John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a man of remarkable courage, compassion, and patriotism and to join Nevadans and Americans in mourning the loss of American patriot and former Marine Richard K. Sorenson. A shining example of just how one individual can make a difference is found in the life story of Richard K. ``Rick'' Sorenson. Born the 28th day of August in 1924, Sorenson tried unsuccessfully to enlist in the Navy on the day after Pearl Harbor. He was only 17 at the time, and his parents refused to give their permission. He finished his junior year in high school, but the next fall, the day after football season ended, he and some of his teammates joined the Marine Corps. Little did Rick Sorenson know, but he would soon make history. On February 1, 1944, at the age of 19, Private Sorenson and his five man machine gun squad found themselves part of the amphibious assault of Namur, a small island in the Kwajalein atoll which was defended by 4,000 Japanese soldiers fighting from heavy concrete fortifications. At dawn the following morning, the Japanese counterattacked Sorenson's position in what he later called a ``full-fledged banzai charge.'' His squad had been fighting for its life for half an hour when a Japanese soldier got close enough to throw a grenade in their midst. Sorenson's first impulse was to jump to the other side of the concrete foundation, but he instantly realized that his buddies would take the impact and that the entire squad would be overrun, so he threw himself on the grenade and took the full force of the explosion. For his actions he was awarded the Medal of Honor. His citation was signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt and read, in part: ``For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty . . . Unhesitatingly, and with complete disregard for his own safety, Private Sorenson hurled himself upon the deadly weapon, heroically taking the full impact of the explosion. As a result of his gallant action, he was severely wounded, but the lives of his comrades were saved. His great personal valor and exceptional spirit of self- sacrifice in the face of almost certain death were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.'' Sorenson would undergo six operations over the next nine months. But he survived and went on to graduate from college, marry, and raise a family. He was also recalled to active duty with the Marines in 1950 during the Korean War and was commissioned a first lieutenant. After eventually leaving the Marines for good in 1955, he returned to civilian life and pursued a career as an insurance underwriter before finally joining the Veterans' Administration. In 1978 he transferred to Reno, NV, and assumed duties as Director of Veterans Affairs for all of Nevada and nine counties in California. He retired in 1985 but remained a resident of Reno until his passing several months ago. Those who lived through World War II are often referred to as our Greatest Generation. And that Greatest Generation is well represented in the life story of Rick Sorenson. He was not only a battle-tested Marine but he also was a loving husband, father, and grandfather. In his vocation he served other veterans, and in his free time he was active in community affairs. Simply stated, the world is a better place because of Rick Sorenson. To Rick's wife Milli I offer the condolences and the admiration of Nevadans and Americans. This great nation that Rick Sorenson risked his life for and lived his life for will always be grateful for his contributions.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and congratulate an outstanding athlete and a tremendous competitor from my home State of Nevada. A Las Vegas native, Kurt Busch is the epitome of a team player who thrives on pressure and has the utmost respect for his competition. His journey to the finish line of the NASCAR Nextel Cup title started in go carts and dwarf cars in Pahrump and Las Vegas. Kurt and his brother, Kyle, shared their father Tom's love for racing, and once Kurt hit the track there was no stopping him. His career highlights start with the Las Vegas Motor Speedway and the Nevada State Dwarf Car Rookie of the Year and Champion in 1994 and 1995 respectively. From there he broadened his horizons to the Southwest Series after graduating from Durango High School in Las Vegas. Durango High School is the home of the Trailblazers, and Kurt's road to champion race-car driver at the age of 26 certainly blazed a trail or two along the way. Since those early Las Vegas days, Kurt has been an incredible presence in the American racing scene. He competed and finished above expectation time and time again. He started this season with the goal of winning the championship. There were no guarantees in this Cup season though. Kurt stayed focused, and keeping his eye on the prize paid off. But it was a nail biter. Kurt faced many hurdles that would have meant the end for a lesser competitor. There was the broken wheel, the late restart, and the intense competition. And those challenges all came in the last race at the Homestead-Miami Speedway. Mechanical failures and pressures aside, racing fans attribute Kurt's success to his consistency. I say it's all about heart. Following his victory, Kurt stated matter-of-factly: ``This is what a team does to win a championship . . . I'd like to put a cap on today and move on to what we did this year as a team, which is unbelievable. This championship is for Jimmy Fennig and everyone that's put work into this car.'' And that team--including those of us who cheered on our native son from Las Vegas--is proud of its driver. He showed us all a passion for racing and a loyalty to those who got him to this point. And he has proven that it is okay to dream big. From go carts in the Las Vegas desert to top racing machines on professional tracks, Kurt Busch is an inspiration. As Co-Chair of the Congressional Motorsports Caucus and a true race fan, I congratulate Kurt Busch on all his accomplishments, including this championship. Kurt, you have made us proud in Las Vegas, and we look forward to watching you continue to shine in the future. God bless you.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to report on a tremendous step forward for public safety, our economy, closing the digital divide, and bringing next generation high definition television to rural America. The House and Senate today passed legislation that will fundamentally impact the future of television especially in rural America. Today the U.S. Congress set aside entrenched special interest group wish lists and took a strong step forward toward making high definition digital television available in unserved areas. The Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 enjoyed broad bipartisan support and is now headed to the President's desk. I applaud my colleagues from the Commerce and Judiciary Committees, from both sides of the aisle, and from both Chambers. The leaders of these committees did not bow down to the furious lobbying of those who have sought to slow down the digital transition and that attempted to gut the important pro-consumer digital white area provisions designed to make available high definition programming to rural Americans. This legislation sends an unmistakable message that we are not going to allow a digital divide like we have for broadband to occur in the new world of digital television. With this legislation, consumers who cannot receive digital television programming over the air, will now have a chance to receive it from satellite providers who are ready, willing and able to get high definition programming to unserved areas. One of the most exciting benefits of this legislation, is that it creates incentives and pressures to speed the return of this valuable analog television spectrum. There are endless possibilities for powerful new innovations for consumers that will flourish when new unlicensed wireless spectrum is made available. Consumers will benefit from new devices and services we haven't even contemplated yet. Public safety also needs to have access to this spectrum to ensure they have the ability to communicate in dark stairwells and wet basements. We know that the characteristics of this spectrum are such that they can penetrate walls and travel over greater distances. The 9/ 11 Commission tells us that we need to make this spectrum available. The bill also mandates that satellite providers phase out their use of two-dish markets, across the country in 18 months. Currently, customers in some markets need a second dish to receive some stations and since many customers choose not to receive a second dish, some stations are not seen. This legislation ends that practice. Our work today, while a tremendous victory, is but the first step forward in what I believe history will mark as the turning point in the U.S. Congress recognizing that blindly clinging to the world of 1940's analog television is only harming our economy, our most rural areas, public safety and is stifling innovation. Today the Congress made an affirmative determination that all Americans deserve to have equal access to digital television programming regardless of geographic location. The purpose of this legislation is simple; to make sure consumers are not denied digital television based on where they live or whether the digital conversion has been completed in their area. People outside major market areas, like those in rural Nevada, should not be left behind in the DTV revolution. This legislation includes strong protections against abuse, and tough penalties to ensure satellite providers comply with a fair and equitable process by which all Americans can take part in the digital transition in a realistic timeframe. Local broadcasters who have been unable to turn up a full-power digital signal due to circumstances beyond their control will not be unfairly penalized. With the passage of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the Congress established a timeline for catching up our Nation's television broadcasting with rapidly changing technology. In fact, we gave broadcasters a multi-billion dollar public asset in the form of free spectrum for digital television with the explicit understanding that their analog spectrum be returned by December 31, 2006. Unfortunately, years of litigation, lobbying and foot dragging has made it likely that we will miss this deadline. Next year the Congress will be considering a new hard deadline for completion of this transition and it is my intention to work vigorously to ensure that these dates not be allowed to slip any longer than necessary. Equally important will be ensuring that we do not forget about those consumers for whom a new digital television set, cable or satellite receiver or digital converter box does not fit in their near-term buying plans. The Senate Commerce Committee has considered numerous proposals to ensure that these consumer's screens don't go dark when a hard deadline passes. Next year the Congress needs to decide on an approach to ensure that especially lower income consumers will be adequately accommodated. There are many good proposals on how to best ensure we protect these consumers, and there is no doubt in my mind that the tremendous proceeds of the spectrum auctions will give us the resources necessary to ensure a successful transition. Our work also remains unfinished for cable operators who wish to provide the same important services to rural Americans as will now be available to satellite customers. Consumers stand to benefit even further from competition in the multichannel video programming distribution marketplace if cable providers are afforded some of the same opportunities we have made available to satellite. We have to be careful not to tip the balance in favor of one industry over another. This is why the bill includes a provision requiring the FCC to study and report back to Congress in nine months on the impact of retransmission consent and certain blackout rules on competition in the multichannel video programming distribution market and, in particular, on the ability of rural cable television systems to provide their customers with digital broadcast television programming. Millions of people in rural areas subscribe to cable television service, often from small cable operators. Once again, it is not our intent to create a competitive advantage for one technology over another consumers should not be forced to choose between DBS and cable in order to receive digital broadcast television signals. I look forward to receiving the commission's report and I am confident the committee will give serious consideration to any recommendations for additional legislative action contained therein. This Congress sent a powerful message today that we understand the importance of the digital transition, and the powerful benefits for public safety, television viewers, innovation, public safety and our economy. I fully expect the momentum of this victory will carry forward into the next Congress where we can build on these great accomplishments for consumers.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I would like to speak for 10 minutes in morning business.

Mr. ENSIGN. Yes.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Nevada for allowing us to cooperate to get some time to talk about a couple of issues that are related to what we are talking about today. I want to talk about the Duelfer report that has been reported widely in the papers are in our national news in the last several days. The Duelfer report proves one thing--Senator Kerry was right about the coalition of the bribed and coerced. They were the countries that opposed the war in Iraq. They were the corrupt members of the U.N. Security Council who were brought off by Saddam Hussein. Back in June, when I introduced the Oil-For-Food Accountability Act, I stated that I believed Saddam Hussein, corrupt U.N. officials, and corrupt well-connected countries were the real benefactors of the Oil- for-Food program. I noted there was evidence that they profited from illegal oil shipments, financial transactions, kickbacks, and surcharges that allowed Saddam Hussein to build up his armed forces and live in the lap of luxury. The just-released 1,200-page CIA report confirms those allegations and details even more. The report states that some $10.9 billion, that's billion with a ``B'', was secretly skimmed from the U.N. oil- for-food program for Saddam to use as he pleased. The report outlines how Saddam Hussein used lavish gifts of oil vouchers and contracts to secure the support of countries to lift U.N. sanctions on Iraq and oppose American initiatives in the Security Council. And this might be the most important point I make today--an Iraqi Intelligence report indicated that one nation--France--was bribe to use its veto in the U.N. Security Council againts any effort to use armed forces in Iraq, and France later threatened to do just that. France was not the only culprit in corruption. France was joined by Russia and China--also permanent members of the U.N. Security Council-- as the top three countries in which influential individuals, companies or entities received oil vouchers. According to the report, Russia received 30 percent of the vouchers, France 15 percent and China 10 percent. The real ``coalition of the bribed and coerced'' is the three members of the U.N. Security Council that were bought and sold by Saddam Hussein. The three members of the Security Council that profited immensely as long as Saddam Hussen remained in power. The oil voucher system used by Saddam through the U.N. Oil-For-Food program was clever in that the vouchers were negotiable and could be resold to oil companies or other buyers at profits of 10 to 35 cents per barrel. A voucher for 10 million barrels could generate between $1 million and $3.5 million to the holder of those vouchers. The report notes that Benon Sevan, the former top U.N. Official in charge of the oil-for-food program was himself a recipent of Saddam's scheme. The report says that Mr. Sevan was allocated 13 million barrels of oil, of which 7.3 million were cashed in. There is also information about how Saddam's illicit oil profits were used to rearm Iraq. The report details how Saddam's deals with Chinese companies helped Iraq improve its missile capabilities. Russian companies provided barrels for antiaircraft guns, missile components, and missile-guidance electronics. French military contractors offered to supply Saddam Hussein with helicopters, spare parts for fighter aircraft and air defense systems. On the WMD front, Duelfer reports that using the Oil- for-Food program, Saddam Hussein was making a point of procuring the resources and establishing the networks to start a massive effort to produce chemical-weapons production just months after sanctions were lifted. With Saddam's coalition of the bribed and coerced in place as three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, no amount of coalition-building by an American president was going to preserve the sanctions on Saddam Hussein. No amount of diplomacy was going to get those countries to enforce Security Council resolutions by force. They were permanent members on Saddam's payroll. The CIA report notes that Saddam had succeeded: to the point where sitting members of the Security Council were actively violating resolutions passed by the Security Council. So when I hear talk about some kind of a global test, or the need for UN Security Council approval for the use of force this Senator turns away in disgust because, with the release of the Duelfer report, we have names, dates, and amounts of bribes to prove that our critics, including the UN, do not have the moral authority to judge our actions. They are not motivated by security interests, humanitarian needs or any other noble cause. They are motivated by greed. America's freedom to use force wisely and justly is truly the world's best hope for peace and security. God bless President George W. Bush for having the courage to stand by his convictions. He is doing his job. It is time, now, for the U.S. Senate to follow the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Report that deal with the integrity of our borders and visitor access to America. In the decade before 9/11, al-Qaida studied how to exploit gaps and weaknesses in the passport, visa, and entry systems of the United States and other countries. Al-Qaida actually set up its own passport office in Kandahar and developed working relationships with travel facilitators--travel agents, document forgers, and corrupt government officials. Since 9/11, some important steps have been taken to strengthen our homeland security. While these efforts have made us safer, we are not safe enough. A real world example was reported this past Saturday by the Washington Post. Peru and the U.S. intercepted a criminal network with possible al-Qaida links that smuggled Arabs into America after receiving false papers in Lima. Keeping Americans secure means being diligent on all fronts, at home and abroad. The amendment that I am offering ties directly to two important recommendations of the Commission Report prohibiting terrorist travel to our country. The first is the Commission recommendation that ``Targeting travel is at least as powerful a weapon against terrorists as targeting their money. . . Better technology and training to detect terrorist travel documents are the most important immediate steps to reduce America's vulnerability to clandestine entry.'' Americans need to know that every reasonable step is being taken to ensure that those who would harm our country and our citizens do not travel freely and easily into the United States. This is a task that deserves our full attention when the vast number of travel documents handled in our embassies, consulates, and border stations is considered. Specialists must be developed and deployed in consulates and at the border to detect terrorists through their travel practices, including their documents. Last year there were about seven hundred consular officers stationed overseas in 211 posts. In addition to processing six million non- immigrant visa applications and nearly 600,000 immigrant visa applications, they provided a full range of services to American citizens. Chronic understaffing has led to an over-reliance on foreign workers to screen and review visa applications, jobs that normally would be handled by American officers. This process leaves too many gray areas; one mistake or intentional oversight in a foreign nationals review of an application could mean the lives of thousands of innocents. My amendment goes a long way to bolster the visa application process by mandating that American consular officials review and approve each and every immigrant and nonimmigrant visa application. Over the last 2 years the State Department has hired an average of 65 new consular officials. That number has not proven enough. My amendment provides the State Department the authority to increase the number of consular officials by 150 each year for 4 years, ensuring that trusted American resources are responsible for reviewing all visa applications. Currently, consular officers only receive an overview in fraudulent document training. My amendment mandates that these consular officers are suitably trained in detecting fraudulent documents and document forensics, prior to beginning their service. Our due diligence cannot stop here. The second Commission recommendation that relates to my amendment states that we should ``. . . raise U.S. and border security standards for travel and border crossing over the medium and long term . . .'' The Commission goes on to say that ``It is elemental to border security to know who is coming into the country. Today more than 9 million people are in the United States outside the legal immigration system.'' Pre-9/11 the INS had only about 2,000 agents for interior enforcement and only 9,800 border patrol agents. With the priorities of the agency concentrated on immigration and narcotics, our northern border was often neglected and no major counterterrorism effort was underway. These gaps in our security created a weakness that allowed the loss of over 3,000 innocent citizens. More robust enforcement of routine immigration laws could have made a difference. We must have the resources to be able to detect and, if need be, detain terrorists who seek entry through our borders. My amendment makes providing the necessary personnel for border security and immigration enforcement a top priority. It provides authority to increase the number of border patrol agents by 1,000 each year for a 5- year period. It also increases the number Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigators by 800 per year for a period of 5 years. The Commission found that many of the 19 9/11 hijackers, including known operatives, could have been watchlisted and were vulnerable to detection by border authorities; however, without adequate staff and coordinated efforts, the evildoers were allowed unhampered entry. The world has changed dramatically since 9/11 when the evil doers used our open and trusting society against us. We can not allow a repeat of that tragedy. This amendment will allow those who guard our frontiers the tools they need to ensure the safety of the citizens of the United States of America.

Mr. ENSIGN

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay the pending business aside and call up amendment No. 3819.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, very briefly, I rise in strong support of what Senator McCain is trying to do. This underlying bill is acting on a lot of the proposals the 9/11 Commission has brought forward. It has recognized some serious problems we face in this global war on terrorism and has asked Congress to address those--at least some of those problems--in this bill. Senator McCain has tried with this amendment to address some more of those problems. Frankly, we do have a problem with first responders. They do not have the spectrum they need to be able to communicate properly during disasters. We have seen that a few times in the past. The 9/11 Commission has strongly recommended we take the kind of action Senator McCain is trying to take today and free up the spectrum from the broadcasters, the spectrum they have agreed to give up next year-- frankly, the hard deadline Senator McCain has put forward is actually years out from that--and the broadcasters are now saying they cannot do that. It would be too expensive for them and cause all kinds of problems. The broadcasters have had this spectrum for free for a long time. In the agreement--forgetting the digital spectrum--they were supposed to get off of the analog spectrum, which is part of the spectrum we want to give to some public safety groups for better communication. This is not just a question of radios being able to work. In the future, with the technology that is out there, we are talking about video, about broadband over some of this spectrum that will make our first responders much more effective in the jobs they are doing. The amendment Senator McCain has brought forward will not only help first responders in the case of a terrorism attack, but it will also do a lot of good things for our economy. Freeing up this much spectrum will probably raise, according to estimates I have seen, around $50 billion for the U.S. Government to help with the deficit. It will stimulate investment in America. It will create jobs. There will be incredibly exciting new technologies brought forward that we cannot imagine today if this spectrum is freed up. It also goes to the heart of American competitiveness. We are falling behind on a technology front from the rest of the world. We have to deploy broadband widely across America. Spectrum is a very important part of deploying broadband, and it is critical that we move this process forward, that we not let a special interest group block what will benefit virtually every American. I rise in strong support of the McCain amendment. I am hopeful we can get this worked out, if not on this bill, on a bill in the near future. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN. On the amendment.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Margaret Klutz, a member of Senator Dole's staff, be given floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing entitled ``Prescription Drug Abuse and Diversion: The Role of Prescription Drug Monitoring Program'' during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 23, 2004, at 2 p.m., in SD-430.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 23, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on the global posture review of United States military forces Stationed overseas.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 23, 2004, at 4 p.m., to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, the last few years have seen an enormous amount of change in the make up of the Middle East. Thanks to the will of President Bush and the skill and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, Afghanistan and Iraq have been freed from the shackles of oppressive dictatorships. Democracy is taking root, with free elections on the way. Tragically, there are some countries which choose to oppress rather than liberate the spirit of the people. Syria is one of these countries. On September 2, U.N. Security Resolution 1559 expressed support for a free and fair electoral process in Lebanon's upcoming presidential election conducted according to Lebanese constitutional rules devised without foreign interference or influence. On September 3, according to numerous reports, the Government of Syria exerted undue influence upon Lebanese government officials to amend the constitution to extend the term of Syrian-backed President Emile Lahoud. That was wrong, but hardly surprising given the role of Syria in Lebanon. In 1976 Syrian armed forces entered Lebanon to help prevent a Muslim attack on local Christians. But when the threat of attack subsided, Syrian troops remained. Today 20,000 of them continue their stranglehold on Lebanon. The time has come for Syria to release her grip on Lebanon. Lebanon is a sovereign nation. It should be allowed to exercise control over its territory--all of its territory--and not be hampered by the continued presence of Syrian military forces. The United States has long supported the political independence of Lebanon, as has the international community. Syria has been in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 520, demanding that ``all non-Lebanese forces'' leave Lebanon since September 17, 1982. That is why I believe it is particularly important that President Bush for implemented sanctions on Syria pursuant to the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, demonstrating U.S. resolve to address the Syria's continued military presence in Lebanon and its support for terrorism. I implore my colleagues to recognize the importance of keeping pressure on Syria. This resolution urges the United Nations to seek a firm, negotiated timetable for complete withdrawal of Syrian armed forces from Lebanon, in order to facilitate the restoration of Lebanon's sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence. It calls upon the Government of Syria to immediately withdraw its troops from Lebanon in accordance with United Nations resolutions. It demands that the Government of Syria cease its support and armament of terror groups such as Hezbollah and facilitate efforts by the legitimate government and armed forces of Lebanon to disarm all nongovernmental armed groups and militias located in Lebanon and extend central government authority throughout that country. And it condemns all efforts to derail the democratic process and interfere with the legitimate election process in Lebanon. Like all nations, Lebanon deserves the right to chart its own destiny, to have free and fair elections, and to be free of foreign occupation.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I wish to speak just for a few minutes this morning, especially in light of the wonderful speech we heard from the interim Prime Minister of Iraq, Mr. Allawi. I had the tremendous privilege, back in June, to meet with Mr. Allawi. I found him to be very articulate and a true visionary for his country. This is a man who has a target marked on his chest and on his back wherever he will go in the world. It is critical that we do everything we can, along with the Iraqi security forces, to protect him and other leaders there. They are truly in the line of fire. There are many who would want to assassinate Mr. Allawi because they do not want to see freedom and democracy progress in Iraq. The speech Prime Minister Allawi gave this morning was heartfelt. You could tell he appreciated what America and Americans families, along with our coalition partners, have sacrificed for the liberation of Iraq. Mr. Allawi made reference to a few things which I believe, as a country, we need to acknowledge. The only way for the terrorists and the insurgents to win is if America loses its way and loses its will. Terrorists look for ways to disrupt and to win over public opinion because they know they cannot win militarily. We have not lost a single battle or military engagement in the last 3 years in Iraq or Afghanistan. Our military is so superior that the battles are not even close. We win every single one. So the terrorists know that the only way they can win is if they succeed in shifting public opinion back here at home. That is what the purpose of the terrorist attacks in Spain. They wanted to shift public opinion far enough to incite change, which they succeeded at doing. It decided the Spanish election and prompted Spain to pull out of Iraq. We have to send a strong signal. Whether you are Republican or Democrat, whether you are for the war or against the war, it is critical that we as Americans stand together and send a message overseas, the way our foreign policy to do. We used to stand together as Republicans and Democrats and say partisanship stopped at the water's edge. We once again need to assert that ideal. We need to say to those who would come against us who would rise against the spread of freedom, the opportunity for people to live and worship how they want to and have the freedoms that we enjoy in many parts of the world--we need to say very clearly that we will not allow them to win. We will not allow this radical form of Islam to take over the world. There is a battle of cultures. We must realize that. The radicals, the ones who want to win the hearts and minds of most of the Muslims around the world, are a small percentage. But we cannot allow them to win at this point. It is critical that we stay strong. We must send a message that our resolve is not going to waiver. We are not going to allow this to affect our elections. We are not going to allow terrorists to win here in the United States. There are people--and they are good Americans, solid Americans--who are against this war, who have been against it since the beginning. I plead with those in our country to look at the message that division in our country sends to those who would attack us, who would come against us. The old saying ``united we stand, divided we fall'' is as true today as it has always been. The more we show that we are united in this global war on terrorism, the less likelihood that the terrorists will continue. The terrorists must see that public opinion cannot be shifted because of the latest bombing or the latest beheading or any other horrific acts they may try to inflict on us. The more apparent our unity, the stronger our resolve, the less chance they will have to recruit new, young volunteers as suicide bombers. The less money they will be able to recruit from wealthy people around the world who are financing some of these activities. We are in the middle of a Presidential election. We realize that. It important that we have strong, steady leadership, leadership that I believe we have in President Bush. It is at a time of criticality to our country and our foreign policy that our leadership carry us through the next few years and send a message to the rest of the world that we are going to stand strong, that we are going to stay the course. Let me conclude with this: There are naysayers who believe democracy cannot work in the Middle East, that the only type of governments they can have over there are either dictatorships or some type of a religious theocracy. Prime Minister Allawi clearly addressed that today and spoke on behalf of the Iraqi people hungering for freedom and democracy. We must be successful in helping them to achieve that. Staying the course, whatever it takes, is critical not only for Iraq but for the larger global war on terrorism and to our own security here at home. If we weren't fighting in Iraq, I can guarantee you, we would be fighting here against terrorists on our own soil. Our military is much more prepared for that battle than our civilians are. We are in a dangerous, different world today. We must realize that. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENSIGN

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

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the failure of the United Nations. The U.N. is failing to promote liberty, democracy, and human rights for all citizens. The world has changed a great deal since the United Nations was formed some 59 years ago. The dangers of Nazism and communism have been replaced by an ever-evolving, ever-increasing threat of terrorism. The United Nations is not up to the challenges of this new century. The U.N. now has sponsors of terrorism and repression overseeing the protection of human rights around the world. The countries of Sudan, China, and Cuba currently serve as members of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Yesterday, the United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan, lectured the world body that the rule of law in Iraq is being disrupted as much by the United States as by the terrorists who ravage the country through bombings and beheadings. Any person or group who cannot decipher the moral difference in this struggle against terror and repression cannot and should not be trusted to lead. In a BBC interview last week, the Secretary General stated that the liberation of Iraq by the United States and its coalition partners was illegal and a violation of the U.N. Charter. This declaration comes on the heels of his earlier statement that ``there should have been a second resolution'' authorizing the invasion. Today, Mr. Annan seems to be saying that the only way force can be used legitimately in the modern world is to first obtain the unanimous permission of the U.N. Security Council. I am pleased President Bush does not adhere to this line of thinking. And I am proud every time I hear him say that he will never wait for permission to defend the United States. The Secretary General's latest posturing is far from harmless. The U.N. has been given the lead role in organizing the elections in Iraq in January. But Mr. Annan's comments that we have acted illegally in Iraq, comments which have been replayed across the Arab world, have given an added feeling of legitimacy to every jihadist hoping to disrupt the vote. I believe the U.N. has lost its way. It has ceased to be able to judge the difference between right and wrong. The Secretary General's speech to the General Assembly yesterday illustrated his belief that there is a moral equivalence between the terrorists and those who are fighting them. That is disturbing, and that is wrong. However, the Secretary General is not alone in expressing it. It is extremely disturbing that a former United Nations official, Anna Di Lellio, has been named as the Director of Communications for the Volcker panel, a supposedly independent panel investigating the Oil For Food scandal. Why is this so disturbing? Because Ms. Di Lellio has compared President Bush and key U.S. ally, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, to Osama bin Laden. This shows, again, how the United Nations is failing in the essential tasks for which it is responsible. There is a difference between right and wrong. And words do have consequences. I also want to read a quote the Democratic nominee made yesterday. It is in the Washington Post today. It says: Kerry did not directly answer a question about whether he agrees with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, who called the Iraq war illegal. ``I don't know what the law or legalities are,'' Kerry said. The U.N. Secretary General says the Iraq war is illegal because the United States didn't have United Nations' Security Council approval. And John Kerry can't give a clear answer that the United Nations Secretary General is wrong? This is a person running for the President of the United States. Increasingly, the United Nations does not advocate the interests of those pursuing peace, freedom, and democracy in the world. If the United Nations spent more time working for liberty and less time coddling dictators, the world would be a better place. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the critical role of technology and innovation in maintaining our Nation's security and prosperity in the future. Technology and the intellectual property that accompanies it is the very lynchpin of our modern economy. Technology is changing all the rules, from the way we do business to how we communicate. It is saving lives, and it is protecting our homeland. In recognition of the critical role that technology plays in the lives of all Americans, Majority Leader Bill Frist has made technology a top priority by devoting significant time and resources to the Senate Republican High Tech Task Force which serves as the focal point for technology-related issues in the United States Senate. I have been honored to serve as the chairman of the Senate Republican High Tech Task Force during the 108th Congress. I have been privileged to meet the leading innovators of our great Nation and talk directly to the employees who have made technology their career and are delivering every day the promise of the new ``next big thing.'' The work of the Senate Republican High Tech Task Force increases in importance each day, as technology becomes ever more a part of our lives. It is the responsibility of the Task Force to be leaders on technology issues in the Senate. We are tasked by the majority leader to reach out to the technology community to listen and learn and then advise our colleagues and lead on legislation related to this important sector of our economy. And we have been very successful this year. Senate Republican High Tech Task Force members have passed important legislation that protects technology and helps foster continued innovation. Just a few of the many accomplishments in the past few months include the following: Senator Allen has championed intellectual property protection and has utilized his position with the Committee on Foreign Affairs to ensure that American intellectual property is protected abroad and that overseas piracy of copyrighted materials is fought to the fullest extent possible. Senator Allen was also successful in passing legislation out of the Senate to keep State, local, and Federal tax collectors from driving up the cost of broadband with Internet access taxes. Senator Grassley has championed free trade agreements with Singapore, Chile and Australia. Free trade is the life blood of our economy and ensuring that American companies are able to access new markets on a fair footing with all appropriate intellectual property protections creates and protects American jobs. Senator Sununu has led Senate efforts in protecting nascent voice over internet protocol technology which promises to provide new data services for businesses and consumers, fundamentally changing the way we look at phone service. Senator Burns worked tirelessly to successfully secure passage of the CAN-SPAM Act which was passed unanimously by the United States Senate. Unsolicited commercial e-mails are overwhelming our telecommunications infrastructure and costing Americans productivity and now, more alarmingly, affecting their confidence in online transactions. The CAN- SPAM Act was a successful first step, and the Task Force will continue to work to restore confidence and protect American consumers from SPAM. Senator Smith and I have been successful in seeing the Invest in the USA Act passed out of the Senate. This important legislation will bring back a cash infusion of over $400 billion to be reinvested in America and create over 600,000 American jobs. This will allow money that American companies earn overseas to be brought back to the United States where it can create jobs and grow our economy. My colleagues and I have been very busy during the 108th Congress. We have visited technology centers around the United States and met with top innovators and the most talented employees in the world. The work of the High Tech Task Force will continue through the remainder of this session and into the 109th Congress. The Senate Republican High Tech Task Force remains focused on securing final passage of important priorities such as: final passage of the JOBS Bill that includes international tax reform, extension of the R&D Tax Credit and the Invest in the USA Act; preserving broad- based employee stock option plans that are threatened by FASB; class action reform to stop frivolous lawsuits that stifle innovation and drive up costs for consumers; bringing an end to patent fee diversion that harms the ability of U.S. innovators to bring their exciting products to market. Four-year delays to obtain patents hurt innovation; final passage of the Internet Tax Moratorium legislation to keep state, local, and federal tax collectors from driving up the cost of Internet access; final passage of the Spectrum Relocation Bill which will provide additional spectrum for the wireless revolution and has the potential to yield more than $500 billion in economic and consumer benefits over the next decade, spur $50 billion or more in capital investment, and create thousands of American jobs. These priorities are critical to our country's continued leadership in the world, and we are redoubling our efforts to see these issues through to signature by the President. We are more committed than ever to ensuring that American workers are getting the best education in order to become the innovators of the future. And yet there are new issues arising each day. Members of the task force will be intimately involved with rewriting the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Issues such as the regulatory treatment of voice over internet protocol and hastening the availability of spectrum for next-generation wireless broadband, along with many others, will be added to our list of priorities for the coming session of Congress. In conclusion, we have accomplished much over the past year on many technology issues. The Senate Republican High Tech Task Force has been an effective voice for technology on Capitol Hill. Our members are leaders on every major technology issue and are fighting to protect American innovation. While we have been very successful in pursuing our policy platform, technology is ever-changing. We will work diligently to ensure that we stay ahead of the curve and, if nothing else, help keep government out of the way to allow American innovators and entrepreneurs to bring the latest and greatest to the doorsteps of all Americans.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up amendment No. 3598.

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Cochran and Senator Byrd and their staffs for working with me to draft the Ensign-Bond amendment, which has 20 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. This amendment addresses a shortfall in the Transportation Security Administration's budget for our airports' in-line baggage screening systems, or Explosive Detection Systems, for all checked baggage. My amendment adds $75 million to the TSA's budget request of $250 million, for a total of $325 million. It is fully offset through a reduction in TSA's airport information technology and support. TSA has asked for a $154 million increase in airport information technology, so we will still be giving them half of that increase. Still, even with this offset, this technology account is left with $218 million, and the reduction will not damage TSA's mission. The reason I am offering this amendment is clear: One of the major threats of terrorism we face today is crowded airport lobbies. The huge explosive detection devices in the lobbies of airports makes the packed-in crowds an inviting target for terrorists. They could harm and kill more people in an airport lobby than they could on an entire airplane these days. The amount that TSA requested in fiscal year 2005 for in-line baggage screening is not enough to fully fund the eight airports that are currently constructing their baggage systems, let alone the 21 airports that are waiting for money to become available so they can start their own. It is estimated that $5 billion is needed to fully install the baggage screening systems. At $250 million a year, we are not going to get there any time soon. We need to live up to our obligation to our airports by clearing the backlog of airports that need to get these monster machines out of their lobbies. It is a huge unfunded mandate for airports that have to operate on tight budgets. Our airports will be safer as a result. In fact, one of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission is to expedite the installation of in-line baggage screening equipment. We will never get there if TSA cannot request enough funding for eight airports, let alone for all the airports in America that need these baggage screening systems. In summary, my amendment is offset and will help 30 airports in our country speed up the installation of their in-line baggage screening systems. We have a huge vulnerability on our hands, and we need to act quickly.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?