Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I rise today to introduce legislation with Senator Mikulski, Senator Bennett, and Senator Harkin to establish a division of food and agricultural science within the National Science Foundation to support fundamental agricultural research of the highest quality. I present this to begin a critical discussion that I believe we must have over the next several months and perhaps over the next year or so about how we are going to ensure we capitalize on the technology to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs of our agricultural production. We remain the world leader in food and fiber production. We do it safely and through technology and the hard work of the American farmer. In the past half century, the number of people fed by a single U.S. farm has grown from 19 to 129. We have a tremendously innovative agricultural research program. Our farmers, our farm leaders are on the cutting edge of developing new technology. And we have seen the innovations continue to come down the pike. This has made it possible for one farmer to feed 129 people. In addition, we export $60 billion worth of agricultural products, and we do so at less cost and at less harm to the environment than any of our competitors around the world, again, because of new practices, diligence on the part of farmers, and new technology. In a world that has a decreasing amount of soil available for cultivation, we have a growing population and we still have 800 million children who are hungry or malnourished throughout the world. As some have said: A person who is well fed can have many problems. A person who is hungry has but one problem. Unless we maximize technology and new practices, production will continue to overtax the world's natural resources. Many people legitimately have raised concerns regarding new diseases and pests and related food safety issues. And they are growing. The leading competitiveness of our U.S. producers is only as solid as our willingness to invest in forward-looking investments and build upon our historic successes. Now, we also know from past experience that with new technology the doors are being opened to novel new uses of renewable agricultural products in the fields of energy, medicine, and industrial products. In the future, we can make our farm fields and farm animals factories for everyday products, fuels, and medicines in a way that is efficient and better preserves our natural resources. Advances in the life sciences have come about, such as genetics, proteomics, and cell and molecular biology. They are providing the base for new and continuing agricultural innovations. It was only about a dozen years ago that farmers in Missouri came to me to tell me about the potential that genetic engineering and plant biotechnology had for improving the production of food, and doing so with less impact on the environment, providing more nutritious food. Since that time, I have had a wonderful, continuing education, not in how it works but what it can do. We know now, for example, that in hungry areas of the world as many as half a million children go blind from vitamin A deficiency, and maybe a million die from vitamin A deficiency. Well, through plant biotechnology, the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines has developed Golden Rice, taking a gene from the sunflower, a beta-carotene gene, and they enrich the rice. The Golden Rice now has that vitamin A, and that is going to make a significant difference in dealing with malnutrition. We also know that in many areas of the world, where agricultural production has overtaxed the land, where drought has cut the production, where virus has plagued production, the way we can make farmers self-sufficient, where we can restore the farm economy in many of these countries, is through plant biotechnology. But this is just the beginning. This legislation I am introducing today is a discussion draft which I hope is going to lay the foundation for tremendous advances in the future. This legislation stems from findings and recommendations produced by a distinguished group of scientists working on the Agricultural Research, Economics and Education Task Force, which I was honored to be able to include in the 2002 farm bill. The distinguished task force was led by Dr. William H. Danforth, of St. Louis, the brother of our former distinguished colleague, Senator Jack Danforth. Dr. Bill Danforth has a tremendous reputation in science and in education, with a commitment to human welfare and is known worldwide. He was joined by Dr. Nancy Betts, the University of Nebraska; Mr. Michael Bryan, president of BBI International; Dr. Richard Coombe, the Watershed Agricultural Council; Dr. Victor Lechtenbert, Purdue University; Dr. Luis Sequeira, the University of Wisconsin; Dr. Robert Wideman, the University of Arkansas; and Dr. H. Alan Wood, Mississippi State University. I extend my congratulations and my sincere gratitude to Dr. Danforth and his team for providing the basis and the roadmap to ensure we have the mechanisms in place to solve the problems and capitalize on the opportunities in agricultural research. The full report of the task force can be found at www.ars.usda.gov/research.htm. In summary, that study concludes that it is absolutely necessary we reinvigorate and forward focus our technology to meet the responsibilities of our time. New investment is critical for the world's consumers, the protection of our natural resources, the standard of living for Americans who labor in rural America, and for the well-being of the hungry people and the needy people throughout the world. I look forward to pursuing this vision in the 109th Congress. I invite my colleagues who are interested in science and research to review this report, to look at this measure, to join with me and my cosponsors in the next session of Congress to talk about moving forward on what I think will be a tremendous opportunity to improve agriculture and its benefits to all our populations. Now, I cannot speak for all agricultural groups, but I talked to agricultural leaders of the various commodities, the farm organizations in my State of Missouri. They are very excited about it because these are the people who have been on the leading edge, who have pushed for the new technology, who have pushed for the new research that has enabled them to go from feeding 19 people per farmer a half century ago to feeding 129 people per farmer. Madam President, this, I hope, will be the start of something really big. So, with that, I send the draft of the legislation to the desk. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I rise today to introduce legislation with Senator Mikulski, Senator Bennett, and Senator Harkin to establish a division of food and agricultural science within the National Science Foundation to support fundamental agricultural research of the highest quality. I present this to begin a critical discussion that I believe we must have over the next several months and perhaps over the next year or so about how we are going to ensure we capitalize on the technology to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs of our agricultural production. We remain the world leader in food and fiber production. We do it safely and through technology and the hard work of the American farmer. In the past half century, the number of people fed by a single U.S. farm has grown from 19 to 129. We have a tremendously innovative agricultural research program. Our farmers, our farm leaders are on the cutting edge of developing new technology. And we have seen the innovations continue to come down the pike. This has made it possible for one farmer to feed 129 people. In addition, we export $60 billion worth of agricultural products, and we do so at less cost and at less harm to the environment than any of our competitors around the world, again, because of new practices, diligence on the part of farmers, and new technology. In a world that has a decreasing amount of soil available for cultivation, we have a growing population and we still have 800 million children who are hungry or malnourished throughout the world. As some have said: A person who is well fed can have many problems. A person who is hungry has but one problem. Unless we maximize technology and new practices, production will continue to overtax the world's natural resources. Many people legitimately have raised concerns regarding new diseases and pests and related food safety issues. And they are growing. The leading competitiveness of our U.S. producers is only as solid as our willingness to invest in forward-looking investments and build upon our historic successes. Now, we also know from past experience that with new technology the doors are being opened to novel new uses of renewable agricultural products in the fields of energy, medicine, and industrial products. In the future, we can make our farm fields and farm animals factories for everyday products, fuels, and medicines in a way that is efficient and better preserves our natural resources. Advances in the life sciences have come about, such as genetics, proteomics, and cell and molecular biology. They are providing the base for new and continuing agricultural innovations. It was only about a dozen years ago that farmers in Missouri came to me to tell me about the potential that genetic engineering and plant biotechnology had for improving the production of food, and doing so with less impact on the environment, providing more nutritious food. Since that time, I have had a wonderful, continuing education, not in how it works but what it can do. We know now, for example, that in hungry areas of the world as many as half a million children go blind from vitamin A deficiency, and maybe a million die from vitamin A deficiency. Well, through plant biotechnology, the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines has developed Golden Rice, taking a gene from the sunflower, a beta-carotene gene, and they enrich the rice. The Golden Rice now has that vitamin A, and that is going to make a significant difference in dealing with malnutrition. We also know that in many areas of the world, where agricultural production has overtaxed the land, where drought has cut the production, where virus has plagued production, the way we can make farmers self-sufficient, where we can restore the farm economy in many of these countries, is through plant biotechnology. But this is just the beginning. This legislation I am introducing today is a discussion draft which I hope is going to lay the foundation for tremendous advances in the future. This legislation stems from findings and recommendations produced by a distinguished group of scientists working on the Agricultural Research, Economics and Education Task Force, which I was honored to be able to include in the 2002 farm bill. The distinguished task force was led by Dr. William H. Danforth, of St. Louis, the brother of our former distinguished colleague, Senator Jack Danforth. Dr. Bill Danforth has a tremendous reputation in science and in education, with a commitment to human welfare and is known worldwide. He was joined by Dr. Nancy Betts, the University of Nebraska; Mr. Michael Bryan, president of BBI International; Dr. Richard Coombe, the Watershed Agricultural Council; Dr. Victor Lechtenbert, Purdue University; Dr. Luis Sequeira, the University of Wisconsin; Dr. Robert Wideman, the University of Arkansas; and Dr. H. Alan Wood, Mississippi State University. I extend my congratulations and my sincere gratitude to Dr. Danforth and his team for providing the basis and the roadmap to ensure we have the mechanisms in place to solve the problems and capitalize on the opportunities in agricultural research. The full report of the task force can be found at www.ars.usda.gov/research.htm. In summary, that study concludes that it is absolutely necessary we reinvigorate and forward focus our technology to meet the responsibilities of our time. New investment is critical for the world's consumers, the protection of our natural resources, the standard of living for Americans who labor in rural America, and for the well-being of the hungry people and the needy people throughout the world. I look forward to pursuing this vision in the 109th Congress. I invite my colleagues who are interested in science and research to review this report, to look at this measure, to join with me and my cosponsors in the next session of Congress to talk about moving forward on what I think will be a tremendous opportunity to improve agriculture and its benefits to all our populations. Now, I cannot speak for all agricultural groups, but I talked to agricultural leaders of the various commodities, the farm organizations in my State of Missouri. They are very excited about it because these are the people who have been on the leading edge, who have pushed for the new technology, who have pushed for the new research that has enabled them to go from feeding 19 people per farmer a half century ago to feeding 129 people per farmer. Madam President, this, I hope, will be the start of something really big. So, with that, I send the draft of the legislation to the desk. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask for 5 minutes.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Shelby be recognized for 10 minutes following me, and that Senator Breaux be recognized for 15 minutes thereafter.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it has been a pleasure to work with the Senator from Louisiana. We have appreciated his leadership on many issues not only important to Louisiana but to our energy future and important to navigation in the heartland, which is something that is vitally important for all of us.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about an old- fashioned virtue: doing what you said you were going to do. That is a test a lot of people apply in politics. They say if you tell us what you are going to do when you get elected, are you going to do it? It seems to me in the intelligence field we have an example of that. The reaction is somewhat surprising. We have had, I think, 128 or 130 hearings in the Intelligence Committee since I joined it in January 2003. One of the lessons we learned is that, while there are many outstanding dedicated men and women in the CIA and throughout the intelligence community, the system is broken; it didn't give us the adequate or accurate prediction of the scope of the terrorist danger to the U.S. before 9/11. We went into Iraq with the Director of Central Intelligence so confident of the intelligence analysis that we would find weapons of mass destruction that he advised the President it was a ``slam dunk.'' We now find out that while there was great danger in Iraq, it was very different from the danger that the CIA had assessed. The estimates were really faulty. We have seen this. The CIA and the intelligence community, as I said, have outstanding, dedicated people; but they are not focused properly on doing the job that the new worldwide threat of an unrelenting, vicious, terrorist war directed at us and all free- minded people presents. So everybody came to the conclusion there needed to be a new direction. The President nominated one of the Members of Congress who had done a great deal of oversight of the CIA and actually had served in the clandestine service himself, Porter Goss of Florida. Everybody said they wanted change. Porter Goss told the President and the Congress in his confirmation hearings that we are going to make some changes. He went over to the CIA. He is making some changes. What a surprise. The critics are now saying he is making changes at the CIA. I am a little bit confused about what they thought he was going to do. If he didn't make changes at the CIA, that is when I think we should be challenging him. Something has to change. I have spoken with Director Goss, and I know our chairman, Senator Roberts, has. We both have confidence in his ability, because it appears to us that Director Goss is doing exactly what he told Congress he would do, and that is to make changes in order to improve the CIA. Why are we surprised or critical that there is a change with new leadership? Obviously, changing means there are going to be some people who are going to be displaced. We thank them for their service and wish them well. But why are we arguing over the fact that some people are going to be removed or replaced? Director Goss testified at his confirmation hearing that he would make changes that emphasize the CIA's missions and capability and focus on delivering a better product to the President and Congress. That is because, as I said, we have had report after report, including the Senate's inquiry that we spent a lot of time putting together, that shows failures at many levels within the CIA, resulting in an inadequate product presented to us and the administration. The status quo is not acceptable. Director Goss has a very big challenge ahead of him. We need to give him room to address it. Change is tough, people don't like it, but it is necessary. Take two aspirins and call me in the morning. Sit back and take a deep breath and don't get upset because he is making changes. There are some critics who are going after him tooth and toenail. I believe the New York Times had a headline today that said ``New CIA Chief Tells Workers to Back Administration Policies.'' Wait a minute. That is not what he said. I have the copy of the statement Director Goss made. He said that we will support the administration, but he says we will provide intelligence to support it. We don't come out and argue for it. He said that as agency employees, we do not identify with, support, or champion opposition to the administration or its policies. We provide the intelligence as we see it and let the facts alone speak to the policymaker. In other words, their support is by providing the best intelligence estimates available. Now, Michael Scheuer, who wrote that anonymous book and made headlines with the ``Imperial Hubris'' book, criticized timid leadership at CIA. Why are we criticizing the DCI for shaking up the management? If the Director of CIA is making mistakes, or if he is going down the wrong path, we on the Intelligence Committees here and in the House are going to be monitoring the situation. If we see there is a problem, we are in a position to call him on it or to point out remedies that are needed. But, so far, I see a man willing to take on an entrenched and some might stay constipated bureaucracy. Many of the senior intelligence officials to quit have been with the agency for decades. It is a shame we are going to lose that experience, but some would say--and I agree--new blood is needed at the CIA. I am encouraged that Director Goss is willing to shake things up at the CIA. I hope he employs the same vigor in getting the rest of the intelligence community to work together and share information with each other. Some of the people who are leaving and whining, I question their mettle. There are thousands of soldiers and marines in Afghanistan and Iraq, including special forces, who are yelled at every day by their sergeants, not to mention being shot at and living in the mud. I am glad they all have the fortitude to say: I am not going to quit because I am yelled at or somebody doesn't like what I am doing. Perhaps these CIA officers should remember their mission and work with the DCI as the quiet service, keep their mouths shut, and work within the system to provide the best intelligence for the administration, for the Congress, and for the warfighters who need to rely on it and whose lives depend upon it. Parochialism is one of the CIA's biggest problems. These career CIA officers, while having valuable experience, also carry the baggage of being resistant to change. The status quo may be comfortable to them, but it is dangerous to the country. We on the Intelligence Committee have heard CIA officers say that everything is just fine, no changes are needed. Those people are clearly in a state of denial. We on the Intelligence Committee take our oversight responsibilities seriously and will, of course, address legitimate concerns over how Director Goss is running the intelligence community. We appointed and confirmed him to make difficult changes, and I don't think it is appropriate to jump to conclusions or second-guess his management style. I thank the Chair and my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to pay special tribute to the St. Louis Hurling Club on their National Championship of the North American Gaelic Athletic Association, Junior-C Division on September 3, 2004. The St. Louis Hurling Club was founded in the Summer of 2002 by Paul C. Rohde, Daniel D. Lapke, and Patrick O'Connor. Their vision included introducing the sport of hurling to the greater metropolitan area of St. Louis, MO., creating opportunities to play the sport, and developing strong St. Louis representation in nationwide competition. In just 2 short years the St. Louis Hurling Club has expanded to a four-team league, and has become the second-largest club of primarily American-born hurlers in North America. In just the first year of existence, the Gaelic Athletic Association extended the rare invitation to the St. Louis Hurling Club to join twenty-one other cities to the North American County Board. In September 2004, the St. Louis Hurling Club traveled to Colorado and returned with the National Championship by defeating clubs from Milwaukee and Seattle. Paul Rohde, Daniel Lapke, and Patrick O'Connor are to be commended for their vision, leadership, and introduction of the ancient Irish sport as well as the continued growth of Irish culture to St. Louis. MO. Again, I wish to congratulate the St. Louis Hurling Club on their National Championship and wish them future success as they continue to evolve.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I join with my constituents in recognizing the brave men of the 66th Infantry Division. Sixty years ago on November 15, 1944, the soldiers left from New York Harbor on the USAT George Washington without knowledge of their destination. It turned out the USAT George Washington brought the soldiers to England, where they were stationed at Southampton Harbor until Christmas Eve 1944. On Dec. 16, 1944, the Nazis launched a desperate offensive in Belgium intended to split the Allied Forces. The fierce struggle became known as ``The Battle of the Bulge.'' As part of the allied response to this threat, on Christmas Eve 1944 over 2,000 American soldiers of the 66th Infantry Division stationed in England were rushed to Southampton, where they boarded the troopship SS Leopoldville. The troops were then transported across the English Channel, but just 5\1/2\ miles from their destination, Cherbourg, France, the vessel was torpedoed by the German submarine U-486. Some of the soldiers were killed instantly, some went down with the ship, some safely jumped from the ship's rail to the rescue craft that pulled alongside, while others missed the jump, plunged into the waves and were crushed as the two vessels came together. Some drowned, some froze to death in the frigid 48-degree waters of the English Channel. In all, there were 763 American soldiers confirmed dead, representing sons, husbands, and fathers from 47 of then 48 States. There were three sets of brothers killed, including two sets of twins. The bodies of both sets of twins were among the 493 never found. Although over 1,400 soldiers survived, more than 500 were hospitalized with injuries or pneumonia. Missouri had 31 brave men who lost their lives that night. The Leopoldville disaster was the worst tragedy to eve befall an American Infantry Division as a result of an enemy submarine attack. It is my ultimate honor to recognize the heroism of the survivors and the sacrifice of the dead. In the words of Eleanor Roosevelt, ``They are not dead who live in lives they leave behind. In those whom they have blessed they have life again.'' It is my hope that future generations of Americans remember the sacrifices and costs in human life made to preserve our liberties, and to instill in them an understanding of what it means to be an American.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I join with my constituents in recognizing the Audrain Medical Center Auxiliary 50th Golden Jubilee. For the last 50 years, the Audrain Medical Center Auxiliary has voluntarily helped raise money for the Audrain Medical Center. Fifty years ago the group was created with 65 charter members and in 2 years grew to 165. Today, the membership is a unique group of 224 Missourians who are dedicated to bettering their local community through their service work. As of 2004 the group has raised $839,700 for the Audrain Medical Center. This year donations will go toward the telemetry unit for cardiac rehabilitation and a portable x-ray machine. I stand here today rest assured that through their continued hard work and dedication the group will soon reach their goal of $1 million. It is my great honor to recognize the community participants that comprise the Audrain Medical Center Auxiliary on this, the 50th Golden Jubilee of the organization. On behalf of the people of the State of Missouri, I look forward to 50 more years of leadership and outstanding civic participation from the Audrain Medical Center Auxiliary.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill of great importance to our most severely injured troops who are carrying the battle to the terrorists. This legislation will assist the Department of Defense by granting reprogramming authority to the Army to transfer funds to the Army's Disabled Soldier Support System (DS3) and by expanding the program to cover all the Armed Services. The Disabled Soldier Support System this legislation will support was established just this year by the former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, General George W. Casey, who realized after visiting severely wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Hospital that more support was needed to help these soldiers make the transition from military to civilian life. The program the Army currently has in place is budgeted for $ one million and has a staff of less than 10 people. It is reported to have helped over 200 soldiers but we have a much larger group of seriously wounded troops that need our help. Of the nearly 7,000 troops who have been wounded approximately 57 percent were so severely injured that they will not be able to return to active duty. The Administration is doing all it can but we know that the bureaucracy is sometimes slow to respond and react rapidly to changing conditions. The Army is not the only Service Component with a growing patient load. That is why this legislation will expand this worthy program to all branches of the Armed Services. The patriots who are wounded while serving in support of our defense deserve the best care and assistance this Nation can deliver. That is why I am honored to submit this legislation today. It is my hope that my colleagues will put their full support behind this legislation and find a way to get it passed when we return later this year. I thank my co-sponsors Senator's Kennedy, Burns and Nelson of Florida along with Congressman ``Dutch'' Ruppersberger who introduced this legislation in the House in early September and Steve Robinson, National Gulf War Resource Center, who referred Congressman Ruppersberger to my office. While the current debate continues regarding U.S. foreign policy there is no debate about doing all that is necessary to help our troops prevail on the battlefield--or to help those who are severely wounded on the field of battle to recover and make the transition from military to civilian life. As the Chairman of VA-HUD I continue to work with my distinguished colleague Senator Mikulski to make the transition from the military support system to the VA support system as seamless as possible. This legislation will help improve the support system in the Department of Defense and make the work we are doing with the VA that much easier. This legislation is vital for the welfare of our troops, their loved ones and families, and for the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. That is why I hope my colleagues will support this bill and work to get it passed before years end.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill of great importance to our most severely injured troops who are carrying the battle to the terrorists. This legislation will assist the Department of Defense by granting reprogramming authority to the Army to transfer funds to the Army's Disabled Soldier Support System (DS3) and by expanding the program to cover all the Armed Services. The Disabled Soldier Support System this legislation will support was established just this year by the former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, General George W. Casey, who realized after visiting severely wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Hospital that more support was needed to help these soldiers make the transition from military to civilian life. The program the Army currently has in place is budgeted for $ one million and has a staff of less than 10 people. It is reported to have helped over 200 soldiers but we have a much larger group of seriously wounded troops that need our help. Of the nearly 7,000 troops who have been wounded approximately 57 percent were so severely injured that they will not be able to return to active duty. The Administration is doing all it can but we know that the bureaucracy is sometimes slow to respond and react rapidly to changing conditions. The Army is not the only Service Component with a growing patient load. That is why this legislation will expand this worthy program to all branches of the Armed Services. The patriots who are wounded while serving in support of our defense deserve the best care and assistance this Nation can deliver. That is why I am honored to submit this legislation today. It is my hope that my colleagues will put their full support behind this legislation and find a way to get it passed when we return later this year. I thank my co-sponsors Senator's Kennedy, Burns and Nelson of Florida along with Congressman ``Dutch'' Ruppersberger who introduced this legislation in the House in early September and Steve Robinson, National Gulf War Resource Center, who referred Congressman Ruppersberger to my office. While the current debate continues regarding U.S. foreign policy there is no debate about doing all that is necessary to help our troops prevail on the battlefield--or to help those who are severely wounded on the field of battle to recover and make the transition from military to civilian life. As the Chairman of VA-HUD I continue to work with my distinguished colleague Senator Mikulski to make the transition from the military support system to the VA support system as seamless as possible. This legislation will help improve the support system in the Department of Defense and make the work we are doing with the VA that much easier. This legislation is vital for the welfare of our troops, their loved ones and families, and for the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. That is why I hope my colleagues will support this bill and work to get it passed before years end.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the McCain amendment. I joined the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence knowing full well that our system needed reform. Since that time, I have worked very hard with our distinguished chairman and members on both sides to try to bring about real reform that will enhance our Nation's ability to fight the war on terror by assuring we have the most accurate, actionable, and timely intelligence available. I applaud the provisions of the Collins-Lieberman bill, and commend my colleagues for coming together on that important piece of legislation. It is now time, however, for Congress to get into the really difficult battle; that is, reorganizing and reforming ourselves. That is necessary so long as such reform makes sense. The 9/11 Commission concluded: The House and Senate intelligence committees lack the power, influence and sustained capability to meet the challenge of overseeing the United States intelligence community, and executive branch reform will not work if congressional oversight does not change too. That doesn't mean that a commission to investigate the facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, should become the only basis for intelligence reform and we must adopt every recommendation. We have spent a good bit of time in this body--I have personally and I know my other members on the Intelligence Committee have worked on these issues far longer than the 9/11 Commission worked on them. I know from my experience on the Appropriations Committee how important that responsibility is, and I daresay that those of us on the Appropriations Committee have lots of experience on how the appropriations process works. I feel very strongly in the case of this amendment and the Commissions's recommendation to combine authorization and appropriations powers that we need to reject it. A longstanding lesson in the Congress that we have observed, I think wisely, is that it is inefficient and undesirable to mix policy legislation with appropriations legislation. Appropriations are required on a timely basis to keep the Government operating with as little disruption as possible, particularly funds for the intelligence community which are paramount to the day-to-day operations in continuity of our national security. It should not get stalled or held up as a result of potential policy disagreements. Every year on the appropriations bills which we process, we work hard to get the appropriations out on time and try to focus on those issues that need to be resolved in appropriating. Combining this legislation with appropriations can result in undesirable situations such as a rush job on policy deliberations in order to meet fiscal year deadlines, and thus potentially shortchanging the policy changes we need to make as a result of our oversight, or delays in appropriations, thus disrupting Government operations as we get involved in controversial policy debates. The longstanding lesson and separation has been institutionalized in rules for both the House and Senate. Over the years, various attempts have been made in history to mix policy and appropriations functions into a single committee. In the past, this has been judged as undesirable. If we want to get rid of the Appropriations Committees and spread appropriations throughout all the authorizing committees, that is a long and much more extended debate than we are having here. I do not think we can or should single out intelligence and say in intelligence alone they will have the appropriations functions along with the authorizing functions. Congress already has a mixed policy budget oversight model adopted in the 1980s for intelligence, the past legislation that provides the Intelligence Committees with powerful control over the budget. Section 504 says no funds may be obligated unless authorized, and over time the Intelligence Committee began to authorize at the level of detail of appropriations. I was very happy to support our chairman's position in Collins- Lieberman that protects our jurisdiction and enhances the power of the Intelligence Committee. The Intelligence Committee as an authorizing committee ought to have greater powers. The need to authorize funding at the detailed budgetary levels would compel the Intelligence Committee to behave like an Appropriations Committee. I am familiar with how they work. It is better that the Intelligence Committee not get into this field. It is undesirable if our intent is to make our Intelligence Committee more effective. The Senate Intelligence Committee potentially becomes dominated and consumed by budget review and arguing over specific appropriations items. The question we have before the Senate is, should Congress reorganize. That would be a bad idea. We heard, as the Senator from Pennsylvania has discussed, objections to legislating on an appropriations bill. I object to appropriating on an authorizing bill. I hope my colleagues support that point of view.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, currently, more than 3,700 children and youth under the age of 13 are living with HIV or AIDS in the United States and of the more than 40,000 Americans newly infected with HIV each year, half are young people under the age of 25 years old. When we think about this devastating virus we do not often associate it with children, especially infants or newborn babies, but the fact is this disease does not discriminate on the basis of age. It affects children in very specific and very different ways than adults. For instance, the medical experience of children with HIV/AIDS can differ significantly from that of adults. Because children's immune systems are still immature, the disease typically progresses more rapidly in children than in adults and can have different manifestations. For example, the majorities of children with HIV have neurological abnormalities and are more susceptible to certain opportunistic infections than adults. In addition, because children's bodies are growing and developing, HIV/AIDS can have profound effects on children's physical growth and ability to reach developmental milestones such as crawling, walking and learning to walk. Medication for young children living with HIV/AIDS can also be very different than that of an adult living with HIV/AIDS. For example, children of certain ages cannot swallow pills and require liquid formulations of life-saving HIV/AIDS drugs that are not always readily available. In addition, dosing and safety information for these powerful drugs are often strikingly different for children and adults, and for younger children, this information is typically completely missing. This lack of information puts children at risk by requiring health care providers to estimate correct dosing. Too much medication can be toxic, and too little will not effectively suppress the virus. Over time, under-dosing can lead to drug resistance. Children are not just small adults and their growing bodies are especially susceptible to the rapid advancement of HIV infection. Early awareness that a child has HIV infection, combined with good care and support, can enhance survival and quality of life, which is why I am introducing, with my colleague Senator Dodd, The Children Family HIV/ AIDS Research and Care Act of 2004. This legislation will address those needs of children and adolescents living with HIV/AIDS by reauthorizing Title IV of the Ryan White CARE Act and expanding its focus on reaching and caring for adolescents with HIV/AIDS. Moreover, this legislation will continue to work to reduce mother-to-child transmission of HIV, by promoting routine, voluntary prenatal HIV testing and intensive care management for HIV-positive pregnant women. In addition, because children are at risk of being left behind in the search for an effective HIV vaccine, the bill will require federal agencies funding and regulating HIV vaccine research to develop plans and guidelines for including pediatric populations in clinical trials as quickly as is medically and ethically appropriate. This legislation will also encourage research on key remaining pediatric research questions, including how to provide safer and more effective treatment options for children with HIV/AIDS. For a young person living with HIV or AIDS there is no cure and there is no remission. It is with them at home, on the playground, in the classroom, and at a Friday night sleepover. It will be with them as they enter high school, go to college and get their first job. For a person born with this virus it is a permanent part of their life. This bill will help to ensure that the needs of infants, children, and adolescents living with HIV/AIDS are not overlooked.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, currently, more than 3,700 children and youth under the age of 13 are living with HIV or AIDS in the United States and of the more than 40,000 Americans newly infected with HIV each year, half are young people under the age of 25 years old. When we think about this devastating virus we do not often associate it with children, especially infants or newborn babies, but the fact is this disease does not discriminate on the basis of age. It affects children in very specific and very different ways than adults. For instance, the medical experience of children with HIV/AIDS can differ significantly from that of adults. Because children's immune systems are still immature, the disease typically progresses more rapidly in children than in adults and can have different manifestations. For example, the majorities of children with HIV have neurological abnormalities and are more susceptible to certain opportunistic infections than adults. In addition, because children's bodies are growing and developing, HIV/AIDS can have profound effects on children's physical growth and ability to reach developmental milestones such as crawling, walking and learning to walk. Medication for young children living with HIV/AIDS can also be very different than that of an adult living with HIV/AIDS. For example, children of certain ages cannot swallow pills and require liquid formulations of life-saving HIV/AIDS drugs that are not always readily available. In addition, dosing and safety information for these powerful drugs are often strikingly different for children and adults, and for younger children, this information is typically completely missing. This lack of information puts children at risk by requiring health care providers to estimate correct dosing. Too much medication can be toxic, and too little will not effectively suppress the virus. Over time, under-dosing can lead to drug resistance. Children are not just small adults and their growing bodies are especially susceptible to the rapid advancement of HIV infection. Early awareness that a child has HIV infection, combined with good care and support, can enhance survival and quality of life, which is why I am introducing, with my colleague Senator Dodd, The Children Family HIV/ AIDS Research and Care Act of 2004. This legislation will address those needs of children and adolescents living with HIV/AIDS by reauthorizing Title IV of the Ryan White CARE Act and expanding its focus on reaching and caring for adolescents with HIV/AIDS. Moreover, this legislation will continue to work to reduce mother-to-child transmission of HIV, by promoting routine, voluntary prenatal HIV testing and intensive care management for HIV-positive pregnant women. In addition, because children are at risk of being left behind in the search for an effective HIV vaccine, the bill will require federal agencies funding and regulating HIV vaccine research to develop plans and guidelines for including pediatric populations in clinical trials as quickly as is medically and ethically appropriate. This legislation will also encourage research on key remaining pediatric research questions, including how to provide safer and more effective treatment options for children with HIV/AIDS. For a young person living with HIV or AIDS there is no cure and there is no remission. It is with them at home, on the playground, in the classroom, and at a Friday night sleepover. It will be with them as they enter high school, go to college and get their first job. For a person born with this virus it is a permanent part of their life. This bill will help to ensure that the needs of infants, children, and adolescents living with HIV/AIDS are not overlooked.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to remind my colleagues that this week, October 3 through October 9, is Nuclear Medicine Week. Nuclear Medicine Week is the first week in October every year and is an annual celebration initiated by the Society of Nuclear Medicine. Each year, Nuclear Medicine Week is celebrated internationally at hospitals, clinics, imaging centers, educational institutions, corporations, and more. I am particularly proud to note that Dr. Henry Royal, a physician practicing nuclear medicine at the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology in St. Louis, is a constituent and immediate-past president of the Society of Nuclear Medicine. The Society of Nuclear Medicine is an international scientific and professional organization of more than 15,000 members dedicated to promoting the science, technology and practical applications of nuclear medicine. I commend him and his colleagues for their outstanding work in the field of nuclear medicine and for their dedication to caring for people with cancer and other serious and life-threatening illnesses that can be diagnosed, managed, and treated with medical isotopes via nuclear medicine procedures. With nuclear medicine, health care providers can use a safe, noninvasive procedure to gather information about a patient's condition that might otherwise be unavailable or have to be obtained through surgery or more expensive diagnostic tests. Nuclear medicine procedures often identify abnormalities very early in the progression of a disease--long before some medical problems are apparent with other diagnostic tests. This early detection allows a disease to be treated early in its course, when there may be a more successful prognosis. An estimated 16 million nuclear medicine imaging and therapeutic procedures are performed each year in the United States. Of these, 40 to 50 percent are cardiac exams and 35 to 40 percent are oncology related. Nuclear medicine procedures are among the safest diagnostic imaging tests available. The amount of radiation from a nuclear medicine procedure is comparable to that received during a diagnostic x-ray. Nuclear medicine tests, also known as scans, examinations, or procedures, are safe and painless. In a nuclear medicine test, small amounts of medical isotopes are introduced into the body by injection, swallowing, or inhalation. A special camera, PET or gamma camera, is then used to take pictures of your body. The camera does this by detecting the medical isotope in the target organ, bone or tissue and thus forming images that provide data and information about that area of your body. This is how nuclear medicine differs from an x-ray, ultrasound or other diagnostic test--it determines the presence of disease based on function rather than anatomy. Recently, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' announced its decision to approve coverage of positron emission tomography or PET for Medicare beneficiaries who have suspected Alzheimer's disease. This decision will allow physicians to obtain an early and more definitive diagnosis and to begin treatment at the time when it provides the best chance of prolonging cognitive function for our Medicare beneficiaries. Some of the more frequently performed nuclear medicine procedures include: bone scans to examine orthopedic injuries, fractures, tumors or unexplained bone pain; heart scans to identify normal or abnormal blood flow to the heart muscle, measure heart function or determine the existence or extent of damage to the heart muscle after a heart attack; breast scans that are used in conjunction with mammograms to more accurately detect and locate cancerous tissue in the breasts; liver and gallbladder scans to evaluate liver and gallbladder function; cancer imaging to detect tumors and determine the severity--staging--of various types of cancer; treatment of thyroid diseases and certain types of cancer; brain imaging to investigate problems within the brain itself or in blood circulation to the brain; renal imaging in children to examine kidney function. Unfortunately, the field of nuclear medicine is not attracting enough incoming students to fill the current demand for nuclear medicine technologists--usually called NMTs. Currently, there is approximately an 18-percent vacancy of NMTs as determined by the American Hospital Association, AHA. By 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS, projects that the U.S. will need an additional 8,000 NMTs to fill the projected demand created by the aging workforce and expanding senior population. Over the next 20 years, the BLS expects that there will be a 140-percent increase in the demand for imaging services. The use of diagnostic imaging services has been increasing by approximately four percent a year, even as the number of certified NMTs and registered radiologic technologists has remained stable. As a result, imaging technologists often work longer shifts, and patients can face weeks of delay for routine exams. A similar situation is developing for nuclear medicine physicians. According to the American Board of Medical Specialties, there currently are 4,087 certified nuclear medicine physicians in the United States. At the same time, the number of physician training programs is also declining, exacerbating the future shortage. Over the next 20 years, the number of people over the age of 65 is expected to double at the exact same time when the nation will face shortages of medical personnel--including nurses, NMTs, physicians, laboratory personnel, and other specialists. With an increasing number of people needing specialized care--such as nuclear medicine--coupled with an inadequate workforce, our Nation quickly could face a healthcare crisis of serious proportions with limited access to quality cancer care, particularly in traditionally underserved areas. I encourage my colleagues to support Nuclear Medicine Week, to support policies such as the newly released CMS decision, and to support increased funding for programs so that our Nation will have a sufficient supply of nuclear medicine physicians and technologists to care for all patients in need of nuclear medicine procedures and related care.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation concerning a critical issue this year--disaster assistance. This has been one of the worst hurricane seasons that Florida has seen in recent years. The Sunshine State has been battered by four hurricanes in the past six weeks. I extend my deepest sympathies to the residents of Florida where some have had to evacuate more than three times during this hurricane season only to return home and find their homes leveled, their crops uprooted, their neighborhoods flooded, and their dreams shattered. In my home State of Missouri, we are no strangers to natural disasters. Located smack in the middle of Tornado Alley, Missouri has been hit by some of the largest storms in U.S. in history. In May of 2003, a string of tornadoes ripped through the western part of the State causing major damage and devastation. With two rivers--the Mississippi and the Missouri--we have also seen our fair share of flooding through the years. I will never forget when the Mississippi River breached its banks in 1993--one of the most devastating floods in U.S. history. Of the nine Midwestern States affected, the State of Missouri was the hardest hit and State officials estimate that damages totaled $3 billion. While both the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers have made the State of Missouri susceptible to riverine flooding, the State is also susceptible to flash flooding. A case in point is the city of Union, located about 45 minutes from St. Louis, which suffered tremendous damage from a severe flash flood in May of 2000. I mention the city of Union as a specific example of the benefits that a disaster mitigation program can hold in flash-flood situations. After the flood, the City of Union applied to the State of Missouri Emergency Management Agency to seek help in a demolition and acquisition project. With the mitigation grant money, 17 properties were acquired in residential areas with substantial damage. These properties are now dead restricted for ``open space,'' which will prevent future development and the potential for flash flood related deaths in that area because many of the homes and people will no longer be in harm's way. This is an excellent example of the value of disaster and mitigation money invested by the federal, state and local governments. Over the years, the State of Missouri has worked with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to build structures that prevent flooding and other damage from occurring when natural disasters strike. Time and time again, FEMA has come to the rescue by establishing funding for disaster relief and mitigation activities within the State of Missouri and in other States across the country. Having served as the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, which until recently oversaw FEMA, I know first hand the value of the agency's disaster mitigation grant programs--the Hazards Mitigation Grant Program (HGMP), the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program (PDM), and the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program. Designed to manage future emergencies, these programs have been essential to countless communities, and without them, thousands of lives would be in jeopardy. Recently, some very disturbing news was brought to my attention. According to a June 2004 legal memorandum issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), FEMA mitigation grants may be subject to income taxation. While some may argue that this is merely the IRS's interpretation of the statute, it is clearly the position the IRS intends to take against American taxpayers whose only recourse will be to fight the agency in court. I must say that I am absolutely stunned by this determination by the IRS!! How in the world could the IRS possibly think that Congress intended to tax these types of grants to prevent natural disasters, especially when we went out of our way to ensure that disaster-relief payments to individuals recovering from a hurricane, flood, tornado or other natural disaster are not subject to income taxes? Today, I am offering a bill that will stop the IRS in its tracks and prevent the taxation of disaster mitigation grants. This language will ensure that any Federal grants, as well as state grants indirectly associated with this program, will not be deemed to be income by the IRS's tortured reasoning. This bill will be effective as of the beginning of this year to ensure that any grants currently out there, especially in light of the current hurricanes that have happened, are not subject to tax. In addition, there should be no inference by this legislation that Congress intended such grants to be taxable prior to the effective date of this legislation. Why is this important? Why am I out here today? Because the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers rise, because tornadoes will ravage through the state once again, and because flash flooding can decimate an entire community. The last thing Americans who are working to prevent such potential destruction need is for government-grant funding to be subject to tax. My bill ensures that such taxes do not see the light of day. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation concerning a critical issue this year--disaster assistance. This has been one of the worst hurricane seasons that Florida has seen in recent years. The Sunshine State has been battered by four hurricanes in the past six weeks. I extend my deepest sympathies to the residents of Florida where some have had to evacuate more than three times during this hurricane season only to return home and find their homes leveled, their crops uprooted, their neighborhoods flooded, and their dreams shattered. In my home State of Missouri, we are no strangers to natural disasters. Located smack in the middle of Tornado Alley, Missouri has been hit by some of the largest storms in U.S. in history. In May of 2003, a string of tornadoes ripped through the western part of the State causing major damage and devastation. With two rivers--the Mississippi and the Missouri--we have also seen our fair share of flooding through the years. I will never forget when the Mississippi River breached its banks in 1993--one of the most devastating floods in U.S. history. Of the nine Midwestern States affected, the State of Missouri was the hardest hit and State officials estimate that damages totaled $3 billion. While both the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers have made the State of Missouri susceptible to riverine flooding, the State is also susceptible to flash flooding. A case in point is the city of Union, located about 45 minutes from St. Louis, which suffered tremendous damage from a severe flash flood in May of 2000. I mention the city of Union as a specific example of the benefits that a disaster mitigation program can hold in flash-flood situations. After the flood, the City of Union applied to the State of Missouri Emergency Management Agency to seek help in a demolition and acquisition project. With the mitigation grant money, 17 properties were acquired in residential areas with substantial damage. These properties are now dead restricted for ``open space,'' which will prevent future development and the potential for flash flood related deaths in that area because many of the homes and people will no longer be in harm's way. This is an excellent example of the value of disaster and mitigation money invested by the federal, state and local governments. Over the years, the State of Missouri has worked with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to build structures that prevent flooding and other damage from occurring when natural disasters strike. Time and time again, FEMA has come to the rescue by establishing funding for disaster relief and mitigation activities within the State of Missouri and in other States across the country. Having served as the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, which until recently oversaw FEMA, I know first hand the value of the agency's disaster mitigation grant programs--the Hazards Mitigation Grant Program (HGMP), the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program (PDM), and the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program. Designed to manage future emergencies, these programs have been essential to countless communities, and without them, thousands of lives would be in jeopardy. Recently, some very disturbing news was brought to my attention. According to a June 2004 legal memorandum issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), FEMA mitigation grants may be subject to income taxation. While some may argue that this is merely the IRS's interpretation of the statute, it is clearly the position the IRS intends to take against American taxpayers whose only recourse will be to fight the agency in court. I must say that I am absolutely stunned by this determination by the IRS!! How in the world could the IRS possibly think that Congress intended to tax these types of grants to prevent natural disasters, especially when we went out of our way to ensure that disaster-relief payments to individuals recovering from a hurricane, flood, tornado or other natural disaster are not subject to income taxes? Today, I am offering a bill that will stop the IRS in its tracks and prevent the taxation of disaster mitigation grants. This language will ensure that any Federal grants, as well as state grants indirectly associated with this program, will not be deemed to be income by the IRS's tortured reasoning. This bill will be effective as of the beginning of this year to ensure that any grants currently out there, especially in light of the current hurricanes that have happened, are not subject to tax. In addition, there should be no inference by this legislation that Congress intended such grants to be taxable prior to the effective date of this legislation. Why is this important? Why am I out here today? Because the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers rise, because tornadoes will ravage through the state once again, and because flash flooding can decimate an entire community. The last thing Americans who are working to prevent such potential destruction need is for government-grant funding to be subject to tax. My bill ensures that such taxes do not see the light of day. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and appreciate the words of my colleagues. In spite of years of recognition that intelligence was in dire need of reform, the catalyst of this year's reform initiative was the tragedy of September 11, 2001. The intelligence failure of Iraq's WMD programs only underscores this point. I applaud many of the provisions of the Collins-Lieberman bill. However, I stand in support of the Specter amendment as a means to provide absolutely essential powers to the national intelligence director. For those who may just happen to be listening for the first time, the national intelligence director is now known as the NID. But this NID must have powers to bring together fully and effectively our national collection efforts. In spite of my respect and admiration for the efforts of my colleagues, I remind the Senate that now is the time for bold action. This deliberative body must be prepared to stare down very powerful executive branch bureaucracies--and a few of our own--that are instinctively protecting their turf. Three thousand dead Americans should be a message to all of us that we must make significant changes. A witness before the Senate Intelligence Committee put it well. She said: History's lesson is to make the most of reform opportunities when they arise because they do not arise often and they do not last long. We have one of those rare windows of opportunity now. And if the past is any guide, there will not be another chance for a generation. These realities mean that reforms should be sweeping because they will be lasting. The choices we make will be with us for decades to come. I fear we are not being as bold in the underlying bill as circumstances demand. We all agree that the 9/11 Commission published a great report outlining in detail the events of September 11, 2001. We could not and we should not detract from their efforts. However, one fundamental concern I have in this is that it is now 3 years after 9/11, and we are only now taking action, largely based on the recommendation of a panel not specifically chartered to focus on the intelligence failures leading to 9/11. I am concerned that a commission directed by law to investigate the ``facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,'' has become the only basis for intelligence reform. Well, there is a lot of work that has been going on in this body and in the other body about intelligence reform that is not covered in the 9/11 report. Just since the end of the Cold War, there have been many major studies of intelligence reform, staffed by intelligence professionals. They include the joint Senate/House inquiry into 9/11, the Aspin-Brown Commission, IC21 study, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence study, the Scowcroft review, and many others. As I listen to the debate on this Collins-Lieberman bill, I am concerned that the truly meritorious recommendations and thoughts from these other commissions have been largely disregarded. Rather, I seem to hear--behind most of the key provisions in the bill--the rationale that ``the 9/11 Commission said so.'' Well, we do respect and take seriously the work of the 9/11 Commission, but we must be sure that we consider the other recommendations of studies specifically examining the intelligence process. I happen to think that many of those are more accurately reflective of the needs of the intelligence community. Recommendation No. 1, from the joint Senate/House inquiry into the 9/ 11 intelligence failure was: Congress should amend the National Security Act of 1947 to create and sufficiently staff a statutory director of national intelligence who shall be the President's principal advisor on intelligence and shall have the full range of management, budgetary, and personnel responsibilities needed to make the entire U.S. intelligence community operate as a coherent whole. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's staff study entitled, ``IC21,'' or ``Intelligence Community in the 21st Century,'' stated: The [intelligence community] would benefit greatly from a more corporate approach to its basic functions. Central management should be strengthened, core competencies (collection, analysis, and operations) should be reinforced and infrastructure should be consolidated wherever possible. The 9/11 Commission's Vice Chairman, Lee Hamilton, for whom I have a great deal of respect, admitted to our committee in open session that they really had not even considered more bold reform. He said the Commission simply looked at things they thought they could accomplish. I believe the word he may have used was ``pragmatic.'' They simply did not consider more bold reforms, so maybe we ought not to consider their recommendations as final. It is up to us. We have the ultimate responsibility of passing this bill. Are we going to pass what is pragmatic, what seems to be the least upsetting to the bureaucracies or do we want to be bold and pass something that will make the intelligence community work? Count me in the latter category. Yesterday, my good friend, the chairman of the committee writing this bill, alluded to some of the concerns I have. When responding to concerns about DOD being shortchanged by the NID's budget authority, she reminded us all that ultimately the President determines the budget. That will always be the case. Let us not also forget that the bureaucracies of the OMB and many committees of the Senate and the House also determine the budget. There is simply too many ways to water down the limited real authority that budgetary powers provide. More real day-to-day authorities are needed, especially if we are to hold a NID accountable for our intelligence efforts. As bothersome as the OMB is in the effective operation of Government--I say that only half facetiously--does anybody think the OMB runs the agencies of Government? They mess them up sometimes. There are a lot of areas I can tell you where the OMB has shortchanged vitally important activities. But run them? I don't think so. Budgetary authority is not the same thing as running an agency. The way I read the bill, it seems as though any agency or department that didn't want to chafe under a powerful NID has found a way out. This bill leaves the door open for several key agencies, such as the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, INR; major portions of the FBI'S intelligence operations capabilities; the Department of Energy's Office of Intelligence; the Treasury Department's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, and others, to avoid the authority of a NID. So under the Governmental Affairs bill, a NID who declares war on al-Qaida--as referenced by Chairman Roberts of the Intelligence Committee a few minutes ago--will have even fewer troops to try to muster for this war, and little additional power that doesn't already exist today. Let us recall that every knowledgeable voice on this issue is adamant: If you create a NID, he must be given power; otherwise, you create an intelligence czar and have made the problem worse. We have created a drug czar and all kinds of czars, but they are not able to get the job done. As I continue to listen to DOD proponents, I am concerned that insufficient authorities are granted in the GAC bill, and they will be even further eroded, putting us one step closer to creating an intelligence czar with a great title and very little authority. One of the recurring themes we always hear on the Intelligence Committee--on which I have had the pleasure to serve for only a year and three-quarters--is the reluctance of the agencies to share information with those who need to know. We know all too well there are many legitimate reasons not to share intelligence. We understand the need to protect sources and methods. We also understand that decisions not to disseminate some information may rightly involve protecting U.S. civil liberties. But parochialism, poor information architectures, and bureaucratic confusion should not be included amongst the reasons to squirrel away intelligence that we need by cognizant analysts throughout the community. Three years after 9/11, and after dozens of hearings in which intelligence community management describes ``seamless'' intelligence sharing, we end up prying a little deeper to find out that it simply is not the case. While there have been improvements in some areas of intelligence sharing, they are often done under duress. As soon as the ``heat'' is off, you can bet that those parochial agencies will return to intelligence hoarding, not intelligence sharing. We must empower a NID to force appropriate intelligence sharing even in times when the congressional and executive spotlights are not on the issue. I believe it has already been referred to on the Senate floor that at a recent hearing, the intelligence committee was truly dumbfounded as we listened to different agencies talk about a specific threat. Two agencies had a very different view of the severity of that threat when they started talking to each other at the witness table. One of the agencies said: We have information that you don't have. They were supposed to be working on the same threat. I asked a dumb question. I said: Why didn't you share it? They said it was sensitive information. Well, wait a minute. They were trying to give us a recommendation on a very serious matter, and the two agencies that were supposed to work together on this serious matter didn't want to share information with each other? I used to think when we worked on a need- to-know basis, if you have a sensitive collection system, you need to keep the name and identity very closely guarded. They were happy to tell us in the Intelligence Committee the reason they were keeping a particular source on another matter in confidence was because it was so sensitive. I will tell you one thing. If you have ever seen a sieve, it looks too much like the Intelligence Committee. We don't need to know the names or even the identifying features of an intelligence source in the committee. But if that is the essential element on which the analysts are going to determine whether this particular source is reliable, they ought to be sharing it on a very limited basis with all of the people involved in the task. I understand that the information that was gathered by the Iraqi Survey Group after the war was very effective because they brought in collectors and analysts from different agencies who were working on the same problem and they put their heads together. What a wonderful thing. They must have had a table. They laid out the information on the table. They did what informally is called ``red teaming'' and they came up with better estimates. The NID, the national intelligence director, needs to be able to take care of this himself, not to negotiate with the positions with other departments or go to the White House and Congress and say, will you get these guys together to talk? This reluctance to share information appears to be so deeply ingrained that only direct orders to do so are adequate, not budgetary influences. Let me be candid. As a member of the Intelligence Committee I am convinced that the worst offenders of not sharing intelligence are the CIA and the NSA, but there are others. Arm twisting that is largely limited to budgetary problems and powers will not solve the problem. We know getting the information shared among agencies, red teaming, as they say, is very important. In other words, if the players are at the table, they are going to get their best result when everybody turns over their cards and shows what they are holding, but right now some of the agencies are going to the table and keeping their cards face down, saying, boy, we know some stuff, it is in our hand, and we are not going to show you. Budget authority alone is not going to get them to turn over the cards. Red teaming cannot be successful unless the cards are turned over and the red team knows what cards the CIA is holding, for example. Full deference should be given to civil liberties concerns, and I hope that the Collins-Lieberman provisions for improving information architectures within the intelligence community will allow for getting the right intelligence to the right people, and in the case of very sensitive intelligence or any other critical, possibly damaging intelligence, only to the right people. But it has to be gotten to the people who need it. Some have argued that the Specter amendment will lead to too much centralized control, therefore group-think. Not likely. Let's be clear. The Specter amendment deals with national collection, entities of the NSA, NGA, portions of the DIA and CIA. This will help streamline collection and reduce inefficiencies. It will allow the NID truly to harness the collection capabilities against our Nation's primary threat: The terrorists. This leaves capabilities organic to the DOD currently funded under the Joint Military Intelligence Program, JMIP, and the Tactical Intelligence and Related Activities, somewhat glamorously acronymed the TIARA, still firmly under DOD control, as they should be. DOD will not be shortchanged and our Nation will have a more effective collection effort. Today, the DOD is the most voracious consumer of intelligence. That is why they have the lion's share of the intelligence budget and significant organic collection assets whose sole function is support to the warfighter. However, national collectors must be unified in an effort to meet national needs which include those of the key intelligence entities in our war or terror: DOD, CIA, FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security, where the appetite for terrorism- related intelligence collection will only continue to grow. I heard debate yesterday on the combat support agencies. Nobody denies that these agencies, the NRO, the NSA, and the NGA, are still combat support agencies, but as their name suggests, they also serve national interests. When we examine this in a larger light, we realize that having these agencies report directly to the Secretary of Defense solely made sense during the Cold War. However, as I mentioned earlier in this statement, the decisions we make today will be with us for decades to come. The world has changed. The war on terror is not going to go away soon. While DOD is still a voracious consumer of intelligence, it is now a partner with the CIA, FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and others in the war on terrorism. As other agencies continue to join CIA and DOD as coequals, it makes sense to have a national intelligence director who can see to the needs of all of these agencies and best harness all national collection capabilities to meet our national needs. Again, we need to look decades down the road. We must recognize the need to empower a NID to meet these needs. I believe Chairman Roberts has already mentioned this several times, but let me state that the Directors of the National Security Agency and the National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency stated that having their agencies transferred to the control of a NID would not degrade their level of support to the military. Considering their testimony, as well as other commentary and the maintenance of DOD's military intelligence collections, the Pentagon need not fear the Specter amendment in any way. It so happens I have a personal interest in this. As many of my colleagues know, my son is a young ground intelligence second lieutenant in the Marine Corps. I certainly do not want to do anything that would interfere with his or his comrades' ability to get the information, the intelligence, the estimates, and the tactical intelligence they need to leave them hanging out without adequate cover. My colleagues can bet I would never do that. I conclude by giving some thoughts from Dr. David Kay, the interim head of the Iraqi Survey Group, who testified before us many times and who was a real bright light in gathering intelligence. He is certainly not afraid to speak the truth in spite of whom he may offend. He told the Intelligence Committee: I am concerned, however, that simply creating a national intelligence director, even one that seems to have--and we think has--real powers . . . and we think budget and personnel authority is real power, we will not end up addressing the real problems . . . Well, budget and personnel authority is some power but, as Dr. Kay indicated, it is not real power. Dr. Kay further stated: I think you need to place the national intelligence director in charge, charged by you, Congress, with ensuring that all of the collection assets of this government work to support the national intelligence strategies and priorities. Dr. Kay recognizes the need for a unified collection effort. We cannot afford to waste or misuse scarce collection assets. I think Dr. Kay also knows the frustration of fragmented control quite well. He was a DCI special adviser on Iraq and then, as I have noted, headed the intelligence efforts of the Iraq Survey Group, or ISG. He wrestled with authorities quite frequently. In large part, this was due to the limited powers of the DCI vis-a-vis other department heads, but when they made progress is when they coordinated and cooperated and the agencies worked together. I urge my colleagues to support the Specter amendment. This is a key fix to give the NID some of the powers he or she will need if we are to ask the NID to be accountable for our national intelligence effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3706

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished chairman. It is a pleasure today to rise in support of Porter Goss to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Senate Intelligence Committee has done its due diligence. It has done its duty with regard to examining the nominee's fitness and qualification for the post of Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. His nomination should be approved without delay. Much of the work that goes on in the Intelligence Committee is conducted in confidence because of the need to maintain confidentiality. But I will say that the thorough hearings we had on Congressman Goss were similar to the thorough hearings we have had on all of the subjects brought under the jurisdiction and supervision of our distinguished chairman from Kansas, along with the ranking Democratic member from West Virginia. There is no question that there is a lot of important work awaiting the new Director of Central Intelligence. Somebody has to be in charge. We are at war with those who seek to destroy us and all freedom-loving people's way of life. Whether we have a new national Director of Intelligence, whether we have a CIA Director with expanded powers or limited powers, the fact remains that we need to move forward with the nomination of Porter Goss. We have a long way to go to hash out what kinds of changes we are going to make to the organization of the intelligence committee. The more I hear, the more I watch other committees working, the more divergence of opinions I see. Whatever structure we have, we need somebody to control intelligence and make sure we put it on the right path. A cornerstone of our fight in the war against terrorists, as well as other challenges that confront us, is the paramount need for timely and actionable intelligence to ensure good policy decisions, to ensure adequate preparation for actions that we may take, and to ensure victory for our forces that are deployed in the real-life battles against those who threaten us or threaten national security. Our national security depends on the ability of intelligence services to locate, penetrate, identify targets, and/or destroy terrorist cells. In addition, we need a Director of Central Intelligence who will keep policymakers informed about other global threats facing our Nation. And, yes, while we are looking at the war on terrorism, we need to be concerned about and following developments about the possible nuclear program advances or missile advances in Iran and North Korea, the steady growth of troubling developments in other major world powers, and the continuing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction technology. The intelligence community needs a leader right now, the support of the President, and the support of this body who has the experience coupled with a commitment to reform. I am convinced that Porter Goss possesses these qualities. He was a former intelligence officer, a former CIA clandestine officer, and as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, where he probably also went in harm's way to handle that post, Porter Goss clearly knows the intelligence business and has the experience. As cochairman of the joint House-Senate inquiry into the 9/11 intelligence failures, he is intimately aware of the problems currently existing within the intelligence community's ability to counter terrorists. He is someone who will work with the Congress and the administration to implement needed reforms. Mr. Goss has also earned the respect of his colleagues and fellow policymakers on both sides of the aisle. One of the most, if not the most important principles that applies to our intelligence community and our oversight should be our nonpartisanship. Porter Goss has been praised by his Democratic colleagues year after year for being nonpartisan on national security. Senator Graham of Florida said of Porter Goss, in our hearing: He is uniquely qualified to be here today as the President's nominee to serve as the Director of Central Intelligence. . . . He is a man of great character, unusual intelligence, a tremendous work ethic and an outstanding personal and professional standard of integrity. Senator Graham also went on to say: In addition to those personal qualities, when it comes to the intelligence community, Congressman Goss has, in my judgment, a balanced perspective, a perspective gained both as an insider and then as an outsider. For a decade, early in his career, Congressman Goss served our Nation in both the Army and the CIA. He knows firsthand the value and the risk of clandestine operations. I could cite many other statements by leaders in both bodies. Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, last month, said of Representative Goss: He's a class act. Goss combines all of those characteristics, which are kind of somebody I like. My colleague and friend from Missouri, Representative Ike Skelton, the minority leader on the Armed Services Committee, said, in 1997, talking about the work on the intelligence authorization bill: I salute both the chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], and the ranking Democrat, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] for their dedicated and bipartisan work. I believe he can work on a bipartisan basis. In addition, Porter Goss understands the endemic deficiencies within the intelligence community. There can only be true, meaningful changes if there is a solid understanding of why change is necessary. Porter Goss understands what is broken and is determined to work with us to fix what needs to be fixed and not to mess with what does not need to be fixed. There are some glaring problems we identified in our report on the prewar intelligence on Iraq. One of them was the poor state of human intelligence. That is spies on the ground, HUMINT as it is called in intel-speak. We did not have any. What a disaster. We also have problems in collection in general, analysis, and the consistent problems with information sharing. These are problems that Porter Goss has, during his tenure as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, devoted himself to improving. As Chairman Roberts mentioned in yesterday's open session, Porter Goss held over 62 hearings on intelligence community reform issues this year. Under Chairman Goss's leadership, the House Intelligence Committee advocated changes and added resources annually to address the intelligence community's most pressing problems, especially those related to HUMINT and analysis. His commitment to reform forced the CIA to repeal its restrictive internal guidelines that had a ``chilling effect'' on HUMINT operations. He attempted to refocus CIA analytic resources toward longer term, predictive, strategic intelligence, and directed that more attention be paid to language training, breaking down stovepipes, and enhancing information sharing. I can tell you, the stovepipes still exist. We still have bureaucracies that only want to share information up and down within their little fiefdoms, and we need somebody in charge who is willing to break down those barriers and make sure sensitive information is shared on a need-to-know basis. Porter Goss was a member of the Aspin-Brown commission which was formed to assess the future direction, priorities, and structure of the intelligence community in the post-Cold-War world. The commission made a number of recommendations, including looking how to streamline the DCI's responsibilities and give him more flexibility in managing the intelligence community. Those who question Porter Goss's commitment to change must remember that his leadership and dedication to intelligence community reform is apparent in his work on the ``Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.'' This report contained 19 recommendations. It laid the foundation for the 9/11 Commission recommendations--the changes that have been the subject of much discussion in the press over the last several months. Those who question Representative Goss's commitment to reform as well as his commitment to operate independent of the current administration should recall that Mr. Goss took the initiative to introduce his intelligence reform legislation on June 16 of this year, H.R. 4584, which called for significant changes in the intelligence community structure in addition to providing a DCI or DNI the much needed personnel and budgetary authority required to be a truly effective leader. It should be noted that Porter Goss's legislation did not fall in lockstep with the recent Executive order issued by the President, thus proving that Mr. Goss will take the necessary bold steps to do what is right for the community. I quoted Senator Nelson of Florida earlier, but he also said of Porter Goss: . . . Congressman Goss is someone whose public life has been illustrative of being nonpartisan, fair and independent. When Porter Goss was pressed to defend past partisan statements before our committee, he acknowledged there are times on Capitol Hill when partisanship will rear its head. That is, unfortunately, part of the job. However, he told our committee the following: I well understand that I am leaving one arena and, if confirmed, heading to another arena that operates completely differently where partisan politics are not part of the job. A considerable record has been created, embracing both substantial comment on Porter Goss on his nomination and several commitments by him on intelligence matters involving counterterrorism and other important activities. I stress again the importance of approving Mr. Goss's nomination at this time of paramount importance in the intelligence community. I hope my colleagues will join with the chairman, with me, and other members of the committee in extending him our support. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today my subject is going to be one which we had hoped would not be facing us. But it still faces us today, and that is the age-old plague of anti-Semitism. Like so many other diseases, we thought it had been wiped off the face of the Earth. But it has returned in new and, unfortunately, virulent forms. In July of this year, Australia's largest synagogue in the west coast city of Perth was defaced with anti-Semitic graffiti that read ``6 million more please with fries.'' Recently, in the United States, and at least 14 other countries, anti-Semitic incidents have been recorded, and the trend is not promising. Mass expulsions, forced conversions, bans on land ownership, job and housing discrimination all mark a people who have been singled out, not because of what they have done but because of who they are--Jews. Now, many of us who came of age in the post-World-War-II era harbored the illusion that the last remnants of anti-Semitism perished in Hitler's gas chambers. Many believed that what American GI's discovered in Nazi concentration camps was so horrendous and shocking that it finally put an end to what historian Robert Wistrich had dubbed ``the longest hatred''--that of anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, we are witnessing a rapid re-emergence of anti- Semitism. From the Middle East where sermons from mosques single out Jews for death; to Paris, where Jewish schools are firebombed and Jewish children are routinely attacked, to the conference against racism in Durban, South Africa, which quickly became a carnival attacking Israel; to the inordinate number of anti-Israeli resolutions in the U.N. General Assembly, to U.S. college campuses, where anti- Israel rallies become forums with chants that disintegrate into cries of ``Death to the Jews'', anti-Semitic acts have become commonplace and even fashionable once again. As Natan Sharansky wrote in Commentary magazine, November 2003, ``Israel has become the world's Jew and anti- Zionism is simply a substitute for anti-Semitism.'' In Washington, the recent attacks on Doug Feith and the so-called neo-conservatives such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle charging Jewish DoD officials with manipulating U.S. intelligence in order to ``force'' the United States to take out Saddam in Iraq contain familiar anti-Semitic overtones. The fact is the Senate Intelligence Committee, after an exhaustive review of pre-war U.S. intelligence, found absolutely no evidence of pressure being put on intelligence analysts to change their official assessments by any officer of the administration. The Jewish state has tried in earnest to sacrifice ``land for peace''. We witnessed Prime Minister Barak's offer to Chairman Arafat: shared sovereignty over Jerusalem, Muslim control of the Temple Mount, 97 percent of the West Bank and Gaza, and a land swap in the Negev for a corridor around Jerusalem that couldn't be given away, a ``right of return'' for thousands of Palestinian refugees, and a compensatory package for those that couldn't be re-absorbed. The offer was so generous that many were privately apprehensive about what would become of Israel if Arafat were to have accepted it. Yet, Arafat walked away from the negotiating table and responded with violence which has remained unmitigated ever since. Over 1,000 innocent Israelis have lost their lives for simply riding on buses, or going out to eat pizza with their families. Under Article 51 of the U.N. charter, a nation's primary responsibility is to protect the lives of its citizens. When Israel tried to do that, by building a defensive barrier to keep out terrorists, which has resulted in a 90 percent decrease in terrorist attacks, the U.N. General Assembly voted to refer it to the International Court of Justice, in the Hague. The ICJ declared Israel's security fence ``immoral'' and demanded that it be removed. The security fence will disrupt the Palestinian's travel, but inconvenience is not final, death is. The ICJ decided that only Israel should be singled out for moral opprobrium--for building a security fence to defend the lives of its civilian population. This is occurring while Muslims with less dark pigment in their skin are systematically murdering Muslims with more dark pigment in their skin, in the Darfur region of the Sudan, to the tune of 1,000 a week. When a Jew or Israel is judged by a different, more stringent standard than that used to judge any other person or nation, there is just one term for it: anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, the scourge of anti-Semitism is prolonged when the institutions we depend upon for community and regional stability are infected by it. Take for example the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency was established in 1949 to provide humanitarian services to Arabs who left their homes during the war against Israel's independence. UNRWA is the only U.N. agency assigned to serve only one class of people, and the only refugee agency whose mandate does not include the resettlement of its wards. Fifty-four years after its founding, UNRWA is providing assistance to the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of those who left. Soon it will be providing services to the grandchildren of the grandchildren. All other refugees are the responsibility of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees; who serves 21.8 million persons in 120 countries with the aim of resettling them. This situation, unintended at first, is perpetuated now by a combination of naivete, inertia and ill design. It is responsible in large measure for the intractable nature of Palestinian and Arab claims against the State of Israel, and makes the Palestinians tools in the continuing Arab struggle to delegitimize and ultimately eliminate Israel. The difficulties created for the Palestinian people by this are legion. With the exception of Jordan, Arab states in which they live have refused to grant citizenship to them or to their descendants born after 1948. In some countries, Lebanon in particular, laws strictly limit the professions these persons may enter, the schools they may attend, or the places they may live. UNRWA schools, according to the State Department, provide children with textbooks that ``contain anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish content.'' This is a mild statement. In fact, many of the texts contain exceptionally lurid and hateful propaganda. UNRWA-administered camps are filled with weapons, as has been acknowledged by UNRWA personnel in statements to the media. The Government of Israel has charged that UNRWA warehouses have been and are being used to store weapons and bomb making material. Each year UNRWA-financed projects, such as the Union of Youth Activities Centers, sponsor gigantic ``right of return'' rallies throughout the West Bank and Gaza, encouraging people to believe the existence of Israel is temporary and will be reversed by the U.N. UNRWA is financed by voluntary contributions and, according to U.N. records, the United States has consistently contributed about 25 percent of UNRWA costs. In 2002, that amounted to $110 million. UNRWA is funded annually, providing an opportunity for countries to examine the mandate, propose changes, and decide whether or not it will renew funding. It is time to initiate a thorough investigation into the finances of this agency. We must work to eliminate institutional hatred as exemplified by the anti-Semitic culture resident within UNRWA. Some will say that America would not be targeted by terrorism if it did not support Israel to the degree that it does. If we stand by and witness this hatred without intervening or supporting our democratic ally then we would become as venal as the rest of the world. Appeasement of hatred and murder would only come back to haunt us just as appeasement to terrorism in the 1980s and 1990s did on 9/11. Giving in to the prevailing, fashionable wind of anti-Semitism and anti- Zionism would directly contradict the ideals that this country has been founded upon. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I lend my support to a very important issue that would provide funding for the permanent installation of explosive detection system, EDS, equipment in airports. This amendment would increase the overall amount of money of EDS installation from $250 million to $325 million. I have been joined by Senator John Ensign of Nevada and a bipartisan group of Senators in this very important effort to enhance security and convenience for our Nation's air travelers. As passengers traveling through St. Louis, Kansas City, and other airports across the country have surely noticed, a number of bulky baggage screening machines sit in crowded terminal buildings where they were temporarily placed in the aftermath of 9/11. I am concerned that the current situation creates safety and security risks and unduly inconveniences the traveling public since passengers are forced to work their way around these obtrusive machines. Additionally, the current in-lobby configuration unnecessarily wastes Federal resources since in-lobby equipment requires additional screening personnel to operate, transfer bags, and the like. The goal of our amendment is to provide additional resources to move EDS equipment from airport lobbies out of the way and behind the scenes as part of an airport's baggage system. This is a costly undertaking requiring extensive construction at airports. The project cost estimate at St. Louis, for example, is $90 million, and $34 million at Kansas City. Nationwide, estimates to permanently install EDS equipment in airports run from $4 billion to $5 billion. While costly, it is clear that EDS installation should be a high priority for the Federal Government. I made that point in a March letter to the Senate subcommittee responsible for drafting the DHS spending bill. Additionally, I would note that the 9/11 Commission Report, which Congress is in the midst of considering, also calls for expediting the ``installation of advanced (in-line) baggage screening equipment as part of its aviation-related recommendations.'' Our amendment is fully offset through a reduction of $75 million in an account aimed at establishing information technology connectivity between TSA and airports. While IT connectivity is certainly an important goal, that account has been increased by $154 million over last year's level under the current bill, and a $75 million reduction still leaves $218 million available for that purpose. Given the difficulties that airports around the country are beginning to face with increasing wait times at screening checkpoints as air traffic continues to rebound, it is critical that we act now to move forward with EDS installation projects as quickly as possible. Adoption of this amendment is critical if we are to make any real progress in that regard.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Georgia for his very thoughtful and incisive comments. I believe he is a great addition to the Senate with his experience working on intelligence issues in the House. On the Senate Intelligence Committee, he makes great contributions. I appreciate and second what he has said.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is interesting today that some of our colleagues are on the floor talking about the wonderful expose Ambassador Joe Wilson made. Joe Wilson and his wife have become quite a cause celebre. He has had 30 appearances, he is writing books and, oh, yes, now he is on the Web site of Senator Kerry. The Web site is ironically entitled ``RestoreHonesty.com.'' On that Web site, Mr. Wilson said: . . . this President misled the nation in his State of the Union Address. Then he goes on to say: They tried to intimidate me and others who were willing to speak up and tell the truth. . . . I was courageous to speak truth to the power of the Bush White House. . . . George Bush's Administration has betrayed our trust--I know that personally. That is quite an indictment. It goes along with quite a few other points. I understand on the first page of his book--I did not buy it and I do not intend to. I was told that three times on page 7 he said President Bush lied. Why did he do that? It was all because of 16 words in the State of the Union Address on January 28, 2003. I addressed this issue last week in this body, and I think I raised some very serious questions about the veracity of Ambassador Wilson's suggestions. I was given the opportunity last night on the Jim Lehrer PBS ``NewsHour'' to have a discussion with Mr. Wilson. Margaret Warner was the interviewer. Unlike many of the other sound-bite discussions on TV these days, we had a full 10 minutes. It was a very interesting discussion because I had the opportunity to make my points, and Mr. Wilson made his points. I commend PBS for giving us the opportunity. What I cited when the interviewer asked me about my contentions that Mr. Wilson was not truthful was I noted that the basis of his charge and the basis of so much nonsense we have seen disseminated in the press and repeated by some of my colleagues on this floor and covered in scam political pieces being put out by friends of the Democratic nominee that President Bush lied was totally debunked, among other things, by the finding of Lord Butler's commission in the United Kingdom. He said in paragraph 499 of the report released last week: We conclude that on the basis of intelligence estimates at the time covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier and by the Prime Minister and the House of Commons were well-founded. This is the important point. This is the examination of British intelligence: By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of January 28, 2003, ``The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa'' was well-founded. Mr. President, the British went back and looked at it, and they said what President Bush said about British intelligence was well-founded. He says: The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Now, we get a little bit more of that. Actually, the one piece of information that Ambassador Joe Wilson brought back from his trip to Niger in February-March of 2003--the only useful data he brought back was the fact that the Prime Minister of Niger told him the Iraqi delegation met with him in 1999 to begin discussions to establish commercial contacts. What do you think they wanted to import from Niger? Well, there are a couple of choices. Niger's second and third largest exports are mung beans and goats. Niger's largest export-- three-quarters--is yellowcake uranium. The Prime Minister reasonably concluded that they were probably seeking yellowcake uranium. There is no evidence they actually purchased it. It was not conclusive. There was a forged document about purchases that was not truthful, but that does not debunk or in any way take away from the fact that President Bush was correct, and the British intelligence is still correct in saying that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. Based on that, and since Ambassador Wilson, who came back finding only that there had been one contact, and that contact, according to most analysts, suggested there was even more of a basis for the conclusion in the State of the Union Address--he came back and debunked the whole thing, made it a lie. The conclusion, unanimously reached in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, after over a year of investigation, 15,000 documents reviewed, over 200 interviews, signed on by all members of the committee, including Senator John Edwards, says in conclusion 12: It was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based upon Central Intelligence Agency reporting and other available intelligence. Conclusion 13 says: The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analyst's assessment of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency reports on the uranium deal. You talk about thoroughly debunking the debunker. Our staff asked Mr. Wilson how he knew some of the things he was stating publicly with such confidence. On at least two occasions, he admitted he had no direct knowledge to support some of his claims, and he was either drawing on unrelated past experience or no information at all. For example, when they asked him specifically how he knew the intelligence community had rejected the possibility of a Niger uranium deal, or even exploration for a deal, as he wrote in his book, he told the committee his assertion may have involved a ``little literary flare.'' That is a heck of a thing to call a whopping lie, a ``little literary flare.'' Back home, we call that a fraud and a hoax. Now, I suggest to Mr. Wilson once again that he owes a public apology to the President and the Vice President. By the way, he said he knew the Vice President knew of his report. The Vice President did not get his report. There is no evidence of that. If he had, it would have been with the analysts' conclusion that his report probably made it more likely and not less likely that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. Anyhow, he stood by it. I tell you, the whole premise of this smear campaign that was started by Ambassador Wilson to call the President a liar has been totally debunked by the British intelligence report, by Lord Butler, and by our own Senate Intelligence Committee's unanimous report. By the way, we have been hearing a lot--and I understand we are going to hear a lot more--about Ambassador Wilson's wife. Let me deal with that. In our report, we found good evidence that she had actually made recommendations to the CIA to send her husband to Niger. On page 39 of the Intelligence Committee report, we state: The former Ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA's behalf. The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region. Also, on page 39: . . . interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD {} reports officer told Committee staff that . . . . On February 19, 2002, CPD hosted a meeting with [Mr. Wilson], intelligence analysts from both the CIA and INR, and several individuals from the DO's Africa and CPD divisions. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the merits of [sending the Ambassador]. . . . The INR analyst's notes indicate that the meeting was apparently convened by the former ambassador's wife, who had the idea to dispatch him to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue. She left after she set it up, but she managed to get the job done. But we didn't stop there. Even though Mr. Wilson had angrily denied and used barnyard expletives in Time magazine to say that his wife had nothing to do with the trip to Africa, and Joshua Marshall quoted him saying that it defies logic that his wife sent him, the most compelling answers of all that his wife gave to our staff when interviewed in January 2004, 6 months after the Wilson hoax began, and the months and months of charges and Joe Wilson's fierce denials that his wife had anything to do with his selection--let me repeat. Ambassador Wilson angrily said his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Africa. That is bull [expletive]. That is absolutely not the case. That is what Wilson told Time magazine on July 17, 2003. So he had denied it. What did she say? Did she deny it? Six months after she heard her husband angrily denying it and knowing what he had been saying for months and what he wrote in his book, I had staff go back and see what she said when asked about this issue. Her quote was: I honestly do not recall if I suggested it to my boss. . . . That is what she said. That is from the transcript. Frankly, I think that is very telling. She doesn't recall if she suggested it to her boss after 6 months, and her husband has been out there saying she had nothing to do with it. Are you kidding? Just who is the Ambassador's source for all of his denials? Yet 6 months later she cannot remember if she suggested it to her boss? I know the occupant of the chair has interviewed some witnesses and tried some cases. When you get a person who has knowledge that is right on point, and it is an issue that has been the focus of great discussion for months and you ask them, Did you, in fact, say what the other witnesses said, you can do two things: Say, absolutely not, I didn't say it. But if that is not true, you have all these other witnesses who said you did. So what do you say? You say: I honestly do not recall. I think that leaves us pretty clearly in the camp of saying that what the analysts and others said the February 12 memo she prepared means, and that is that she was the one who proposed sending her husband to Iraq. Joe Wilson said that the CIA said to a couple of reporters who asked about that--and this is from last night--that she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. He stated that the officers who did ask him to check the uranium story were aware of who he was married to, which is not surprising; she did not recommend her husband. Well, Ambassador Wilson may have found some people who were willing to say that, but we sent this whole report to the CIA. They fact- checked the whole thing. We even set out the facts that she recommended sending her husband. The CIA commented on almost everything that we had in the report. It was a lengthy report. It took them a long time. Not one comment, not one change, in the findings in our report that she was the one who recommended him to go. That has been discussed at great length on the floor by people who are charging that somehow there was a criminal conspiracy to ``out'' Ambassador Wilson's wife in retaliation. I believe the Wall Street Journal has been doing a very interesting analysis of this, and I ask unanimous consent that yesterday's Wall Street Journal article ``Mr. Wilson's Defense,'' be printed in the Record after my remarks.