Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, July 26, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Charles W. Grim to be Director of the Indian Health Service. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it means if the most serious threat to our country exists from a terrorist organization that has rebuilt and regenerated its capability to attack us in our homeland--and that is what our National Intelligence Estimate tells us--it means homeland security is ever more important and the investments in that homeland security, in the accounts such as port security, aviation security, border security, are so unbelievably important. That is why I called this bill ``urgent.'' There is an urgency about passing this bill because of this serious threat.

Mr. DORGAN. This bill is the Homeland Security Appropriations bill which provides the kinds of protections that we need for the threats and attacks against our homeland. When I describe what the National Intelligence Estimate last week said was the most serious threat to our country, I described that that threat comes from those who will attempt to cross our borders. Therefore, this bill has border security.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, the two legislators who bring this bill to the floor of the Senate are serious and thoughtful legislators. Senator Byrd and Senator Cochran have been around this place for some while. They have been on the Appropriations Committee. Both have chaired that committee. I am pleased to be here to support their work. I think this is a very important subcommittee and one that funds critically important programs for this country. But I want to say that unlike other subcommittees on Appropriations--one of which I chair and will hopefully bring that bill to the floor of the Senate--this subcommittee's actions and this subcommittee's product represent an urgency for this country. We probably don't say that about every subcommittee because we need to fund the things we need to do, but this is urgent. I want to describe why it is urgent. I come from a small town of 300 people in the southwestern corner of my State. I was thinking as I was sitting here waiting to speak, this is called homeland security. If, in fact, this were a decision and deliberation by my hometown and the subject was hometown security and we knew what the most serious threat to our town was, we would go find that threat and try to eliminate it. I want to tell you why I believe it is an urgent circumstance to pass this legislation. My colleague from Washington described the National Intelligence Estimate of last week. I am going to talk about that just a bit before I talk about the funding of the accounts in this legislation that is so important to fighting terrorism--that is providing security for our ports and security in aviation, law enforcement, border protection, and so on. Last week the National Intelligence Estimate was provided to us, both in a classified and an unclassified version. Here is what it said, in part: Al-Qaida is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the homeland . . . we assess the group has protected or regenerated key elements of its homeland attack capability, including: A safe haven in the Pakistan federally administered tribal areas, operational lieutenants, and its top leadership. Let me say that again. The National Intelligence Estimate says to us the greatest threat, the most serious terrorist threat to the homeland--that means the most serious threat to the United States of America and to our homeland--is an organization called al-Qaida. They have protected or regenerated key elements of their homeland attack capability, including a safe haven in the Pakistan federally administered tribal areas. That is a different subject on which I spoke about recently. There ought not be 1 square inch of ground on this planet that would be safe for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. Six years after 9/11, there ought not be 1 square inch on this entire planet Earth that is a safe haven or protected secure hideaway for the greatest or most serious threat to our country. This should not be a surprise to us, the National Intelligence Estimate. We have been reading the accounts. This is from June 26, Jonathan Landay from the McClatchy Bureau: While the U.S. presses its war against insurgents linked to al-Qaida in Iraq, Osama bin Laden's group is recruiting, regrouping and rebuilding in a new sanctuary along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, senior U.S. military and intelligence and law enforcement officials said. The threat from the radical Islamic enclave in Waziristan is more dangerous than that from Iraq, which President Bush and his aides call the central front in the war on terrorism, said some current and former U.S. officials and experts. A month or two prior to that, senior leaders of al-Qaida operating from Pakistan over the past year have set up a band of training camps in tribal regions near the Afghan border, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials. American officials said there was mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his deputy al Zawahiri had been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of north Waziristan.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about the reauthorization of the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act of 1978, which is reauthorized in conjunction with the Higher Education Act. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I have been working closely with the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to ensure that amendments enhancing tribal colleges and universities are included in S. 1642, the Higher Education Reauthorization Act. Title IX of S. 1642 reauthorizes the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act of 1978 and includes a new title to authorize Department of the Interior funding for institutional operations of the two tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions: United Tribes Technical College and Navajo Technical College. Funding authorized under the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act is essential as it provides the resources necessary for these institutions to continue to provide high quality, culturally relevant higher education opportunities for Indian students in Indian country. I have been a longtime supporter of the Nation's tribal colleges and universities because I see how they benefit both their communities and individual students. There are 34 tribal colleges and universities throughout the United States. My home State of North Dakota is fortunate to have five of these remarkable institutions. Tribal colleges and universities offer a wide range of accredited academic programs including many from areas of high need such as teacher education, business administration, and nursing. In addition to college level programming, tribal colleges and universities also offer much needed high school completion programs, job training, and college preparatory courses. These vital institutions are essential to their tribal communities, many of them serving as community centers, public libraries, tribal archives, career and business centers, economic development centers, public meeting places and child and elder care centers. Approximately 28,000 American Indian and Alaska Native students attend tribally controlled colleges and universities across the country. Tribal colleges are located in isolated, remote areas, with high unemployment rates where average family income is approximately $14,000.00--27 percent below the Federal poverty level. As a result, the cost of attending a mainstream institution, which for many reservation communities is several hours away, is prohibitively high, especially when tuition, travel, housing, textbooks, and other expenses are considered. Most students attending tribal colleges are the first generation in their family to go to college. American Indians who earn a bachelor's degree or higher can expect to earn two times as much as those with a high school diploma and four times as much as those with no high school diploma. Tribal colleges are proven agents of change and provide real hope for the future of their graduates and their tribal economies. I have been fortunate enough to hear from many American Indian students who have benefited from tribal colleges and universities, including one young woman who faced many challenges growing up on the Turtle Mountain Reservation in North Dakota. As a young child, this young woman often felt isolated at school, but realized at a very young age that education was the key to making a better life for herself and enriching her community. This belief stayed with her throughout a particularly challenging period of her life in which she dropped out of high school and became a mother. This series of events provided her with even more incentive to seek education, so she enrolled in the Turtle Mountain Tribal College. She loved college, excelled and has earned her Ph.D. Her story illustrates the important role tribal colleges play in lifting Indian children and young adults, who have faced so many obstacles and adversity in their lives, out of poverty and despair. In addition to the Tribal College Act reauthorization, S. 1642 reauthorizes a program for developing institutions under title III of the Higher Education Act specifically for the Nation's tribal colleges and universities. I fully support the adoption of the proposed changes that I believe will greatly enhance the tribal college's ability to provide higher education opportunities to their reservation communities. Lastly, I applaud all institutions that serve American Indian students but we need to make sure that the proposed new title III program for ``Native American-serving, nontribal institutions'' included in S. 1642 does not negatively impact the already limited funding available for tribal colleges and universities. I remain committed to finding ways to increase access to quality postsecondary opportunities for American Indian students and to further strengthen the capacity of tribal colleges. S. 1642 provides solid steps towards doing just that.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, a voice vote will be fine. I don't know if we are able to clear it now. I think it is cleared on our side. If it were cleared on your side, I think perhaps we could proceed to have it considered. Let me make a point. The Senator mentioned the microcredit issue. I have been in various parts of the world where they are using microcredit. In many ways, it is the same thing as microcredit in a different way--people with no collateral to be able to have some funding to advance themselves. The microcredit approach has been unbelievably successful, giving poor people the opportunity to buy needles for crocheting and bicycles for delivery services in various parts of the world. It was interesting the Senator referred to that. This approach allows a student who has no collateral of any type--all they have is promise, they have the promise of their capability to do better in life if they go to college--it allows them to get a loan to advance their interests. I think it is exactly the right thing. If we are able to consider that amendment now, I think it would be appropriate.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I join my colleague from New Mexico in commending Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for bringing this bill to the floor of the Senate. It is important legislation and one that I hope we will move to pass very quickly. This is about education. I don't know there is a subject much more important than education. H.G. Wells once said that human history becomes a race between education and catastrophe. Education is so unbelievably important. As I was sitting here, I was thinking about this amendment and about education and what it means to our country. I was thinking about something I have told my colleagues previously. The first week I served in the Congress, I served in the U.S. House of Representatives. I went to visit, then, the oldest man serving in the Congress. I read a lot about him and was interested in him. So I went to say hello, to greet him. His name was Claude Pepper from Florida. Claude Pepper was an old man by then but a vibrant man nonetheless. He had an office that was very much like a museum, full of history over the many decades. As I indicated before, one of the things I remember about that morning walking into Claude Pepper's office was seeing all of his memorabilia about his service. But I saw two things that struck me. They were behind his chair looking over his desk. There were two photographs. One was a photograph of December 17, 1903, Wilbur and Orville Wright making the first powered human flight to leave the surface of the Earth. It was autographed to Congressman Claude Pepper. Before Orville Wright died, he autographed this wonderful photograph of that little airplane in the wind in Kitty Hawk, NC, leaving the ground. It says: ``To Congressman Claude Pepper, with admiration. Orville Wright.'' I thought, this is interesting. I am speaking to a living man who has an autographed photograph of the first person to leave the ground. Beneath that was something just as interesting. It was Neil Armstrong setting foot on the Moon autographed ``To Claude Pepper, with admiration. Neil Armstrong.'' I thought, these pictures are only about 4 inches apart in frames, but what is the distance between these photographs? From 1903 to 1969, leaving the Earth for the first time in human-powered flight and then stepping on the surface of the Moon. What is that distance measured in? It is measured in education. It comes from this country's education system--knowledge, engineering, science, mathematics, the knowledge to build flying machines, to build rockets, to build Moon capsules. The basic knowledge comes from our school system, from your education system. I know we spend a lot of time in this country describing what is wrong with education. But the fact is, we are the ones who have split the atom and spliced genes. We are the ones who invented the telephone and the television and the computer. We are the ones who built airplanes and then learned to fly them, built rockets and walked on the surface of the Moon, all as a result of the foundation of learning and education. So the bill comes to the floor of the Senate today saying education is a priority, and it is, and we have some issues with education that we want to fix because we want to strengthen our educational system. It is not that our system is perfect, we know it is not. It needs to be strengthened and improved. With respect to higher education, we want to encourage every person in this country who has an urge to get a college degree, to go to a technical school, to go to a vocational school, to be able to advance their interests. In doing so, we offer a series of financial incentives. For those who have no money, we offer Pell grants. For those who have very little money, we offer Stafford loans and direct loans. And for those who perhaps do not qualify for the low-income components, they have other loan opportunities from private lenders to get the money to go to college. That is what we want in this country. We want every young child to grow up, and as they grow up, to become whatever their God-given talents can allow them to be. We don't want the brakes to exist for anybody. We want this to be an opportunity for everybody. I recall one day when my father came home for supper--and my father was a very successful man, very bright man, did very well in his life, but he only went through sixth grade in school because his mother died during childbirth and my father spent most of his time trying to raise some money and work and try to help his brothers and sisters, who had been farmed out to uncles and aunts and so on. So my dad had only a sixth grade education. I recall him coming home one day, never having told our family, and announcing at the supper table that he had just passed the GED. He had gotten his high school degree. He was somewhere in his fifties. He had gotten his high school degree. I will never forget the look on his face when he told us: I am a high school graduate. Got my GED. We didn't even know he was doing it, but he did. It meant the world to him because he had never gotten the opportunity to go beyond the sixth grade. And it means the world to a lot of people, in my judgment, to find out: What are my talents? What capabilities do I have? What are my interests to better myself? What kinds of things am I interested in, and where can I go to college? How can I finish school and then go to college and advance my opportunities? Well, that is what the legislation that is brought before us today offers us the opportunity to do, to advance those interests. We have done it in steps over many decades, and it is the difference, as the Senator from Wyoming said, it is the difference between this country and many others. There are many other countries where they separate these kids at an early age, and they say: Well, based on your track record, based on the way things look for you, you are going in this direction. You are not going to college. And based on the way things look, you are going here. They separate them and they channel kids. Not in this country. We want every single kid to have an opportunity to become whatever their God- given talents allow them to become. So the issue is funding for many kids because many young people don't have the money to go to college unless they get some help--Pell grants, Stafford loans, direct loans, and other loans. So we have programs that we have put together that provide that kind of assistance through the student loan process, and this bill, the underlying bill, strengthens programs to prepare students for college, and it takes important steps to help kids get to college and then make both kids and colleges accountable. Now, we have rising costs, as everyone knows. Every single parent knows that the costs for a college education are increasing dramatically. With respect to lending money for students going to college, we have discovered recently that there are some abusive lending practices, and this bill takes some steps to address those abusive practices. Some student lenders have undertaken to secure spots on what are called ``preferred lender lists.'' Some colleges, many colleges, have preferred lender lists. They put out a list that says: Here are the lenders from which you can get a guaranteed loan. There is a lot of money in this process for the lenders, and that is why the lenders are so anxious to be on these lists. My preference would be that we eliminate the lists altogether-- eliminate the preferred lender lists--but I don't think that is possible to get through this Chamber at this point, so I am going to do it in another way. I am going to address this in another way with the amendment I have just offered. The HELP Committee has done an admirable job in digging into this, as well as have, for example, some officials, the attorney general of New York, and others. The HELP Committee has put together some information about colleges and some colleges' financial aid officers soliciting favors, gifts, and financial assistance from lenders in exchange for putting that lender on a preferred list. Here is something that came from the HELP Committee that I noticed when I was looking at this issue. A Bank of America employee noted in an e-mail that Larry Burt, former Director of the University of Texas Office of Student Financial Aid, had requirements to get on the UT-preferred lender list. Again, it is very important to get on these lists for these companies that want to have lending opportunities to students. So here is someone who ran the University of Texas Student Financial Aid Office. This is a quote. Happy hour with UT loan department staff, staff luncheons, lunch and/or dinner with Larry Burt, parties for Larry's family--birthdays, et cetera--invitations to golf tournaments--expenses paid by lender--and free tickets to sports events. Larry loves tequila and wine--since becoming director at UT Austin, he has not had to buy any tequila or wine--lenders provide this to him on a regular basis. This was an e-mail from a Bank of America employee from a HELP report on marketing practices in the lending program. Not all lenders went along with these inappropriate demands. The HELP Committee investigation said Citibank did not go along with them because they deemed those requests to be inappropriate. And the very next year, apparently, with respect to this campus and Mr. Burt, Citibank was dropped from the UT-preferred lender list. Student Loan Xpress, another major lender, paid $21,000-plus for the chief financial officer at Johns Hopkins University to attend an executive doctorate program at the University of Pennsylvania after the financial aid officer sent the following lender an e-mail. This is the e-mail that went around from the financial aid officer at Johns Hopkins. I have been accepted to a doctoral program at Penn that begins in August. I am searching for \1/2\ tuition support-- know of any good scholarship programs?? I already know where to get loans--or, why don't you put me on retainer to EdLending. This is an e-mail from Dr. Ellen Frishberg, former Johns Hopkins University financial aid director. Once again, I think this is important information discovered by the HELP Committee. They began to investigate these issues. An investigation by New York attorney general Andrew Cuomo uncovered a revenue-sharing agreement between Citibank and Syracuse University. Citibank was paying Syracuse \1/2\ percent of the interest earned on student loans steered to the bank--a deal worth about $100,000 a year to the school. According to Attorney General Cuomo's investigation, during the last academic year, 98 percent of Syracuse students who took out loans went through Citibank. Just an unusual occurrence? Doesn't sound like it to me. Many lenders have invited college financial aid officers to serve on advisory boards, flying them around the country and various parts of the world and on harbor cruises. Now, why do lenders go through all this trouble? Well, the stakes are high. The student loan business is an $85 billion industry. It has grown 27 percent since 2001, and the lenders listed on the college's preferred lender list typically receive up to 90 percent of the loans taken out by students attending that institution. Again, these are guaranteed loans--guaranteed by the Federal Government. Lenders fight to get to the top of a list--of a preferred lender list--at a college. According to one survey, the first lender on the preferred list gets as much as 75 percent of the loan value. So this is big money to private interests that want to get government-guaranteed loans, move them out to students, and make a lot of money off those loans. Now, I know that the managers of the bill share my concerns. Senators Enzi, along with Alexander, Allard, Burr, Hatch, Isakson, Murkowski, and Roberts introduced legislation to ban preferred lender lists altogether. And Senator Kennedy has worked tirelessly to uncover and document abusive practices. I, frankly, would like to ban preferred lender lists altogether. We don't need preferred lender lists by colleges in which they describe who gets on the list and who gets to the top of the list. I don't think we ought to be doing that. But it is quite clear we can't ban those lists at the present time, so I am offering a different amendment. The bill before us addresses some of these practices by prohibiting payments, gifts, and other inducements that lenders give to colleges and student aid officers. The bill also forces schools to explain the rationale for selecting preferred lenders, and I think these are important steps. I don't diminish these steps at all. I am concerned that lenders will still do whatever they can do to get on those lists and get to the top of those lists. There are substantial incentives for abuse, and there is no evidence--there is no evidence at all--that the lenders on the preferred list actually offer the best deal to the students.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. DORGAN. As I was saying, there is no evidence that being on the list or put on the list by the college offers the students the best financial arrangement, and with the cost of college increasing at twice the rate of inflation, I think we need to make sure that students have access to affordable loans. So I offer an amendment that does the following: It will create a clearinghouse of student loans, both Federal and private loans. That clearinghouse will put students in the driver's seat, allowing them to search for a loan that offers the best deal, the best financial arrangements for them, whether that be the loan that has the lowest rate or the loan with the best borrower's benefits. This gives the students the opportunity to shop in an informed way for the best situation for themselves. This type of clearinghouse will create more competition in the student loan industry. I can't imagine that many students would go to this clearinghouse and pick the loan with the highest interest rate. This will empower students. It is not a new concept. In fact, some schools, including the University of North Dakota in my home State, are already directing students to Web sites that allow the students to search through dozens of loan options by themselves to pick the best terms. But creating a clearinghouse is not enough. We need to make certain that students know that it exists. My amendment would require schools to include a disclosure statement on their preferred lending list that lets students know that they might find a better deal by visiting the clearinghouse themselves. My amendment won't cost taxpayers a dime. The clearinghouse would be fully paid for by nominal fees that lenders would be charged in order to be listed in the clearinghouse. Finally, my amendment would direct the Government Accountability Office to issue a report to Congress about whether students have been able to use the clearinghouse and are using the clearinghouse, and it will examine whether students who chose to use one of the school's preferred lenders could have gotten a better rate--better financial arrangements--by visiting the clearinghouse had they done so. It is my hope this report will inform our future efforts in this area. If it becomes clear that students can do much better by visiting the clearinghouse than by going to preferred lenders, I think we ought to take a hard look at whether the preferred lenders ought to exist at all and whether we ought not in the future to prohibit a preferred lender list and develop, instead, a comprehensive clearinghouse that allows students to find the best arrangements for themselves. I believe this amendment will make the student loan industry more transparent and more accountable to students and their families who already struggle often to pay for these college expenses. So I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. I think it is a reasonable and measured approach to clean up some of the abusive practices and to empower students. Finally, again, I would have preferred to just end the preferred lending list, but that is not possible. So this is the step I think accomplishes some of the same goals by empowering students, and I hope the Senate will consider this favorably today. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, on Wednesday morning of this week, following a discussion and debate--and we had a fairly robust debate-- about the issue of Iraq and the war in Iraq, on Wednesday morning of this week, the President's Homeland Security Adviser, Frances Townsend, was on the ABC ``Good Morning America'' program, and she said some things about al-Qaida, about terrorists, that reminded me of a period several years ago, prior to the start of the Iraq war. It reminded me of being in a room where top secret, classified briefings are given to Members of Congress--briefings by the now Secretary of State, briefings by the Vice President, briefings by the head of the CIA. Condoleezza Rice, Mr. Tenet, Vice President Cheney, and others participated in these top secret briefings. They told us things in those top secret briefings leading up to the decision about the authorization to use force against Iraq. They told us things we now know not to have been true. Did they know that when they told us? I don't know. We now know, of course, that their claim that Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire yellow cake from Niger for nuclear weapons was bogus. Their claim that he was acquiring aluminum tubes to reconstitute a nuclear threat was not accurate. Their claim that he had mobile chemical weapons labs was not accurate. By the way, on that one, it only had a single source, a man we later learned who had the code name of ``Curve Ball.'' We also later learned that he was a fabricator and an alcoholic. Their claim was based on a single source we now discover to have been a fabricator. He was a former taxicab driver, for God's sake, in Baghdad. A single source gave rise to the description to the world and to this Congress in top secret, classified briefings that there were mobile chemical weapons laboratories in Iraq. The list of baseless or unsupported claims goes on. The reconstitution of nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction, connections with al-Qaida, we now know, of course, the facts were at odds with what we were being told about these and the other claims they used to support going to war. The reason I mention this is that at Wednesday's appearance by the President's Homeland Security Adviser, Frances Townsend, on the morning show on ABC, reminded me a bit of what we experienced several years ago from this administration. A description by Frances Townsend about terrorism and the terrorist threat and al-Qaida is completely, and was completely, at odds with what we know to be the truth. Let me go through a bit of what the President's Homeland Security Adviser said when she was being interviewed about the National Intelligence Report issued this week. First, the report said al-Qaida is rebuilding, retraining, and getting ready to strike in the United States again. In light of that report, Ms. Townsend was asked if she still believed the United States is winning the war against al-Qaida and terrorism. ``Absolutely,'' she said. ``Absolutely, we are winning.'' She was asked about Pakistan and, specifically, about allowing al- Qaida to have a safe haven in the country of Pakistan. She said: Well, it is a sovereign country, and the President of Pakistan has been a good partner in our war against terrorism. When asked, she said: The United States is ``safer'' today against al-Qaida because, she said: ``We have challenged them and we are on the offensive and the game is overseas.'' It is almost as if the President and his top homeland security adviser failed to read the National Intelligence Estimate. It made clear that al-Qaida is rebuilding its operational capacity and terrorism is the number one threat to our homeland. Those are the facts. That's reality. But even if she failed to read the NIE, perhaps she could have been expected to read the newspapers, because they too have made it clear for a long time that al-Qaida is rebuilding and that the terrorists are getting ready to strike us again. Let me go through a couple of examples. On July 16, if one was reading in recent days, one would read an article by Joshua Partlow in the Washington Post. It said sectarian violence, a civil war, was the war in Iraq, not al-Qaida. It spelled this out with facts: The western Baghdad district of west Rashid confounds the prevailing narrative from the top U.S. military officials that the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaida in Iraq is the city's most formidable and disruptive force. Over the past several months, the [Shiite] Mahdi Army has transformed the composition of the district's neighborhoods by ruthlessly killing and driving out Sunnis and denying basic services to residents who remain. Pretty clear. Shiite and Sunni violence, not al-Qaida. One might have read the newspaper reports on June 26, in the McClatchy papers: While the U.S. presses its war against insurgents linked to al-Qaida in Iraq, Osama bin Laden's group is recruiting, regrouping, and rebuilding in a new sanctuary along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, senior military intelligence and law enforcement officials said. The threat from radical Islamic enclaves in Waziristan is more dangerous than that from Iraq, which President Bush and his aides called the ``central front'' of the war on terrorism, said some current and former U.S. officials and experts. Bin Laden himself is believed to be hiding in the region, guiding a new generation of lieutenants and inspiring allied extremist groups in Iraq and other parts of the world. That is unbelievable. Al-Qaida is alive and well in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Let me say that again: It is ``recruiting, regrouping and rebuilding'' in this area. And bin Laden himself is believed to be hiding there, in that sanctuary. This is not Iraq, Mr. President. Did the President or his homeland security advisor read this article? Or perhaps one could go back to a New York Times article in February entitled ``Senior leaders of al-Qaida operating from Pakistan.'' Over the past year terrorists have set up a band of training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials. American officials said there is mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, al-Zawahiri, have been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of north Waziristan. Bin Laden and al-Qaida are ``steadily building an operations hub'' in Pakistan is the report. Now, to the adviser to the President in the White House on terrorism issues, let me say this to her: August 2001, the Presidential Daily Briefing Report put in the hands of President George W. Bush one month before the attacks of September 11, the title was: ``Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.'' That was in August of 2001, the PDB, put in the President's hands. What was the report in July 2007? The intelligence assessment from the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center in July 2007 says this: ``al- Qaida better positioned to strike the West.'' Think of that. Six years have intervened--6 years. And the President's Homeland Security Adviser, one who deals with this issue of terrorism and counterterrorism, says that we are ``winning'' the war on terrorism; things are going just fine; things are better. Yet, in 6 years, we go from this Presidential daily briefing entitled ``Bin Laden Determined to Strike in United States'' in August of 2001 to this assessment 6 years later: ``Al-Qaida Better Positioned to Strike the West.'' I ask the question: Are we really winning? I think we would expect the Homeland Security Adviser to be dealing with facts. Let me describe the facts as stated by the National Intelligence Estimate. The National Intelligence Estimate was released in both a classified and unclassified version. The unclassified version says: Al-Qaida is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the homeland. . . . It went on to say: We assess the group has protected or regenerated key elements of its homeland attack capability, including: a safe haven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas, operational lieutenants, and its top leadership. Now we have a report that says Osama bin Laden and his top deputies are in a safe haven. Six years after they murdered thousands of Americans, they are in a safe haven. There ought not be 1 square inch of ground on this planet that ought to be a safe haven for the leaders of al-Qaida. Ms. Townsend says, when asked about it, ``Well, Pakistan is a sovereign country.'' What does that mean? Therefore, a safe haven for al-Qaida and bin Laden must be all right? No. Absolutely not. There is no sovereignty anywhere in this world for Osama bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, and the al- Qaida leadership. There ought not be safe harbor or safe haven or sovereignty anywhere in this world for them. What have we done? Instead of deciding to destroy Osama bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, and the al-Qaida leadership, our country decided, based on information provided by the administration that I referred to earlier, to invade Iraq. It was information we now know not to have been true-- deliberate or not, I don't know, but information about yellow cake, aluminum tubes, chemical weapons labs, and about weapons of mass destruction which was not true. Based on that, we decided to take action against Iraq. The facts are these: Al-Qaida was not in Iraq before we invaded. It is there now. But, it is not the central feature in Iraq. Our intelligence estimates tell us that. The central part of Iraq is sectarian violence, with Shia killing Sunni, Sunni killing Shia, and Shia and Sunni killing American soldiers. It is a civil war, a religious war of sorts, with problems between the Shia and Sunni that date back many centuries. Now people ask this question, and reasonably so: Should we, 6 years after 2001, the devastating attack against our country that killed thousands of innocent Americans, should we expect or have expected that we would have brought to justice, dead or alive, the leadership of al- Qaida and destroyed them? In my judgment, the answer to that is yes. The Homeland Security Adviser at the White House, Francis Townsend, says: Well, we are winning. I wish that were true, but it is an assessment that comes only by ignoring all of the facts. Just read the National Intelligence Estimate. This administration made a calculation that turns out to have been wrong on many fronts. Instead of fighting terrorism first, which I think most Americans would have understood and accepted and believed-- the most critical element in the fight to provide security for our future--instead of fighting terrorism first, this administration decided to take action in other areas. We now have more than 160,000 American troops in Iraq. Many are going door to door in Baghdad today as I speak. It is the case that there is an al-Qaida presence in Iraq because Iraq has attracted terrorists. As I said, the intelligence community itself has said that is not the central feature of what is happening in Iraq. The central feature of what is going on in Iraq is the sectarian violence and a civil war. That is why the majority of this Congress decided it is time to change course. It has not been the case that the descriptions by those who want to change course in this Chamber have said let's decide immediately, precipitously, to withdraw all troops. That is not the case. Troops would remain to fight the terrorist elements that do exist in Iraq where they can be fought successfully, for force protection, and to train Iraqi troops. After all, the Iraqi troops will be necessary and the Iraqi soldiers and the police force will be necessary to provide security in the country. It is long past time for this country to say to the Iraqis: You now have a new government. Saddam Hussein is dead. He was executed after a trial for his crimes and atrocities. He is gone. He was a brutal dictator. But, Saddam Hussein is dead. You have a new constitution, you have a new government, and now the question remains: Do you have the will to take back your own country and provide for your own security? Are there sufficient able-bodied Iraqis to take back the security responsibilities for their country? If not, there is no amount of time in which American soldiers and this country can provide security for a country in the middle of a civil war. So we must change course. That change in course, in my judgment, is what will allow us to fight terrorism first. If we do not do that, we will, 6 years from now, continue to read about Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida leadership in a safe harbor or safe haven, living free, escaping justice, and planning additional attacks against this country. My point is, what has happened, in my judgment, is wrong. The first and central fight is the fight against terrorism. We are not waging that fight because those who attacked this country previously are now in a safe haven planning additional attacks against our country. That comes from the National Intelligence Estimate, not me. That NIE represents the best assessment by our country's best intelligence professionals from 16 different intelligence agencies. One cannot solve a problem if one is going to ignore the facts or distort the facts. I said that Ms. Townsend on Wednesday morning basically misrepresented what is happening. It seems as if she has failed to see, or refuses to see, all of the evidence that exists, the evidence we have received in the National Intelligence Estimate and other evidence as well, that al-Qaida and bin Laden are stronger today than they have been for many years. They are getting stronger, not weaker; they are planning more attacks, not hiding; they are recruiting and rebuilding, not running; and they want to strike us again as much as they every have. But, they are in Pakistan, in a safe haven. They are in the border area near Afghanistan, not Iraq. It doesn't surprise me that this administration is on a course that is not the course that represents this country's best interests. President Bush has said on previous occasions that we will deal not only with the terrorists who dare attack this country, we will deal with those who harbor and feed them and house them. That was the President's statement. The President said that, as a part of our offensive against terror, we will also confront the regimes that harbor and support terrorists. When President Bush was asked about Osama bin Laden, he said: I don't think much about Osama bin Laden. I don't care much about bin Laden. But, Bin Laden and al-Qaida represent the principal threat to this country. That is why Senator Conrad and I offered the amendment we did on the Defense authorization bill last week. The very day Ms. Townsend appeared on television, Wednesday, here is the New York Times' headline: ``Same People, Same Threat.'' That's right, ``Same People, Same Threat.'' Nearly six years after the September 11 attacks, and hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives expended in the name of the war on terror, we are faced with the ``Same People, Same Threat'' as attacked American on September 11. I pose a single, insistent question: Are we safer? This is what the New York Times reported: . . . After years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq and targeted kills in Yemen, Pakistan, and elsewhere, the major threat to the United States has the same name and the same basic look at 2001: al-Qaida, led by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, plotting attacks from mountain hide-outs near the Afghan-Pakistani border. The intelligence report, the most formal assessment since the September 11 attacks about the terrorist threat facing the United States, concludes that the United States is losing ground on a number of fronts in the fight against al-Qaida and describes the terrorist organization as having ``significantly strengthened over the past two years.'' If ever we needed good leadership, thoughtful leadership, leadership that will act on the facts and understand the facts and not misrepresent the facts, it is now, at a time when a terrorist organization is planning additional attacks against this country. For this administration to say that things are fine, we are winning, don't worry, and there is a sovereign, apparently, safe haven for the leadership for those who plan to attack us, that is unbelievable, and it must change. If the administration won't change it, the Congress and the American people must change it.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, a number of us have been concerned about the issue of competence for some long while. I take no pleasure in coming to the floor to point out someone's flaws or weaknesses or areas where we are not succeeding, but it seems to me that this country has to be brutally honest with itself, and that includes this administration, in terms of what it is doing, how well, what kinds of changes are necessary to fix what is wrong to safeguard and provide security for this country. One of the examples of serious trouble with respect to solving problems and addressing issues was the response to Hurricane Katrina. This devastating hurricane hit our country, and it laid bare a whole area of the gulf coast. It was unbelievable what it did to families, homes, and structures. The consequences of it and the cost of it and its toll on human lives and treasure are not even yet calculated. I think everybody in this country saw what happened as a result of the response of FEMA. I come from a State in which flooding 10 years ago caused the evacuation of a city of 50,000 people--the largest evacuation of an American city since the Civil War. We understand FEMA. They rushed in in the middle of that unbelievable flood in the Red River, where almost the entire city of Grand Forks, ND, was evacuated. FEMA rushed in. Under James Lee Witt, it had become a world-class organization. It did an unbelievable job. I cannot say enough about that organization. FEMA was first rate. I think everybody in that city who was helped by that organization understood the quality of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Fast forward and discover that the major appointments to FEMA under this administration were political cronies who had no experience in emergency response or preparedness. So it wasn't surprising that FEMA deteriorated dramatically as an agency, and its response to Hurricane Katrina was abysmal. I want to describe it with one photograph, if I might. This describes what happened with respect to Katrina. I am describing this because this week something happened that finally ended the chapter on this sorry story. This man is Paul Mullinax, sitting in front of an 18-wheel truck in Florida. His truck is a refrigerated truck, and it is used to haul ice. Katrina hit, and one of the needs in the deep South, when people and property and everything was devastated and they were trying to figure out how to deal with it, they needed ice in the middle of that scorching heat. So FEMA contracted with truckers to haul ice in 18-wheel trucks, refrigerated trucks, to help the victims of Katrina. Here is Paul Mullinax in the photo. Paul was in Florida at the time. He got a call and was invited to contract to haul ice. He drove his 18- wheeler to New York City and picked up a load of ice. Let me tell you where he went. I have a map. Paul went from Florida up to New York City to pick up some ice--in Newburg, NY. Then they told him to go to Carthage, MO, with the ice. He went there, to Missouri, to deliver ice. FEMA said, when he got there: No, we want you to go to Montgomery, AL, with your truckload of ice for the victims of Katrina. Then he got to Montgomery, AL, and here is what happened to him. He, with over 100 other truckers, refrigerated trucks holding ice for the victims of Katrina, sat for 12 days. This is a picture of Paul Mullinax sitting in his lawn chair, with a little grill. For 12 days, he sat there. Finally, they said to him: We want you to take your ice to Massachusetts. Think of this. Taxpayers paid over $15,000 for this load of ice. He was told the ice was for the victims of Katrina, and hundreds of other truckers had the same circumstance. He was sent from Missouri to Alabama, sat for a dozen days on the tarmac of a military installation, and then told he should take that ice up to Massachusetts and put it in storage. This week, 2 years later, after spending over $20 million, that ice was taken out of storage in Massachusetts and discarded because they felt it was probably contaminated after 2 years. So finally it ends, the saga about hauling ice to the victims of Katrina. How do I know Paul Mullinax? I asked Paul Mullinax to come to Washington to testify about what happened. He didn't want to do it. I sat in a parking lot of a grocery store one Sunday on the phone with Paul Mullinax and said: Paul, I want you to come to a hearing we are holding to tell this story. People need to understand what is wrong. Only by understanding what is wrong can we get this fixed. Paul came up to Washington, DC, and testified before a hearing and told us what had happened. Some people wouldn't believe it. You are going to haul ice from New York to Missouri to Mississippi and then are told to offload it at a warehouse in Massachusetts, ice for the victims of Katrina? If there is one story that demonstrates the complete absurd incompetence of the response to Hurricane Katrina, it is the story of Paul Mullinax, a good American who wanted to do the right thing, and in contracting with the Federal agency that was incompetent came up with this absurd experience. I have tried since to find out who was the decision maker in Government, who decides we are going to haul ice from New York to Massachusetts through Missouri and Mississippi that is supposed to go to victims of Hurricane Katrina, and we are going to spend all of that money and do it incompetently, who was responsible, who made those decisions, and you cannot find out who that unnamed person is who makes that kind of Byzantine decision that in my judgment fleeces the American taxpayer, that injures those who were victims of Hurricane Katrina by not getting the ice to the victims who needed it. I wanted my colleagues to know, because I have spoken about this before, that this week at last--at long, long last--the ice that was put in storage as a result of this gross incompetence has now been discarded because they felt perhaps after 2 years the ice was contaminated. It is a sad story, in my judgment, of the fleecing of America. My hope is we have sufficiently embarrassed and sufficiently made accountable those in FEMA and in this administration so that this will never, ever happen again. It is not what the taxpayers deserve, and it certainly isn't what the victims of Hurricane Katrina deserve. That same incompetence, regrettably, is steeped in other areas of an administration that, as I indicated as of Wednesday morning's interview with Ms. Townsend, seems content to ignore facts. I have come to the floor on occasion and spoken well of those who I think do a good job in this administration and elsewhere. I wish I could do that this morning. It is very important for this Congress and this country, when we see incompetence and when we see we are developing a strategy that doesn't work and is not going to work, that we must change course, we must expect better. My hope is a group of us in Congress, through the hearings I have held on these issues and through the discussions of Senator Reid and others who have worked on it in our caucus in the last couple of weeks, my hope is that we will change course with respect to the issue of Iraq, for example, which is the overriding important issue. I hope one of the changes in course will be we decide our priorities are to fight terrorism first, and that is not what we are now doing. Let us decide to fight terrorism first. That ought to be the goal. If the terrorist camps are reconstituted, if the threat to our country from al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden, and al-Zawahiri represents a greater threat now, then we must, it seems to me, change course to address that threat, and that threat requires us to fight terrorism first. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN. Let me thank the chairman and ranking member for their work. I would like to understand, as we apparently go into some votes, what the requirements and circumstances are. There is no limitation on amendments at this point as I understand it; is that correct?

Mr. DORGAN. Let me ask, under reconciliation, I have watched the proceedings this afternoon, and I have heard discussions on the amendments that have nothing to do with this subject and are far afield. Is there a germaneness test with respect to amendments on the reconciliation portion of this bill?

Mr. DORGAN. If I might, let me thank again the chairman and the ranking member. My hope is we will deal with those amendments that deal with the education of the children in this country and move on and finish this bill. There will be plenty of other opportunities to address subjects well beyond that. I appreciate their work, and I hope we can finish this in due course.

Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, July 19, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting to consider pending business, to be followed immediately by a hearing on discussion draft legislation to amend and reauthorize the Native American Housing Assistance and Self- Determination Act. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Would the Chair remind me when I have consumed half of that time? I want to yield the remainder of the time to Senator Conrad.

Mr. DORGAN. In about 4 minutes, let me describe an amendment that is very simple. Yesterday, we received a report--it is described in today's paper-- on progress dealing with benchmarks in Iraq. There is only one reason we are given this report by the administration. It is because we required this report in law. The Congress said: We require you to give us this report. There is another report we are not getting. We have not yet required it. Our amendment will require it. That is, What has been done and what is being done to bring to justice Osama bin Laden and the leadership of al-Qaida and those who committed the attacks against this country on 9/ 11/2001? What is being done to bring them to justice? It has been nearly 6 long years and Osama bin Laden remains free. More importantly, the threat against our country today is a threat by Osama bin Laden, the leadership of al-Qaida, operating from a secure and safe place in Pakistan, we are told, planning attacks against our country and others. Here is the situation: August 2001, the Presidential daily briefing said this--the title was ``Bin Laden determined to strike in the US.'' That was August 2001. It is what was handed to the President back then. Here is today. Our intelligence assessments, we are told by newspaper accounts: ``Al Qaeda is better positioned to strike the West.'' Think of that. Nearly 6 years later and al-Qaida is better positioned to strike the West. Now, let me tell you what Mr. Negroponte told us in January of this year. He said: ``Al Qaeda continues to plot attacks against our Homeland'' from a ``secure hideaway in Pakistan.'' That is from Mr. Negroponte, the top intelligence official in our country. He further said this in January of this year: Al Qaeda is the terrorist organization that poses the greatest threat to U.S. interests, including to [our] Homeland. Now, having known that, let me describe a couple of things we have been reading recently. This is February of this year: Senior leaders of al-Qaida operating from Pakistan over the last year have set up a band of training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials. American officials said there was mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, al-Zawahiri, have been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of north Waziristan. Finally, this week: While the U.S. presses its war against insurgents linked to al Qaida in Iraq, Osama bin Laden's group is recruiting, regrouping and rebuilding in a new sanctuary along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, senior U.S. military, intelligence and law enforcement officials said. Now, the question is this: While we have soldiers going door to door in Baghdad in the middle of a civil war, with sectarian violence----

Mr. DORGAN. The question is this: It has been almost 6 years since Osama bin Laden and the network of al-Qaida attacked our country on September 11, 2001. Osama bin Laden is still free. He has not been brought to justice. We are told he is operating in a secure hideaway in northern Pakistan. Al-Qaida is stronger than it has been in years, and we are told it is rebuilding and regrouping with terrorist training camps. It remains the greatest threat to our country. We are told this after almost 6 years, two wars in two countries, hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars spent here and abroad, the deaths of thousands of our soldiers and tens of thousands of our soldiers wounded, and the threat grows and remains, and those who perpetrated the attack against this country and now represent the greatest threat to our country live free in a secure hideaway. President Bush said this in 2003: I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority.

Mr. DORGAN. It is a priority for this country, I would say to the President, and we ask for quarterly reports on what is happening in the search to bring the leadership of al-Qaida to justice. Mr. President, I yield the floor to my colleague, Senator Conrad.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Michigan and my colleague from Arizona as well. I believe my colleague, Senator Conrad from North Dakota, may well join me, if he is able to. I want to describe an amendment we have filed. We will attempt to offer it at some point, but I have filed an amendment, along with my colleague, Senator Conrad, and I want to describe it briefly. As I do, let me say this: I understand, and have always understood, it is far easier, when making a case, to make the negative side than the positive side. I understand, and have always understood, it is easier to recognize failure than it is to recognize success. I respect everyone's views on this issue, this issue of the war in Iraq, the fight against terrorism. It is a passionate debate we have in this Chamber and in this country. I respect the views of everyone who stands and offers their thoughts about what this country ought to do. We need to get this right. The future of this country, perhaps the future of the world, depends on our ability to get this right. But I have been waking up in the mornings and picking up the morning papers and seeing statements in the papers that have bothered me a lot. I want to mention, as we bring to the floor of the Senate a piece of legislation authorizing the spending for our military of $640 billion roughly--$640 billion--and we are building anti-ballistic missile defense systems, we are building ICBMs, we are building tanks and planes and ships, we are doing all these things, and we are spending a lot of money--but, even as we do all that, let me review something else, if I might. It has been 6 years since Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida attacked us with 19 people and box cutters, hijacking airplanes loaded with fuel and killing innocent Americans--thousands of them. Six years since those attacks. A long time. It has been 6 long years, and yet Osama bin Laden is still free today. He has not been brought to justice. It has been 6 long years, and al-Qaida is stronger today than it has been in years, according to all of the reports recently released. It has been 6 years, and al-Qaida is now rebuilding its terrorist training camps, along with the Taliban, in a safe harbor. It has been 6 years, and they are reconstituting their ability to attack us. Yes, al-Qaida and the Taliban are reconstituting their operational capability in a safe hideaway in Pakistan. It is called a ``secure hideaway in Pakistan'' officially. It remains the greatest threat to the United States, even after these 6 long years: after two wars in two countries, after trillions of dollars spent on those wars and for homeland security, after the deaths of thousands of our military, and after the wounding of tens of thousands of our military. Yesterday, we heard from the No. 2 person, al-Zawahiri. He has released about a dozen tapes in the last year. Previously, we heard from Osama bin Laden. They are free, and they have escaped justice, and they are exhorting their followers to attack and kill, and al-Qaida is reconstituting. All this after six years. Let me describe a couple of things. On, January, 11, 2007, in testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the top intelligence person in our country said: Al Qaeda continues to plot attacks against our Homeland and other targets with the objective of inflicting mass casualties. And they continue to maintain active connections and relationships that radiate outward from their leaders' secure hideaway in Pakistan. Our top intelligence person in this country said they have a secure hideout in Pakistan. John Negroponte said that. He was the Director of National Intelligence at the time. That was only a few months ago. Here is what he also said: Al Qaeda is the terrorist organization that poses the greatest threat to US interests, including to the Homeland. January 2007. That is not from the New York Times or the Washington Post, that is the testimony from John Negroponte, who at that point was the top intelligence official in our Government. Al Qaeda had a secure hideaway in Pakistan and remained the greatest threat to the U.S. Now, 2 days ago, I read in the paper that the head of our Homeland Security agency has a ``gut feeling'' about a new period of increased risk--a ``gut feeling.'' Well, let me show you what we had in August of 2001: a Presidential daily briefing. This was released, by the way, about 3 years ago. This was the Presidential daily briefing, and I have it in my hand, dated August 6, 2001. The title is ``Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S.'' That was the Presidential daily briefing in August of 2001. ``Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S.'' July of 2007, almost six years later, top administration officials say that ``Al Qaeda is better positioned to strike the West.'' That's the secret intelligence assessment of the National Counter Terrorism Center. Think of that for a moment. Six years have passed. Six years have passed since the attacks of September 11, 2001. But, here we are debating a $640-plus billion authorization bill for armaments of every kind, and the greatest threat to our country today, according to the top intelligence Director in this Government, is al-Qaida and its network. And they operate from a secure hideaway in Pakistan. And, they are rebuilding their operational capability. Six years later. What has happened? What is happening? Well, we wake up in the morning and we read what is happening: Officials are worrying of a terror attack this summer. Michael Chertoff says he has a ``gut feeling'' about that. Other U.S. counterterrorism officials who spoke on condition of anonymity shared Chertoff's concern. This article says: Al-Qaida and like minded groups have been able to plot and train more freely in the tribal areas along the Afghan- Pakistani border in recent months. I have been in that area. I have flown over the Afghanistan and Pakistani area border. I understand what it looks like. I understand you can't see where one country starts and another country begins. I understand how difficult all this must be. But I don't understand how this administration has decided, after 6 long years, that it doesn't matter so much that we haven't captured Osama bin Laden. The President himself said that. He doesn't worry much about Osama bin Laden. That's a direct quote. I can get it for you. That's exactly what he said: Don't worry much about him. Well, our country ought to worry about him. The leadership of al- Qaida is the leadership of the organization that attacked this country and who, even now, we are told, are planning additional attacks against this country. So how is it in all this time that has elapsed that Osama is still on the loose and that al-Qaida is getting stronger and stronger. How is it that this is so even after the President said ``If you harbor terrorists, you are the same as terrorists to us; there will be no safe harbor.'' There was a safe harbor in Afghanistan for the terrorists. The Taliban gave them a safe harbor, so we went to war in Afghanistan. We drove out the Taliban and got rid of the safe harbor. That's what we did back in 2001 and 2002. But, apparently now, there is another safe harbor for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. After 6 long years, they have another safe harbor. It's in Pakistan or on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan. They have terrorists training camps there. They are rebuilding. They are planning. Just like they did before. We must do something about this. We must not ignore this warning. We must act now. Senator Conrad and I have filed an amendment and we will offer it when we get the opportunity. It will do a couple of things. No. 1, it will insist we be given classified briefings on a quarterly basis on the hunt for Osama bin Laden and the leadership of al-Qaida. It will require that every quarter the Defense Department and the Director of National Intelligence provide Congress with a classified briefing telling us what is being done by the resources of this administration and the resources that are given in this Defense authorization bill to apprehend and bring to justice Osama bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, and others who led the attacks against this country and who even today plan additional attacks against our country. This is an urgent matter. This isn't just going after those who attacked us yesterday. It's about going after those seeking to attack us today and tomorrow. Just 2 weeks ago, the McClatchy Newspaper, on June 26, 2007, reported that ``Al-Qaida regroups in a new sanctuary on the Pakistani border,'' senior U.S. military intelligence and law enforcement officials say. It reported that ``While the U.S. presses its war against insurgents linked to al-Qaida in Iraq, Osama bin Laden's group is recruiting, regrouping, and rebuilding in a new sanctuary along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.'' Six years after the attacks in this country, this is what we read. Now, we are in a war in the country of Iraq. I understand there are some in this Chamber who say this is the beachhead against al-Qaida. It is not. Does al-Qaida exist in Iraq? Yes, it does. But most of what is happening in Iraq is sectarian violence: Shia killing Sunni, Sunni killing Shia, Sunni and Shia killing American soldiers. Yes, al-Qaida exists in Iraq, but al-Qaida has largely come to Iraq as a result of what has been happening in Iraq. It was not and is not the central fight with respect to the war on terror. I spoke about this previously with respect to an amendment of this type. Incidentally, Senator Conrad and I have gotten this amendment passed by the Senate previously, but it gets dropped in conference. My hope is it will pass the Senate once again and this time--this time, at long last--it will not be dropped in conference. Finally, on a quarterly basis, at least, we will be able to get classified information about whether this administration is pursuing and bringing to justice those who attacked this country on 9/11, 2001, and those who, according to the papers this morning and yesterday morning and the morning before that, continue to plot those attacks against this country. How much longer will we be asked to read these stories, in most cases by unnamed administration officials? ``Senior leaders of al-Qaida operating from Pakistan over the past year have set up a band of training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border,'' according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials. ``American officials said there was mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, al-Zawahiri, have been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area north of Waziristan.'' Those are the reports. They have been the same for a year or so now. Every couple of months we read this. I think it is important to ask the question--as we describe a piece of legislation that will offer $640-plus billion for the Department of Defense--I think it is important for us to ask the question as to whether at least a portion of this is dedicated to bringing to justice those who attacked this country. If the head of our intelligence service is correct when he says that ``Al-Qaida is the terrorist organization that poses the greatest threat to U.S. interests, including to the Homeland,'' then why is the central fight not a fight to apprehend and bring to justice the leadership of al- Qaida? Why are they free today? Why are they in a secure area? Why are they harbored in a secure area where they are plotting attacks against our country and other countries? Why does that exist? It seems to me, at least in part, it must be a matter of will. The central fight, in my judgment, ought to be the fight to bring to justice those who attacked our country. Now, with respect to Iraq, this country is going to leave Iraq. That is not the question. The question is when and how. The American people are not going to continue year after year after year asking American soldiers to be in the middle of a civil war in Iraq. It simply will not be the case that the American people will allow that to happen. So we are going to leave Iraq; the question is how and when. We will debate that via several amendments over the coming days. But my point this morning is to say, while we debate Iraq and debate the circumstances of American troops largely in the middle of a civil war in Iraq, the question remains: Why? Why, after 6 years, does Osama bin Laden remain free? Why does he remain in a secure hideaway and remain apparently at the top, along with al-Zawahiri, in charge of al- Qaida, plotting attacks against free people? Why is that still the case? Shouldn't we, finally, at last, at long last as a country, insist that our major objective be to bring to justice the leaders of al-Qaida and destroy the al-Qaida network? That is the real fight against terrorism. There is so much to say about so many subjects on the Defense authorization bill, but when we talk about defending our country's interests, we can go back some years and recall that we were in the middle of a Cold War, where we knew who the enemy was. The enemy was a nation state. In that case, the Cold War was the Soviet Union; the Soviet Union and the United States built large arsenals of nuclear weapons to stand each other off in something called mutually assured destruction. Times have changed. The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore. Now, the major threat to our country is not a nation state. It is not an organization that has an ``army'' that wears uniforms. The greatest threat to our country now, according to testimony before the Select Committee on Intelligence of our country's most senior intelligence official, the Director of Intelligence, Mr. Negroponte, is clear: Al-Qaida is the terrorist organization that poses the greatest threat to U.S. interests, including to the Homeland. If that is the case, then where is the strategy in the use of all the resources we provide in this legislation to the administration? Where is the strategy to bring to justice those who attacked this country? Regrettably and unfortunately, I think that strategy has not existed for far too long. As I indicated, I have filed the amendment I have written and the amendment that I and Senator Conrad, who joins me in this amendment, will attempt to have considered by the Senate. I assume it will be considered following the consideration of several others of the Iraq amendments that have already been noticed. The amendment we have filed requires classified reports on a quarterly basis. It also will double the reward that has been offered from $25 million to $50 million for apprehending or information leading to the apprehension of Osama bin Laden. We gave the current administration substantial authority to boost the reward 2 years ago. It did not do that. We believe that, because nothing seems to happen with this administration on this issue, it is important for the Congress to push and to insist. In this amendment, we ask for four key things. We ask that the classified briefings be given to Congress telling us the likely current location of the al-Qaida leadership. All of the information suggests that senior leaders in this administration know generally where that location is. We ask for a description of the ongoing efforts to bring the leadership of al-Qaida to justice and a report on the Governments of the countries in which al-Qaida is allowed to exist and allowed to rebuild. We ask for reports on whether they are fully cooperating with us and what they are doing to help us apprehend those who attacked our country. So that represents my interest in trying to address this issue. Once again, I have spoken to Senator Levin previously on this issue. In fact, we have previously passed a similar amendment through the Senate, and I appreciate his cooperation in doing so. I would ask of Senator Levin if he would give us some consideration. We filed the amendment, and we will ask to follow it up and have it considered at some appropriate point. He, of course, manages this bill and has the juggling requirement to meet all the needs for time that people have. I see my colleague, Senator Conrad, is coming to the floor, and I think I have a few minutes remaining. As he joins us to speak of his interest in this amendment, let me ask Senator Levin, if I might, while we are waiting for Senator Conrad, would we have an opportunity either this week or next week to be able to consider our amendment?