does he feel that is an appropriate priority for the State of Oklahoma? He can answer that. I think that would make an even better headline. But I am not interested in getting headlines for something that doesn't save money in the budget. I am more interested in what people say, what the Cape Giradeaux Southeast Missourian or the Joplin Globe or the St. Joe News Press say about what the needs are in their State-- not what somebody in New York or in California says about the projects. I know my colleague from Washington surely will have something to say about that. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. No.

Mr. BOND. I have no knowledge.

Mr. BOND. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BOND. Madam President, before I turn it over to the Senator from Washington, as I said to the Senator, we have a difference in philosophy. I commended him publicly for his tremendous service to Oklahoma--specifically the fact that he continues his practice of obstetrics. However, we have very different philosophies on how we serve our people. If he has told the people of Oklahoma how he is going to serve Oklahoma, that is fine. I have told the people of Missouri how I am going to serve Missouri. I believe I am living up to that. Now, I don't say that he isn't living up in any stretch of the imagination to the pledge he made to the people of Oklahoma. What I am saying is, I am not going to tell the people of Oklahoma how their Senator should behave. I expect the Senator from Oklahoma would not be telling the Senator from Missouri how to behave. If he is talking about saving money, this does not cut the budget. The CDBG pot is 8 percent lower. The Senator may or may not have been in private sessions when I proposed a major means of reducing the budget to be considered by the Committee on the Budget. We are staying in line with what the Committee on the Budget has proposed. The Committee on the Budget may come back with a recommendation, which I will be for if it cuts everything fairly. We are talking about how money is actually spent, economic development initiatives. Yes, they can go to things like parks if they have them in communities. And the question is, Who makes those decisions? Well, for those decisions in Missouri, I spend enough time and my people spend enough time that I want a say in how funds are spent because I talk to and listen to those people. I hear what their requests are. It is a small fraction of the Federal money that goes to the State. But I am proud of the progress we have been able to make by supporting local initiatives through EDI funds. HUD bureaucrats make some good decisions. If we cut all these out, they will make all the decisions. They may make some good ones, they may make some bad ones, but in Missouri, I can make those better than a bureaucrat. That is what we are talking about. We are not going to save a nickel. If any of these are agreed to, we will distinguish between the philosophies of service. The Senator from Oklahoma has eloquently stated his philosophy. He believes we ought to restrain spending. And I agree: we ought to restrain spending. The question is, How do you prioritize the spending in the budget? That is where we have a disagreement. We will have an opportunity for our colleagues to determine which philosophy they agree with. Do you want the bureaucrats solely to make the decisions, or should Senators be able to influence a small portion of those? That is the question, quite simply. It is not about saving money it is about who makes those decisions. We have two very different philosophies. I have great respect for my colleague from Oklahoma. He has offered a different philosophy to his people in being elected than I have offered to my people in Missouri who have elected me.

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have spoken with the parties, and we believe we have come to an agreement to have a vote at 12:20, with the time equally divided between the Senator from Oklahoma and--how much time does the Senator from Oklahoma want?

Mr. BOND. Ten minutes for the Senator from Oklahoma, 10 minutes for the Senator from Nebraska, and I will reserve 5 minutes for the Senator from Rhode Island. I will take that time on his behalf if he is not able to make it. So that will make a vote at 12:15 in relation to the amendment or the amendment, as modified.

Mr. BOND. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. BOND. Unfortunately, Senator Chafee is tied up. We are expecting momentarily to get a full explanation. Our debate has focused on the difference in philosophy. The Senator from Nebraska, the Senator from Washington, the Senator from Rhode Island, and I all have the ability to establish priorities in the economic development initiatives. They are important initiatives and important priorities that can be set by Senators. In the case of the provision for the Senator from Rhode Island, this happens to be construction of a building that is very important for the quality of life in the town of Westerly, RI. Many people have different needs and one of the beauties of that is the people from those communities can talk directly to their Senator and tell their Senator what is important. In this instance, the Senator from Rhode Island listened to the people. He listened to his constituents. He determined this was a priority. There is going to be a lot of other money that is going to be handed out by HUD bureaucrats under the economic development initiative for construction. What is wrong with the Senator from Rhode Island saying here is one pressing need that is very important for the Senator from Rhode Island because it is important to his constituents? I reserve the balance of the time.

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

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we thank our colleagues. Mr. President, as far as procedure, there are a number of issues that will be debated. There may be additional amendments offered, but for the convenience of our colleagues, there are not going to be any votes until 2:30. I propound a unanimous consent request that at 2 p.m. there be 30 minutes equally divided in relation to Reed amendment No. 2077; provided further that the Senate then proceed to a vote in relation to the amendment, with no second degrees in order to it prior to the vote.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. The floor is now open for debate and further amendment as requested.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I believe before long, when they complete a markup, that the Senator from Alaska--probably both Senators will be here. They will have an opportunity to speak, and I am confident we will hear a very different side of that story. I do not presuppose to speak for the Senators from Alaska, but let me tell you my own personal observations on the situation. No. 1, it certainly would not have been my priority. Right now, there are about 50 people on the island to which Ketchikan would be connected. The island has an airport on it. They view this as a major economic development area for the community of Ketchikan. The town has been devastated because of the Federal cutoff of timber sales which used to be the major industry in Ketchikan, so they are looking to develop alternative sites. Ketchikan is right on the side of a very steep mountain. It is essentially one long narrow main street. Once you go off the main street, you are going up the hill. Not a great place for economic development. I was there, and I spoke with the leaders in the town. They view this as their salvation. They think this is extremely important to their continued economic development. Nevertheless, I see some real problems with it because that bridge would go across an inlet which is a major floatplane landing area for floatplanes coming in and out of Ketchikan. In addition, large cruise ships 250 feet tall come through there. They would have to build a bridge over that. I am not sure this would make sense. But the fact remains, this is not a decision which is being made by people from Missouri and Washington and other places. I did not like it, but I am an outsider. The chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee made it a top priority. It is telling the people of Alaska that we are going to take away highway money, which was paid into the highway user trust fund, and put it into obviously a badly needed reconstruction project in Louisiana, which is going to be funded by the emergency appropriations bills that will be coming before us. Secondly, I happen to believe that the money is not going to be spent unless the people of all of Alaska and their leaders are convinced it is the right place to spend it. Why do I know that? When I first came to Washington, I thought it would be a great idea to build a small road someplace. I put an earmark, a modest amount, in a bill for work on a little highway. The department of transportation in Missouri did not agree with it. That money never got spent. Roads get built, bridges get built in areas where the State transportation authority, whether it be the commissioner or the Governor, wants them to be built. There is a study ongoing as to whether this bridge is needed, whether a tunnel would be more efficient, or whether a speedier ferry system would work out. The ferry is charming--not really fast going across from the airport to Ketchikan, but it will get you there. What is the best way to handle it? My own personal view is that the people of Alaska will make that decision. I question whether they would move to go ahead with that bridge. We will have an amendment, which is being prepared, that will say the bridge should not be built until the badly needed bridge between New Orleans and Slidell is built, during which time I believe the Alaska transportation authority is studying it before it would even begin to be built. I believe that is a more appropriate way to deal with this question. I have heard lots of people complaining about this bridge, but, again, most of them do not know the situation in Ketchikan. While I question it, it is not my job to say what the transportation priorities of Minnesota are or Alaska or Washington or other States. It raises a question in my mind, and I understand why my colleague raised it. I think before we move on this amendment, we will want to hear from the Senators from Alaska and look at an alternative amendment which I believe would satisfy most people's questions to make sure a badly needed bridge in Louisiana is completed and also that nothing goes forward on the Alaska bridge until there is a study completed and the transportation authority in Alaska makes a decision.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have followed this discussion for a long time. This independent counsel has been working on this investigation since I was a very junior Member of the U.S. Senate. Not only has my hair gotten gray, but I think the independent counsel has gotten a lot grayer as well. Not only does the clock keep running, but the expense keeps running. At the same time, there were very serious allegations raised to the independent counsel, and those, I gather, have had findings attached to them, whether they were accurate or not, and it is time we brought this to a close and find out what the independent counsel found because it goes to the operation of the Department of Treasury and other agencies in the Federal Government. If he found a problem, it is time we go about fixing the problem. I know the Judiciary Committee and the Finance Committee are very much interested in this. Our committee is interested in it. I thank my colleague from Iowa and my colleague from North Dakota. I ask to be added as a cosponsor because all good things come to an end, and even independent counsel investigations come to an end.

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND. It has been cleared on both sides.

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