Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Dr. Fran Harvey to be the next Secretary of the Army. I have met with Mr. Harvey and discussed the responsibilities of this position with him, and I believe he is well qualified to lead the Army during this critical time. As I stand here today, the U.S. Army is succeeding in the global war on terrorism despite continued stress on and transformation of the force. It is remarkable that the Army is succeeding to the extent that they are while--at the same time--undergoing a significant reshaping of the force. Many of my colleagues have suggested that a simple increase in the number of troops in the Army will solve the Army's challenges. While I believe that the Army does, at least in the near-term, need additional troops, I believe the Army's largest and most promising challenge is to continue transforming itself into a 21st century fighting force with 21st century tools and a 21st century management structure. I believe that Francis Harvey will help lead the Army in this direction. As I see it, to relieve the stress on the force, we have to create a more flexible force, and I commend Secretary Rumsfeld on the steps he has taken to achieve this. To implement these reforms, the Army needs a leader who has experience with leading, managing, and reforming large organizations. Mr. Francis Harvey has that experience, and the necessary business acumen and results oriented approach to get the job done. I have confidence in Mr. Harvey's ability to lead the men and women of the U.S. Army as they meet the challenges of the next decade. He will be an effective, forward-thinking leader who will take the Army where it needs to go in the coming years. In closing, I would also like to recognize the outstanding leadership and contribution of the Acting Secretary of the Army over the last 18 months, my good friend Les Brownlee. Les has led the Army during an extraordinary time in the Army's history and deserves to be commended for his professionalism and his selfless service to our country and to the men and women of the U.S. Army.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President. I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Ladies Auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars for their great work on behalf of our military members and veterans, and specifically those veterans and military personnel in the State of Georgia. For many years, the Ladies Auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars has been involved in supporting our brave men and women in uniform and their families. Throughout the country many Ladies Auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars are providing support and well wishes at our Nation's airports as soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines leave and return from Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Iraq. Members of the Ladies Auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars also help the families of deployed troops meet such challenges as trying to fill the roles of absent parents, learning to stretch a reduced paycheck, and dealing with loneliness. In the last year, the Ladies Auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars has provided many families and troops with Operation Uplink cards, which allow our troops to make long-distance phone calls to loved ones during challenging times. Additionally, members of the Ladies Auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars have personally helped deployed service members' families by babysitting, providing transportation, helping with weekly tasks like mowing the lawn and grocery shopping, but most of all by being good listeners. The Ladies Auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars also provides scholarship funds for civically minded youth. Through various scholarship funds, the Ladies Auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars awards $37,500 annually. Young people benefiting from these awards have outstanding achievement in academics, volunteerism, and the creative arts, and these awards allow them to extend these achievements even further. The Ladies Auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars also offers a unique program to its members. All members are eligible to receive a cancer grant, which is a lump sum gift given to a member who has been diagnosed with cancer. Two Cancer Research Fellowships are also offered by the Ladies Auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. These grants are 1-year, $50,000 postdoctoral fellowships, which are awarded each year to eligible scientists. The auxiliary provides these fellowships so that researchers can devote one year full-time to the challenge of cancer research. I hope my colleagues will join with me today in commending the ladies auxiliary for their service and contribution on behalf of our military personnel and veterans. The Nation should be proud and appreciative to have such an organization active and operating. I am especially proud to have them active in the State of Georgia and congratulate them for their accomplishments and their service to our country.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on H.R. 4520, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. This important legislation attempts to comply with the World Trade Organization, WTO, rulings on the Foreign Sales Corporation, FSC, Extraterritorial Income, ETI, benefit in order to prompt the European Union to rescind trade tariffs currently placed on United States exporters. It would repeal an export provision in the United States tax code that has been ruled an unfair subsidy and therefore does not comply with the WTO. In addition this bill seeks to preserve jobs and production activities in the United States via the simplification of international tax laws and a mix of investment incentives. A $10 million tobacco buyout, minus the Food and Drug Administration's regulation, is also incorporated within this bill. This bill would replace the current export subsidy that has been ruled unfair by the WTO with a new $77 billion tax break on manufacturing income. Companies will also be able to exclude 9 percent of their manufacturing profits from taxation and multinational companies will receive $43 billion in a variety of tax cuts on their overseas income. These tax breaks and incentives are instrumental in our attempt to comply with the WTO while ensuring American jobs stay at home. Also included in this package is a landmark change. This bill contains provisions to terminate the Federal tobacco quota program. This tobacco quota program was created during the 1930s and has provided controls on the production of tobacco for decades. And it has worked well. However, since 1998 tobacco quotas have been cut by over 50 percent leaving tobacco farmers with no where to turn. This package provides compensation for those farmers and quota holders who have lost over half of their assets through no fault of their own. Compensation of $7 to quota owners and $3 to producers based on the 2002 effective quota level is provided in this package while at the same time it keeps producers free of potential burdensome regulations advocated by some in the industry. I am pleased that the funding for this buyout comes at no cost to the taxpayer without granting authority to the FDA to regulate tobacco and tobacco products. In terms of the economy, this legislation will have a significant impact on rural Georgia. Mr. President, $607 million will be provided over a ten year period. Additionally growers can continue to produce tobacco without government constraints and be competitive in the world tobacco market. I support the passage of this significant legislation because it will benefit the manufacturing industry in Georgia while ensuring American jobs are not lost overseas due to burdensome and unfair tax regulations. I also support the passage of this bill because of the unregulated FDA tobacco buyout provisions that compensate tobacco farmers for assets that have been plundered by the Federal Government. It is because of my son's wedding this weekend in Georgia that I regret that I will not be able to actually vote on this legislation. However, if I was in attendance and able to cast my vote on H.R. 4520, it would be in support of this bill.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, under the current resolution that is being considered, the Commerce Committee retains Coast Guard jurisdiction and Transportation Security Administration jurisdiction and the Finance Committee retains the revenue side of the Customs Department jurisdiction. This amendment simply allows the Judiciary Committee to receive parity with the other committees that are giving up part of their jurisdiction to the new Homeland Security committee. I will tell my colleagues specifically what this amendment does. It retains the Immigration and Naturalization functions at the Judiciary Committee, which are in line with Senate rule No. XXV. Specifically, it includes three agencies: Citizenship and Immigration Services, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as well as Customs and Border Protection. In addition, Judiciary would retain the immigration functions at the border and transportation security directorate. These functions include the U.S. visit entry/exit program and the Visa Waiver Program. The amendment preserves the language that currently rests in S. Res. 445 that maintains certain customs in the Finance Committee. What does the new Governmental Affairs and Homeland Security Committee get as a transferee from the Judiciary Committee under this amendment? First, it receives the information, analysis, and infrastructure protection directorate. It receives the emergency preparedness and response directorate, including FEMA; third, the science and technology directorate; fourth, State and local coordination function; and five, jurisdiction over Secret Service. In addition, the following agencies would go to the new committee: The Office of Domestic Preparedness under BTS from Judiciary and also would receive domestic emergency support teams under EPR from Judiciary. This is a balanced approach. This amendment maintains parity with the Commerce Committee, the Finance Committee, and the Judiciary Committee relative to the particular jurisdiction we will maintain. As the chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee on the Judiciary Committee, daily we deal with various matters involving immigration. Some of that has had to do with terrorist issues. Those issues should rightly go to the new Department of Homeland Security, but the bulk of issues we deal with relative to immigration are dealt with at the State Department, not currently with the Department of Homeland Security. There will be overlap on every issue that every Federal agency deals with relative to terrorism and homeland security. We cannot cover every single issue and move it to this one particular committee to have sole jurisdiction over it just because it may deal with homeland security; we can not move every single subcommittee and all jurisdiction over every issue to the newly created committee. What this amendment does is retain in the Judiciary Committee the basic core immigration issues that are judiciary related, not terrorism related. The Judiciary Committee is made up of individuals who have a legal background, and for the most part there are legal issues involved in the immigration issues we are proposing be retained within the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the substitute to the desk for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I should have mentioned that. Senator Kennedy and I offered this amendment together.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I withdraw that request.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, first, let me again thank my colleagues from Maine and Connecticut for their hard work preparing and bringing an intelligence reform bill to the Senate floor. Reforming the intelligence community is serious business, and I appreciate the professional and thoughtful approach taken by the Government Affairs Committee, especially the chairman and ranking member. I rise today to express some of my concerns on S. 2845, the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. First, it is important to fully understand exactly why we are debating the reformation of our intelligence community in the first place. Our enemy has attacked us in new ways that no one ever thought about or occurred before in the entire history of mankind. The attacks on 9/11 were made on predominately civilian targets, using commercial civilian airlines, loaded with totally innocent, ordinary citizens. No one really planned for an attack of this nature because as a God- fearing nation, it was hard to imagine that some human beings could be so evil, so warped in their interpretation of their own religion that they believe the slaughter of innocent people by the thousands is somehow condoned or even approved by their God. Well, we now know the nature of our enemy, and it is dangerous beyond anything we have known in the past. And we are reminded of our enemy's evil nature every time we see a video of an innocent person pleading for their life or being beheaded in Iraq. These Islamic terrorists have in effect ``hijacked'' the Muslim faith, distorted it to meet their own twisted philosophy of life, and we must stop them. Let me be absolutely clear on this point: the Islamic terrorists want to frighten us, they want to disrupt our economy and our way of life, and they want to kill us; they will stop at nothing, including suicide attacks to achieve their evil goals. I have said in this chamber many times that effective intelligence is our first line of defense against this enemy and only good intelligence will prevent them from ever again attacking us on our own homeland. That is why we are here today to put more ``teeth'' into our intelligence community. We are here to debate and vote on legislation that should provide more security for our citizens. The Collins-Lieberman legislation that we are considering is a good bill in many ways, but it only marks the beginning of a process to rebuild our intelligence capabilities, not the end. The bill establishes a National Intelligence Director; a position that I view as the ``foundation'' upon which all other intelligence reform measures will be built. However, there are some other measures relative to intelligence reform that will require our attention as soon as possible. This bill leaves the intelligence community at fifteen members, eight of which are in the Department of Defense. As you know, I had a bipartisan amendment that was co-sponsored by my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Ben Nelson, that would create a unified command for military intelligence giving the new National Intelligence Director a single point of contact for military-related intelligence requirements and collection capabilities instead of eight. This is a major issue that must be addressed soon; otherwise the National Intelligence Director will have an unrealistically large span of control. Collectively, the eight members of the intelligence community that this bill leaves in the Department of Defense are huge, with tens of thousands of people and multi-billion dollar budgets. How someone outside of the Department of Defense, like the national intelligence director, could adequately and efficiently manage these vast intelligence capabilities by dealing with eight separate military members is beyond me. Senator Nelson and I are committed to fix this shortcoming by introducing a bill to create a unified combatant command for military intelligence this coming January. The Central Intelligence Agency is left intact in this bill, which is the right decision. But the bill does not adequately address the importance of human intelligence, HUMINT, or emphasize rebuilding this critical capability. HUMINT is a dirty and dangerous occupation, and it, more than any other intelligence discipline, will be the key to eliminating al-Qaida and all other terrorist organizations. We really owe our HUMINT case officers in the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and other agencies all our thanks, support, and the resources necessary to get the job done. The portion of this bill that creates a civil liberties board with broad subpoena power is particularly troubling to me. We need to take more risks in HUMINT and we need to rebuild the morale of our HUMINT collectors. What kind of message are we sending to our intelligence agents in the field who are risking their lives to protect us by creating a board designed to look over their shoulders and, which is redundant to the President's Board on Safeguarding Americans' Civil Liberties? We could create a morale problem throughout our intelligence community that might take years to repair and, I hasten to add, at a time when we need HUMINT more than ever to protect our citizens. I am voting for S. 2845, the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, because it does establish the national intelligence director and gives statutory authority for the newly created National Counterterrorism Center. However, I will continually seek ways to address my concerns with this bill, some of which I have mentioned above. I want to reiterate again, that this bill marks only the beginning of the process to reform our intelligence community, not the end. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Arizona for his tremendous leadership on this particular issue. I voted yesterday with our leadership to invoke cloture on this bill, but, frankly, I did so reluctantly because I sympathize with the comments that the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, made just yesterday and the day before relative to the fact that we are rushing into an issue that is so complex that we really need to take the time to do this right. But I understand we are at the end of this session and that we need to get this bill done and get it to conference. That is the only reason that Senator Kyl and I are willing to withdraw this amendment. Let's get it to conference and try to clean this up there. Once again, I have been reminded about the problems we have at the CIA under the leadership now of a new CIA Director whose hands are going to be tied by this particular provision that we are seeking to modify in this bill. We are concentrating, from an overall intelligence reform standpoint, on building up our collection of intelligence through human assets. But now with the creation of the civil liberties board in this bill, a political bureaucracy is being established that is going to be looking over the shoulder of every CIA agent around the world and is going to have the ability to determine whether that CIA agent violated the civil liberties of somebody in the prosecution of gathering intelligence. I think this is a very harmful provision in this bill. The Senator from Arizona has provided strong leadership on this issue, and I thank him for that. We need to clean up the provision of the bill as it relates to the civil liberties board before we destroy the morale of our agents in the field. While I regret we are going to have to withdraw the amendment at this point in time, I also am encouraged by the comments of the chairman, as well as Senator Lieberman, that they are willing to work with us as we move into conference. It is critical to make the necessary modifications in conference to ensure that our intelligence community has a free hand in trying to gather intelligence to protect the lives of our citizens without violating civil liberties, and without violating privacy rights. Our intelligence professionals have and will conduct their dangerous and important work within the framework of our laws. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I call up this amendment with the intention of withdrawing it. We had discussions with the chairman of the committee, along with the ranking member. While we feel this is a significantly important amendment, we are still a ways from coming to an agreement relative to the substance of it. Basically, in today's intelligence community, there are 15 agencies within the Federal Government that have some jurisdiction and some involvement. Eight of those 15 agencies are located within the Department of Defense. We have our three combat support agencies--the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and the National Reconnaissance Office--all of which have been discussed very liberally within this debate. We also have the Defense Intelligence Agency, as well as every one of the four service branches with an intelligence division. Under the current setup--and the setup that will be in place after the passage of the intelligence reform bill, as it is now on the floor--all eight of those agencies report to the Secretary of Defense and they will report in a dual capacity to the Secretary of Defense and the National Intelligence Director. Senator Nelson, who has been a very strong cohort and cosponsor of this amendment, and I strongly believe that what we need to do to improve the effectiveness and the communication in the intelligence community relevant to the Department of Defense is to combine all eight of those intelligence agencies under one combatant commander, create a new combatant commander that is at the four-star level and require all eight of these agencies to report to that one four-star general so that the Secretary of Defense and the national intelligence director have one person to go to when it comes to the collection, analysis, and dissemination of intelligence from a Department of Defense perspective. Having been involved in this for the last 4 years, both in my last 2 years on the House side and 2 years now on the Senate side, I know how complex the intelligence world is and how many overlaps there are between the civilian side and the Defense Department side and how absolutely necessary it is that we have an ongoing line of communication between the military and civilian departments and agencies that are involved in the collection, analysis, and dissemination of intelligence and the sharing of that information at different levels and across various agencies. For the Secretary of Defense to have eight people report to him and for the new National Intelligence Director to have eight people report to him, when we could have one person reporting to both of those two on issues relating to military intelligence, seems almost commonsensical that we reduce those eight down to one if we are going to provide a more efficient, a more effective intelligence line of communication. That is the substance of our amendment. While I understand there is some objection forthcoming to the inclusion of the amendment, Senator Nelson and I wanted to offer it, we want to debate it, and we want to make sure this entire body knows we are going to come back next year when we have a little different forum within which to operate to offer this amendment again as a stand-alone bill and see it to its conclusion. I close by saying that there is some objection from the Department of Defense on amendment 3710. While they are not publicly objecting, if they were asked, they would say they would rather not have a unified combatant command for intelligence because they want to have the flexibility of doing it the way they want to do it. Several years ago, we had a similar situation relative to the consolidation of special operations when this body took the lead and told the Department of Defense: We are going to create a new unified combatant command for special forces, or SOCOM; we are going to create a four-star commander and consolidate all special operations under SOCOM and that one combatant commander. The Defense Department resisted that, but today they will tell you at the Pentagon that it is one of the best things we have ever done. It was this body that initiated it. Senator Nelson and I think the same thing should apply in the area of intelligence. While I will withdraw the amendment, we both wanted to stress that a unified combatant command for military intelligence will be equally important for informing the National Intelligence Director of military intelligence requirements as it will be for assigning military intelligence capabilities to assist in fulfilling the National Intelligence Director's intelligence responsibilities. I yield to my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Nelson.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Senator from Nebraska for his always keen insight into the problem that exists and why this amendment would help with the solution to that problem. I look forward to continuing to work with him when we get back in the next session of Congress. I also thank the chairman for her effort to try to figure out some compromise relevant to this particular issue. Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman have been very cooperative, and it is not for a lack of effort on their part that we are not able to come to some compromise on this issue, but we look forward to continuing the dialogue and working with them. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 3710 Withdrawn I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I call up for consideration amendment No. 3710.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, the caption is: ``Troops sound off. Who do you choose for President and why?'' Among Active-Duty forces, 66 percent in this poll said the most important issue for them in deciding for whom to vote is the war in Iraq. In the same poll, 60 percent said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, and 72 percent said if the Presidential election were held today, they would vote for President Bush. That is quite a statement of support for the Commander in Chief and his policies in Iraq from those who are actually doing the fighting and the dirty work to bring security and prosperity to that country. Even more significant are the results from the Reserve and National Guard troops who have been called to active duty and deployed to Iraq. Among this group, 72 percent said the most important issue for them is the war in Iraq; 63 percent approve of the President's policies in Iraq; and a full 76 percent of the Reserve and National Guard soldiers who have actually been deployed to a combat zone said they are planning on voting for President Bush. These are amazing figures from both our Active Duty and Reserve Forces that tell us much more about what is going on in Iraq than just the reports of the bombings and kidnaping. Listening to the assessments from my colleague from Massachusetts begs the question: Why do the vast majority of our soldiers and marines engaged in ground operations in Iraq appreciate the importance of our mission there and believe they are engaged in a historical struggle that will lead to a better world and a safer America when a senior Senator cannot see the same thing? Are they right or is he right? As I reflect on the words of the Senator from Massachusetts, I am reminded of that famous quotation made by McLandburgh Wilson: Twixt the optimist and pessimist, The difference is droll: The optimist sees the doughnut, But the pessimist sees the hole. When it comes to Iraq and the war on terrorism, my colleague from Massachusetts sees the hole, when he should be seeing the doughnut. I suspect that nothing we say in this Chamber will change his views on the issue. Nevertheless, I feel obligated to make some remarks about why our troops are fighting in Iraq, and why some are giving the ultimate sacrifice for our country. It is important for our troops and their families to know that not all Senators only see the ``hole.'' Our policy in Iraq should not be viewed in isolation. The issue is far more complex than that. It is important to understand the linkage between the Islamic terrorists who want to destroy us and the totalitarian regimes under which so many of them were raised. People who have such a deranged view of a Supreme Being that they believe their religion sanctions their own suicide, while killing innocent people, and do not come from free, open, and democratic countries and societies. Let me explain how I look at Iraq and the war on terrorism. If we look at each incident individually, each bombing, each hostage taking, each killing, et cetera, we get one impression of these events. What we should do instead is put ourselves in the place of an eagle soaring high and looking down on everything that is going on inside of Iraq. When we take the eagle's view, this is what we see: Iraq is no longer a sanctuary for terrorists, it is no longer a country that threatens its neighbors, and it is no longer a threat to world peace and order. The insurgency in Iraq is confined to 3 of the 18 provinces, and the country is preparing for its first democratic election only 4 months from now. Iraqi leaders, Iraqi soldiers, and Iraqi policemen are stepping forward in the thousands to take back their country from the terrorists. All we have to do to see what progress is being made in this area is to look at the success we have had just over this weekend. It was not just American troops who had success in Samarra, one of the most violent places inside of Iraq; it was the now-trained Iraqi security police who fought side by side with the American troops, who received the praise of the American troops for the training, preparation, and the great job they did in not just helping secure the peace but driving the insurgents out of that town and providing a safer and more secure community in which the people could live. America, along with many other countries, remains firm and will not be deterred from achieving the goal of seeing a democracy in Iraq. There is a realistic understanding of the difficulties and dangers in Iraq, but there are also visionary, optimistic leaders in Iraq and in the many countries that make up the multinational force who are determined to see the insurgency fail. There have been many references to the July 2004 National Intelligence Estimate, or the NIE. In fact, Senator Kennedy said in this Chamber on 29 September 2004 that the best case scenario in that NIE was that violence in Iraq would continue at current levels, with tenuous political and economic stability. Regardless of what this classified NIE actually said, I do know it was based on information that is but a snapshot in time and that time continues to move on. There are many things visible today that were not clear when that NIE was written. The character of the Iraqi leadership was unknown last June, but no one who heard Prime Minister Allawi speak to the Joint Session of Congress recently could be anything but impressed with his enthusiasm, his intellect, and, most importantly, his determination to see a free and safe and democratic Iraq. Lieutenant General Petraeus has been working assiduously to build up the Iraqi security forces. Last June, when the NIE was written, very few of those forces had completed their training. Now trained and competent Iraqi Army and police units are on duty and are assuming the major role in restoring security in their own country, and the training continues, so we can expect even more Iraqi security forces to assume their duties every month, just as they did in Samarra this past weekend. We are engaged in an enormous struggle of historic proportions to see freedom and democracy spread throughout the Islamic world, and this will set the foundation for a final peaceful solution between Israel and Palestine. It will also, in the long term, eliminate the politically oppressive environment and poor economic conditions that have been the breeding grounds for terrorists to find new recruits. I want to say to our military personnel and their families that your role in this historic and important struggle is the key to its success. You will look back with pride on your contributions and your sacrifices to make our country and the world safer. When you see what you have accomplished from an eagle's view, you will not see the hole that a pessimist sees. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, for the past several days, I have followed the remarks of the senior Senator from Massachusetts relative to Iraq and the war on terrorism. He likes to talk more about yesterday and not as much about tomorrow. He finds fault in everything that the President and his team have done to protect our lives, our liberties, and our way of life. He interprets facts to fit his dismal view of Iraq. What bothers me the most about his many public statements condemning the war in Iraq is that he does so while we still have troops engaged in securing that country. These troops know it is vital--absolutely vital--for the long-term security of the United States and our allies that they succeed in helping Iraq become a free and democratic country. The most recent edition of the Army Times newspaper contains a very telling survey of Active Duty, Reserve and National Guard troops on their views of Iraq and the Presidential race which bears out this point. This is the October 11th edition of the Army Times. I ask unanimous consent that the article, which appears beginning on page 14, be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I wholeheartedly concur with the concerns of my colleagues regarding the far-reaching effects of NAFTA panel decisions. I am especially troubled by the fact that NAFTA panels often blatantly fail to apply the required standard of review. NAFTA requires panels to apply the standard of review of the country imposing the duty. The panels are thus obliged to apply the same standard as would the U.S. Court of International Trade--namely, to determine whether the ITC's decision was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence on the record of the case, even if there was also evidence supporting an alternative conclusion. The courts--and NAFTA panels--are not supposed to second-guess the ITC or reweigh the evidence considered by the ITC, but simply to ensure there is a reasonable basis in the record to support the Commission's conclusions. In practice, however, NAFTA panels have often ignored this requirement and have instead substituted their judgment for that of the ITC or the Commerce Department. This is especially problematic given that agencies review all of the evidence collected during a proceeding, have substantial experience administering the laws, and often consult with and advise Congress in the drafting of the statutes. Unlike a court or a panel, the ITC has the resources--including industry analysts, economists, and accountants--and the expertise needed to review and analyze the often voluminous records in these proceedings. The Commission is therefore plainly better suited to make determinations based on the facts. As a result, U.S. law could not be clearer: Courts and panels are not to second-guess an agency but are only to ensure that the agency followed the express requirements of the statute and that there is substantial evidence--``more than a scintilla''--in support of the agency's ultimate conclusion. While the U.S. courts follow this essential element of review in administrative cases, the NAFTA panels do not. Indeed, as the recent ITC decision referenced by my colleague makes clear, in the softwood lumber injury case the NAFTA panel substituted its judgment for that of the International Trade Commission on any number of evidentiary questions. Unfortunately, the lumber panel is just the latest example of a proceeding in which NAFTA panels have reached legally untenable results completely at odds with U.S. law and NAFTA requirements. We in Congress must monitor this situation very closely. We cannot allow our domestic industries and their workers to become defenseless against unfairly traded imports due to flawed decisions by runaway panels. A better means of dispute settlement within the NAFTA must be created, and the proper standard of review requirements must be enforced.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed as in morning business.

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor United States Army 1LT Tyler Hall Brown, who was killed proudly fighting for his country in Iraq on September 14, 2004. An Airborne Ranger and ROTC graduate from Atlanta, GA, Tyler was 26 years old. Tyler was born on May 27, 1978, in Atlanta. He attended Woodward Academy and was senior class president, where his classmates considered him a ``politician in the making.'' Tyler Brown then attended the Georgia Institute of Technology where he was student body president of the Class of 2001 and a cadet in the Army ROTC program. Tyler graduated with dual bachelor of science degrees in management and in history, society and technology. After being commissioned as an Army Officer, he was assigned to the 2nd Infantry Division--Camp Hovey, in Tongduchon City, Korea. From Korea, he deployed to Iraq early last month with his unit, C Company, 1st Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division. He was killed by small arms fire when his unit was attacked by insurgents in the Iraqi town of Ar Ramadi, Iraq, 70 miles west of Baghdad. Lieutenant Brown was slain by a sniper as he led a reconnaissance patrol in an Iraqi town infested with insurgents. Mortally wounded by the sniper's shot, Lieutenant Brown was able to give a warning to his men, which prevented any others from being hit. Though he was wearing upper body armor, he was hit in the upper thigh where a tourniquet could not stop the bleeding. His unit had deployed from Korea in early September and had been in Iraq only two weeks when Tyler was killed. Tyler's company commander, CPT Daniel Gade, made the following comments: ``Tyler was the finest officer I've ever known . . . he loved his men, and they loved him in return.'' It is certainly ironic that Lieutenant Brown had been approved for service in the Army's famous 3rd Infantry Regiment, known as the Old Guard, which guards the Tomb of the Unknowns and serves as escorts at military burials at Arlington Cemetery. Instead, Brown chose to go to Iraq with men from his battalion in South Korea. On September 28, at Arlington Cemetery, the Old Guard that he was to join honored Tyler Brown at his gravesite. Tyler Brown was a great American, a great soldier, a great leader, and an outstanding young man. He and his comrades in Iraq deserve our deepest gratitude and respect as they go about the extraordinarily challenging, important job of rebuilding a country, which will result in freedom and prosperity for million of Iraqis. I join with Tyler's family, friends, and fellow soldiers in mourning his loss and want them to know that Tyler's sacrifice will not be lost or forgotten, but will truly make a difference in the lives of the Iraqi people.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague Senator Kyl, in support of amendment No. 3801 which I will describe in a minute. Before I get to that, let me thank the chairman and ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee for the great work they have done on this bill. There has been no more delicate situation this body has had to deal with in many years, certainly in the 10 years I have been privileged to be a part of the Congress. Certainly there is no more important issue before us today because this issue involves the safety and security of every American, not just this generation but future generations to come. No two people have the concern of the American people more at heart than do Chairman Collins and Ranking Member Lieberman, both of whom I have tremendous respect for. I appreciate their leadership on this issue. Today I rise along with Senator Kyl in support of amendment No. 3801 to S. 2845. This amendment focuses on intelligence reform relative to the civil liberties provision in the underlying bill. Section 211 of the underlying bill establishes a civil liberties board and gives that board certain powers and authorities. Let me be clear: There is no stronger advocate for civil liberties in the Senate than myself. As a lawyer and a legislator, my entire professional life has been intertwined with the preservation of the liberties we all enjoy as Americans and which are enshrined in our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. The issue we debate today is not whether we support our civil liberties; we all support them as contained in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The question is, how best to balance this issue with other rights that form the cornerstone of our Constitution: namely, that among our inalienable rights from our Creator are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When Islamic terrorists threaten our life and our liberties, we must act to protect ourselves. That is why we are here today debating the reformation of our intelligence community. We know our enemies want to kill us, and we understand that good intelligence will protect us. In our country, we may differ on how to do this, but there is no disagreement on why we need to do it. Our challenge is to increase our intelligence capabilities without undue infringement on our individual liberties. Today our struggle is against an enemy unique in our history. The enemy is not a nation state. Rather, it is a warped philosophy that distorts any rational notion of what a Supreme Being expects of mankind. There are no rules of warfare for our enemy. They feel free and unencumbered to fly civilian airplanes loaded with innocent passengers into buildings, killing thousands of ordinary, hard-working, good citizens of our country. They relish in cutting off the heads of people who have done no harm to them whatsoever, recording it on video and broadcasting their horrific, inhumane actions to the world. One only has to look at one of those tapes or listen to the voices of helpless victims pleading for their lives to grasp how evil and dangerous these Islamic terrorists are and why this Nation must succeed in our fight against them. To win against such an enemy, we need to keep our focus. We need clear, unambiguous, and non-duplicative orders and laws pertaining to our war on terrorism and the protection of our civil liberties. S. 2845 is a bill to strengthen our intelligence capabilities. It is meant to put more teeth into our ability to track, find, and arrest or kill those who wish to murder our people and destroy our way of life. It is not a bill regarding our civil liberties. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights, which has oversight responsibility in this area, I am keenly aware of the safeguards that are already in place to protect our civil liberties from overreaching by the Government. Within the Department of Justice, there is an entire division devoted to protecting our civil rights. This division is responsible for coordinating the civil rights enforcement efforts of Federal agencies and assists in identifying and removing provisions, policies, and programs that violate our individual rights and liberties. Last month, by Executive Order 13353, President Bush created the President's Board on Safeguarding Americans' Civil Liberties. This board is specifically designed to further strengthen the protection of the rights of Americans in the effective performance of national security and homeland security functions. As the President said when he established the board and I quote, ``The United States Government has a solemn obligation, and shall continue fully, to protect the legal rights of all Americans, including freedoms, civil liberties, and information privacy guaranteed by Federal law, in the effective performance of national security and homeland security functions.'' Our amendment to S. 2845 clearly highlights the importance we all place on civil liberties, but it leaves the power to enforce our laws on this issue where it belongs--with the appropriate Federal agencies that are already equipped and designed for that function. Whenever U.S. officials or U.S. military personnel violate any of our laws, they need to be fully prosecuted. Of course, we have good systems already in place to make sure that happens. For example, as bad as the abuse of some Iraqi prisoners was, our military justice system is handling those soldiers accused in exactly the right way. Let me tell you a little bit about what this board is designed to do and the powers and authorities of this board. I am reading from page 155 of the underlying bill: The Board shall continually review the information sharing practices of the department's agencies, and elements of the executive branch to determine whether they appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties . . . And so on. Now, further, on page 158, in order to accomplish the provisions set forth in the section I just read, this board has access to information as follows, and I am quoting from page 158, line 21: If determined by the Board to be necessary to carry out its responsibilities under this section, the Board is authorized to . . . Now I read on page 159, line 12: . . . require, by subpoena issued at the direction of a majority of the members of the Board, persons (other than departments, agencies, and elements of the executive branch) to produce any relevant information, documents, reports, answers, records, accounts, papers, and other documentary or testimonial evidence. Now, this board has an obligation not to sit back and wait for any complaints to be raised, or any issues to be raised with the board, but an affirmative obligation to go out and review the policies and procedures of the civil organizations underneath the executive department. So what is going to happen, without question, is there will be problems in the intelligence community. We know and understand that. The No. 1 deficiency in the intelligence community is highlighted by every single board; every single committee within this body, or outside committee, that has looked at this issue has agreed that the lack of human intelligence is what the main deficiency has been and continues to be today. The only way we are going to cure that problem is to encourage our spies in the field--and that is exactly what they are--and these spies are absolutely necessary to provide the kind of intelligence our military and civilian authorities need to ensure our national security. This board is going to have the authority to aggressively go out and review any situation relative to a case that is ongoing by any officer of the CIA, wherever in the world that officer may be operating. This board is going to have the ability to take statements from individuals who are Government employees, or people outside the Government, who have information relative to any case they want to look at. This bill goes even further. It says this board has authority by subpoena issued by just a majority of the members of this board, to require individuals or agencies to produce documents, including classified documents, that may be reviewed on any particular case. What is that going to do to every single CIA agent who operates in the field, or to every DIA agent who operates in the field and who shares information with the CIA? I think, without question, what we are doing by the enactment of these particular sections is to create a morale problem at the Central Intelligence Agency and our other intelligence agencies throughout our intelligence community that we will never repair. We are on the back side today, thank goodness, of having repealed the Deutch guidelines that were implemented in 1995. Those guidelines prohibited the expenditure of tax money being paid to individuals providing us intelligence if they had a criminal record or any kind of disparaging record in their past. Well, what that meant was that we could only hire Sunday school teachers to go out and spy on bad guys around the world. Thank goodness this body took affirmative action in the last couple of years to repeal those guidelines. But it was only after the events of September 11 that we were able to accomplish that. In addition to the morale problem that will be created, which I don't think we will ever overcome, one might say this is a board that is going to be appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and they are not to be a political board. Everybody in this body knows what that means. This is going to be a political board. In fact, the legislation itself says that members of the board shall be selected solely on the basis of their professional qualifications, achievements, public stature, expertise in civil liberties and privacy, relevant experience, and without regard to political affiliation. But in no event shall more than three members of the board be members of the same political party. So what we are doing here, in effect, is creating a political board. It makes no difference to me which administration is in office. I think it is bad policy to have our CIA agents, DIA agents, and every other intelligence officer in the field that operates for the sole purpose of gathering intelligence to save and protect Americans from being killed or harmed, having this board look over their shoulder and have the ability not just to investigate the case they are operating on, but to look at any information they have shared with anybody else, or any information that they have received from anybody can also be reviewed and traced back. I think it is bad policy to create a board and give them that kind of power and authority and expect them to operate in any way other than a political manner. Rather than set up another entity with broad powers, including subpoena power, to look over the activities of our intelligence personnel who are fully engaged in important and dangerous activities to protect all of us, I would rather give our support and confidence to those in the Department of Justice who are working on our behalf every day to protect our civil liberties. I want to allow the newly formed President's Board on Safeguarding Americans' Civil Liberties to begin their work. Let us not establish competing and duplicative bureaucracies. Our amendment will strike from section 211 those provisions expanding the powers given to this board to the point of not allowing them to subpoena information, including classified information, from agents around the world and other folks involved in the intelligence community. We need to rapidly improve our intelligence capabilities, and that should be the focus of S. 2845. The protection of our civil liberties is already the focus of the President and the Department of Justice, and they have the resources to do just that. With that, I yield to my friend from Arizona.