Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I call for regular order with respect to amendment No. 3801.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from West Virginia allowing me to go before him. The leadership that the chairman and the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee have provided has been unparalleled in this difficult time in the history of our country. Both Senators have conducted themselves in a very professional way and have brought continued honor and dignity to the Senate Intelligence Committee in a bipartisan way, and I want to publicly commend both of them for their leadership. I rise today in support of the nomination of Porter Goss to be the Director of Central Intelligence. There is no more important time in the history of our country, from an intelligence perspective, than we are in today. Porter Goss has been nominated by the President to be the chief intelligence officer for the United States. Porter Goss brings to the office an unparalleled wealth of experience and knowledge relative to intelligence matters. Porter Goss has been a friend of mine for 10 years, and I bring to this argument and this debate a little bit different perspective than any other Member of this body because I served in the House of Representatives for 8 years with Porter Goss, the last 2 as a member of the House Intelligence Committee under the chairmanship of Porter Goss. During the last 2 years as a Member of the Senate and as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I have continued a relationship with Porter Goss in the intelligence community. Both before September 11 and subsequent to September 11, I have seen Porter Goss in the trenches doing the kind of work that lawmakers have to do relative to their day-to-day jobs. Nobody has provided stronger leadership on the issue of intelligence than Porter Goss has, both before September 11 as well as after September 11, and more significantly after. As I think about the arguments that have been brought forth in the public hearings over the last couple of weeks regarding Mr. Goss, the primary thrust of the negative arguments have been that he is too partisan and too political to carry out the job of the DCI. Well, I will say this about this man for whom I have so much respect: I have seen him in an atmosphere of committee work. I have seen him in an atmosphere of social work. I have seen him in an atmosphere of operating on the floor of the House of Representatives. Certainly, there is nobody who is a stronger advocate for his position on any issue than Porter Goss. He is very direct. He is very plain spoken, and it is pretty obvious which side of the issue he is on. But he always does his arguing in a very respectful way, and in a way which advocates his position but does not get into personalities. Unfortunately, that is where the partisanship occurs in both this body and the body across the U.S. Capitol. Porter Goss has conducted himself in a professional and nonpartisan way as chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as a member of the Rules Committee and otherwise in the U.S. House. He is a strong advocate for his positions but he is not a partisan person. I will discuss very quickly why I feel so strongly about his background and what it brings to the table relative to his confirmation. Porter Goss started out early in his career as a military intelligence officer in the U.S. Army. He then moved into the realm of the Central Intelligence Agency and was a clandestine officer for the CIA in two different overseas posts. He knows the people within the CIA. A number of individuals who he served with during his CIA years are still employees at the CIA. He knows not only the organization, but he knows the personalities, and he knows the kinds of people who are led, and the kinds of people who need to lead at the Central Intelligence Agency. Porter Goss followed his time as an Intelligence Officer in the field with 8 years as chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence. He has covered the spectrum from an intelligence perspective. He has been on the ground as an Army intelligence officer, and the Department of Defense is the largest customer of the CIA. He has been at the ground level of the CIA, where the real work is done and where the real intelligence is gathered, by being a clandestine officer within the CIA. Then in his years as chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence he has been in a position to provide oversight for the work that not only he did as an active member of the intelligence community but following, particularly, post-September 11 he has provided the oversight and been critical where he needed to be critical, and yet complimentary where he needed to compliment the intelligence community relative to the work they were doing. I don't know of anyone else who has the same diversified background as a soldier, a clandestine case officer, and a legislator as does Porter. It is pretty obvious that his background and vast experience are two of the main reasons why the President selected Mr. Goss to be the next Director of Central Intelligence. Porter Goss is a personal friend and he is somebody for whom I have great respect. I know what kind of family man he is, I know the strength of his character, and I know his dedication to duty, which is why he accepted the nomination to become our next DCI. I also know the wealth of intelligence background he will bring to the table as our next DCI. The main point I want to conclude with is the fact that we are in a very complex world. We are in a world where intelligence matters. We are in a world where we need to have the cooperation of our allies around the world to collect intelligence against common enemies and common threats. I have been with Porter Goss when he has had meetings with numerous-- too many to detail--heads of the intelligence communities of our allies, both abroad as well as here in Washington. I have seen the rapport and the relationship he enjoys with these individuals. I have been to other countries around the world to meet with the heads of their intelligence agencies, and the first question they will ask is not how am I doing but, ``How is my friend Porter Goss doing?'' He has an unparalleled relationship with the intelligence community around the world--not because he is just a good guy but because they respect him for the work he has done and they respect him for the knowledge and the experience he brings to the table relative to the intelligence community. I strongly support the nomination of Porter Goss to be the next Director of Central Intelligence. I ask my colleagues to review the record on Mr. Goss, listen to the debates, but at the end of the day I hope we will send a resounding message to the President, and that is: You have picked the right man. Let's confirm Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence and move forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I request 7 minutes.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to help frame the issue in Iraq. The American people deserve straight forward answers on issues of war and national security; especially when their lives are directly threatened and our military forces are engaged around the world in the war on terrorism. And it is not just our military forces that are at risk; our diplomats, intelligence professionals, and ordinary civilians working in war zones all face enormous danger from a very treacherous and barbaric enemy. The recent, brutally grotesque beheadings of innocent Americans Eugene Armstrong on Monday and Jack Hensley yesterday are just two of many examples of the kind of evil that we face and why it must be eradicated. Ambiguity is something we probably should expect in a heated political campaign, but anything less than total candor on national security issues is not acceptable. The junior senator form Massachusetts has accused President Bush of ``colossal failures of judgment'' on his plan for Iraq. He then went on to lay out his own four-point plan for handling the conflict in Iraq. His four points were, No. 1, to get more help from other nations; No. 2, provide better training for Iraqi security forces; No. 3, provide benefits to the Iraqi people; and No. 4, ensure democratic elections can be held next year as promised. I have no problem with this plan, because it is the short term and long term plan now in place by the Bush administration. Our President has consistently and assiduously worked with our allies to get more help in Iraq. Sure, we would like to get more countries on board with us, but this is tough business and it takes bold, visionary leadership--like we see in Great Britain, Italy, Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Australia, and dozens of our closest allies. To imply, as some of my colleagues have, that the United States is not getting help from our international friends is simply untrue. As terrorism spreads to other countries, as it did recently in Russia, we should expect--and provide--even more help. And let me point out the obvious about some allies, like France, who have not been supportive of our policies in Iraq. Their foreign policy decisions are based on internal political considerations and not on the personality of the President of the United States. For some of my colleagues to imply that some countries will change their policies toward Iraq if we change our President is ludicrous and misleading. The French will change their foreign policy when they change their President, not when we change ours. I have a great deal of trust and confidence in the common sense of the American people and I am sure they will understand exactly what I am saying. The junior Senator from Massachusetts has also called for better training for Iraqi security forces. I am glad that he also agrees with President Bush on this point. Training Iraqi security forces is a high priority of this administration. Let us look at the facts. The Iraqi Army has more than 62,000 members. Of these, almost 46,000 have been trained and another 16,000 are currently in training. All 27 battalions of the Iraqi Army will be operational by January 2005. Speaking at New York University recently, the Democratic Presidential candidate said, ``Of the 35,000 police now in uniform, not one, not one, has completed a 24-week field training program.'' Just yesterday, however, The Washington Post reported that the head of strategic plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Lt. Gen. Walter Sharp, said that Kerry's accusation was just not accurate. According to Gen. Sharp, who is in a position to know, basic training for new Iraqi police officers is eight weeks, followed by 26 weeks of ``on-the-job'' field training. The Post article went on to say that Gen. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, estimates that Iraqi security forces will be in `local control' of the majority of Iraq by the end of December, which is just 3 months away. Gen. Casey defined `local control' as a combination of having Iraqi security forces in place, plus an assessment of the ability of local political leaders to govern and to manage economic reconstruction efforts. Others have criticized the President for not getting NATO involved in Iraq. Too bad they didn't read yesterday's London Financial Times. If they had, they would have read that, ``NATO is close to a deal to establish a military training academy in Iraq. The academy, which would have a staff of about 300, is intended to give substance to a decision by a NATO summit in June to provide training to the war-torn country as it seeks to build up its institutions.'' I hasten to add, that this NATO initiative was put forward by our President. So getting NATO involved is another area where the Democratic Presidential candidate agrees with the administration's policy in Iraq. Let me also add that 15 of 26 NATO member states are sharing the military burden on the ground with us in Iraq. Charles Colton's famous quotation, ``Imitation is the sincerest of flattery,'' certainly applies to my colleague, Mr. Kerry. His four- point plan is not new and it certainly is not original. A careful review of President Bush's policies in Iraq clearly shows that the administration has been implementing all the points addressed by Senator Kerry well before he even articulated them. We need to judge the President's policy in Iraq, not by the rhetoric of his detractors, but by those who know the facts. Tomorrow, the Congress will welcome, in Joint-Session, the interim Prime Minister of Iraq, Dr. Allawi. Let us hear from him how things are going in Iraq. Let us listen to him to find out what the Iraqi people think of our policies and programs for restoring security and getting the Iraqi economy going. Let me close by quoting from President Bush's speech, which he gave at the UN yesterday. I believe it clearly shows why we are in Iraq, something that others do not seem to grasp. The President said: Our security is not merely found in spheres of influence, or some balance of power. The security of our world is found in the advancing rights of mankind. These rights are advancing across the world--and across the world, the enemies of human rights are responding with violence. Terrorists and their allies believe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the American Bill of Rights, and every charter of liberty ever written, are lies, to be burned and destroyed and forgotten. He went on to say: We are determined to destroy terror networks wherever they operate, and the United States is grateful to every nation that is helping to seize terrorist assets, track down their operatives, and disrupt their plans. The Acting Secretary of the Army, Les Brownlee, has eloquently framed why Iraq is important in the war on terrorism when he said: This is not simply a fight against terror--terror is a tactic. This is not simply a fight against al Qaeda, its affiliates and adherents--they are foot soldiers. This is not simply a fight to bring democracy to the Middle East--that is a strategic objective. This is a fight for the very ideas at the foundation of our society, the way of life those ideas enable, and the freedoms we enjoy. Thank you Mr. President.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to establish a unified combatant command for military intelligence within the Department of Defense. This bill is designed to complement several other pieces of intelligence reform legislation that have been, or will be introduced, all of which call for the creation of a National Intelligence Director who will oversee our intelligence community and be separate from the position of Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The very essence of my bipartisan bill is to bridge the gap between the National Intelligence Director and the array of military intelligence entities that he or she will have to deal with, either through direct budget authority or coordination with to ensure all of our intelligence priorities are being properly resourced. The goal of my bill is to make the National Intelligence Director as effective as possible, ensure our military men and women get the best intelligence possible when they are risking their lives to protect our freedoms, and to better integrate our military and civilian intelligence officials into one team. Let me explain the rationale for this bill and how it will help strengthen the overall intelligence collection and analysis of the United States. Currently, there are 15 recognized members of the Intelligence Community, eight of which are in the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense is not only the largest user of intelligence; it is the largest collector as well. These are realities that won't appreciably change, regardless of how we reform our Intelligence Community. The centerpiece of almost all intelligence reform legislation is the creation of a National Intelligence Director, as proposed by the 9/11 Commission and endorsed by President Bush. However, I strongly believe that to make the National Intelligence Director really effective and to make our Intelligence Community function more efficiently, quickly, and be more responsive, the vast intelligence elements and capabilities within the military need to be brought together under a single command. I want to give the National Intelligence Director one point of contact in the military, not eight. I want to give the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and our Unified Commanders one person to turn to for their military intelligence needs. I want the military services to resource and support a unified command for intelligence in the same way they are supporting other functional commands such as our Special Operations Command and the Transportation Command. Let me highlight some of the main provisions of this bill as they pertain to the responsibilities of the commander of the military intelligence command, especially as they relate to the responsibilities of the National Intelligence Director. This bill specifies that the military intelligence commander will: represent the Department of Defense in the Intelligence Community under the direction of the National Intelligence Director; carry out intelligence collection and analysis activities in response to requests from the National Intelligence Director; prepare and submit to the Secretary of Defense and the National Intelligence Director recommendations and budget proposals for military intelligence forces and activities; establish priorities for military intelligence in harmony with national priorities established by the National Intelligence Director and approved by the President; ensure the interoperability of intelligence sharing within the Department of Defense and within the Intelligence Community as a whole, as directed by the National Intelligence Director, and respond to intelligence requirements levied by the National Intelligence Director. Let me reiterate that this bill is designed to complement broader legislation creating the National Intelligence Director. I believe that it will make the National Intelligence Director more effective, better represent the needs of our warfighters to the National Intelligence Director, and create synergies and economies of scale within the Department of Defense on intelligence issues. In short, this bill will make our overall Intelligence Community more effective. The Department of Defense needs to embrace our new intelligence team, headed by the National Intelligence Director, not as eight separate members but as one. I am convinced that creating a unified command for military intelligence will be good for the military, good for the National Intelligence Director, and good for our country.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to establish a unified combatant command for military intelligence within the Department of Defense. This bill is designed to complement several other pieces of intelligence reform legislation that have been, or will be introduced, all of which call for the creation of a National Intelligence Director who will oversee our intelligence community and be separate from the position of Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The very essence of my bipartisan bill is to bridge the gap between the National Intelligence Director and the array of military intelligence entities that he or she will have to deal with, either through direct budget authority or coordination with to ensure all of our intelligence priorities are being properly resourced. The goal of my bill is to make the National Intelligence Director as effective as possible, ensure our military men and women get the best intelligence possible when they are risking their lives to protect our freedoms, and to better integrate our military and civilian intelligence officials into one team. Let me explain the rationale for this bill and how it will help strengthen the overall intelligence collection and analysis of the United States. Currently, there are 15 recognized members of the Intelligence Community, eight of which are in the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense is not only the largest user of intelligence; it is the largest collector as well. These are realities that won't appreciably change, regardless of how we reform our Intelligence Community. The centerpiece of almost all intelligence reform legislation is the creation of a National Intelligence Director, as proposed by the 9/11 Commission and endorsed by President Bush. However, I strongly believe that to make the National Intelligence Director really effective and to make our Intelligence Community function more efficiently, quickly, and be more responsive, the vast intelligence elements and capabilities within the military need to be brought together under a single command. I want to give the National Intelligence Director one point of contact in the military, not eight. I want to give the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and our Unified Commanders one person to turn to for their military intelligence needs. I want the military services to resource and support a unified command for intelligence in the same way they are supporting other functional commands such as our Special Operations Command and the Transportation Command. Let me highlight some of the main provisions of this bill as they pertain to the responsibilities of the commander of the military intelligence command, especially as they relate to the responsibilities of the National Intelligence Director. This bill specifies that the military intelligence commander will: represent the Department of Defense in the Intelligence Community under the direction of the National Intelligence Director; carry out intelligence collection and analysis activities in response to requests from the National Intelligence Director; prepare and submit to the Secretary of Defense and the National Intelligence Director recommendations and budget proposals for military intelligence forces and activities; establish priorities for military intelligence in harmony with national priorities established by the National Intelligence Director and approved by the President; ensure the interoperability of intelligence sharing within the Department of Defense and within the Intelligence Community as a whole, as directed by the National Intelligence Director, and respond to intelligence requirements levied by the National Intelligence Director. Let me reiterate that this bill is designed to complement broader legislation creating the National Intelligence Director. I believe that it will make the National Intelligence Director more effective, better represent the needs of our warfighters to the National Intelligence Director, and create synergies and economies of scale within the Department of Defense on intelligence issues. In short, this bill will make our overall Intelligence Community more effective. The Department of Defense needs to embrace our new intelligence team, headed by the National Intelligence Director, not as eight separate members but as one. I am convinced that creating a unified command for military intelligence will be good for the military, good for the National Intelligence Director, and good for our country.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the First Amendment Restoration Act of 2004, a companion bill to H.R. 3801, which was introduced earlier this year in the House by my former colleague, Congressman Roscoe Bartlett. In the last few years, we've seen some remarkable restrictions placed on the ability of organizations to exercise their first amendment rights with respect to campaign contributions. One particular example is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, or BCRA, which contains some provisions that have always troubled me. Although in McConnell v. FEC, the Supreme Court upheld BCRA's restrictions as constitutional, this is not the first time that I've disagreed with the Court's conclusions on what kind of conduct I think is or is not constitutionally protected. Specifically, I am concerned with the provisions of BCRA that limit the ways in which some organizations can contribute funds within certain time frames before an election. Under BCRA, labor unions and corporations, which include trade associations and interest groups as diverse as the ACLU and the NRA, are limited to only contributing PAC funds within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. These limitations apply to contributions for what are know as ``electioneering communications,'' which are any broadcast, cable, or satellite communications that refer to a clearly identified Federal candidate and that reach 50,000 or more people in the relevant district or State. I believe that Congress can go beyond what the Supreme Court's decision in McConnell v. FEC envisions as what is constitutionally protected speech and that Congress should provide further first amendment protections for organizations wanting to make political contributions. This is why today I am introducing the First Amendment Restoration Act. This bill would repeal those provisions of BCRA that limit corporations and labor unions from making any other contributions than those run through political action committees within the 30- and 60-day periods set out in the act. I am proud to say that Senators Jim Inhofe, George Allen, and Trent Lott have agreed to cosponsor this bill. I look forward to the debate on the First Amendment Restoration Act and on issues of campaign-finance reform in general, as we see how the restrictions we place on speech really play out in the real world.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the First Amendment Restoration Act of 2004, a companion bill to H.R. 3801, which was introduced earlier this year in the House by my former colleague, Congressman Roscoe Bartlett. In the last few years, we've seen some remarkable restrictions placed on the ability of organizations to exercise their first amendment rights with respect to campaign contributions. One particular example is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, or BCRA, which contains some provisions that have always troubled me. Although in McConnell v. FEC, the Supreme Court upheld BCRA's restrictions as constitutional, this is not the first time that I've disagreed with the Court's conclusions on what kind of conduct I think is or is not constitutionally protected. Specifically, I am concerned with the provisions of BCRA that limit the ways in which some organizations can contribute funds within certain time frames before an election. Under BCRA, labor unions and corporations, which include trade associations and interest groups as diverse as the ACLU and the NRA, are limited to only contributing PAC funds within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. These limitations apply to contributions for what are know as ``electioneering communications,'' which are any broadcast, cable, or satellite communications that refer to a clearly identified Federal candidate and that reach 50,000 or more people in the relevant district or State. I believe that Congress can go beyond what the Supreme Court's decision in McConnell v. FEC envisions as what is constitutionally protected speech and that Congress should provide further first amendment protections for organizations wanting to make political contributions. This is why today I am introducing the First Amendment Restoration Act. This bill would repeal those provisions of BCRA that limit corporations and labor unions from making any other contributions than those run through political action committees within the 30- and 60-day periods set out in the act. I am proud to say that Senators Jim Inhofe, George Allen, and Trent Lott have agreed to cosponsor this bill. I look forward to the debate on the First Amendment Restoration Act and on issues of campaign-finance reform in general, as we see how the restrictions we place on speech really play out in the real world.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I want to say something about Ambassador Wilson and his activities, but I see Senator Bond is here. He is going to follow me, and I know he is going to talk about that. Suffice it to say, only one comment needs to be directed about the issue of Mr. Wilson; that is, he didn't tell the truth. He didn't tell the truth, and that is explicitly set forth in the Senate intelligence report. It was also set forth in the report issued by Mr. Butler in Britain last week. On the 7th of July, Chairman Roberts and Vice Chairman Rockefeller of the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report on the U.S. intelligence community's prewar intelligence assessments on Iraq prepared by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. This 511-page report is highly critical of our intelligence analysis and collection capabilities, especially in the field of human intelligence or what we refer to as HUMINT. Yesterday, the Senate Intelligence Committee began the first of a series of hearings on intelligence reform. We heard from our colleague Senator Feinstein about her proposal to create a new position of director of national intelligence to oversee the entire intelligence community. We also heard from three prominent experts--former Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre; former Director of Central Intelligence, Jim Woolsey; and Lieutenant General Odom, former Director of the National Security Agency--on how best to structure the intelligence community to meet the needs of the threats we face today and will face tomorrow. This was a very interesting hearing. Senator Feinstein does her homework. She studied this issue. She presented a very insightful presentation regarding her bill. I look forward to continuing this debate and continuing to review the process, looking both at what we have in place today as well as what reforms we should make relative to the intelligence community. Tomorrow, we expect the 9/11 Commission to release its report on events leading up to the attack of September 11. There is no doubt that the intelligence community will also come under heavy criticism in that report. These various reports and hearings are getting wide coverage in the media. I am glad they are. It is important for our debate on reforming the intelligence community to be as inclusive as possible. Intelligence reform is a bipartisan issue. The problems we have uncovered span more than a decade, under both Republican and Democratic administrations and Republican- and Democratic-controlled Congresses. The fact is, the systemic changes and reforms in the intelligence community, which would have made it more difficult for terrorists to strike us on 9/11 or to have more accurate information on Iraq's WMD capabilities, simply did not take place. As more and more information gets into the public domain, especially in this highly charged political year, there will surely be attempts to politicize the complex issues of intelligence failures and intelligence reform. What I would like to do is to put some clarity on this for the American people. First, there is only one principle to follow on intelligence reform. Intelligence is our first line of defense against terrorism, and we must improve the collection capabilities and analysis of intelligence to protect the security of the United States and its allies. We should beware of anyone who tries to twist this principle in a political fashion. The truth is our country, our people, our liberties, and our way of life are under attack by radical Islamic terrorists who kill and destroy in the name of religion. The security of the United States, which is so dependent on having accurate and timely intelligence, is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. It is a responsibility of all of us in the Congress to make sure we legislate and appropriate moneys so we have the best possible intelligence community. Second, let's be clear about our tasks ahead. We are talking about amending the National Security Act of 1947, which has been the cornerstone of our security and intelligence structure for over half a century. While change is needed, it should be deliberate. It should also be substantive, even radical, if necessary. The first comprehensive report detailing critical shortfalls within the United States intelligence community's performance was conducted by the House Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security. As the chairman of that subcommittee, I released its report on July 17, 2002. Following this, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence conducted a joint inquiry into the intelligence community's activities before and after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and issued its report in December 2002. The Senate Intelligence Committee report released on July 7 reflects my deep concern that a number of issues identified both by the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security and the joint inquiry have not yet been acted upon. For example, the subcommittee identified that information sharing among intelligence agencies was abysmal, and the joint inquiry report pointed out the CIA was too heavily reliant on foreign liaison reporting and that it had not taken the steps necessary to penetrate hard targets, such as the inner circle of al-Qaida. These issues have not yet been corrected to my satisfaction. Third, as we address the question of how to reform the intelligence community, including the possible creation of a director for national intelligence, there are five important objectives for us to focus on. First, coordination and information sharing throughout the intelligence community must be improved. Second, HUMINT capabilities must be increased, and we must be willing to accept the risks associated with aggressive HUMINT operations. And that is a critical part of this. We must be willing to accept some of the risks that are going to be necessary to secure the type and quality of information on the intelligence side that we need. Third, analytical competition needs to be preserved. Fourth, our counterintelligence capabilities need improvement. And fifth, the role and scope of the military's position in the intelligence community should be reviewed. I included this last point because I want to ensure that the military's capability to support the intelligence requirements of our unified combatant commanders is maintained in any reformation of the intelligence community. That is absolutely critical. All one had to do was listen to our panel yesterday to understand the real importance of that point. The scope of the military's direct involvement in intelligence is enormous and it needs to have a proper role in the intelligence community. Eight of the fifteen members of the intelligence community belong to the Department of Defense. In the current structure, each one of these DOD elements acts more or less independently, representing one small segment of the overall intelligence interests of our military. The creation of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence has helped somewhat to bring a common intelligence policy to DOD, but we should also consider the creation of a single DOD intelligence command as part of any extensive and meaningful intelligence reform. The Congress directed the establishment of the Unified Combatant Command for Special Operations, or what is known as SOCOM, over the objections of the Department of Defense because our colleagues had the vision to foresee the requirement. At the time, the DOD and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff objected, but in hindsight, the creation of SOCOM was the correct path. The rationale for establishing a Unified Combatant Command for Intelligence, or INTCOM, is very much the same, and I believe now is the proper time to explore this idea. As we found in our review on the intelligence on Iraq, the intelligence community is made up of hard-working, dedicated men and women, and Chairman Roberts, in his statement, referred to giving them an intelligence community worthy of their efforts. So I welcome the proposal of Senator Feinstein for establishing a Director of National Intelligence as one of the several ideas and issues for us to address and debate. One final point. As President Bush has said many times, he is determined to make sure American intelligence is as accurate as possible for every challenge we face. America's enemies are secretive, they are ruthless, and they are resourceful. That is why the President supports intelligence reform as much as we do in the Congress. In the coming months, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will solicit a broad range of views on reforming the intelligence community, and we will vigorously debate each intelligence reform measure that comes before us. I look forward to this challenge, and I will do everything in my power to ensure that the United States has the intelligence collection and analytical capabilities necessary to protect our lives, our property, our way of life, and our liberties. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, it is interesting to listen to my friends on the other side of the aisle this morning talk about any number of issues, in particular what we have been doing over the last several weeks--really the last several months--relative to the legislative agenda in the Senate. This is the only legislative body, I am sure, anywhere in the world that, because it is the most deliberative body in the world, allows the minority to in effect set the agenda because they have the ability to stop any legislation or debate or control the debate on any legislation unless the majority can obtain 60 votes to bring the debate to an end. Here we have folks standing up this morning being critical of the leadership on this side of the aisle for not moving forward with a legislative agenda when, for the first time in the history of our great country, certainly the first time in the history of this great deliberative body, we have the folks on the other side of the aisle filibustering circuit court judge nominees of the President of the United States. That has never happened before. There is one simple reason it is happening now. That is, in spite of this body approving hundreds of more liberal-leaning judges during the 8 years of the previous administration, the Democrats in the Senate refuse to allow more conservative judges to be appointed and confirmed by this President. We had another yesterday relative to another judge that is now being filibustered. That takes time. In addition, the folks on the other side of the aisle are doing something I have never heard of in my 10 years of service on Capitol Hill; that is, they are demanding that before we go to conference on any bill, the end result of that conference be deemed to be so-and-so, which is to their way of liking, before they will agree to appoint conferees. That is not the way the legislative process works. The American people select the majority party in the Senate and the House to pass legislation. The majority should control, but, unfortunately, it does not. Lastly, I am a big supporter of the No Child Left Behind program. I am a huge supporter of public education. It is the foundation of the future of America. I am happy to be the husband of a 30-year former schoolteacher. My daughter starts next week teaching in the public schools in my home county. My mother was a public school teacher. My brother is a public school teacher. I am a huge fan. In spite of what I have just heard, I have yet to meet a teacher anywhere in America who doesn't say: I love the idea of providing accountability to the American people for the quality of education that I am providing to the children I teach. That is the basic concept of No Child Left Behind. Sure, we have had problems with No Child Left Behind. Every major reform is going to have bumps in the road. I did four hearings in my State, invited every single school superintendent in all 159 counties, plus the city schools in my State to get together to bring their administrative personnel, but primarily bring me your teachers. I wanted to hear from them what complaints they had. They had serious complaints that were discussed with representatives of the U.S. Department of Education and the Georgia Department of Education. We resolved--we didn't resolve all of them, but we went to work and we got their complaints answered. We made changes in the regulations. All I heard this morning is: Well, No Child Left Behind doesn't work. Everybody is upset. Everybody is not upset with it. I assure my colleagues, there has been no legislation coming forward from the other side of the aisle to try to correct it. It is simply a political year. It is unbelievable what we hear on the floor of the Senate these days. That is not what I got up here to talk about this morning, but I couldn't listen to that and not comment on it.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation that Senator Grassley and I are introducing that will finally close a loophole in our Nation's homeland security. Exactly one year ago today, I held a hearing in the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee to question why visa revocation is not effective to remove a suspected terrorist from the United States. This issue was highlighted in a June 2003 General Accounting Office report titled, ``New Policies and Procedures Needed to Fill Gaps in the Visa Revocation Process.'' Subsequently, I held another hearing in the Subcommittee last fall in which the Departments of State and Homeland Security assured me and my colleagues that the problem would be sufficiently addressed through a cooperative agreement. Now a year later, we still don't have this problem fully fixed, and earlier this month the GAO issued a second report titled, ``Additional Actions Needed to Eliminate Weaknesses in the Visa Revocation Process.'' The legislation we introduce today will make the needed, common sense change to empower the visa revocation process as an anti- terrorism tool. One problem we have realized after September 11 was the lack of information sharing across Federal agencies. It is not just keeping bad guys out of the United States that is important, but if someone comes into this country who has a suspicious background, everyone needs to be on the same wavelength with respect to sharing of information on individuals in an effective manner. Information sharing and coordination between the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security is crucial today more than ever. We must continue to reshape the government culture, away from old bureaucratic habits, toward strong interagency cooperation in order to safeguard our Nation. The GAO report exposes how suspected terrorists may remain at large even after their visas have been revoked. Last summer, the GAO found 30 persons whose visas were revoked on terrorism grounds; however, revocation gives no legal authority for law enforcement officials to remove them. In hearings before Congress, the State Department and Homeland Security Department maintained that they were implementing methods to resolve the problem by tracking visa revocations more precisely, sharing information more efficiently, and hopefully removing such suspected terrorists. In a report released this month, the GAO found that, although the two Departments made some changes, the visa revocation process still lacks a timely transmission of information between agencies--not to mention the absence of legal authority to remove these suspected terrorists. After two GAO reports and two Senate hearings, the Departments still don't have their act together. Our bill empowers visa revocation as an anti-terrorism tool. First, it makes revocation a ground of inadmissibility for a person's immigration status. This will give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to remove a suspected terrorist from the U.S. Second, the legislation forecloses the judicial review process on inadmissibility based on a revoked visa, which is consistent with how the U.S. handles other visa-related matters. With visa revocation, it is difficult to understand why, after a year now, State Department action to nullify the visa of a suspected terrorist does not translate into the authority for the Homeland Security to remove that person. The point is that in a post- 9-11 world, visa issuance--and revocation--is a homeland security job and we must get it right. I encourage the Departments to move forward on this issue as we've addressed it in the bill we introduce today.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Senator from Ohio for yielding me some time to talk a about this bill today. I want to talk about three things. First, with respect to the issue of smoking, all of us know and now understand that smoking is hazardous to one's health. There is simply no question about that. That is not even in the debate. Fortunately, I am one who has never smoked in my life, but I come from a part of the country, as does the Presiding Officer, where tobacco has been a mainstay. So I want to talk about the effect of what we are doing today is going to have on tobacco-growing regions of our country. Tobacco has been a mainstay of the agricultural community since the Indians first inhabited this country. Tobacco has been a product that has been traded and bartered for literally hundreds of years, both in America as well as outside of America. In my part of the country, which is a heavy growing tobacco area, it has been the mainstay and the staple product of small family farms for literally hundreds of years. That is going to be coming to an end, in my opinion, with the passage of this legislation. The tobacco industry has taken any number of hits over the last two decades, and some of it for the right reasons. We need to educate people about the hazards of smoking tobacco. We need to educate people that if they do smoke, it is likely going to kill them. The fact is, there are a number of individuals in this country who having been educated have still made a conscious decision to use tobacco products. The last thing I think we need for the Federal Government to do is to intrude further into the lives of Americans and say they cannot do this. Now, that is one thing we are doing with this legislation. I think it goes that far. Maybe not saying one absolutely cannot do it but it is pretty well going to limit the number of customers to future tobacco growers and future tobacco manufacturers in this country, which means that jobs in the tobacco industry are going to be moving out of this country and we are going to see a complete overhaul and change in that manufacturing sector, as well as in the growing sector. I can remember very well in my hometown where we had three tobacco markets, and we used to sell all tobacco at the auction market. We would have buyers come in every summer and all of the farmers and their families would go to the tobacco market on opening day. We would literally have an auction bale by bale or pile by pile of tobacco that would be bought by one of the tobacco companies and used in the manufacturing of various tobacco products. As soon as that auction was completed on the sale of the farmer's tobacco, he would take his family downtown in my hometown, and this happened literally across dozens of other communities in the South, and he would buy the family clothes for school that year. The opening day of the tobacco markets was a big deal because that is the product that provided the income for the family farmer for literally hundreds of years in the South. Today, it still does. Even though over the years with the attacks that have been made on the tobacco industry and we have seen the tobacco quota cut in half, our farmers are generating half the income today with about double the expenses that they were 20 years ago. This is simply because the demand for tobacco has decreased due to Federal regulations and because we are seeing imported tobacco replace domestic tobacco. This is a result of the price that the farmer needs to receive due to the cost of production that he faces each and every year. What we are doing today to that farmer is we are going to increase the price even more. We are going to make him less competitive and we are, as a practical matter, going to drive the American farmer out of the tobacco-growing business, which is going to be a change in a way of life for many small towns across the South. Is it the right thing to do? Well, I am not sure everything in this bill, outside of the FDA, is perfect, but I do agree with the way we are doing it and the reasons why we are doing it. Now I am going to talk about the FDA for a minute. What we are saying to the tobacco farmer is, look, we gave you a quota that you earned over the years through your growth of tobacco. We know you bought this quota in some instances and in some instances it was passed down from father to son to grandson. In some instances you bought it when you bought the farm. But in any event, a price was paid for the ownership of the tobacco quota. Today, we have cut your asset that you bought and paid for by 50 percent just in the last 5 years. We have taken the ability away from you to generate an income sufficient to meet the needs of the quality of life that your family is used to living. So what we are doing is compensating those farmers. We are going to give some money to them for this quota that we have taken away. We are now going to take it all away and, even though we did not compensate them for that 50 percent they have lost in the past 5 years, we are going to compensate them for the remaining quota that they have. I think that is a fair and reasonable thing for us to do. I have been adamant from the very first day that we engaged in this issue regarding the buyout, and I have been working on this for 4 years now, but we have been very adamant that the taxpayer ought not to fund this buyout. I don't think that is right. I don't think we should use money from other valuable programs to pay for this buyout. I think it can be funded in the right way, by those folks who use tobacco products. Is that going to be injurious to the tobacco industry? You bet it is. But that is the only way it should be funded in a reasonable and rational society in which we live today when you are dealing with such a controversial product. What this bill does is it provides compensation to the tobacco grower, compensation to the quota holder, and the funding of that compensation to be paid for by those individuals who use tobacco products. That is fair and reasonable, and I support that aspect of this particular amendment wholeheartedly. Last, I want to talk about FDA. I have been very strongly opposed to the inclusion of FDA regulation in any tobacco buyout bill or as a stand-alone without a buyout. However, I intend to support this today because it is the only means by which we are going to get this buyout bill done. I support it because I hope that in conference we are going to be able to change some of the provisions that are included in the FDA portion of this amendment. I want to mention some of those specifically. First of all, what we are granting to the FDA in this amendment is this: It will grant FDA indirect authority to mandate changes in farming practices. This bill places no limits whatsoever on FDA authority to reduce or ban compounds found naturally in tobacco leaf. Many new mandates FDA is likely to adopt will be achievable only through dramatic changes in tobacco farming operations--for example, changes in things like types of soils where tobacco may be grown, changes in cultivation practices or even curing techniques. If we think that by passing this bill we are not going to put FDA on the farm, we are wrong. That is simply going to happen. Next, the bill would give FDA extremely broad authority to regulate advertising, sale, and promotion of tobacco products, thus giving the bigger tobacco companies a tremendous advantage over smaller tobacco companies. The effect of that is going to be this: Anyone who does smoke--and I encourage everybody to quit smoking--but if you are going to smoke and you are going to buy tobacco products, when you go into the 7-Eleven to buy a pack of cigarettes, they are not going to be visible. The only thing you are going to be able to do is either tell the proprietor of that store, Let me see all of your tobacco products, or you are going to walk in and announce what brand of cigarettes you want to buy. We all know that name-brand identification is key to marketing of any product, particularly when it comes to something like tobacco. The bigger companies who have been around for years and years and have made brand names very popular and very identifiable are going to be the successful entrepreneurs and the successful companies at the end of the day. The smaller companies that have come into business in the last several years do not have a chance. We are telling those companies: We are sorry but nobody knows the name of your product, so, in effect, nobody is going to walk up to the counter and say: I want a pack of that cigarette brand that was started just a couple of years ago. That is not going to happen. We are going to put the smaller companies totally out of business, in my opinion, and we are going to make the bigger companies bigger. They are going to still keep marketing tobacco, they are still going to keep selling tobacco, and it will continue to have the same harmful effect it has today. Again, the FDA should focus on its primary business. It is widely acknowledged that the FDA approval process for new drugs is not as fast as it could or should be. If the FDA has additional regulations to administer to make cigarette products safe, it will no doubt remove the primary mandate of ensuring a safe food supply and safe effective drugs. In effect, what we are going to do with the passage of this bill is to put the FDA on the fender of every tractor that is driving across a tobacco field in the South. It is going to be a new day for a lot of us who come from very rural areas where tobacco has been a mainstay of the economy of our particular counties and communities. It is not going to be a very pleasant day. But on that day, if it is going to happen, we need to make sure those individuals who have made it their life's work to grow a legal product and send it to a manufacturer to manufacture in a legal way will get some compensation to offset the negative impact this is going to have on their lives. We need to make sure as we do this we do not get unreasonable with respect to the thousands and thousands of jobs that are dependent upon this industry. Tobacco products are going to be sold anyway. My guess is it is going to be manufactured by offshore manufacturing facilities in Europe or some other country and shipped into the United States. These jobs are going to be lost here and moved to those facilities. If it is going to happen, we need to make sure that the individuals at the very lowest level, at the grower level, are compensated for the loss they are going to have. I compliment my friend from Ohio, who has been very open to discuss this issue. I know he feels just as passionately about his amendment and making sure that we strengthen FDA regulations. I respect that. We just happen to disagree on this particular issue. But I say, too, my friends over on the House side--Congressman Richard Burr from North Carolina, Congressman Jack Kingston from my State of Georgia, Congressman Bill Jenkins from Tennessee--that have been real stalwarts in making sure they included the buyout provision in the FSC/ETI bill, thank you for your hard work. We are here today to make sure a buyout is included the Senate bill. I am very hopeful in the conference committee, as it moves forward, they will look at the result of this FDA regulation. What we as conservatives need to think about is keeping the Government out of our daily lives on a more regular basis rather than putting the Government on the shoulder of every individual in the tobacco industry, more than they are today. I believe that is wrong. I do not think that is the route we ought to take. But I am going to support this amendment simply because it appears that is the only way we can get a buyout that is going to adequately compensate our tobacco farmers. I thank the Senator from Ohio for yielding the time. I thank him for his cooperation in moving this amendment forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation that Senator Grassley and I are introducing that will finally close a loophole in our Nation's homeland security. Exactly one year ago today, I held a hearing in the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee to question why visa revocation is not effective to remove a suspected terrorist from the United States. This issue was highlighted in a June 2003 General Accounting Office report titled, ``New Policies and Procedures Needed to Fill Gaps in the Visa Revocation Process.'' Subsequently, I held another hearing in the Subcommittee last fall in which the Departments of State and Homeland Security assured me and my colleagues that the problem would be sufficiently addressed through a cooperative agreement. Now a year later, we still don't have this problem fully fixed, and earlier this month the GAO issued a second report titled, ``Additional Actions Needed to Eliminate Weaknesses in the Visa Revocation Process.'' The legislation we introduce today will make the needed, common sense change to empower the visa revocation process as an anti- terrorism tool. One problem we have realized after September 11 was the lack of information sharing across Federal agencies. It is not just keeping bad guys out of the United States that is important, but if someone comes into this country who has a suspicious background, everyone needs to be on the same wavelength with respect to sharing of information on individuals in an effective manner. Information sharing and coordination between the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security is crucial today more than ever. We must continue to reshape the government culture, away from old bureaucratic habits, toward strong interagency cooperation in order to safeguard our Nation. The GAO report exposes how suspected terrorists may remain at large even after their visas have been revoked. Last summer, the GAO found 30 persons whose visas were revoked on terrorism grounds; however, revocation gives no legal authority for law enforcement officials to remove them. In hearings before Congress, the State Department and Homeland Security Department maintained that they were implementing methods to resolve the problem by tracking visa revocations more precisely, sharing information more efficiently, and hopefully removing such suspected terrorists. In a report released this month, the GAO found that, although the two Departments made some changes, the visa revocation process still lacks a timely transmission of information between agencies--not to mention the absence of legal authority to remove these suspected terrorists. After two GAO reports and two Senate hearings, the Departments still don't have their act together. Our bill empowers visa revocation as an anti-terrorism tool. First, it makes revocation a ground of inadmissibility for a person's immigration status. This will give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to remove a suspected terrorist from the U.S. Second, the legislation forecloses the judicial review process on inadmissibility based on a revoked visa, which is consistent with how the U.S. handles other visa-related matters. With visa revocation, it is difficult to understand why, after a year now, State Department action to nullify the visa of a suspected terrorist does not translate into the authority for the Homeland Security to remove that person. The point is that in a post- 9-11 world, visa issuance--and revocation--is a homeland security job and we must get it right. I encourage the Departments to move forward on this issue as we've addressed it in the bill we introduce today.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Certainly.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 2062. I am sorry the Senator from Connecticut is not in the Chamber.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I respectfully object.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, as I was saying, I am sorry the Senator from Connecticut is not in the Chamber because I have such great respect for his opinion, particularly his opinion regarding this bill. I know what a keen interest he has in this bill, and when he talks about the fact that we ought to delay this for 1 more week because the majority has set the agenda and the agenda next week calls for matters that might not be relevant to this particular issue, I simply remind the Senator from Connecticut, who is my dear friend, that this bill has not just come to the floor. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I was there in April of 2003 when this particular bill was voted out of the Judiciary Committee. We were all here in November of 2003 when we had a cloture vote on this bill. So this is not something new that has just come about. This bill has been under negotiation actually since the 105th Congress. In 1996, the negotiations began on a class action bill. I think to now ask for another delay for another week on the cloture vote is just simply not called for, and that is the reason we need to go ahead with the vote tonight. My colleagues are either for class action reform, they are either for a bill that is a bipartisan bill, or they are against it. It is that simple at this point in the negotiations. There was a proposal made by this side of the aisle to the other side of the aisle that when this bill came to the floor that we allow only germane amendments, amendments that are relevant to the issue of class action, to be brought to the floor as legitimate amendments that would be debated and voted on. The other side of the aisle would not agree to that. So therefore we have evolved into a different format on the floor today. I do rise in strong support of S. 2062, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2004. It is a product of negotiations between Senators on both sides of the aisle in an effort to gain the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture and proceed to an up-or-down vote on the merits of the bill. To a great extent, the bulk of the tort reform needed in this country will be handled on the State court level, where most civil complaints are filed. That is a very significant point. As a trial lawyer, I remember that I usually wanted to file my cases in State court, and they ought to still have that right to do so. But there are times when it was dictated to you as a lawyer that you had to go to Federal court. It is because we have had a handful of State court jurisdictions in the United States where a grossly disproportionate number of class action suits are filed, and that is just not right. That is why these negotiations were instituted in 1996. That is why over the last 8 years we have been going back and forth with Members on both sides of the aisle being involved and have come up with a fair bill that does allow for certain exceptions that I am going to talk about in just a minute. People have referred to these jurisdictions where a majority of the class actions have been filed as magnet courts because they draw in class action suits with their soft juries and their pro-plaintiff judges. That is just a matter of fact. Under the Class Action Fairness Act, businesses can break loose from these magnet State courts and get a fair trial in a Federal jurisdiction. S. 2062 differs from the previous versions of the class action bill in several ways, and those changes have been negotiated on both sides of the aisle over the period not from just last April or November, but from 1996, over the last 8 years. I am going to focus my remarks on one change I think makes a lot of sense, and that is the addition of a local class action exception. Under the provisions of S. 2062, class action cases will remain in State court if the following conditions are met: First, more than two- thirds of class members have to be citizens of the forum State. Second, there has to be at least one in-State defendant from whom significant relief is sought by members of the class and whose conduct forms a significant basis of the plaintiffs' claims. Third, the principal injuries resulting from the alleged conduct or related conduct of each defendant have to have been incurred in the State where the action was originally filed. Finally, there cannot be any other class action cases asserting the same or similar factual allegations against any of the defendants on behalf of the same or other persons filed in the preceding 3 years. Those are pretty fair and reasonable exceptions. You are still going to have probably most of the class action suits filed in State court with this exception being in place. Under the local class action exception, a limited group of local class action cases would be allowed to stay in State court where the facts of the case warrant this treatment. Some examples would be a plant explosion or an oil spill, where one or more of the defendants are in the same State as the catastrophe and a supermajority of the plaintiffs are there as well. These are truly local actions and ought to be treated as such because they do not lend themselves to the egregious forum shopping that lands cases which should be filed in Federal court in one of these so-called magnet courts around the country. Despite all of the progress we have made in our negotiations on S. 2062, it seems we have some Senators who plan to offer amendments that would weaken this bipartisan legislation or weight it down with nongermane issues that will lead to the bill's defeat. The passage of nongermane amendments to this class action reform bill will probably doom its passage. For this reason, I will vote against all nongermane amendments, and I plan to vote against any germane amendments that would weaken S. 2062 in its present form. In summary, we now have a class action bill which is supported by both sides of the aisle. Despite the misinformation that has been spread around, this bill will actually promote the proper assignment of class action cases between State court and Federal court dockets. I urge my colleagues to vote against any amendments that would weaken or kill S. 2062 and then to vote in favor of this bill as a first step in restoring fairness and balance to our Nation's tort system. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will facilitate the sharing of information from Federal law enforcement agencies to State and local law enforcement. Right now, existing Federal law authorizes the FBI to obtain certain records and information, such as telephone records, bank records, and consumer credit records, in investigations of terrorist activities. One of the tools that the FBI uses for this purpose is the National Security Letter (or NSL), which is, in effect, a limited type of administrative subpoena that is directed to the institutions that have these records. The statutes authorizing the use of NSLs generally require that the requested information be relevant to an investigation of international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, and these statues prohibit investigations based solely on First Amendment-protected activities of people known under the law as ``United States persons,'' which is a group consisting of U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens. Unfortunately, when the FBI receives records or information provided to it in response to NSLs, several different statutes govern the circumstances under which the Bureau may disseminate this information to other agencies. The standards differ from statute to statute-- complicating the sharing of the information with other agencies that may need it for counterterrorism purposes--and a number of these provisions curiously are more restrictive about information sharing with other Federal agencies than with non-Federal agencies. The Information Sharing Improvement Act of 2004 (ISIA), which I introduce today along with my good friend from Arizona, John Kyl, would amend these statutes to allow the dissemination of information obtained through NSLs in conformity with consistent guidelines developed by the Attorney General. The Information Sharing Improvement Act also amends a statute that authorizes sharing of national security-related investigative information with relevant Federal, State, and local officials, to make it clear that the statute applies regardless of whether the investigation in which the information was obtained is characterized as a ``criminal'' investigation or a ``national security'' investigation. Finally, the Information Sharing Improvement Act would restore Homeland Security Act amendments that broaden the sharing of Federal grand jury information concerning threatened terrorist attacks with State and local authorities. The Information Sharing Improvement Act does not expand the powers of the FBI or Federal prosecutors to acquire records or information, but it will improve their ability to share information--obtained under existing authorities--with Federal, State, and local agencies that need it to protect the public from terrorism.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will facilitate the sharing of information from Federal law enforcement agencies to State and local law enforcement. Right now, existing Federal law authorizes the FBI to obtain certain records and information, such as telephone records, bank records, and consumer credit records, in investigations of terrorist activities. One of the tools that the FBI uses for this purpose is the National Security Letter (or NSL), which is, in effect, a limited type of administrative subpoena that is directed to the institutions that have these records. The statutes authorizing the use of NSLs generally require that the requested information be relevant to an investigation of international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, and these statues prohibit investigations based solely on First Amendment-protected activities of people known under the law as ``United States persons,'' which is a group consisting of U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens. Unfortunately, when the FBI receives records or information provided to it in response to NSLs, several different statutes govern the circumstances under which the Bureau may disseminate this information to other agencies. The standards differ from statute to statute-- complicating the sharing of the information with other agencies that may need it for counterterrorism purposes--and a number of these provisions curiously are more restrictive about information sharing with other Federal agencies than with non-Federal agencies. The Information Sharing Improvement Act of 2004 (ISIA), which I introduce today along with my good friend from Arizona, John Kyl, would amend these statutes to allow the dissemination of information obtained through NSLs in conformity with consistent guidelines developed by the Attorney General. The Information Sharing Improvement Act also amends a statute that authorizes sharing of national security-related investigative information with relevant Federal, State, and local officials, to make it clear that the statute applies regardless of whether the investigation in which the information was obtained is characterized as a ``criminal'' investigation or a ``national security'' investigation. Finally, the Information Sharing Improvement Act would restore Homeland Security Act amendments that broaden the sharing of Federal grand jury information concerning threatened terrorist attacks with State and local authorities. The Information Sharing Improvement Act does not expand the powers of the FBI or Federal prosecutors to acquire records or information, but it will improve their ability to share information--obtained under existing authorities--with Federal, State, and local agencies that need it to protect the public from terrorism.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. As the chairman has mentioned, the conference report on the fiscal year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act required the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees providing an economic analysis comparing the options of maintaining the current engines on the E-8C JointSTARS aircraft, purchasing and installing new engines, and leasing and installing new engines. This report was to have been submitted by February 13, 2004, but has yet to be received. The engines that currently power the E-8C JointSTARS aircraft fleet are the same engines we have gone to great lengths to replace over the last decade in the Air Force's tanker fleet. The engines are old, provide marginal power to support the E-8C's taskings, and are expensive to operate and maintain compared to new engines currently available in the commercial market. These are not just my observations. Let me quote from a recent memorandum from the Vice Commander of Air Combat Command to the Air Force Vice Chief of Staff: This letter provides a brief update on our efforts to re- engine JSTARS, which continues to be one of our top initiatives for the E-8. The current TF-33-102C engines do not satisfy desired safety margins or meet operational needs. An Air Force Flight Standards Agency critical field length waiver is required to support takeoffs with current engines. Additionally, Operations ALLIED FORCE, ENDURING FREEDOM, AND IRAQI FREEDOM highlighted significant JSTARS engine performance shortfalls. A lack of thrust and fuel efficiency combined to reduce mission operating altitudes and on-station times. The current TF33 engines are the number one driver of the Non-Mission Capable for Maintenance rate and are the leading cause of sortie aborts and code-3 landings. It is projected that re-engining will reduce the NMCM rate by 10 percent and positively increase the overall system Mission Capable rates by four percent. E-8C crews have also experienced several instances of engine over temps on takeoffs, which have mandated reduced thrust takeoffs. Re- engining JSTARS makes sense operationally and from a sustainability perspective. We have included language in the report accompanying this bill that states should the Secretary of Defense recommend in his report that a re-engining program be pursued for the E-8C, the committee encourages the Air Force to initiate this program, taking into account the recommendations of the Secretary's report on how best to implement it. I am optimistic that the Air Force report will be delivered to the committee in the near term. I am hopeful that as our bill moves from floor consideration and to conference with the House, we can work to ensure that this re-engine initiative is given every consideration based on the data and analysis provided for our consideration. There are many aspects to consider in taking care of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who are sent into harm's way. In times like these, preserving the assets that help to ensure the well-being of our men and women in uniform should be given the investment necessary to see that the equipment is the best that we can provide and at the best value for our armed forces.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the heavily tasked, high value asset of the E-8C JointSTARS fleet, which provides real-time surveillance and targeting for our armed forces. This critical asset, operated by an integrated wing located in my home State of Georgia, has worldwide commitments and is essential to the effective execution of the combined air-land strategy and tactics for our forces. However, the current engines do not provide sufficient power for the E- 8C JointSTARS fleet to meet all of its operational requirements.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman giving me this opportunity to emphasize the importance of breakfast and the positive effects breakfast has on student performance and behavior. Research shows that children who eat breakfast perform better on standardized achievement tests and have fewer behavior problems in school. Breakfast improves a child's physical endurance and motor performance. It has been found that children have more energy to get through the school day. The Department of Agriculture's Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion has shown that children who eat breakfast have more healthy overall diets. Given the Nation's attention to childhood obesity, breakfast can also play a positive role in ensuring that our children are healthy. Not only is eating breakfast important for student performance, breakfast is also an effective tool to manage and control weight. Breakfast consumption can play a key role in maintaining healthy eating habits and weight loss while Congress looks at ways to combat childhood obesity. In a major study, regular breakfast consumption was associated with the ability to maintain a significant weight loss. One study showed that out of 2,900 individuals that had maintained a 30-percent weight loss for at least a year, 78 percent reported eating breakfast everyday. Breakfast skipping has been reported to be more prevalent in obese children and is particularly high in obese girls. More than a dozen studies from around the world have reported that eating a ready- to-eat, RTE, breakfast cereal provides many nutritional benefits, including consumption of less total fat, less saturated fat, less cholesterol, more dietary fiber, and more vitamins and minerals. This result is independent of age and geography as studies have been conducted in children, adults and the elderly in over six different countries. This compromise bill contains provisions which will, hopefully, result in more children eating more breakfast. The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 includes three provisions that the committee hopes will result in more children eating breakfast. First, it provides increased assistance to schools with a high proportion of poor children. Second, it expands the eligibility for schools that need additional assistance--severe need assistance--for breakfast programs. In relation to these provisions a Review of Best Practices in the Breakfast Program, also contained in this bill, will allow for a study of State and local barriers that keep more schools from offering breakfast. The Secretary will make recommendations and describe model breakfast programs that will help schools to overcome these obstacles and disseminate the results of this study to school districts, to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, and to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. As a result, schools will be encouraged to develop innovative strategies to make time for student breakfasts, such as breakfast on the bus or breakfast in the classroom, a practice that has been shown to be very effective in schools across the country. Breakfast on the bus or in the classroom does not require the use of a cafeteria or additional time in the school day and are easy and efficient ways to provide a nutritious meal to children. Mr. President, I ask the chairman if he agrees with my statements?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his comments. women, infants, and children program