Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I want to extend my congratulations to Georgia Institute of Technology for the incredible performance of the Yellow Jackets basketball team this year. Georgia Tech proved itself to be a national power as it won game after game on its way to the NCAA final game. I join all Georgians in admiration of the Yellow Jackets Head Coach Paul Hewitt, and his assistants Dean Keener, Willie Reese, and Cliff Warren for building a program which proved itself in national competition. I also want to congratulate the players who showed leadership, poise and class as they played great basketball against the best teams in the country. Georgia Tech is an important educational institution. Tech graduates lead the way in every aspect of the business and professional community in America. Its graduates are in high demand around the world for their skills and abilities. Its sports programs are also very well regarded. The reputation of the Ramblin Wreck's athletic program can only grow higher after this appearance in the NCAA tournament. When the season began, Georgia Tech was picked to finish seventh in the nine-team Atlantic Coast Conference. Instead it made it to its first Final Four appearance since 1990 and its first title game ever. I salute the 2003-2004 Georgia Tech basketball team for a great year. They have made all of Georgia proud.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I salute my colleague from Minnesota for his strong leadership on this issue and his great insight into what is happening today in a very complex world. As I listened to the news yesterday and today and read the newspapers this morning, we are reminded again of several things. First, we are reminded of what a difficult and complex world it is in which we live. It is a world where we who want to be a peaceful nation and see peace throughout the world once again realize the type of peace we hope for and pray for may be a long and difficult road ahead. We understand, also, from the standpoint of sacrifice, nothing comes easy. We are reminded once again that the freedom this Nation enjoys came at great sacrifice. We are seeing sacrifices around the world today, particularly of our brave men and women who are fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi people. As I think about that and I think about what is going on in Iraq today and what is happening to an overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people who want to see peace and who want stability in that country and they are having to deal with a small number of insurgents who want to carry the day by using guns and violence, it disturbs me when I hear statements made by politicians in America, politicians who aspire to higher office, as well as politicians who have been in the realm of politics in our country for many years, statements that tend to incite the opposition and to put our men and women in greater harm's way. When I was coming along as a young man, I played a lot of athletics. I have had the privilege of coaching Little League basketball and baseball for 25 years. When you play athletics or when you coach athletics, you want to be inspired as an athlete and as a coach. You want to inspire the opposition. Frankly, the statements I have seen in the last 24 hours relative to the comparison of Iraq to Vietnam are the type of statements a coach would take and plaster on the locker room wall when he wants to charge up his team and he tells the opponents, Look what is happening on the other side. Morale is decaying. We are winning. That is simply the type of statement that is foolish and should never be made by anyone in the political realm in our country in a time of great crisis and great confrontation over the issue of freedom and democracy. America has long been the leader of the free world. But we did not get there in an easy way. Likewise, Iraq is not going to get there in an easy way. No one ever said it would be easy making a democracy out of a country the size of California, that has no democratic traditions, is divided sometimes by religious and ethnic disputes, and has a history of internal repression. When I think about our great country and the fact that a little over 225 years ago we declared our independence, what happened in our country when the citizens of America became free, it was not easy. We had great loss of life in order to ensure that America became free and independent. When we look at what has happened in America over the course of that 225-plus years, we have suffered great loss of life of brave men and women who fought for a cause, a cause of freedom and a cause of democracy, the simple cause of freedom that is being fought for in Iraq today. America is providing the kind of leadership the world respects and the world has come to understand; that it is what America stands for. When Americans provide that kind of leadership, it is incumbent on all Americans to rally around the leadership of this country in times of great crisis in the world, when we are the leader of the free world, and not to try to incite the other side, not try to create a more difficult position for our brave men and women in the military, who today continue to be in harm's way and continue to suffer loss of life. Speaking of that, I concur with my friend from Minnesota, our hearts go out to the families of those brave men and women--all 600-plus--who have suffered loss of life in Iraq as a result of their fight for the cause of freedom. In addition to that, we have a number of men and women who have been injured; and, again, it is for the right reason. I had a great privilege about 2 weeks ago of visiting a number of military bases in my State. One of the bases I visited was Fort Gordon, GA. At Fort Gordon, right outside of Augusta, we had a tour of the base, the usual things that we do to see what is going on with respect to the missions at Fort Gordon. At the end of the day, I had the opportunity to participate in a very unique ceremony. It was a reenlistment ceremony, where 17 men and women were reenlisting in the U.S. Army. Some of these men and women had been longtime members of the Armed Forces; some had only been in for a couple of years, but they were re- upping. Some of them had been to Iraq. Some of them had seen their fellow soldiers fallen to the ground injured or killed. Yet here they were raising their right hand and reenlisting in the U.S. Army. I had the opportunity to visit with every single one of them, and for the most part, I asked the same question to each of them; and that is, Why are you doing this? Why are you reenlisting in the Army in these difficult times? I felt so great, No. 1, just to be in the presence of those true American heroes; but secondly, the response I got, in unison, from those individuals was that: I like my job. I enjoy what I am doing, and it is my opportunity to do something positive for America. The ones who had been in Iraq had a very high morale about what is going on over there because they are the ones who were on the ground every day in Iraq. They know the feeling of the majority--the overwhelming majority--of the Iraqi people. They support the freedom and democracy that America is making the sacrifices for. Some say this administration underestimated just how difficult and complex the job in Iraq would be. I will be honest, I have come to share that view. I think the administration would agree with that. But I believe, therefore, we need to learn from our tactical mistakes, and to ensure that our posture in Iraq is flexible and can adapt to fluid and developing circumstances. If this means finding new ways to ensure Shiite grievances are heard, so be it, as the cooperation of the Shiite majority in the transition ahead is essential to that transition success. But the CPA must also respond aggressively to aggression of any kind that is directed against our troops. In talking about what we anticipated or what the administration expected in Iraq, let's talk also about some of the things we did not expect. We did not expect for clerics in that part of the world to come forward, and instead of preaching religion that you would expect them to be preaching, to be preaching and advocating hatred and violence towards Americans--Americans, who had given them the opportunity to stand in that mosque and express the words they were expressing, because without the Americans taking down Saddam Hussein, they would not have that freedom, they would not have the ability to carry out their disruptions and the violence that is ongoing over there today. But removed from that, and behind the cloud of those robes of religion, clerics are hiding, and they are also hiding behind innocent women and children and shielding themselves by use of innocent people from the Americans who seek to arrest and prosecute them for the crimes they have carried out. Those are the types of things that no administration could anticipate and no administration should have expected when we freed the people of Iraq from the regime of Saddam Hussein. There is one other aspect of the situation in Iraq that is just as personally, if not more personally, troubling to me; and that is the issue relative to our lack of intelligence gathering, the lack of the ability to use human assets on the ground inside of Iraq, to make sure we find out what is going on among these radical clerics who are advocating violence; what is going on with respect to the terrorist community and the terrorists themselves relative to attacks against Americans; what is going on with respect to the long-term plans of these terrorists as it applies to the American service people, as well as civilians who are on the ground in Iraq. We are not doing the job of gathering intelligence that we need to be doing. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I assure you, we are doing our oversight. We are going to be critical where we need to be critical because this is a phase of this war that must improve. We are going to do our job and make it improve so the people of Iraq will ultimately be free, the world will be safer, and America will be a safer country. I yield back, Mr. President.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, we have all heard the expression that ``knowledge is power.'' At no time is this more true than when we are at war. Our military uses satellites, reconnaissance aircraft, remote sensing devices, and long-range patrols to learn where the enemy is, what he is doing, and how we can kill him. But there is another type of knowledge which is just as essential if we are to be successful in combat. The side which knows and understands the weather the best has a large advantage. Now, I know some may reply that we do not need to be concerned about the weather. We have smart bombs, stealth fighters and guided missiles. We have sensing devices which let us see in the darkness. But despite this high technology, we still have to give Mother Nature her due. Rain, clouds and low visibility can still ground aircraft or hamper operations. High temperatures affect men and equipment. Dust storms can rapidly render sophisticated machines and electronics unusable. Our troops faced many weather extremes as we prepared for the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom a year ago. Extreme heat, thunderstorms, and dust storms all threatened operations. To learn more about Iraq's weather and to gather the data necessary to predict, if possible, weather patterns in that country, a group of brave meteorologists dropped behind enemy lines. They fed their information to the Air Force's 28th Operational Weather Squadron, known as ``The Hub.'' As detailed in a special being carried by the Weather Channel, the United States Air Force dropped its Special Operations Forces Weathermen, known as the ``Grey Berets,'' behind enemy lines weeks before the beginning of armed conflict. The Grey Berets took exceptional risks to gather the data necessary for our Army, Navy and Air Force to conduct operations. For example, 5 days before the land invasion started, Grey Beret Sgt Charles Rushing waded ashore to gather information on fog, surf, and currents to enable a helicopter assault team to successfully seize key Iraqi refineries on the Al-Faw peninsula before Iraqi troops blew them up. After the war began, the Hub reported on the biggest dust storm to hit the region in 30 years. The storm, covering over 300 miles, shredded tents and clogged engines and lungs. To the north, the storm created other problems, by dumping snow and sleet on Bashur Airport, the target of the most ambitious combat paratroop assault since World War II. The 173d Airborne brigade was flying toward a mountainous drop zone while Cpt John Roberts, chief Grey Beret weather forecaster, had to make a call on whether the weather would lift long enough for 1,000 paratroopers to safely make their jump. The actions and decisions of these two men are just two examples where our Grey Berets helped ensure the success of our troops. There are many, many more. Mr. President, I commend the Grey Berets for their heroism and professionalism and their contributions to our armed services. I also thank the Weather Channel for bringing their achievements to wider public notice.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, for most of his 83 years, the Reverend Jimmy Waters made a significant impact on the lives of many Georgians. The former pastor of Macon's Mabel White Memorial Baptist Church and Tattnall Square Baptist Church has spent, as he said, a great deal of time battling fires. For more than 55 years, he was chaplain of the Macon-Bibb County Fire Department assisting the men who fought physical fires. For nearly 60 years, he was also an ordained minister, fighting, as he said, the hell fire that threatens men's souls. In addition to presiding over the growth of Mabel White from 800 members to over 3,900, he served as chaplain to the Macon Police Department, the Bibb County Sheriff's Office, the Georgia State Patrol, and the Georgia bureau of Investigation. He was also named lifetime chaplain of the Georgia Peace Officers Association, which awarded the first Jimmy Waters Scholarship in his honor to a University of Georgia criminal justice student. Reverend Waters was a graduate of Mercer University, where he entered the ministry while he was still a freshman and earned both his bachelor's and doctorate degrees. As a loving father and husband, he raised three daughters with his wife, the former Annette Burton of Crawfordville. His family often sang with him as he conducted religious services in churches located as far away as Israel and Italy. Reverend Waters was not the type of Christian who kept his lamp under a bushel. He and his siblings sang gospel music on Atlanta's WSB radio station in the 1930s. In addition to his duties as pastor, he initiated televised services from Mabel White, and later began broadcasts of ``The Victory Hour.'' After he retired from Mabel White in 1977, he devoted his efforts to Jimmy Waters Ministries, which spread the Gospel through radio, television, and evangelism. As religious director for WMAZ radio and television in Macon, he recorded over 25,000 broadcasts at home and abroad until he stopped in 2003. He also served as co-host for many fundraising telethons for Macon's WMAZ-TV in support of the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the Children's Miracle Network and Cerebral Palsy. Dr. Waters was often recognized for his work, serving as President of the Georgia Baptist Convention from 1974-1976 and as Chairman of the Southern Baptist Convention's Radio and Television Commission from 1977-1978. In all of the many positions he accepted, he brought energy and integrity to the job. That inner fire that he brought to his work is the reason why so many of us will miss Reverend Jimmy Waters. He was a great American and my good friend.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I had an amendment I intended to offer, but after consultation with the committee chairman, the hour is late and I probably would have wound up withdrawing the amendment anyway. What my amendment sought to do was to make a correction in an amendment that was presented at the full committee markup. At that markup, there was an amendment passed relative to the issue of payment limitation in the farm bill. Payment limitation in the farm bill doesn't mean a whole lot to anybody unless you are a farmer. Farmers, as long as they are treated equally, have no problem with the various farm programs we have under the farm bill. But what has happened with the payment limitation is we have rewritten the farm bill during the middle of the farm bill and that is not fair. What my amendment sought to do was to take one portion of the overall farm bill, which is the ethanol portion, and simply equalize payments to those growers of corn who participate in the ethanol program, add the payments they receive--and they don't receive them directly. We would have to figure out, through a complicated formula, how much they get, add the amount of money to their payment limitation portion so it would equalize. They would be equal with every other farmer across the country with respect to payment limitation. It would be a complicated situation, and I think at some point in time down the road, if those who insist on revision of the payment limitations do so prior to the expiration of the farm bill, we are simply going to come back with an amendment. We will come back with an amendment at a later time to seek to do that. However, I hope all Members of the Senate who come from agricultural States will continue to work together for the interest of our farmers and make sure we carry out the terms of the current farm bill. When it expires in 2008, we will again look at all these issues and decide what is fair to the American consumer and for the American farmer. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on S. Con. Res. 95, the fiscal year 2005 budget resolution. I support the budget before us because I believe it strikes a good balance between fiscal discipline, continued tax relief, and strong support for our military and the security of our homeland. Before I expand on S. Con. Res. 95, I would like to reflect on a few events and developments that have shaped the current landscape in America. Since President Bush's inauguration in 2001 America has faced a myriad of debilitating events such as: a stock market that had been in decline since 2000 along with a recession according to leading economists; unprecedented corporate scandals; and, terrorism on American soil. This triad of events was a perfect recipe for increased unemployment, a ballooning deficit and a struggling economy. In an attempt to rectify these problems, the President, in conjunction with the House and the Senate passed necessary sweeping tax reform that has helped right the stock market, reduce unemployment and pave the way to sustained economic growth in the future. While these past legislative accomplishments were essential and have produced phenomenal results such as; gross domestic product, GDP, in the third quarter last year grew at the fastest quarterly rate in two decades, unemployment has dropped drastically and the combined value of the New York Stock Exchange, NYSE, and the NASDAQ has increase 40 percent. And we need to do more to assure this unprecedented growth continues. That is why this budget rejects tax increases on working families, maintains tax relief for married couples and maintains the 10-percent income tax rate for low-wage workers. In addition to maintaining tax relief, this budget, in order to allow for continued economic prosperity, holds the line on spending and cuts the deficit in half in merely three short years. This reduction in spending and exercise in fiscal discipline will help curb our towering deficit. The United States has also made bounding leaps in the war on terrorism. In the past year alone, the United States has toppled two evil regimes, in Afghanistan and Iraq, rid the world of Iraq's weapons programs, and captured Saddam Hussein. The Budget committee sent to the floor an increase in defense funding of $20 billion. After agreeing to Senator Warner's amendment, of which I was a cosponsor, the Senate has increased military funding by $27 billion for 2005 to make sure troops have the resources necessary to continue to fight this war on terrorism and protect and defend our interests around the world. In addition to providing funding for our military, this budget also takes into account the importance of adequately providing funding to secure our home front by increasing homeland security funds by $4 billion over last year's level. With our renewed economic growth and Congress' diligent efforts to focus spending on only our essential priorities, we can continue this economic prosperity and secure America at home and abroad.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I introduce the Temporary Agriculture Work Reform Act of 2004. American farmers are the most efficient farmers in the world. Technologies have allowed farmers to produce higher quality products while increasing yields, and at the same time, reducing pesticide use. I applaud our farmers for their important role in our Nation's economy. One obstacle that agriculture producers continually grapple with is labor. For many years, migrant workers have been the main source of labor for agriculture. In fact, today migrant workers make up about 56 percent of farm labor. A key issue for our American producers is having an efficient program to provide an agriculture workforce. Reforms to the H2A program are warranted and needed. The program should be user-friendly for both growers and workers with less bureaucratic hassle. The program should operate in such a way to ensure that American producers can have their crops harvested in a timely fashion and that willing workers can get access to job opportunities. We need a program that is easy to use and provides a stable, reliable workforce for America's farmers. My guest worker legislation reforms the cumbersome and uncompetitive aspects of the H2A temporary agriculture worker program--without providing amnesty to illegal aliens in the U.S. The bill gives farmers and workers a more functional program by simplifying the application process, providing a prevailing wage rate, and ensuring U.S. workers are not displaced. The Adverse Effect Wage Rate, known by its acronym AEWR, has consistently failed to provide competitive incentives for farmers to become users of the H2A program. Due to the current need for foreign workers and job protections in place for domestic workers, the AEWR is no longer necessary. By replacing the AEWR with a prevailing wage rate, legal workers will maintain a pay scale that is equal with their counterparts. The bill provides a labor attestation process to ensure that American workers are not displaced. This labor attestation process replaces the burdensome labor certification process currently in effect, which too often causes delays that have a detrimental effect on the seasonal agricultural industry. A similar labor attestation process has worked well for the H1B visa program, and I believe it can be used effectively for the H2A program. The bill also mandates stiff penalties on employers for misrepresentation and U.S. worker displacement. Bottom line, if a U.S. worker wants the job, under my bill he can have it. But when foreign workers are needed, the bill encourages workers to come to the United States through legal channels. A one-time waiver allows foreign workers to apply for the H2A program from their home country if that person is inadmissible to the U.S. due to prior authorized entry--this will deter the cycle of illegal entry that endangers our national security. My bill does not provide amnesty or a new way for illegal aliens to adjust to legal permanent resident status other than in accordance with current law. Finally, the bill includes a few narrow provisions, including re- establishing language that Congress has repeatedly passed on appropriations bills, to protect against frivolous lawsuits. Our farmers should be providing for America's dinner table, not defending meritless lawsuits. There are a number of guest worker bills already introduced in the Senate, and in fact, my Subcommittee held the first hearing several weeks ago on the President's guest worker proposal. The bill I am introducing today is a good first step to the kind of overall reform we need. It meets our economic interests, protects U.S. workers, and respects the rule of law without a broad amnesty for illegal aliens. This legislation establishes a common sense and competitive H2A program so that these employers can continue to produce the highest quality food supply in the world. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass a much needed reform to the H2A program this year.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I introduce the Temporary Agriculture Work Reform Act of 2004. American farmers are the most efficient farmers in the world. Technologies have allowed farmers to produce higher quality products while increasing yields, and at the same time, reducing pesticide use. I applaud our farmers for their important role in our Nation's economy. One obstacle that agriculture producers continually grapple with is labor. For many years, migrant workers have been the main source of labor for agriculture. In fact, today migrant workers make up about 56 percent of farm labor. A key issue for our American producers is having an efficient program to provide an agriculture workforce. Reforms to the H2A program are warranted and needed. The program should be user-friendly for both growers and workers with less bureaucratic hassle. The program should operate in such a way to ensure that American producers can have their crops harvested in a timely fashion and that willing workers can get access to job opportunities. We need a program that is easy to use and provides a stable, reliable workforce for America's farmers. My guest worker legislation reforms the cumbersome and uncompetitive aspects of the H2A temporary agriculture worker program--without providing amnesty to illegal aliens in the U.S. The bill gives farmers and workers a more functional program by simplifying the application process, providing a prevailing wage rate, and ensuring U.S. workers are not displaced. The Adverse Effect Wage Rate, known by its acronym AEWR, has consistently failed to provide competitive incentives for farmers to become users of the H2A program. Due to the current need for foreign workers and job protections in place for domestic workers, the AEWR is no longer necessary. By replacing the AEWR with a prevailing wage rate, legal workers will maintain a pay scale that is equal with their counterparts. The bill provides a labor attestation process to ensure that American workers are not displaced. This labor attestation process replaces the burdensome labor certification process currently in effect, which too often causes delays that have a detrimental effect on the seasonal agricultural industry. A similar labor attestation process has worked well for the H1B visa program, and I believe it can be used effectively for the H2A program. The bill also mandates stiff penalties on employers for misrepresentation and U.S. worker displacement. Bottom line, if a U.S. worker wants the job, under my bill he can have it. But when foreign workers are needed, the bill encourages workers to come to the United States through legal channels. A one-time waiver allows foreign workers to apply for the H2A program from their home country if that person is inadmissible to the U.S. due to prior authorized entry--this will deter the cycle of illegal entry that endangers our national security. My bill does not provide amnesty or a new way for illegal aliens to adjust to legal permanent resident status other than in accordance with current law. Finally, the bill includes a few narrow provisions, including re- establishing language that Congress has repeatedly passed on appropriations bills, to protect against frivolous lawsuits. Our farmers should be providing for America's dinner table, not defending meritless lawsuits. There are a number of guest worker bills already introduced in the Senate, and in fact, my Subcommittee held the first hearing several weeks ago on the President's guest worker proposal. The bill I am introducing today is a good first step to the kind of overall reform we need. It meets our economic interests, protects U.S. workers, and respects the rule of law without a broad amnesty for illegal aliens. This legislation establishes a common sense and competitive H2A program so that these employers can continue to produce the highest quality food supply in the world. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass a much needed reform to the H2A program this year.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for yielding, as well as for his leadership on this issue. He has provided strong and forceful leadership in support of the war on terrorism. It is vitally important that all of us, not just as Members of the Senate, but as Americans, support this administration and support our troops in making sure we win this war on terrorism. I would like to start by saying I have spent the last 3 years working on intelligence issues, first in the House and now in the Senate Intelligence Committees, and have learned some things that are very relevant to this discussion. First, many across the aisle supported massive cuts to the intelligence community budget throughout the 1990s. Between 1992 and 1998, in fact, the Central Intelligence Agency closed one-third of its overseas field stations, lost one-quarter of its clandestine service case officers, lost 40 percent of its recruited spies, and CIA intelligence reports declined by nearly one-half. The Clinton administration, supported by many Democrats in this Chamber today, decided from the outset that the end of the cold war meant we no longer needed intelligence on national security threats. The end of the cold war divide in actual fact made the world a much more complex place, with a host of new, unconventional, and asymmetric threats to our security we were not well prepared to address. Instead of dismantling our intelligence apparatus in the 1990s, recent history has proved beyond a shadow of doubt we should have been expanding and enhancing the quality of those capabilities so we could better understand and counter the new nature of the threat. The record will show many on our side of the aisle were making this very point throughout the 1990s. It is absurd to argue, as some in the other party appear to have suggested over the years, that by emasculating the CIA and our other intelligence agencies, our Nation's security would not be affected, or even would be enhanced. I would just add that penetrating terrorist groups and rogue states, so-called hard targets, is a difficult and dangerous business. It requires a robust overseas intelligence presence, adequate and sustained resources, a wide-ranging stable of recruited and vetted spies, strong bipartisan support from Congress and the White House, and a willingness to take calculated risks. I submit the facts of the 1990s strongly suggest we had none of these. In addition, it is apparent to me the intelligence community during the 1990s was skewed far too heavily in favor of technical collection of intelligence over what is the cornerstone of the business: human intelligence gathering or HUMINT, i.e., using spies to acquire information on the plans and intentions of our adversaries. When my House Intelligence Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security took a hard look at the erosion of our intelligence capabilities in the 1990s, right after 9/11, it became clear to me our human spies were almost considered to be obsolete by the Clinton administration and its appointed intelligence community leadership. When David Kay spoke about his experiences searching for WMD in Iraq on the ``Jim Lehrer News Hour'' last month, he said: We are not very good as a nation in our intelligence capability at reading the most fundamental secrets of a society, what are its capabilities, what are its intentions? We can't photograph those. You need Americans on the ground penetrating those societies and people who are speaking their languages. I fully agree with Dr. Kay, and would just note it takes a long time and a great deal of effort to build such human espionage capabilities. Yet our colleagues across the aisle proved in the 1990s that such capabilities, however imperfect, could be torn down quickly and with ease. In July of 1997, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, over in the House, said: I think the day for the CIA has come and gone. I cite the Congressional Record, dated July 9, 1997. In that same debate, then-Congressman David Bonior commented: [W]e are spending, according to the New York Times, over $30 billion on intelligence, and the cold war is what? Nine years, seven years, eight years over with? I cite again the Congressional Record, dated July 9, 1997. That same year, here in the Senate, the junior Senator from Massachusetts questioned: ``Why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow . . .'' now that the cold war struggle is over? I cite the Congressional Record, dated May 1, 1997. Two years before that, the same Senator proposed we cut the intelligence budget by $1.5 billion, not for specific programs but across the board. In 1994, that same Senator wanted to cut the intelligence budget by $1 billion and to freeze intelligence spending. That is the record. Now, it is going to be awfully hard for certain individuals in the other party to justify their actions on national security matters during the near decade-long period of neglect and erosion of our intelligence capabilities of which they were directly complicit. It is stunning--although not surprising--that such individuals are now seeking to rewrite their own history. I add that the junior Senator from Massachusetts in 1995 proposed to cut $1.5 billion from the intelligence community. That bill he introduced would have exacted cuts of $300 million in each of the fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and again in the year 2000. The proposal was so out of line with reality that there were no cosponsors on the bill and, thank goodness, it never made it to the floor. I ask the question, Why is it that an atmosphere of extreme risk aversion pervaded the intelligence community during the 1990s and lasts even to the present day in some respects? There are two particular events that bother me. First, when I chaired the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security in 2001 and 2002, I was particularly struck by the internal CIA guidelines promulgated in 1995 by then-Director of CIA, John Deutch, that severely limited the ability of CIA case officers to meet with, develop, and recruit foreign nationals who may have been involved in dubious activities or have blood on their hands. We found, through extensive oversight work and dialog with CIA field officers, that these so-called Deutch guidelines had a significant chilling effect on our ability to operate against terrorist and rogue state ``hard targets.'' After all, how can one penetrate a terrorist organization or Saddam's brutal regime, for that matter, without dealing with unsavory people? The guidelines were, in my view, a primary cause of the risk aversion to which I refer in my question, and they actually stayed in effect through July of 2002, when we finally succeeded after many efforts to compel the DCI to repeal them. The second event concerns Mr. Deutch's decision during his mercifully short tenure as DCI to conduct a CIA-wide ``asset scrub,'' which applied an inflexible reporting standard to all CIA spies that, if not met, resulted in their automatic firing. The fact is, the spying business is a lot different than a simple calculation of profit and loss. Spies are human beings who put their lives on the line to spy for us. We have a special responsibility to them and their families. Just because a spy's access may have dried up for a time, that doesn't mean they won't prove useful later on on other issues. Moreover, since we have had many gaps in our clandestine coverage of key issues at the time of the scrub, termination of spies was done without regard to how we might otherwise cover a subject by other means. Thus, our gaps were further exacerbated. In my opinion, the Deutch guidelines and Deutch asset scrub are two of the major driving forces behind the risk aversion to which I referred in my question. Mr. President, that is a direct byproduct of those years of neglect and resource starvation during the previous administration. I want to first make it clear that it has been my experience that the stifling problem of risk aversion went from Washington to the field, and not vice versa. I know that the young, often idealistic, aggressive CIA case officers out on the front lines are not the problem. Risk aversion starts when elected officials, on whose support CIA depends in the face of failure as well as success, abandons the discipline. The ``end of the cold war'' and ``peace dividend'' type arguments of those in the other party during the 1990s clearly manifested themselves in the form of political abandonment of our intelligence community. During those years of Democratic control of Congress, Hill support for the intelligence mission was also questionable. I refer back to my previous remarks about what the junior Senator from Massachusetts and others tried to do to further reduce the intelligence community during the 1990s as a case in point. Moreover, the record will clearly show that during the periods of Republican control of the House and Senate, significant efforts were made to increase the top line of President Clinton's annual intelligence budget requests. Some of these Republican efforts were successful; others were not. But for the most part, we brought the previous administration along kicking and screaming. It should not be surprising that when the politicians turn their back on the intelligence community, politically appointed intelligence seniors start to become more reluctant to approve operations that might result in some sort of political flap because they know they won't be supported. When such intelligence seniors start to become overly conservative, the managers below them follow suit. After a while, bureaucratic obstacles, and other hoops through which field officers must jump before getting operations approved, start to appear. That is where you get the Deutch guidelines and the Deutch asset scrub. Now we have to figure out how to undo the bureaucratic risk averse mindset that has taken a decade to spread across the intelligence community like a cancer and, like a cancer, radical treatment with often painful side effects may very well be required. That is what happens when national security becomes relegated to the bottom of our Nation's priorities. Fortunately, we have a President now who is anything but risk averse and who puts the long-term security interests and safety of all Americans at the top of his list of priorities. On the issue of terrorism and homeland security, Americans deserve strong leadership, not political games. Our President is providing the positive leadership that will ensure the safety of our citizens. I yield back to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate an important news organization in the beautiful coastal city of Savannah. WTOC-TV Channel 11 is celebrating its 50th anniversary of television broadcasts. The station was founded as an AM radio station in 1929 by Savannah's Junior Board of Trade. Just as the Junior Board of Trade became Savannah's Jaycees, WTOC evolved into Savannah's first television station, beginning its first broadcasts on Valentine's Day, 1954. In May 2002, WTOC scored yet another Savannah first by starting the area's first digital high definition broadcasts. During its 50 years of service to Savannah and coastal Georgia, WTOC has provided news coverage for the community. During these years, its news team has won awards for their coverage of issues, including Emmies and Edward R. Murrow awards for news gathering efforts in 2003. I commend the station's owners and staff for serving Savannah and its entire community for the past 50 years. I am confident they will continue covering issues and giving back to Savannah in the years to come.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to fix a problem some of my colleagues have experienced in serving their constituents. Immigration case work is one of the top issues my State offices handle on a regular basis. Occasionally, people who are in the country legally and playing by the rules can slip through the cracks as they wait on the immigration process to run its course. With the massive caseload handled by Immigration Services, there are bound to be mistakes and this legislation allows the agency to remedy those mistakes in the limited situation of the Diversity Visa Program. The case of an Atlanta couple, Charles Nyaga and his wife Doin, recently came to my attention. Charles Nyaga, a native of Kenya, came to the United States with his family as a student in 1996. He is currently pursuing a master's degree in divinity. In 1997, he applied for the fiscal year 1998 Diversity Visa Program and the Immigration and Naturalization Service selected him. In accordance with the diversity visa requirements, Nyaga and his wife submitted an application and a fee to adjust their status to legal permanent resident. A cover letter on the diversity visa application instructed Mr. Nyaga as follows: While your application is pending before the interview, please do not make inquiry as to the status of your case, since it will result in further delay. During the 8 months the INS had to review his application, Mr. Nyaga accordingly abided by what the INS told him to do and never made any inquiry. He unfortunately never heard back. His valid application simply slipped through the cracks because at the end of the fiscal year Mr. Nyaga's application expired, although a sufficient number of diversity visas remained available. Mr. Nyaga and his wife took their case all the way to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In a decision last year, the court found that the INS lacks the authority to act on Mr. Nyaga's application after the end of the fiscal year, regardless of how meritorious his case is. The court even went so far as to note that a private relief bill is the remedy for Mr. Nyaga in order to overcome the statutory barrier that prohibits the INS from reviewing the case in a prior fiscal year. The U.S. Supreme Court recently refused to take up the case. My legislation would overcome this statutory hurdle for Charles Nyaga, his wife, and others who are similarly situated. The legislation would give the Department of Homeland Security the opportunity to reopen cases from previous fiscal years in order to complete their processing. The bill would still give the Department of Homeland Security the discretion to conduct background checks and weigh any security concern before adjusting an applicant's status. I look forward to working with my colleagues and with homeland security officials to pass this legislation this year. We must provide relief in these cases. I believe this targeted legislation strikes the proper balance to provide thorough processing of diversity visa applications while not compromising the Department's national security mission. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today I rise in opposition to the final passage of S. 1072, the ``Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003, SAFETEA.'' However, this vote does not come without great difficulty, because I understand how vital this legislative package is to the transportation infrastructure of Georgia and the country as a whole. I understand that the future growth of my state largely depends on a robust transportation program, particularly in Atlanta and its surrounding counties. Georgia's commuters are suffering from some of the most notorious congestion in the country and without the crucial funds from the reauthorization of the highway funding bill, the time they spend commuting will only get worse. I also clearly understand that the funding from this bill will be used for highway and transit projects that would greatly enhance the vast transportation infrastructure in Georgia. However, I believe that these improvements can be made in conjunction with sound fiscal policy. Last year, in a vote that I did not support, the Senate moved to increase the contract authority in the budget resolution for transportation spending to $272 billion. The SAFETEA bill on the floor of the Senate today breaks this unprecedented level by further increasing the contract authority by $36 billion, this being an increase of 46 percent over the previous level. In other words, to pass the Senate's version of the SAFETEA legislation, the Senate will have to vote to set aside its own budget resolution. In addition, the legislation contains a significant funding gap between the desired spending levels and the anticipated transportation-related excise tax receipts. Simply put, the gas tax receipts used to finance most federal surface transportation projects will not keep pace with government spending. Over the next 6 years, the Congressional Budget Office projects that the gas tax receipts for highways and transit will generate roughly $233 billion--about $80 billion less than the contract authority provided in the SAFETEA legislation on the floor of the Senate. The Finance Committee has produced a plan to make up the difference in a series of revenue boosting maneuvers that simply move revenue generators out of general revenues into the Highway Trust Fund. However, at the end of the day when we realize that there just isn't enough money from the Highway Trust Fund to pay for this bill, inevitably, the burden will fall on the General Fund to make up the difference. The deficit will continue to grow and that is an option that I cannot support. In this time of soaring budget deficits, we must hold the line on spending. We must draw a line in the sand and say that we will not continue to lay the burden of these ever increasing deficits on the shoulders of our children and our grandchildren, because they will pay the price of Congress's profuse spending habits. It is up to us to monitor ourselves and if we do not start by limiting the spending contained within this bill, the deficit will only increase. I am not willing to leave these problems to be dealt with by future generations. Our President has given us an amount that he would support for the cost of this highway bill. He has requested that we limit our spending to $256 billion to work with over the next 6 years. Even with this limitation, this figure represents a 21 percent increase over the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), enacted in 1998. I believe that this rational increase would still have a positive effect on Georgia's transportation infrastructure, while doing significantly less damage to our Nation's economy. I urge my colleagues who will be Senate conferees when this legislation moves to conference to pursue fiscal responsibility and work to reduce the total cost of this bill before the conference report returns to the Senate floor for final passage.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I pay tribute to Ronald C. Foster who will soon be retiring after an illustrious 33-year career with one of America's leading companies, the Atlanta-based United Parcel Service, UPS. First hired in October of 1966, Ron's 33-year corporate career led him from Kentucky to Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, New York, Pennsylvania, and ultimately to Washington, DC. Ron started his career as a non-management hourly employee unloading UPS tractor-trailers in Lexington, KY. Promoted to the ranks of management 2 years later, Ron worked in UPS operations while attending the University of Kentucky, where he earned a Bachelor's Degree in Economics in 1972. Ron held a series of managerial positions of increasing responsibility within the UPS Human Resources department which led him to become one of the company's senior Human Resources officials. In 1996, Ron Foster transferred to UPS' Washington, DC, Public Affairs office, where he represented the company on Capitol Hill and focused on labor relations, safety and human resources related public policy issues. At the time of his retirement Ron served as one of the company's most senior Public Affairs executives, as he coordinated the legislative and political activities of UPS Public Affairs managers both in Washington and in select state capitals. Ron Foster's accomplished business career has been most noted for his unwavering loyalty to UPS and to his uncompromised dedication to integrity regarding business ethics and values. Ron will be remembered for the respectful and professional manner in which he treated all UPS colleagues. Ron's ability to deal fairly and equitably with people from all walks of life, a trait that is all too uncommon in today's society, was legendary among the UPS family. Ron has been a very good friend to this Senator and I am happy that he will be spending his retirement years at Reynolds Plantation in Greensboro, GA. I congratulate Ron for a lengthy and highly successful business career, and more importantly, to wish Ron and Jo Foster a healthy and happy retirement.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Mississippi for including me in this time because this is the most critical issue, obviously, facing not just the administration but the American public today. It is an issue which has already been adequately addressed, but it is not a new issue. The fact of failures within the intelligence community is not something newly discovered. We knew following 9/11 that there were deficiencies within our intelligence community that probably allowed September 11 to happen. What have we done since that time? As the Senator from Mississippi said: It was time to step up to the plate after 9/11, fix the problems. That is what we did in a bipartisan way, and we have done that since that point in time. Now we are moving into an election year, and we are seeing sniping for political reasons and not solving problems for the right reasons. The problem continues to be out there, the problem of deficiencies within the intelligence community. It is not new. It is the same problem. It is a little bit different area. We, as Members of this body and as Members of the House of Representatives, have an obligation to the American people to find out what went wrong. But let's not politicize it. Let's figure out what was wrong. By the way, when you look at the deficiencies in our intelligence community and you try to point the finger at them, you can't stop there. If you are going to point it at our intelligence community, what about the French intelligence community that believed exactly the same thing as our intel community? What about the German community, the British community? Every intelligence agency in the world had the same information and the same facts that we had. Our President was presented with the facts that every other head of state was presented, but it was the Americans who were the target of the bad guys around the world. It was the Americans who were the victims on September 11 and were the potential victims thereafter. Our President exercised good, sound judgment based upon the information that he had and based upon the information that every other head of state had. We can talk about the fact that we ought not to politicize the commission but we have, in fact, politicized the issue. There is a major, fundamental difference in trying to say that intelligence was faulty and at the same time trying to intimate that this administration exercised misleading acts. That is something entirely different, and that is an issue that we can debate long and hard. But it is simply not a fact substantiated by any of the evidence. Whereas the fact that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction had been substantiated time and time again since 1992, as the Senator from Mississippi delineated. It has been substantiated by intelligence communities from every other country in the world up until the time the Iraqi conflict began. There was no misleading on the part of this administration based upon the facts with which they were presented. Let me address one item in particular that the Senator from Illinois stated. He and I both serve on the Intelligence Committee. This issue relative to the UAVs and the possible--I emphasize ``possible''--use by Saddam Hussein of UAVs to distribute biological weapons being an issue: He knows good and well that we received information that indicated it was a possibility. We don't know for sure that was their intention, but we know good and well that it was a possibility. So we could go down the line item by item with each of the statements that have been made. I will go back and conclude with what the Senator from Mississippi said. We can argue and take 10 minutes on each side to discuss this, but what the American people expect is leadership. What this administration is exhibiting is leadership. This body ought to do the same. We ought to exercise leadership to the American people because that is what we were sent here to do. We could come together and say we know what happened; now let's find the answer; let's figure out what the solution is to the problem at hand within our intelligence community in a bipartisan way, and nobody disputes that is the way we ought to act. I say what we need to do is quit debating the issue and move forward now with finding out what the problem was, and let's do what is in the best interest of the American people, and that is continue to work hard to make America a safe place. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference report to accompany the fiscal year 2004 Omnibus Appropriations bill, H.R. 2673. I would first like to thank the appropriators on both sides of the aisle, especially Chairman Ted Stevens and Ranking Member Robert Byrd, for their diligent efforts in crafting this daunting funding package, and particularly for their agreement on several provisions significant to the people of Georgia that will meet urgent needs in transportation, education, agriculture, and homeland security. This body has an obligation to the American people to ensure the continuing operations of our government by annually appropriating needed funding. We also have the obligation to spend consistently within the budget restraints created by the budget resolution--the general agreement between Congress and the executive branch in terms of spending limits which this body adopted last April for fiscal year 2004. We have met this obligation since this bill adheres to that agreement. The spending package before us funds a majority of the agencies and programs of the U.S. Government. Passing this omnibus appropriations bill toady will allow us to increase our efforts in fighting terrorism; it will strengthen our state and local first responders with increased funding; it will provide additional medical care and other benefits to millions of veterans and address the needs of our Nation's schools and universities. For example, the omnibus bill includes $260 million for the Centers for Disease Control located in Atlanta for desperately needed building improvements. The CDC is home to some of the brightest and best scientists in the world and this money will contribute to the renovation of many dilapidated buildings in desperate need of repairs and modernization. this bill is also a very important to the State of Georgia. There are vital programs across the State that will receive necessary funding once this bill is passed and signed into law by the President. I support the passage of this conference report to the fiscal year 2004 Omnibus Bill. Although an unforeseen medical emergency will not allow me to actually cast my vote today for cloture or passage of this conference report, I encourage my colleagues to support the passage of these measures. Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I want to take a moment this morning to honor a dear friend of mine and a former colleague in the other Chamber, the late Congressman Bill Emerson of Missouri. On December 13, a new bridge spanning the Mississippi River at Cape Girardeau in Missouri is being dedicated to Bill who represented the people of southern Missouri in the House of Representatives with dedication and integrity for 15 years before his untimely death in 1996. I was privileged to meet, know, and work with Bill Emerson during my freshman year in Congress. He was an example of hard work, common sense, and the ability to put differences aside to get the job done. Bill and I shared a common constituency of rural Americans and served on the House Agriculture Committee together. Bill's spirit of uncompromising principle and his ability to lead under the most difficult circumstances are assets that I have endeavored to emulate. Bill's commitment to his family was unparalleled. His wife Jo Ann succeeded him in his congressional seat, and he would be so proud of her today for the work she is doing. His daughters, Abby, Liz, Tory, and Katharine, were the lights of his life. I have come to know all four of them over the years, and he would, again, be so proud of them. Jo Ann has carried on Bill's legacy of building bridges between people to promote communication, trade, and civic pride and is making a mark in her own right. This is something which I know would have brought Bill a great deal of satisfaction. Bill Emerson's habit of bridging gaps between people is captured perfectly in the Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge. This $120 million structure replaces the bridge that was built 76 years ago. It will tie together the two States of Missouri and Illinois and promote trade and progress. It is a fitting monument to a man who brought credit to his family, his community, his State, his country, and the Congress of the United States. Bill Emerson was a dear friend. I miss him every day. What a fitting tribute to a great man and a great American. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I wish to speak about my friend, Darwin Edwards, curator of the Museum of Aviation at Robins Air Force Base for the past 14 years who passed away Saturday after a lifetime of service. Lieutenant Colonel Edwards was born in Whigham, Georgia 67 years ago. Interested in flight from a young age, he attended the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado as a member of its fourth class. He then served in the Air Force for 33 years, including a tour in Vietnam where he earned the Silver Star, the Distinguished Flying Cross and many other honors from the United States and foreign governments. Darwin Edwards was able to combine his love of aviation and his desire to serve his fellow Americans by joining the Museum of Aviation at Warner Robins. This museum, with 93 aircraft and missiles, is a first-rate facility with aircraft spanning World War II though the Cold War, including fighters, bombers, and cargo and trainer aircraft. It also includes helicopters and missiles. Darwin Edwards worked hard to build up the museum. His personal touch was a big reason the museum has developed into the fourth largest aviation museum in the United States. Until he was stricken ill at his home several weeks ago, he was working on its $30 million Century 2000 Next Generation expansion program. I have known Darwin Edwards for many years and sincerely express my admiration and respect for him. Several times, I used the museum to hold Christmas receptions for cadets who had received nominations to the service academies. Each time, Darwin took the time to take the young men and women on a personal guided tour of the museum, providing his insight and detailed knowledge of this outstanding facility. Darwin Edwards leaves behind his wife, Sheila, his two sons, Richard and Howard, as well as a granddaughter, and six sisters and three brothers. He also leaves behind many friends as well as a grateful Nation. We will miss Darwin Edwards greatly and we extend to his family and friends our heartfelt condolences.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my concerns with the conference agreement on H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. My original intentions were to work with this body to create and provide a fiscally responsible prescription drug benefit for seniors who are in need. My primary responsibility and obligation through this process was to make sure that Medicare beneficiaries with the lowest monthly income and the highest monthly drug bill were taken care of. That obligation has been fulfilled by this agreement. This bill will provide almost 1 million Georgia seniors with completely voluntary access to a Medicare prescription drug benefit for the first time in the history of the Medicate program. Starting next year, low-income seniors will get drug cards that provide $600 worth of assistance for prescription drugs. Seniors will be covered with access to an initial physical and other new preventive benefits such as cholesterol and diabetes screenings. This legislation creates new Health Savings Accounts, HSAs, to pay for qualified medical expenses, available to all beneficiaries with contributions allowed from employers and family members. Beginning in 2006, all Medicare beneficiaries will be eligible to get prescription drug coverage though a Medicare-approved plan. In exchange for a monthly premium of about $35, seniors who are now paying full retail price for prescription drugs will be able to cut their drug costs roughly in half. Lower-income seniors could qualify for more generous benefits, including reduced premiums, lower deductibles and coinsurance, with no gaps in coverage. With Medicare beneficiaries receiving access to a prescription drug benefit, Medicare instead of Medicaid will be assuming the prescription drug cost of roughly 172,000 beneficiaries in Georgia. This could equal $469 million in added savings over the next eight years for the State of Georgia. The bill also would increase Medicare funding for doctors, hospitals and other health care providers, particularly in rural areas, where reimbursement levels are far below what is paid in urban areas of the country. Additionally, the bill provides cost incentive to encourage companies to retain the health coverage they provide their retirees. I want to voice my support for all of these provisions. Following my review of the conference report, however, I can't help but feel that this is not the best we could do. I feel like we missed the mark on trying to ensure Medicare's solvency. While we are trying to ensure that prescription drug coverage is provided for those seniors who need them, we should also ensure that future generations are not overburdened by the costs of this expanded entitlement program. Attempts to cap the bill's cost have been diluted. Instead of putting cost containment provisions in the legislation, there is a vague transfer of power from today's lawmakers to future lawmakers to handle the cost when it becomes a problem. In 2007, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the bill will cost $40.2 billion. By 2013, that price tag hits $65.2 billion. I am not comfortable leaving these problems to be dealt with in the future. If we cannot logically solve them now, how do we expect future Congresses to tackle cost containment while this program is spiraling out of control? Helping today's seniors with access to prescription drugs must be balanced with our responsibility to future generations, our own children and grandchildren. These generations will have to pay, literally, for our miscalculations. They will be able to look back and see clearly when and where we made mistakes. Today, future generations are a main concern of mine because I think this bill lacks some common sense regarding fiscal restraint. It has the potential to expand our budget deficit for years to come. Placing the cost burden of an entitlement program on the shoulders of our children's generation seems very unfair. Shouldn't it be possible for this legislative body to create a prescription drug benefit plan that is fiscally responsible? Have we successfully done this? With a cost containment trigger we could have done just that and we have missed the opportunity. In addition to the looming fiscal problems of this measure, I am also very concerned with cuts for the reimbursement of drugs for cancer treatment. Community oncology practices in Georgia and nationwide will be at risk of closing their doors because of these cuts. When approximately 1.4 million people are diagnosed with new cases of cancer each year and approximately 550,000 people die from cancer each year, why are we decreasing these drug reimbursements? Our small town pharmacists may also experience financial risk as a result of the passage of this bill. They play a fundamental role in delivering these benefits to our seniors. Pharmacy Benefit Managers, PBMs, should be required to report all financial concessions they receive from manufacturers such as discounts, rebates, and indirect subsidies and should be audited to ensure accountability. I want to ensure that these pharmacists will be able to compete on the same level as the PBMs and purchasing by mail so that they can continue serving their patients. We also need to acknowledge and protect the role of medication counseling services provided by our pharmacists as this is a valuable benefit to the patient. Another concern is the lack of flexibility within the Medicare program. Competition among private healthcare plans in Medicare will help ensure more up-to-date coverage and gives seniors the ability to choose the healthcare plan that best meets their personal health needs rather than a one-size-fits-all government plan. A Medicare-approved private healthcare plan needs flexibility in designing benefits so that seniors can have the option to choose the coverage that makes the most sense to them and best suits their health needs. Seniors deserve choice and flexibility within their benefits, and this bill does not give seniors the full extent of flexibility they deserve. Lastly, the means testing provisions included in this bill are positive but are not strong enough. Our goal should be to help those seniors who cannot afford life saving drugs and currently have to make the difficult choice between putting food on their table and buying the prescriptions they need. We should not waste taxpayer money on subsidizing wealthy seniors who can easily afford to pay for their own medicines. Individuals who fall into the category of 150 percent of Federal poverty level or those with a total income of $13,470 or less will receive great benefits. However, the gaps in coverage for the middle class will make this legislation somewhat effective or possibly even more costly for certain beneficiaries. Protecting those most in need is imperative, but we cannot sacrifice those folks that fall in the middle. The decisions we will make today by voting for this measure will affect the health of every American and significantly impact future taxing and spending of generations to come. I stand before you today burdened by trying to make the best decision for America's seniors, for Medicare solvency, and for the financial security of our children and their future generations. This bipartisan agreement is a necessary step to completing the promise we made to seniors, and that is to provide prescription drug coverage. It is for this reason only that I will vote for this conference report, but I will continuously seek ways to improve this program by seeking stronger cost containment provisions and increasing the flexibility for the plans. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alabama for yielding me a few minutes to discuss the nomination of GEN Robert Clark. I rise in support of the nomination. This is a very sensitive issue and it is one that needs to be dealt with in the right way by this body, and I think it has been. The tragic death of PVT Barry Winchell should never have occurred, nor should any murder of that sort. The fact is, once it did occur, General Clark did everything within his power, first, to see that justice was done. During the course of seeing that justice was done, there was a review of all of his procedures and regulations that were in place at Fort Campbell relative to the circumstances that led up to this unfortunate death. General Clark was somewhat handicapped by not being able to speak out openly and publicly after the death because he was a convening authority for the court-martial and therefore he could not really come forward and have a whole lot to say about the facts and circumstances leading up to the death of Private Winchell. The fact is that he did make some changes in the procedures. He did make sure other regulations that had been in place prior to this unfortunate death were enforced to an even greater degree than at the time this incident occurred. It is truly a tragic situation that was of great concern to General Clark. I have had the opportunity to visit with him on a couple of different occasions, and one does not have to talk with him very long to see the concern in his eyes and in his heart relative to the death of Private Winchell. I have also had the opportunity to meet with Private Winchell's parents. Again, we expressed to them deep sorrow and that our prayers go out to them. No matter what, we cannot bring their son back. I think we do need to make sure that as we move through this process we review what was done relative to the facts and circumstances leading up to this terrible murder and the facts and circumstances as they occurred after the death of Private Winchell. As I reviewed this situation with General Clark and as I looked at the IG investigation that he ordered to take place after the death occurred and after the court-martial was completed, it is pretty obvious that he did everything he could have done to ensure that justice was done and that the atmosphere surrounding the troops at Fort Campbell was not poisoned and everybody was treated in an equal and fair manner. It is very unfortunate that this situation had to occur, but at the same time it is very important that we make sure the procedures of the Army are followed very closely, and they were. It is very important that we make sure the sensitivity directed towards the family has taken place, and I believe it has. It has not been a perfect situation. General Clark, just as any officer or any individual in the corporate structure of any company in America, can look back on a situation as tragic as this and say that maybe they should have done something a little bit differently. The fact is, General Clark has always provided strong leadership during his career in the U.S. Army, and I think, once again, he exhibited strong leadership. He did everything within his power to see that justice was done and to see that appropriate rules and regulations were put in place where they needed to be and that they were carried out to the highest degree. So I rise in support of GEN Clark, and I hope my colleagues will see fit to confirm his nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Georgia for his always direct, forthright, from-the-heart statement. He knows he and I share an awful lot with respect to this issue and so many others. Again, it has been a pleasure for me to serve with him. I want to talk about one of the men he just mentioned who is one of the faces on that map and is one of the individuals who is being filibustered. That is Judge Charles Pickering. What an injustice to an individual is being carried out with respect to the filibuster of the nomination of Judge Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. I feel a very special relationship to the Fifth Circuit because when I began practicing law in 1969, I was a member of the Fifth Circuit. At that point in time, all of Georgia was a part of the Fifth Circuit. Then I believe it was 1979 or 1980, we split off. We became the Eleventh Circuit and the Fifth Circuit became the circuit that handled cases from Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. This man, Charles Pickering, grew up in Mississippi. It has been said by his critics on the other side of the aisle--and I quote because I was in the chair presiding Monday when this statement was made by one of the individuals from the other side of the aisle on the floor, in talking about his record on race, ``He has a bad record.'' Nothing could be further from the truth. Judge Pickering has been a strong advocate of the civil rights movement since the very early days of his career. Judge Pickering was one who came through a very difficult time in the history of our country, particularly coming from the South. Those of us who grew up in that same South, particularly in the rural South during those days, know the difficult times we faced and how far we have come since then. We are still not where we need to be. But boy, what strides we have made. It is only because of men like Judge Charles Pickering that we have made those strides. So for anybody to say this man has a bad record on race is simply not just incorrect, but it does a grave injustice to a man who worked so hard to make sure civil rights did come to his part of Mississippi. Judge Pickering, in 1967--you have to think back. In rural Mississippi, a part of Mississippi where the Ku Klux Klan, which today we would brand as terrorists--at that point in time, they were very active in that part of Mississippi. Judge Pickering stood face to face, eye to eye with the Ku Klux Klan. He went to court and testified against the Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan in Mississippi. For those who had not lived through that time, you cannot have a real appreciation for what he did, how brave, courageous, and how much integrity this man showed by doing this. He testified against the Imperial Wizard in a criminal action, in which the Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan was charged with the murder of a man named Vernon Dahmer. Unfortunately, although Judge Pickering did that, now on the floor of this Senate it is said he has a bad record when it comes to civil rights. Judge Pickering is a strong, religious man. He has a very strong faith. He believed there ought to be equality among children in schools. For that reason, he made sure his children went to integrated schools from the very first day they were eligible to go to school. Again, for those of us who grew up in the South during those days when integration began, this was not a very popular thing to do in the white community, to say the least. But Judge Pickering, again, stared racial injustice in the eye and he said we have to do the right thing and we have to make sure all of our children have an equal opportunity, so he sent his children to the same schools as the African-American community sent their children to during, again, this very difficult time. The list goes on and on about what Judge Pickering has done with respect to race relationships, from organizing local committees, to organizing statewide committees dealing with the issue of racial justice in the State of Mississippi. Judge Pickering served on the Federal bench in the district court where he lived for several years. He has been criticized for having a bad judicial record. Well, let me tell you about his judicial record. Some 99.5 percent of his cases have either been affirmed or not appealed--99.5 percent. They have either been affirmed or not appealed. Of those appealed, Judge Pickering has only had a reversal rate of 7.9 percent, which is 20 percent lower than the U.S. Department of Justice's national average of 9.1 percent, and 2 times lower than the average district court judge under the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Charles Pickering is not just a good man, Judge Charles Pickering is an outstanding judge. This is the kind of man the folks on the other side of the aisle are being obstructionist about and are not allowing an up-or-down vote with respect to his confirmation on the floor of the Senate. It is wrong, it is unjust, and it ought not to continue. I want to talk to you about one other individual very quickly, and that is Miguel Estrada. Miguel Estrada has withdrawn his nomination, after being under consideration for years. He decided he was not going to put his family through this any longer and he decided the best thing to do was withdraw his nomination and move on. Miguel Estrada came to the United States as a teen from Honduras. He spoke very little English. He made sure he learned English quickly enough to enter school and he graduated cum laude from undergraduate school and went to Harvard Law School, where he graduated with honors and was a member of the Harvard Law Review. He has given his life to public service. Most recently, his public service included being in the office of the Solicitor General of the United States of America under both a Republican President, President George Herbert Walker Bush, and a Democratic President, Bill Clinton. In both instances, he served under a Solicitor General who has now come forward and said this man is a good man, an outstanding lawyer, and this man deserves to be confirmed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Obstruction came from the other side of the aisle, and they would not even give Miguel Estrada an up-or-down vote to confirm his nomination to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. I want to spend the last part of my time here talking about this issue of cloture. The Senate has operated under various different rules on cloture, which is the ability of the Senate body to terminate debate on a pending matter. From 1789 until 1806, the Senate cloture rule allowed debate to be shut off by a simple majority vote. For 17 years after the country began operating under the U.S. Constitution, the Senate rules provided a simple majority vote was all that was needed to cut off debate. In 1806, the Senate eliminated its first cloture rule which, in effect, put the Senate under a system where unanimous consent was required to end debate. This unanimous consent system lasted for over 100 years and survived 3 unsuccessful attempts to bring back some sort of cloture rule. In 1917, the Senate filibustered a proposal supported by President Woodrow Wilson to arm American ships against German submarines, prior to America's entry into World War I. This filibuster was rather controversial and led to support for the Senate approving the first version of today's cloture rule, which is rule XXII. That required a vote of two-thirds present and voting to end debate on ``pending measures.'' Rule XXII was again amended in 1949 to extend cloture to any measure, motion, or other matter, but cloture became inapplicable to any rule change, making it more difficult to change the rules again. Part of this 1949 rule change raised the required number of Senators for cloture from two-thirds of those present and voting to two-thirds of all Senators. Ten years later, in 1959, rule XXII was extended to rule changes, but the number of required Senators was moved back to two-thirds of those present and voting. In 1975, our esteemed senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, championed another amendment to rule XXII that changed the required number of Senators for cloture to three-fifths of Senators duly sworn and chosen--in other words, a hard 60 Senators, without regard to how many are present and voting. The 1975 rule change left the cloture requirement for rule changes at two-thirds of Senators present and voting. In 1979, Senator Byrd again proposed another amendment to rule XXII. This time, the amendment imposed a 100-hour limit on post-cloture debate. This was reduced to 30 hours in 1986. We started off in 1789 with the cloture rule that closed off debate by a simple majority vote. The original rule was clearly constitutional because it didn't impose more than a simple majority to end debate and proceed to the question of an up-or-down vote on the President's nominees. Now it is interesting, and I think very telling, that the Framers of the Constitution set out only five instances where they thought the Senate needed more than a simple majority vote to act. That is what is referred to as a supermajority, such as three-fifths, two- thirds, and such--anything but a simple majority. Those five instances requiring a supermajority are: impeachment, expulsion of a Senator, the override of a Presidential veto, ratification of a treaty, and adoption of a constitutional amendment. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to continue and that my time be taken off of the next hour, same as we have been doing.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I would not be happy if my soap was only 98-percent pure. I would not be happy if our voting machines had a 98-percent accuracy rate. I would not be happy if the power worked only 98 percent of the time. And I would be awfully nervous if the airplane that I was flying on had a track record of landing safely 98 percent of the time. So the Senator's reference to this President getting 98 percent of his judicial nominees confirmed simply does not hold water. I wish to talk for a minute about Carolyn Kuhl. Again, she was referenced by the Senator from California about her qualifications and her abilities to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Carolyn Kuhl is a very special lady. She has been a judge in California since 1995. But prior to that, Carolyn Kuhl had an exemplary record that includes service both as a committed advocate as well as an impartial jurist. She has outstanding qualifications and bipartisan support. Her qualifications include having graduated cum laude from one of those liberal universities--excuse me, one of those conservative universities called Princeton University and having graduated Order of the Coif at Duke University Law School. The Senator from South Carolina and I graduated from the University of South Carolina and the University of Tennessee, respectively. Order of the Coif means you were in the top one or two, not percent, the top one or two in your class. Neither one of us was there. That is something special. She was a law clerk to then-Judge Anthony Kennedy of the Ninth Circuit. She then worked in the Department of Justice as a Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Deputy Assistant to the Attorney General, and Deputy Solicitor General. She was a partner in the very prestigious law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson. She was the first female supervising judge of the civil department of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Carolyn Kuhl brings excellent, outstanding educational credentials to the bench. There are a number of individuals who have registered their support for Judge Kuhl. There has been some indication that maybe some female members of the bar are upset with her over some of her decisions, and one decision in particular. Let me show you what 23 members of the Los Angeles Superior Court, 23 women judges on the Los Angeles Superior Court bench said about Judge Kuhl, and this was a bipartisan group: Judge Kuhl approaches her job with respect for the law and not a political agenda. Judge Kuhl has been a mentor to new women judges. . . . She has helped promote the careers of women, both Republican and Democrat. . . . As sitting judges, we more than anyone appreciate the importance of an independent, fairminded and principled judiciary. We believe that Carolyn Kuhl represents the best values of such a judiciary. There was a case that, if you listened to the Senator from California, you would have thought that Judge Kuhl was the doctor in the office who was being sued, not the judge on the bench who was reviewing the case. Let me tell you what the appellate court judge who wrote the opinion in the case, referenced by the Senator from California, said about Judge Kuhl and about that specific opinion that he reviewed: On appeal, I was the author of the Sanchez-Scott opinion. . . . Judge Kuhl's order sustaining the demurer without leave to amend was not an act of bias or insensitivity. . . . In fact, a strong argument can be made that she correctly assessed the competing societal interests the California Supreme Court requires of all jurists in this State to weigh in determining whether the tort of intrusion has occurred. With respect to those who have criticized Judge Kuhl as being insensitive or biased because of my opinion in Sanchez-Scott, they are simply incorrect. Judge Kuhl brings impeccable credentials to the bench. She brings impeccable educational credentials, as well as jurist credentials, to the bench. She brings bipartisan support from the women, from the men, from the Republicans, and the Democrats in the State of California who know her best. For us to have to go through the exercise here of, once again, contending with a filibuster from the folks on the other side of the aisle with respect to the nomination of Carolyn Kuhl, is truly an injustice and is one of those injustices that, as my friend from South Carolina has said, there will be a payback on. That is not the way we want to operate. It is not the way this body has operated for well over 200 years since we have been approving judges, and it is not the way we should operate in the future. There is still time to correct the process that we are going through, and based upon what we are doing here tonight, I hope the profile of this issue is going to be brought home to the household of every American and every voter, and that they will understand there is a group in the Senate who wants to move forward to make sure their lives are made better because good judges are going to be put on the bench, and good judges ought to be confirmed by the Senate; and that there is another group in the Senate who is being obstructionist and is doing everything within their power to prevent the President of the United States from having the judges that he thinks are the best qualified from being put on the Federal bench all across America. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I say to my colleagues that if they will give us an up-or-down vote on all of these nominees, as they have done in every other instance and as the Senate has done for every other President of the United States, there is a lot of work we need to do and we look forward to moving on to that. What we have been doing over the past 24 hours almost now, what we are going to do for the next several hours, is some of the most important business this Senate can ever take up, and that is the confirmation of our judicial nominees. I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Talent.