Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask that the Senator from Ohio be recognized for 10 minutes, that I be recognized for 15 minutes, and that following that the Senator from Florida be recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, 8 years ago today, terrorists based in Afghanistan carried out the deadliest attacks on American soil since Pearl Harbor. It was on that horrifying September morning in 2001 that America's worst fears were realized. No longer was terrorism something that only happened on the other side of the globe. Instead, those terrorist killers had struck the very heart of America here at home. Long before 9/11, there were deadly warnings, warnings that for the most part went unheeded. For over two decades, al-Qaida and other terrorists attacked our Nation, from the marine barracks bombing in Beirut in October 1983 to the Pan Am 103 bombing in 1988, from the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 to the Embassy bombings in 1998, to the USS Cole attacks in 2000. While al-Qaida declared war against the United States a long time ago, it took the tragedy of September 11 and the loss of thousands of lives before America decided to fight back. Today, as we reflect on the anniversary of 9/11 and the lives lost that day, we can honor the victims and their families by finishing the job in Afghanistan and defeating the terrorists who are bent on death and destruction. I agree with the comments of my colleague, the Senator from Michigan, who said that we need to build the Afghan Army to 240,000. We need to build and strengthen the Afghan police. But we also must support President Obama's chosen general, GEN Stanley McChrystal, in his request for needed troops and resources. President Obama has called Afghanistan an ``international security challenge of the highest order.'' I agree. When the President stressed that ``the safety of people around the world is at stake,'' he did not overstate the importance of succeeding in Afghanistan. President Obama used even starker terms when he spoke to our veterans at this year's VFW convention and said: Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaida would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting, this is fundamental to the defense of our people. I could not agree more. While the President has used this week to pitch health care reform, I hope after reflecting on the anniversary of the September 11 attacks, he will refocus his attention and that of the American people on achieving victory in Afghanistan. To repeat, terrorism is the premiere challenge of our time. If we fail to conquer this challenge, nothing else will matter much, not even health care reform. As Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I can tell you that al-Qaida and other radical Islamic terrorists have not stopped trying to strike Americans at home and our allies around the world. It is critical that my own party, Republicans, support President Obama in the fight against terrorists. We Republicans must demonstrate that politics ends at the water's edge and strongly support the strategy the President has laid out with his generals for victory in Afghanistan. Let's avoid the politics we too often saw in Iraq, declaring defeat where our troops in theater were fighting for their lives and our freedom; undercutting our President while he tried to help rally allies to join us in the battle. For my Democratic colleagues, I hope they follow the stirring words of the leader of their party at the VFW and do not give in to the pundits peddling pessimism. Do not give in to the leftwing that has prematurely declared defeat in Afghanistan, as they so readily declared in Iraq; much, I might add, to the grave concern of our troops in harm's way, which I heard firsthand by e-mail from my son in Fallujah. Many of the naysayers are saying that victory in Afghanistan is not possible. We hear the refrain over and over: It has been 8 years. Why have we not left? Unfortunately, our country has a history of abandoning Afghanistan. Earlier this week in an interview, Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged what a serious strategic mistake our Nation made turning our backs on Afghanistan after Soviet forces were defeated there two decades ago. Sadly, under administrations of both parties America has repeatedly ignored the lessons of history, repeatedly turned our backs on Afghanistan. It is no wonder the people of Afghanistan doubt our commitment to their defense. The problems we face in Afghanistan today are in many ways more complex than those we faced on September 12, 2001. We know al-Qaida has found sanctuary in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas. The Taliban government is gone, but the Taliban insurgency has risen and has grown in strength. This insurgency has prevented the new Afghan Government from establishing its writ throughout Afghanistan and threatens Afghanistan's long-term stability. If not stopped, this insurgency could once again allow a terrorist safe haven, whether for al-Qaida or other terrorist groups, to flourish in Afghanistan. We cannot let that happen. President Obama's new strategy, being implemented by General McChrystal, is our best chance of success. Now, do not get me wrong. While we are on the right path to long-term victory in Afghanistan, the road will not be easy. In fact, it is going to get worse before it gets better. We have seen evidence of this already. The fighting has been tough in Afghanistan the last few months, and too many of our brave troops have been wounded or killed in action. Those recent casualties should not come as a surprise, however, to anyone who has been following events in Afghanistan. U.S. Marines recently began clearing rural areas in southern Afghanistan that have served as Taliban safe havens for years. Before these operations began, our military commanders very clearly warned Congress and the American people that taking southern Afghanistan back from the Taliban would be costly. As the father of a marine who served two tours of duty in Iraq, I did not take this news lightly. But many of my colleagues in the Senate and I agreed then and agree now that defeating the militants is a job that must be done. Our brave marines will no doubt succeed in clearing these areas in southern Afghanistan of terrorists, the same terrorists who brazenly throw acid in the faces of young girls on their way to school and coldly murder mullahs who have the audacity to disagree with their brand of hatred. But even after this is accomplished, much work will still need to be done in a country recovering from decades of war. Key to our success is General McChrystal's recognition of the importance of building sustainable security in Afghanistan through the use of ``smart power,'' combining military power with economic development, education, and diplomatic strategies. While we need military forces to build security in the short term, sustaining long-term security requires smart power. Before Afghans can choose peace and the democratic process, they need enough food to eat and a stable community in which to live. That is exactly what ``smart power'' seeks to do. This same strategy is already proving successful in Afghanistan's Nangarhar Province. During a visit to Afghanistan in 2006 with General Eikenberry, I heard from him and President Karzai of the need to improve and rebuild the agricultural sector in Afghanistan. I tried to do so through the creation of a land grant university consortium that would set up an agricultural extension service through USAID. Unfortunately, USAID lacked the capacity to implement this vision. So I turned to my friends, the soldiers and airmen in the Missouri Guard who, in their civilian lives, were farmers and possessed other agricultural expertise to empower the Afghans. For over a year, the Missouri National Guard's Agricultural Development Teams, ADTs, have been helping Afghans harvest high-value alternatives to opium poppies and build irrigation systems and wells for clean water. Decades of war in Afghanistan have left most of the country mired in 18th century practices. These ADTs provide agricultural specialists to help the Afghans rebuild their agricultural know-how and literally sow the seeds of peace in Afghanistan. Thanks to the ADTs' dedication and hard work, poppy production in Nangarhar has been virtually eliminated, where it was the second most prolific producer of poppies before. The first of these teams started to work in Nangarhar in February of 2008. The second rotation is underway. I just joined friends and family back in Missouri to celebrate the send-off of the third rotation of the ADTs. By showing a consistent commitment to the people in Nangarhar, these citizen soldiers have built relationships and trust at the local level, influencing hearts and minds to reject the deadly influence of the radical extremists. Like ``The Show Me State'' motto, Missourians have shown the way forward. Thanks to their leadership, 10 other States are now sending specialized Agricultural Development Teams to provinces throughout Afghanistan. These successes make it clear that we need to increase the investment in smart power strategies through these agricultural teams. Ten other State National Guards are now committed to the vital mission of building sustainable economies, protecting them with military force province by province. We need appropriate military protection in every province in Afghanistan. The Guard is uniquely suited to this mission. But we also need Federal military and economic efforts. In addition to smart power, General McChrystal also understands that a counterinsurgency strategy is key to success in Afghanistan. I have been disappointed to listen to the talking heads in Washington advocate recently for an alternative approach, a mere counterterrorism strategy. It is easy, of course, to play arm chair general from thousands of miles away. But these talking heads seem to have forgotten that a counterterrorism strategy alone failed in Iraq. Not surprisingly, it has failed so far in Afghanistan. Counterterrorism by remote control does not cut it. The so-called surgical strikes, whether by air or ground, increase civilian casualties and only allow insurgents, from the Taliban to the drug lords to al-Qaida, to filter back in once the attacks are over. This approach leaves the people in the country subject to retaliation if they do not cooperate with the terrorists, which, not surprisingly, they do. Conversely, the counterinsurgency strategy will ensure the violent insurgents are defeated and do not come back. I also agree with the administration that part of this strategy must allow some of the ``day fighters,'' those who are hard-core al-Qaida supporters or Taliban ideologues, to lay down their weapons and to return to peaceful lives. If we are getting the job done right, we will naturally lure desperate young men away from the false promises of extremism. A viable and appropriately resourced counterinsurgency strategy is not only essential for success in Afghanistan, it is pivotal in the future of Pakistan. Driving terrorist safe havens out of eastern and southern Afghanistan is crucial, but not if al-Qaida and Taliban militants continue to find sanctuary in the remote border regions of west Pakistan. The threat these transplanted terrorists pose has become even more real over the last 6 months as the world watched Taliban militants creep closer to Pakistani nuclear facilities. We must support the Pakistan Government and its newly aggressive military action to take out the terrorists threatening their country and Afghanistan. The horrors of nuclear-armed terrorists would be put at risk and put at risk freedom-loving people everywhere. This is not a risk we or the world can take. The stakes of turning our backs on this conflict could not be higher. America ignored the fact that Afghanistan became one giant camp for terrorists in the 1990s, and thousands of Americans died on 9/11 as a result. And thousands of our brave troops have died in defense of our Nation since then. We face a similar threat today, 8 years after 9/11. Al-Qaida has shifted their terrorist sanctuaries from Afghanistan to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, FATA, of Pakistan. The Taliban, the same people who sheltered Osama bin Laden and defied U.S. demands to hand him over, now fight efforts by the international community to bring stability to Afghanistan. Our U.S. withdrawal, in whole or in part, from Afghanistan now would be a tacit yet unambiguous approval for the return of Taliban control over Afghanistan. In turn, this would lead to the establishment of safe havens for many of the world's most violent and feared terrorists. American abandonment of Afghanistan now could possibly hand over the keys to a nuclear-armed kingdom to violence-loving terrorists. I returned this past August from Denmark and Greece, two relatively small countries but steadfast allies in their resolve to support the NATO mission and stabilize Afghanistan. Declaring defeat in Afghanistan today would signal to our allies that Americans no longer have the resolve to defeat terrorists. Declaring defeat in Afghanistan today would signal to our allies that simply by waiting us out, violent extremists can triumph over the combined military and economic might of the international community. Finally, declaring defeat in Afghanistan today would signal to the families of those who died on September 11 and the troops who have fought since then in the years since in service to their country that their loved ones died in vain. These are not signals our great Nation should ever send. Instead, we must declare unequivocally our courage, resolve, and patience to provide needed resources and more troops to allow the smart power strategy of General McChrystal to succeed. This alone is the signal America should send. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask the Senator to withhold the suggestion of an absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I add to what the Chair, Senator Murray, has said. We are open. We are ready to do business. We have, I believe, close to two dozen amendments that have been filed. This would be an ideal time for people to come in and discuss their amendments, to bring them up. We are scheduled, I believe, to have votes on pending HUD amendments on Monday afternoon when we return, and it would be good for people, without time constraints, to come in and explain why they wish to amend the bill, and to allow us to debate those amendments and be ready for votes. But we know there is interest. We know amendments have been filed, and we will have at least this morning to consider those amendments. I assume the majority leader will bring us in Monday afternoon. So I urge my colleagues, if you have an amendment to be seriously considered, whether it is on this side or the majority side, please bring it forward and let us have an opportunity to look at it, review it, debate it, discuss it, and prepare it for a vote. With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as ranking member on the HUD, Transportation, and related agencies fiscal year appropriations bill, I have been very pleased to be able to work with Chair Murray and her great staff. It has been a real pleasure. I agree with all she said, except I cannot do anything but thank her for the very kind and generous words she had. She mentioned a longtime experience. Normally back home we refer to experience as something you get when you are expected to get something else. But working on this committee I have found the experience to be a very pleasant one. Originally I worked with Senator Mikulski. We alternated as chair and ranking member. I think we did a wonderful job. She was a great partner. I couldn't ask for any better partner to have than Senator Murray. She has been very helpful and very gracious to us. I have to say this is a very complicated bill. We could not do it without excellent staff work. I thank the staff. There are some new people on with big challenges ahead, but it is an excellent staff, and I am extremely grateful for all that they have taught me over the years. This is a bill about which everybody can say we could do it better, but I am proud to support it and urge my colleagues to support it. The legislation has a number of extremely important programs which, in today's economy, are critical to helping families overwhelmed by the national financial crisis. It is especially pleasing that we have been able to provide funding for the Nation's most vulnerable--to our homeless, to low-income families and seniors, and to the disabled. Our committee has increased investment in HUD community development programs to provide assistance needed the most. The chair mentioned the VASH Program. This was an idea we had several years ago. It has gained great support from the Veterans' Administration, from HUD, and everybody who has looked at the appalling problem of men and women who risk their lives, make great contributions to defend our country, and come home without adequate housing, often supportive housing they need. This program has been able to bring together the support services along with the housing that enables these veterans not just to have a shelter over their heads but to be able to get their lives back on track after going through the rigors and horrors of war. It is certainly a program with which I am delighted to be associated, and I thank the chair for her work on it. We have also provided assistance in critical areas such as section 8, public housing, community development block grants, the HOME program for the homeless, housing for seniors, housing for persons with disabilities, the Lead Hazard Reduction Program--which Senator Mikulski has been a champion of--and early childhood development capital funding, among others. As I noted in the committee markup of July 1, our biggest concern remains the solvency of the highway trust fund. This is a problem that must be addressed. We hope to work with Chair Boxer of the EPW Committee to deal with the serious problem they have because everybody knows--and I think almost everyone in this body has talked to me about it--how good roads and bridges are critical to attracting and sustaining business, job creation, and economic growth in our communities. We cannot afford an interruption in providing these much needed funds to the States. Transportation infrastructure work creates jobs, but most importantly it makes a long-term investment in our communities as a key component in our economic recovery. When I had the pleasure of serving Missourians as Governor, one of my top priorities was economic development. So I asked a good team I had there to figure out what makes economic development work, and they got maps out in Missouri and studied everything. The funniest thing we found, the communities that were growing had the best roads available. People have to have transportation if they are going to get to work and if what they produce at work is going to be shipped out. This is a critical element for economic recovery and the strength of our Nation. Another area I think is absolutely important is the FAA safety inspectors. I don't think it was planned, but it was certainly fortuitous that I attended a local civic club lunch over August where the main speaker was a representative of the FAA in St. Louis. He went through some of the good safety record but went through the horrendous crash that I think shocked all of us. It happened in Buffalo this past winter. He went through all of the problems. I said: Don't you have safety inspectors? He said: The problem is, we don't have enough of them. Yes, these are things that should have been identified. Think of the loss of life in that tragic crash because we didn't have enough safety inspectors to blow the whistle on things and people who should not have been entrusted with the lives of American citizens. As we looked at this, I, once again, became an even stronger believer in the need for these safety inspectors. We have to have air traffic controllers. These people are all critically important to the traveling public, and nobody I know of in this body, except maybe a few friends from surrounding States, has not flown on a very regular basis. Even they fly, and our families fly. So that is extremely important. Talking about challenges, as I have mentioned on this floor many times before, I have been very much concerned about the rapid growth of the FAA Single Family Mortgage Insurance Program. FHA's share of the market has grown dramatically, from 2 percent in 2006 to nearly 24 percent at the end of 2008. Before we pat ourselves on the back and say what a great achievement that is, let's take a look at it. This year the freeze in the private mortgage markets has driven FHA's market share to 63 percent. As I have said many times before, longstanding management and resource challenges and a substantial growth in risky lending due to political pressures has turned FHA into a powder keg, and I fear it is going to explode and leave taxpayers on the hook for another multihundreds of billions of dollars of losses. Given the continuing challenges in the housing market and continuing job losses, I believe it is highly likely that the FHA will not meet its statutory 2 percent capital reserve when its latest actuarial study is released in the coming weeks. That is the safety net that keeps it from going in the hole and avoiding a bailout. Frankly, I believe this is the tip of the iceberg for the FHA. That is why we must address FHA's problems now because Americans have been signaling that the taxpayer credit card is maxed out and we don't want to put any more on the Federal debt and thus Americans' credit cards. To address these FHA challenges, I am pleased we were able to include in this bill $20 million for FHA antifraud activities, as well as $6 million in additional funding for the HUD IG to combat predatory lending. The legislation also provides funding for HUD to modernize the FHA information technology systems in order to track effectively its mortgage and associated obligations. Too many times I have gone to them and said: Well, what is your portfolio? They say: Well, we do not know. That is scary because we as taxpayers are on the hook for it. If they go bad, that is on us and on future generations. We believe very strongly HUD and the IG must work together and leverage these funds to fight mortgage fraud and predatory lending. I have been very much encouraged based on my discussions with HUD Secretary Shawn Donovan and HUD IG Ken Donahue. They understood the problem. They are willing to work with us. However, they need more resources and a sustained focus to effectively combat predatory lending and mortgage fraud. It can and must be done. We have heard too many stories of people who have been in the business, a very questionable business, of making predatory loans, of misrepresenting the terms of the loans and the impact on the potential home buyer. These people's handiwork can be seen in the number of home loans going bad. They pushed the American dream very hard, not telling the potential homeowner what the downside was. For too many Americans this American dream has turned into the American nightmare. We have to put a stop to it. We make a strong contribution in this bill toward giving the able leaders in HUD, FHA, and in the IG the resources to deal with it. Again, I thank my chair and her very good staff for all the hard work. While it is not perfect, it is very good legislation. I look forward to joining with my partner, Senator Murray, in supporting this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. I agree with the chair. If somebody has a good amendment, we would sure like to see it and get started on it. Because the sooner you get here, the better consideration and, I might hasten to add, possibly the more favorable consideration you will receive. I know there are some potentially good ideas lurking out there. So bring the good ideas now. If you have some ideas that are not so good, you can wait to the end and we will see if we can close it out.

Mr. BOND. There is a declining level of tolerance, I have noticed, sometimes when people are on the floor. So I join and urge the request to all our colleagues to come and offer such amendments as they choose to offer.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, auto jobs form the backbone of American manufacturing, especially in the Midwest. Millions of Americans, and in my home--state of Missouri more than 200,000 workers, depend on the auto industry for their livelihoods. Unfortunately all of those jobs were at risk when the big three domestic auto companies almost went completely under. Recognizing the importance of this industry to our economy and millions of workers, the government acted to protect these auto jobs. One of those actions was to pass the Cash for Clunkers Program. I supported this program because I thought it would help save thousands of jobs at auto dealers, parts plant, and assembly plants. Also, this program was designed to help consumers with the cost of more fuel-efficient cars and, ultimately, in the long-term benefit the environment with reduced exhaust emissions. This is one government program that has actually exceeded everyone's expectation. Folks in Missouri and across the Nation have been flocking to once rather empty car lots. In fact, there were tens of thousands of new car purchases made through the program after only a week. Cash for Clunkers has given a much needed jump-start to dealers and the auto industry that have been suffering with the worst car sales in recent history. This program has benefitted consumers who would otherwise not be able to afford a new vehicle and has boosted small business dealers in rural and small communities across Missouri and the country. It is not to say that the program, like most government-run programs, has had an entirely smooth ride. I have heard from Missouri auto dealers who have been frustrated by government redtape, which has stalled some sales and created confusion among dealers and car buyers. This uncertainty has rightfully caused some heartburn for dealers who are required under the program to provide funding up front for the consumers and then must receive approval from the government before they receive reimbursement. Redtape and delays due to inadequate government resources to administer the program have left many dealers wondering if they will be left holding the bag. I have been disappointed and dismayed to learn that the Department of Transportation does not know how many commitments have been made and paid for by dealers. Thus, we cannot even be sure that the existing program will have enough money the meet the commitments. Under the legislation passed by the House, cash for clunkers would be extended and provided an additional $2 billion by using unspent funds from the so-called stimulus bill. I say so-called because so far it has only stimulated the growth of the deficit and the growth of government employment. Taking $2 billion from that program is the best way to see we get a boost to the economy, now, when we need it. Fully offsetting additional funding to extend the program is a critical requirement to ensure that we are not adding to the growing Federal deficit. I am very concerned about potential shell-games being reported in the media about Democratic leadership plans to backfill the stimulus bill in future appropriations. To be clear, my support for extending cash for clunkers is contingent upon the program not adding to our deficit and that it be temporary, not a bottomless pit for taxpayers. The purpose of cash for clunkers was to jump-start the auto industry and provide immediate and temporary help to get consumers back on car lots, not to provide a long-term subsidy to the industry and, thus I will not be supporting continued cash for clunkers. While cash for clunkers has provided a simulative jolt to get people onto car lots again, we cannot hang our hats on this program and expect to have a lasting recovery. I remain concerned about the credit markets, continuing job losses, and the rising likelihood of higher taxes and larger deficits under the spending plans proposed the, administration. Nevertheless, as a supporter of the initial $1 billion provided to cash for clunkers to jump-start the struggling auto industry, I believe that the program should be extended one last time as long as it is funded with unspent stimulus funds to ensure dealers are not on the hook for the cost of the rebates due to the government's management failures. This program was meant to jump-start, not subsidize, auto sales, so I support a one-time extension. Also, it is critical that the Obama administration make sure that bureaucratic hiccups don't turn this program into a nightmare for our dealers and consumers. The bottom line is that an extension paid for with unused stimulus dollars makes sense this one time since this program seems to have worked better then the misnamed Recovery Act.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States. Few positions carry more honor, or solemn duty, than becoming a Justice of the highest court of the greatest democracy. Also, few duties carry more honor, or solemn responsibility, than giving advice and consent on who should become a Justice on the highest Court of the greatest democracy. The walls of that Supreme Court form the vessel that holds the great protections of our liberty. Those black robes give life to the Constitution's freedoms and the flourishing of our ideas and beliefs. If the Congress is the heart of our democracy, walking to the drumbeat of the people, then the Supreme Court is our soul guiding us on what is right and what is wrong. In my role as a Senator voting to fill that vessel, issuing those robes, I have always looked to the Constitution to guide my obligation to give advice and consent. It is an obligation separate and apart from my role as a legislator, when I vote for or against legislation before this body. Indeed, if the Constitution meant for us merely to vote on nominees, by simple or super majorities, it could easily have said so. If we were meant to do nothing more than cast a vote based on whether we agreed or disagreed with a nominee, where would we be then? Would the halls of government be empty every time a President faced a Congress of the opposite party? Would the Cabinet sit empty because of partisan divide? Would vacancies to the Supreme Court go unfilled, because a majority of one party simply disagreed with the President of another? Of course, that could not have been the intent of the Framers. What kind of Justices would we have, with nothing more than partisan majority divides? Would a Senate controlled by the opposite party allow only the most moderate of voices, or justices with no voice at all? Would it approve only judges that said nothing, or wrote nothing with which the majority disagreed? If some are saying that a Democratic President should not have a liberal Justice, does that mean a Republican President should not have conservative Justices? That is not something I could support, for I surely supported judicially conservative Justices such as Roberts and Alito, Thomas and Bork--Scalia certainly if I had been in the Senate at the time. That is the kind of Justice I support, a judge that calls balls and strikes like an umpire, not letting their own personal views bias the outcome of the trial. The statue of justice is blindfolded for a reason, so that she cannot tip the scales of justice with the prejudice of bias or belief. But I have supported Justices with whom I disagreed on this philosophy. Justices Breyer and Ginsberg come to mind. They take a more active role in shaping their decisions, to fit an ideal of their own vision. I supported these nominees of a Democratic President, as did 86 of my colleagues for Justice Breyer, and 95 of my colleagues for Justice Ginsberg. I hope those votes do not reflect a time that has slipped away, when partisanship did not infect every facet of our political life. I could forget that time, as President Obama did when he was a Senator. I could easily say, as Senator Obama said, that I disagree with a nominee's judicial approach, and that allows me to oppose the nominee of a different party. Luckily for President Obama, I do not agree with Senator Obama. I reject the Obama approach to nominees. While I reject the way Senator Obama approached nominations, that does not mean that I support the way Judge Sotomayor approaches judging. I disagree that the civil rights of a firefighter mean so little that they do not deserve even a full opinion before an appeals court. I disagree that we should inspire with suggestions that wisdom has anything to do with the sex of a person or the color of their skin. I disagree that judges should ever consider foreign law when looking for meaning in U.S. statutes or the U.S. Constitution. I disagree that the second amendment's protection of an individual's right to bear arms does not apply to States. But I do agree that Judge Sotomayor has proven herself a well qualified jurist. I do agree that she has proven herself as a talented and accomplished student, Federal prosecutor, corporate litigator, Federal trial judge, and Federal appeals court judge. She has the backing of many in the law enforcement community including the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs Association, and the National Association of District Attorneys. I do agree that Judge Sotomayor has proven herself as a leader of her community, who inspires the pride and hopes of a large and growing portion of our American melting pot. I do agree that Judge Sotomayor has proven herself as a symbol of breaking through glass ceilings. And I do agree that my choice for President did not win the last election, and that our people's democracy has spoken for the change and they are getting it. Elections do have consequences. Now, hearing the call of that decision of our democracy does not mean that I support the President in everything he has proposed. I did not agree with a stimulus that has meant only more government spending and national debt as the unemployment continues to rise. I do not agree with cap and trade legislation that will raise energy taxes and kill millions of lost jobs without even changing the climate because China and India refuse to act the same. I do not agree with a government takeover of health care that forces millions of Americans off their current health care, drives health care costs even higher for families, rations care, restricts access to the latest cures and treatments, and puts health care decisions in the hands of government bureaucrats rather than doctors and patients. But I do agree that the country is tired of partisanship infecting every debate. The country is tired of every action by the Congress becoming a political battle. And so, I will not follow the hypocrisy of many of my Democratic colleagues who refused to support Justices Roberts and Alito because they disagreed with their judicial philosophy and now suggest that Republicans not do the same. I respect and agree with the legal reasoning of my colleagues who will vote no, but I will follow the direction of the past, and my hope for the future, with less polarization, less confrontation, less partisanship. My friends in the party can be assured that I will work as hard as anybody to ensure that the next Presidential election has consequences in the opposite direction. For my conservative friends, the best way to ensure that we have conservative judges on the bench is work to see that we elect Presidents who will nominate them. Then we can resume filling the bench with more judges like Justice Roberts. For my liberal friends I hope they remember this day when another qualified nominee is before the Senate who is conservative. The standard set by Senator Obama should not govern the Senate. As for Judge Sotomayor, she has the accomplishments and qualities that have always meant Senate confirmation for such a nomination. The Senate has reviewed her nomination and has asked her its questions. There have been no significant findings against her. There has been no public uprising against her. I do not believe the Constitution tells me I should refuse to support her merely because I disagree with her. I will support her. I will be proud for her, the community she represents and the American dream she shows possible. I will cast my vote in favor of the nomination of Judge Sotomayor, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the introduction of S. 1547--the Zero Tolerance for Veterans Homelessness Act. I am very proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation and to join my good friend, Senator Jack Reed, along with Senators Tim Johnson and Patty Murray, on addressing the tragedy of homelessness among our Nation's veterans. My three colleagues have been steadfast in their resolve to address the needs of veterans, including the tragedy of homelessness, and I commend them. Senator Reed has been a strong and committed leader on affordable housing and homeless issues and his leadership played a strong role in the recent enactment of the historic Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act or HEARTH Act. I am honored to join him again. Like the HEARTH Act, the Zero Tolerance for Veterans Homelessness Act builds on our work over the past several years by focusing on the importance of permanent supportive housing. Further, it takes important steps to break down the barriers between the Departments of Veterans Affairs, VA, and Housing and Urban Development, HUD, to ensure that veterans receive the quality services and housing they deserve and need. The most notable element of the legislation is the authorization of HUD-VA Supportive Housing or HUD-VASH rental-assistance vouchers. Working with Senator Patty Murray, new HUD-VASH vouchers have been funded over the past 2 years. While other HUD homeless-assistance programs serve veterans, HUD-VASH is the only permanent housing program that is specifically targeted to veterans and tied to veteran-specific supportive services from the VA. We have been fortunate to fund 10,000 new vouchers each year but with over 130,000 homeless veterans on any given night and thousands more who are at risk of becoming homeless, we must do more and this bill does exactly that. As I noted, there are over 130,000 homeless veterans in America. Sadly, veterans make up a significant and disproportionate amount--over 20 percent--of the country's homeless population. Many of these veterans are from the Vietnam war. Even more sad and stunning is the fact that the number of homeless Vietnam-era veterans is greater than the number of service persons who died during that war. But the face of homeless veterans is changing and is not limited to those who fought in Vietnam. We also are seeing homelessness increase among Desert Storm veterans and veterans returning from the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, recent reports are finding a troubling trend of homelessness among female veterans. The VA estimates that the number of homeless veterans who are female has doubled over the past decade. And many homeless female veterans carry the burden of being single parents. This bill that I cosponsor sends a loud and clear message that homelessness among our veterans is unacceptable and intolerable. As I have stated in previous speeches, homelessness is thankfully no longer a hopeless situation. We have learned that permanent housing tied to supportive services, such as mental health care and job training, was the antidote to homelessness. Nevertheless, we must continually adjust our programs to meet the changing composition of homelessness. Before closing, I comment on a couple of other items that will help to prevent and end homelessness among our Nation's veterans. First, we must improve the coordination between the Department of Defense, DOD, and the VA. Specifically, DOD, and VA can prevent homelessness among veterans by improving discharge planning and coordination of the medical programs between the two Departments. Second, we must find ways to improve the integration of HUD-VASH programs with services that deliver job training, employment, education, and health care. Specifically, we need to integrate fully the Department of Labor's Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Program and programs run by the Department of Health and Human Services' Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness was reactivated to address the coordination between Federal agencies. It is my hope that the ICH will work within existing authorities to address the DOD and other service integration issues that I have raised, and come forward with specific recommendations for the Congress to consider. I also look forward to working with Senator Reed and others to address these issues as we move this bill through the legislative process. Again, I thank Senator Jack Reed for his leadership and commitment on issues related to housing, veterans, and national security. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I thank the ranking member, Senator Inhofe, for his support of the amendment. I thank the Chair for her kind words, even though we disagree. We, all three of us, strongly support the need to get highway funds moving to build the infrastructure we need in our transportation. This is a critical time. Right now our economy is struggling to recover from the worst recession in generations; hard-working Americans in my home State of Missouri and across the nation are losing their jobs; and our states are straining to fund projects that are critical to our constituents. Unfortunately, unless we act now, our economy, workers, and our States will be dealt another heavy blow. At the end of September, millions will be cut in on-going, shovel ready highway projects. That does not have to happen. This drastic cut will halt critical transportation projects--like the repair of highways and bridges--across the Nation. In addition to halting critical infrastructure projects, this cut will cost jobs in all 50 States. My amendment is the action we must take now to protect our struggling economy and protect jobs from this dangerous rescission. This amendment will protect our economy and workers by eliminating the $8.7 billion rescission of contract authority mandated in the last highway bill-- SAFETEA LU--for September 30, 2009. The reason for repealing this dangerous cut now is simple. We should not be giving money to States for infrastructure, jobs and economic growth with one hand and on September 30 taking money away with the other. This contradictory action just doesn't make any sense and runs counter to our own efforts to improve our Nation's infrastructure. According to our State departments of transportation, rescinding contract authority can limit our state's ability to fund their priorities and operate their programs as efficiently as possible. There are real world consequences for our States if we continue with these rescissions. The most obvious consequence will be a halt to much needed improvements to our Nation's infrastructure. I don't think I need to remind people of the state of our infrastructure around this country. If I do, then you simply aren't paying attention. We are beginning to burst at the seams, our vehicle miles traveled remain at historic highs, congestion rates are up with more and more people sitting in traffic next to trucks carrying products to and from businesses across the Nation. Our deteriorating infrastructure is a real problem and it is taking an economic toll at a time when we simply cannot afford more burdens on our system. Unfortunately, the real world consequences of this dangerous cut will be hardest on workers and families. The Missouri Department of Transportation estimates that this rescission would mean about $201 million in lost projects and countless pink slips in Missouri. Missouri is not alone. The numbers for other States are startling: California, $793 million; Pennsylvania, $404 million; New York, $406 million; Maryland, $140 million. But most importantly, behind these numbers there are jobs. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials estimates that for every billion dollars rescinded, our States will miss out on nearly 33,000 jobs. If Senators were to contact their State's department of transportation they would quickly understand the full impact this rescission would have back at home. I urge my colleagues to do that before voting. In fact, let's hear from some State DOT directors on the real effect this recession will have back at home. Colorado Director of Transportation Russell George stated that the upcoming $8.7 billion rescission will cost the State $98.7 billion: that could have otherwise been obligated and out the door helping to employ hard working Coloradoans and providing important infrastructure projects to the State. This real dollar cut is about 20 percent of the total federal funds Colorado receives each year. The Department of Transportation director in Nevada, Susan Martinovich, said that the upcoming rescission of $61 million represents 25 percent of the State's annual $236 million Federal aid allocation and that she would be forced to cancel $48 million of projects that are already under construction, having a ``devastating effect'' on workers. We have kicked the can down the road on this rescission for far too long. Right now, with this amendment, is our last opportunity to do what is best for our economy, American workers, and our States by repealing this rescission. I know that I don't want to go back to my State having voted against so many jobs for Missouri. Repealing this rescission will allow States to continue to move forward to meet our infrastructure needs and to create the jobs that struggling families and this economy so desperately needs. I also have a letter of support from Americans for Transportation Mobility. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND. For the Record, this is composed of the American Public Transportation Association; American Road and Transportation Builders Association; Associated Equipment Distributors; Association of Equipment Manufacturers; Associated General Contractors; American Society of Civil Engineers; International Union of Operating Engineers; Laborers International Union of North America; National Asphalt Pavement Association; National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America; and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Madam President, our distinguished chairman of the committee has said if this bill is amended, it will fail because the House of Representatives may not take it. But as the ranking member pointed out, they are still in session. If we believe this is right, accept the Bond amendment, pass this bill as amended, send it to the House, give them the chance to do what is right. Our job is to make sure we get this business right before we go home on August recess. If the House refuses to take it, they will have to go home and spend all next week explaining why they are at home instead of having passed a bill that could have had workers on highway and bridge projects working at home. They should be asked, if they go home, if they refuse to pass it: Why did you leave early? The Senate is still in session. You could have stayed there and gotten rid of the rescission that will cut jobs. There is, I guess, going to be a Budget Act point of order raised against this bill. I will, of course, ask to waive the Budget Act point of order. I would note that if you are going to take budget points of order seriously, this whole bill could be challenged on a Budget Act point of order. I will not do that because I want to see this done. But let's be clear: This so-called money for this bill comes in from going back and assuming interest was paid on the intergovernmental transfers. We do not do that. That is totally bogus. That is a pencil- whipping trick that I do not believe anybody would honestly score. That is the problem with the whole bill itself, not just with my amendment. If you want to be serious about paying for this bill, and my amendment, the Vitter amendment, it is very simple: We can rescind a small amount of money, a small portion of the stimulus bill that was passed, and less than only 10 percent has been used. That money we can use to put people to work on shovel-ready projects, make sure the work goes on that otherwise would be cut off by an artificial September 30 date. I hope my colleagues will support the waiver of the point of order on the budget amendment. Because if you do not, quite simply, to put it in terms we are using every day, if we fail to repeal the rescission, we will be taking the shovels out of hands of workers ready to go to work on shovel-ready projects. That is not something I wish to go home and explain to the people of my State. I do not think Senators and Members of the House would want to go home and explain to the people or the constituents in their areas that they represent. I call up my amendment.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, if I could have the attention of my colleagues, please, this measure simply ends the rescission in the SAFETEA-LU highway funding bill we passed 4 years ago which otherwise takes $8.7 billion out of highway and bridge contract authority for the States. Best estimates are that this would cost 250,000 jobs in all 50 States. To the argument that we have to take this exactly as the House has passed it because they won't stick around--well, they are in session. If this is right, let's do it. And for the Budget Act point of order, if you wanted to have this paid for, you should have taken the Vitter amendment. The underlying bill requires the Budget Act point of order waived because it is funded by claiming the nonexistent interest on intergovernmental transfers. That is a transparent sleight of hand or a sleight of pen. If you want to keep from taking the shovels out of the hands of workers on shovel-ready jobs in every State in the Nation, please vote aye on the waiver of the Budget Act point of order.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, do I have any time?

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Bond pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 224 are located in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to submit a resolution with Senator Inouye recognizing one of the most important, but often overlooked, nations in the world: Indonesia. Just this past week, Secretary of State Clinton, our former colleague, journeyed to a meeting of the Southeast Asia nations in Thailand and pledged greater and increased American involvement in support of the region. I applaud her. She is definitely on the right track. Many Americans are not aware of the fact, but Indonesia is the third largest democracy in the world after India and the United States. Early this month, I came to the Senate floor to recognize and celebrate yet another democratic milestone in Indonesia: the reelection of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, known for obvious reasons as SBY. His victory will quicken the pace of democratic reform that has been keeping Indonesia moving in the right direction. SBY's first tenure as President was a success. His choice to select Boediono as his running mate has raised expectations of accelerated reform for a second term in office. The duo has campaigned on a ticket of clean governance and reforms to promote broad-based economic growth. In addition to the democratic politics, Indonesia's religious leanings also trend very positive. By and large, Indonesians reject violent brands of Islam. The Nation was founded on the principles of what is known as Pancasilla, or respect for religious and cultural diversity and the desire to create a pluralistic society, and as a country with the largest Muslim population in the world, Indonesians are also proud to showcase that Islam and democracy are compatible and can work together. But despite the moderate, peaceful-loving population of Indonesia, groups such as Jemaah Islamiyah and Abu Sayyaf are still seeking to spread Islamist terror and their extremist ideologies across Indonesia and Southeast Asia, often resulting in violence and death. The world was shocked and saddened over the most recent terrorist violence just this past week. Early on the morning of July 17, suicide bombers attacked two hotels in Jakarta, Indonesia, killing innocent people and injuring scores more. The latest terrorist attack should be a wake-up call. The twin suicide attacks in Jakarta last Friday underscore the perils of our Nation continuing to ignore this nation and this region. The dangers of continuing down our current path are very real. By overlooking this region, Southeast Asia could become a breeding ground of terrorist activity for generations and for future Americans to deal with. If left ignored, Southeast Asia and Indonesia will be the next front in the war on terror. It doesn't have to be this way. It is critical that the United States act now, before violent extremists gain traction in their quest to spread their fundamentalist ideologies enforced by violent terrorist acts across Indonesia and other countries in Southeast Asia. This effort requires first that the United States do more than give lipservice to Southeast Asian countries about our strong partnership. Yes, counterterrorism cooperation is very important, but for many nations in Southeast Asia, they see this partnership as, once again, the United States only asking for self-serving help, coming when we see a danger to our country but not coming to find out what their needs and what their desires are. If we want nations in Southeast Asia to be strong partners in the war on terror, we must also be willing to extend a hand of friendship in other ways, assuring that they are strong, stable democracies with economic strength and good jobs and progress for their people. The first thing we must do is increase trade among our nations. Southeast Asia, including nations such as Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, and many smaller countries, represents our fifth largest trading partner. While this will help create economic opportunities in our own Nation to export to them, it will also help many poverty-stricken people in Southeast Asia as we buy from them, as we invest there, as we create businesses that will generate small and medium enterprises to fill the needs of those businesses and create locally owned and controlled entrepreneurships that can benefit their country in many ways. People who are hungry, without a job, or maybe even a roof over their head, are particularly vulnerable to ideologies that promise a better way of life, whether or not those ideologies deliver. The United States must realize that before a person can choose his politics, he has to have enough to eat and a stable, secure community in which to live. That is the simple truth behind Smart Power--a term I use to describe the combination of military might where necessary with diplomatic efforts, educational exchanges, economic development, and more personal interaction. We need this in Southeast Asia. I believe Smart Power is an effective way to fight radical ideologies that use terrorist attacks against their own government and freedom-loving people elsewhere. This was recognized by General Petraeus and by President Bush when the President authorized him to institute the counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, which means not only do we go in and clear an area of al-Qaida, but we stay there to make sure al-Qaida doesn't come back, and we then work with those provinces, with those areas, with the local governments and the local leaders, to build the infrastructure they need to help them get the health care to do things that are important to build a strong community. In Al-Anbar, for example, a Sunni region that had been a major concern for the United States, one of the first things the Marines did in 2007 was rebuild the Sunnis' Blue Mosque, one of the most important mosques in the region. This is the kind of effort we need to make in those areas where we are not actively fighting. We have the military might to support those countries in their battle against terrorist activities when they pick up, to fight against piracy that might occur off their shores. As vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, a member of the Defense and State Foreign Operations Committee, I am working with my colleagues to ensure that Congress provides the resources and policy initiatives needed to expand the use of Smart Power. For instance, we must increase the number of Peace Corps volunteers and Foreign Service officers. We must encourage more young Americans to volunteer to serve in that region, more businesspeople to visit there and seek opportunities where they can help those countries and help us at the same time. It sounds simple, but I believe by putting more American sandals and sneakers on the ground, we can avoid sending in American combat troops later. I saw firsthand the payoff of Smart Power when several Southeast Asian nations--particularly Indonesia--were devastated by the tsunami in December of 2004. The month after that disaster, I traveled to Southeast Asia with representatives of the U.S. Government, Deputy Secretary of Defense, our Ambassador. We visited the tsunami-ravaged areas and met with representatives from the relief organizations. We saw the tremendous benefits that the volunteer NGOs--nongovernment organizations--and the American military brought by bringing fresh water, bringing medical supplies, bringing food to the region, and helping to clear areas. Our military and volunteers from our embassy and elsewhere in the region helped avert what I think would have been tens of thousands more deaths. We met with the Indonesian Government officials, and they were absolutely deeply grateful for our help in providing clean drinking water and food, emergency evacuations, medical help, and rebuilding. This kind of assistance the United States provided in that short time created an unmatched outpouring of goodwill for America and an appreciation from other countries who helped, such as Singapore and Australia. Unfortunately, after the flood waters receded, so, too, did America's Smart Power engagement in the region. The recent attacks of terrorist organizations--probably Jemaah Islamiyah in Jakarta--should be a wake- up call that it is past time to reinvest in the region and quit ignoring the dangers of failing to do so. President Obama, in condemning the terrorists' actions, highlighted this danger when he said: These attacks make it clear that extremists remain committed to murdering innocent men, women and children of any faith in all countries. The President got it absolutely right. The war against terror is far from over, and the battles are not confined to the Middle East. Freedom-loving nations must continue to fight terrorists not just in the border regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan, but also in the jungles and countless islands of Southeast Asia. More than just a call to arms, however, these attacks should serve as a deadly reminder that the war against extremism and insurgency cannot be won by military might alone. Many top military and intelligence leaders say military action is no more than 20 percent--or maybe even 10 percent--of the effort we should expand to ensure stability in governments that are friendly. In order to be truly successful, the United States must focus the weight of the effort on the ideological front, reaching would-be terrorists before they turn violent. Today I have a resolution that recognizes the importance of Indonesia, but it is just a small and symbolic step. We must do more. I hope my colleagues will think about this region and about the points I have made. America must wise up and make Smart Power initiatives a cornerstone of our foreign policy and our efforts to combat terrorism, extremism, deadly murder, and attacks around the world, in our country, and elsewhere. The best place to start is in Southeast Asia.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an amendment that I am cosponsoring with my friend and fellow cochair of the Senate National Guard Caucus, Senator Leahy. We will be introducing a bipartisan amendment to strengthen one of our Nation's most important military and civilian resources, the National Guard. The National Guard, as I think everybody in this body knows, has a long and proud history of contributing to America's military operations abroad while providing vital support and security to civil authorities at home. Since September 11, 2001, our citizen soldiers and airmen have taken on greater responsibilities and risk, from fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to providing critical disaster assistance in the United States. Now we see the tremendous value of the National Guard forces every time we look as they confront terrorists, provide critical support in unique areas such as Afghanistan where the agribusiness development teams are working to help provide agricultural know-how and better income to the farmers of Afghanistan, to areas where they provide water, food, and health supplies to victims of natural disasters. Furthermore, the Guard is a tremendous value for the capability it provides our Nation. It provides 40 percent of the total military force for around 4.5 percent of the budget. In other words, the Guard provides tremendous bang for the buck. There is no doubt today we are asking more from the men and women of the National Guard than ever before, often at great cost to their families and their own lives. I think this means we have a heavy responsibility to support our citizen soldiers and airmen in their unique dual mission of developing military support abroad and providing homeland defense stateside. While serving abroad, National Guard troops serve under Air Force and Army Commands in what is known as title 10 status, which refers to the section in the U.S. Code dealing with the military. But when the Guard operates at home, they serve under the command and control of the Nation's Governors in title 32 status. I had the honor of serving as commander in chief of the Missouri National Guard for 8 years. I can tell you that Missouri has a wide range of natural and sometimes human disasters ranging from tornadoes and floods to blizzards and ice storms. I called out the Guard for every single one of those and several more I probably cannot even remember: threatened prison insurrections, other civil disobedience, to tracking down escapees from prison. Right after Katrina--I think it was about a year after Katrina--I visited Jefferson Barracks, MO, where one of our National Guard engineer units is stationed. They told me proudly that when Katrina hit, they immediately sent one of their National Guard battalions to Katrina. They had all the equipment, the high-wheeled vehicles, the communications equipment. They did such a wonderful job, the adjutant general of Louisiana called and said: You have two more battalions; send us another one. They said: That is where the problem comes in. We only have equipment for one out of three battalions. The Guard was one-third resourced. We could have sent them down there in tennis shoes and a taxicab, but they needed the equipment that an engineer battalion has to deal with the problems of the aftermath of the floods and the hurricane. I think there is a lot more we can do to make this unique arrangement work more smoothly. The Guard will continue to play a critical role in response to another natural disaster or, heaven forbid, terrorist attack. To the men and women of the National Guard, we say: Thank you for that support. But more needs to be done. The amendment we are introducing today to strengthen the Guard consists of two planks which are designed, first, to increase the Guard's voice inside the Pentagon and, second, to clarify how the Federal military support to civil authorities will occur here at home. We would give the Chief of the National Guard more muscle in the Pentagon, providing a seat for him on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. With 40 percent of the force, one would think that big a portion of our total military capability would deserve to sit with the outstanding leaders of the Army, the Air Force, the Marines, and others who are there. One would think this large a segment of our force would be represented. When we have big decisions on the future of our resource allocation for the military--title X and, in this case, also title XXXII--they ought to be at the table. Last year--I thank my colleagues--we successfully authorized the promotion of the Chief of the National Guard to the rank of four-star general in last year's empowerment legislation. Additionally, this year's empowerment amendment will make certain that the Chief of the National Guard Bureau has a Vice Chief in the grade of lieutenant general. When you are dealing with that many problems, there is a major operation that needs to be handled by a deputy to the four-star Chief of the National Guard. It is critical to the day-to-day operations of the National Guard Bureau and to ensure the Guard is adequately represented inside the Pentagon. This amendment will also fill the gaps between civilian and military emergency response capabilities. We would give the National Guard Bureau, in consultation with the States' adjutant generals, budgetary power to identify, validate, and procure equipment essential to their unique domestic missions so they will be better prepared to respond to emergencies here at home. The next time they call for a second engineer battalion, I hope we have the equipment to send one to whatever State or maybe our own State where they are needed. The amendment also supports the designation of National Guard general officers as commanders of Army North and Air Force North commands. This will ensure unity of effort and of command between the National Guard in the 54 States and territories and the very important U.S. North command which protects the United States in the continental United States. Finally, our amendment gives State Governors tactical control of Federal troops responding to emergencies inside their State or territory. Time and time again, we have seen Reserve units stationed within close proximity to a natural or manmade disaster forced to stand by and watch when they could have been assisting injured victims in preventing loss of property. This amendment ensures that all available military forces be utilized as early as possible in an emergency situation. This way, our State leaders can act more quickly and decisively to mitigate disasters at home. Our citizen soldiers stand ready to defend the Nation, secure our homeland from natural disasters and terrorist attacks, and are now fighting overseas in the war on terror. Neither the homeland response nor the Federal military support missions of the Guard are likely to diminish in importance at any time in the foreseeable future. In fact, the need for the National Guard is greater now than ever before. Now more than ever, as budgets are constrained and entitlements continue to grow at alarming rates, we should not be looking to reduce the Guard but, rather, fully to man and equip it. We have a responsibility to give the Guard the equipment, resources, and bureaucratic muscle they need to meet their critical dual mission. In order to do so, it is imperative we strengthen the decisionmaking capability of Guard leaders within the Department of Defense and make sure they are at the table. As one former leader of the Guard said: If you want us in on the big plays, at least let us in the huddle when you are planning to call those plays. That is what this amendment does. I thank my colleagues for their past support of the Guard. I join with Senator Leahy in asking for continued support of the National Guard by voting for this amendment. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 1597

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a very recent event that is important to the United States and which should have received a lot greater publicity than it did. I know the occupant of the chair, who is from Alaska, understands the importance of Southeast Asia to our economy and to security for the world. This is where the event took place. On July 8, the people of Indonesia elected democratically their second democratically elected president, Susilio Bambang Yudoyono. For obvious reasons, he is known by the initials SBY. He enjoyed a victory, according to preliminary results by the national election commission, of 62 percent of the vote, based on more than 18.7 million ballots counted. He needed 50 percent of the ballots to win in one round. His challengers, former President Megawati Sukarnoputri, came in second, with 28 percent, and his previous vice president, Jusuf Kalla, finished third with 10 percent. We will have an official result released by the election commission by July 27. I think it is very clear that SBY won an overwhelming election. This would put Mr. Yudhoyono well over the 50-percent threshold to avoid a second-round runoff. Those who watch Southeast Asia believe that such an emphatic election victory for a man who became the democratically elected President 5 years ago will cement his position, quicken the pace of reform, and strengthen the country that is very important to that region and, thus, to the United States. Mr. Yudhoyono rose under the dictator Suharto, who was forced out 11 years ago after more than three decades in power, to a position in the army, where he was a general. But when he became President, he set aside his military uniform and took on civilian garb. He is a liberal who provided much needed stability. Despite the challenges of dismal infrastructure and 30 million Indonesians living below the poverty line, a country that extends through some 17,000 islands at low water, and 13,000 islands at high tide level, it is a country that is the largest Muslim country in the world. A population of 240 million people makes it the fifth largest country in the world. It has 90 percent of its population as Muslims. So this is the key to dealing with a Muslim nation. Mr. Yudhoyono is credited with bringing economic prosperity with an economy set to grow even in the face of the global downturn, expected to grow by 4 percent this year. Independent observers declared that the Presidential election was largely free and fair, despite an accusation of fraud by his opponents. There is no evidence of that, and we believe it was a free election. It is key to our national interest because it is the keystone for Southeast Asia. Southeast Asia includes a number of countries, perhaps better known to the United States--Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, and many smaller countries. It is the fifth largest trading partner of the United States. On top of that, it controls the Strait of Malaka, through which about 50 percent of the world's oil supply travels. It is also an area which offers tremendous opportunity for economic growth for them and increased trade and economic benefits to the United States. SBY was a general in the national army during the last decade of the Suharto years. During that time, fortunately, he attended the International Military Education Training Institute at Fort Leavenworth, KS. There, leaders of friendly countries come to learn from our military how a military should operate in the modern era where military is under civilian control, where human rights and individuals are respected, where the army does not control the political process, where the army is subordinate to and the protector of the population, rather than one which runs the population. During his first tenure, as I said, he faced many challenges, and they were successful. He chose as his running mate Mr. Boediono, who we believe raises expectations of accelerating reform in the second term of SBY. Boediono is a technocrat with no party affiliation. He possesses an impeccable track record for clean governance. He is an advocate, as is SBY, of market-led growth, with government acting as an impartial regulator rather than a state actor. The duo campaigned on a ticket of clean governance and reform to promote broad-based economic growth. This was a vote by the predominantly Muslim country for a moderate prodemocratic path that Indonesia has already taken. They still face many challenges--not just poverty--with the economic problems in the country. They face a long tradition of corruption that has to be dealt with. SBY has taken steps to deal with that and needs to take more steps. They also face the challenge from radical Islamists who want to establish Sharia law, a government by theocracy rather than by a popularly elected, constitutionally governed government. I will speak more about that in a minute. Let me give you a little taste of the rest of it. His closest rival, Megawati Sukarnoputri, was the daughter of Sukarno, Indonesia's founding father. Ms. Megawati failed to impress voters during her term as President from 2001 to 2004, and she partnered with a general who was indicted for human rights abuse and was a former son-in-law of a previous authoritarian dictator. They ran a nationalistic campaign that was rejected by the voters of Indonesia. The third ticket, comprised of current Vice President Jusuf Kalla and a former chief of the army, Wiranto, championed a similar ideological platform, with the difference being that Jusuf Kalla was a link between big national businesses and the government, which we thought he would probably enhance. This sets up an opportunity for the United States. We are dealing with a very important Islamic country. I believe that it is time for us to realize this is an area where we can make significant progress, if we learn how to work with and provide significant support to a democratically elected head of an Islamic country, who wants to move on the path toward greater economic ties, free from corruption, open to trade and business. I happen to have laid all this out in a book called ``The Next Front,'' coauthored with Lewis Simons, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter. It will be published by Wiley Books in October. We call it ``The Next Front'' because what people did not realize until recently was that, after 9/11, one of the indigenous terrorist groups in Indonesia, Jema Islamia, which we will call JI, was a close ally of al- Qaida, and still is. That is a terrorist organization that has spread from Indonesia into the Philippines, and potentially other parts of Asia. The leader of JI was tasked by al-Qaida with carrying out the second attack following 9/11, which was to be on Los Angeles. Fortunately, our CIA, by aggressive tactics and military tactics, prevented that attack. There is still a real danger to not only peace and stability and progress in Southeast Asia, but to the security of the United States, unless we ensure that a government such as Yudhoyono's manages to provide security and prevent the development of terrorist training areas and agencies, where they are willing and able to carry out operations, disrupt terrorist organizations. In ``The Next Front,'' we argue, as I have, that the best way to do that is through significantly increasing contact between the United States and those governments that are dealing with those problems, that are on the wrong track, which have the potential to provide security and peace and prosperity for their own homeland. When they have too many young males who cannot find a job, they are often lured by the radical religious extremists into the terrorist organizations and convinced to undertake terrorist attacks on Americans, on democratically elected governments. We believe that steps that were taken yesterday in the Foreign Operations Committee, under the able leadership of Chairman Leahy, to put us on the path to increasing significantly the assistance and the contact we have with Southeast Asia. We increased to $65 million the amount of economic support fund assistance. They also instituted other programs to provide more assistance for Peace Corps. An expansion of the Peace Corps is one way to get American sandals on the ground now, so that we don't have to put American boots on the ground later. Smart Power says that when you are faced with a radical, violent extremist group like al-Qaida, or the Taliban, which we face in Afghanistan and Pakistan now, you have to use force to deal with them. At the same time you are using force, you must build up the economy and meet the needs of the local leaders, so that they will work with the forces who are trying to drive the extremists out. That was the secret to the success of General Petraeus in Iraq with the counterinsurgency strategy, who said we will not only clear an area but we will go in and hold it and build, looking to local leaders to tell us what they are doing. My son, who is a marine, an intel officer who served two tours there, said the first time he was there they couldn't get support from the local government because they were getting no assistance from Baghdad. They were Sunnis in Fallujah. The government in Baghdad was not Sunni; they were Shia, and they didn't provide assistance. The second time, the counterinsurgency and our government were working through the popularly elected Iraqi Government to provide support and assistance to the Sunnis in Fallujah. They were able to cooperate and provide assistance and make sure they kept that area safe. We are trying to do the same thing now in Afghanistan. I am proud that the Missouri National Guard is leading the way, along with 10 other States' national guards, and we are sending over agricultural development teams to help the local farmers develop a more effective means of producing crops. We saw, last year, in Kandahar province, where the Missouri National Guard operated for 1 year. They started producing much more high-valued crops. As a result, they no longer needed to produce the poppies needed by the drug lords to manufacture cocaine and dope and opium. They were able to drive the poppy producers--put them into productive use and take the drug lords out, and the Taliban which normally follows them. This is working in Afghanistan. In areas where we have peaceful governments that are threatened by extremist groups, it makes sense that we increase economic assistance but primarily personal assistance--one-on-one assistance from American volunteers going there--economic assistance, encouraging American firms to invest there, to help them develop small- and medium-sized enterprises; opening up free trade so their products can come into the United States so we can trade with them and so they can build their economies. We need significantly to increase educational exchanges between our countries and theirs. I mentioned earlier that President Yudhoyono had served in the IMET Program at Fort Leavenworth. I first met him as President--well, I met him before--when I went to Indonesia after the tsunami in Bugatchi, and we talked about the work we were doing to help them recover from that tragic event. But I also extended an invitation for him to come to Webster University in St. Louis, MO, from which he had also gotten a degree. They gave him an honorary degree, and I was pleased to introduce him when he came to St. Louis to Webster University. His is just one of hundreds, thousands, millions of examples where we have helped develop leaders in countries with which we are allied and which can be even stronger allies. They could take the information we develop, take the learning and the skills we have, and provide the assistance they need to strengthen their country, to provide not only security but a good livelihood for their people so there will no longer be unemployed young men who are willing to take blood money from the terrorists in exchange for a pittance for their family to conduct terrorist attacks. We think we have a great opportunity not only in Indonesia, following these steps--expanding on the Smart Power that has been used in Iraq, is now being used in Afghanistan--to show that people who work with the United States can expect not domination but help in establishing their own free country, their own democratically elected principles, respect for human rights, and a respect for religious differences so that we respect Muslims and they respect Christians and Jews and Buddhists and Hindus. That was the original idea of the country of Indonesia when it was founded in the 1940s. They laid out the principles of Pancasila--in which we recognize diversity; we recognize there are different religions; we will learn from and tolerate differences, particularly in religion. We have a challenge facing us in Indonesia and others where extremists want to establish shariah law, which has mullahs and ayatollahs who prescribe very harsh penalties for women who step out of place, who appear without total cover in broad daylight, where anybody who commits a violent crime is either thrashed or has a hand cut off or is put to death. This kind of backward approach to maintaining law and order is a threat to the civilized world and progress as we know it. In Indonesia, we have the opportunity to move forward, and I congratulate the people of Indonesia. I particularly congratulate Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Vice President Boediono on their election--reelection--on July 8, and we look forward to seeing the final results certified on July 27. I hope I will have the support of my colleagues for the robust foreign operations support for Smart Power. It is the wave of the future. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today in the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee we heard about some good things going on in South Asia and the new strategy for both Afghanistan and Pakistan to bring military and civilian efforts into that region. I understand the Armed Services Committee has just approved the nomination of LTG Stanley McChrystal, an ex-commander of the international security forces, the final senior-level military position in the theater. The dedicated members of the American military, our intelligence professionals and State Department officials continue to serve our country well, but it is essential that the efforts of each be woven together to form a comprehensive strategy that will not only win the battle but win the war. This will take senior leaders of great vision in all areas of our government. Last November I reached out to many of these leaders when I sent then President-elect Obama and his national security team my report on the way forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan. President Obama has taken many of the steps I outlined, steps that are critical to our long-term success in the region. Earlier this year the President appointed a special envoy for the region who will oversee the implementation of the new strategy and he appointed a new ambassador to Afghanistan, who will focus the efforts of U.S. Government agencies in country. With General Petraeus firmly in place as the CENTCOM commander and the recent nomination of LTG Stanley McChrystal as the next commander of International Security Forces, Afghanistan--COMISAF--the President will have filled the senior-most military and civilian positions in-theater. I recently met personally with General McChrystal to talk about our way forward in the region and to listen to his ideas on Afghanistan and Pakistan. I must say I was impressed. He is not only a dedicated and accomplished soldier who has years of combat and counterterrorism experience, he is also an effective leader who understands the critical challenges we face in the region. More importantly, he understands that the war will not be won with military might alone--that to win this war we must combine the outstanding work of our military with effective diplomatic and economic efforts. A true counterinsurgency--or COIN--strategy, one that wins the hearts and minds of the local population and gains grassroots support for development and governance efforts, includes an effective public diplomacy campaign. General McChrystal not only understands the importance of good public diplomacy, he is dedicated to ensuring that our actions on the ground speak as loudly for our intentions as do our information efforts. That is part of what I call ``smart power''-- combining diplomatic, economic, informational and military efforts. I have seen first-hand the success of these smart power efforts. In Nangarhar Province, the Missouri National Guard Agriculture Development team gained the trust and cooperation of the local leaders. These Missourians have given Afghans in Nangarhar the skills they need to grow and harvest legitimate and sustainable crops. As a result, Afghan farmers are not only improving their own lives and land, but poppy production in the region has virtually been eliminated. I am confident that General McChrystal will support increased focus and investment in smart power efforts such as these. General McChrystal understands how critical putting an ``Afghan face'' on our combat operations is to our ultimate success. I was pleased that when we talked about accomplishing this goal by improving our efforts to train the Afghan National Army and Police, General McChrystal acknowledged the Afghan component is essential to any successful COIN strategy. Years of special operations experience has led him to know inherently how important it is to have the populace gain confidence in its own government institutions. Having met with the general in Iraq and seen the good work he did there, having watched his work on the Joint Staff, and having spoken with him at length over the past several weeks, I can unequivocally state that he is the kind of officer who intends to do just this--build public trust in Afghanistan. Just look at his testimony. According to the general, more intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) is good not only because it gives you a better understanding of the battle space, but also because it increases precision which ultimately reduces civilian casualties. Reducing civilian casualties is a must and will gain trust in Afghanistan. General McChrystal also believes that corruption is ``one of the things that must be reduced for the government to be legitimate, and therefore for the people to trust it.'' The general intends for us to partner with Afghans at every level to help them rid or reduce the widespread corruption because it has a corrosive effect on the legitimacy of the government and is perceived by the Afghan people to be a real problem. This will also gain trust in Afghanistan. Finally, he believes it is important that we succeed in Afghanistan not only because it removes access to safe havens for al-Qaida and associated groups, but because it is the right thing to do. According to the general's testimony, ``we have the ability to--to support the people of Afghanistan and to move and to shape a better future that they want. And I think that that will make a difference in how we are viewed worldwide.'' This gains trust in general. Everything I have seen or heard about Lieutenant General McChrystal, from my conversations with him and from his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, his impeccable record of military command and operations, to the comments of his fellow officers, tells me that Stan McChrystal will be a wise, measured, and excellent commander of our operations in Afghanistan. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this nomination without delay so General McChrystal can get on the ground. I thank the Chair, and I particularly thank my distinguished colleague from Utah.