Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I sure will.

Mr. DeWINE. That is the way the Senator's bill is written?

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, first, I congratulate Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman for their very fine work on this bill. Anyone who has watched this debate has to be very impressed by the work they have done in, frankly, a relatively short period of time. They have held a number of hearings. They have diligently worked on this bill and brought the bill to the floor. I came to the floor last week and asked my colleague from Maine some questions. I thought she had some very good answers. As I expressed at that time--and I have made no secret of this--I have always been concerned that any bill we produce, in fact, give the head of our intelligence enough authority, enough power to actually get the job done. And that was my concern. Frankly, that was the nature of my questions to my colleague from Maine last week. I come to the floor this morning to express my concerns about the Byrd amendment. My reading of the Byrd amendment is, frankly, that it would strike at the heart of the Collins-Lieberman bill. I believe if the Byrd amendment were to be adopted, all my worst fears would be realized, and we would end up with a bill that would look like it was giving power to this new head of intelligence in this country, but, in fact, that person would not really have the requisite power they needed. I wonder if I may ask my friend and colleague from Maine several questions about her interpretation of the Byrd amendment. My understanding is that the Byrd amendment begins, on the copy I have, on page 27 of the bill and strikes the title ``Transfer or Reprogramming of Funds and Transfer of Personnel within NIP.'' I wonder if my colleague shares my concerns about the danger of this amendment. I think, frankly, this is a gutting amendment. I wonder what her reaction to that is.

Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague for her answer, and that is something that should alarm all the Members of the Senate. I believe there is a general consensus--certainly there is in the intelligence community, a general consensus at least, and I think there is among Members of the Senate--that the power of the DCI today is not enough, and to think that we would be thinking about passing a bill that would pass with this amendment possibly that would weaken the head of our intelligence agencies and give that person less power to me is a shocking thought. I believe our whole goal should, in a very responsible, rational way, create a new system, which this bill has done, to empower one person to have the authority to run the intelligence in this country. I am afraid, as this discussion has pointed out between my colleagues and myself, that the Byrd amendment will take us actually in the wrong direction. It is a weakening amendment. At least for this Member, it is a gutting amendment. It, frankly, would make it impossible for me to vote for this bill. It would destroy the power of the head of intelligence, this new position, and it would be the wrong thing to do. It is very well intended, but it would be a very serious mistake. This discussion we just had certainly brings that out. Again, I want to congratulate my colleagues. They have done a very good job in trying to deal with all of the diverse needs we have in the intelligence community, the Defense Department, and all the other agencies. It has been a very tough job, and I congratulate them for their work. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

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

Mr. DeWINE. I ask unanimous consent to proceed in morning business.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today to pay tribute to a young Ohioan who gave his life in the line of duty fighting for freedom. Today I stand here to remember a soldier of inspiring independence and determination, a young man whose life was cut far too short when the tank he was in was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade in Kufa, Iraq. He was 20 years old. Army PFC Nicholaus Zimmer was the only child of Lisa and Harold ``Gino'' Zimmer of Powell, OH. The two were proud, yet of course, worried when their son decided to enlist in the Army at the age of 17. Despite their natural parental concerns, they knew he would go his own way and do things in his own way. Because, you see, Nicholaus Zimmer was special. He was voted most unique in the Westland High School class of 2002. He defied stereotypes. He was unconventional. He had an exceptional spirit. Nicholaus was lovingly described as a bookish, pink-haired, 1970s-clothes-wearing, skateboarding kid who loved to question authority. I should note, though, that the pink hair description was constantly changing, as Nicholaus altered his hair color to blue and even shaved it once into a Mohawk haircut. Though most would consider pink hair as strictly a defining characteristic, it was not so for Nicholaus. As with other aspects of his life, Nicholaus could not be easily pigeonholed--not really--especially as a punk rock youth. No, he loved to read Shakespeare and would quote it while talking to teachers. Nicholaus was considering becoming an English teacher. Well, that or maybe an Apache helicopter pilot. Nicholaus was ambitious and set his goals high. He enlisted in the Army so he could earn money to go to college and see the world. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 37th Armored Regiment, 1st Armored Division out of Friedberg, Germany. His job was driving M1A1 tanks--another irony in his life given the fact that Nicholaus didn't have a driver's license. Nevertheless, he drove that tank with great skill and expertise. At age 19, Nicholaus was sent to Iraq. Nicholaus would send his parents souvenirs from Iraq, including shrapnel and money with Saddam Hussein's face on it. They in turn would send him his favorite books and baby wipes to take the sand off of his body. Nicholaus was proud to serve. He was also anxious to come home, come home to show his parents the man he had become in the time that he was away. As his mom said; His year was up on Mother's Day. You could tell he was ready to come home. But he had a job to do. Nicholaus was a good soldier. Here is how his company commander CPT John Moore described him: Nick was a superb soldier and had a priceless sense of humor in a place where that came at a premium. He always had a great way of identifying with other soldiers and making the best of some pretty rough situations. As a soldier he was decorated twice for bravery in battle, and he never forgot his duty to his fellow troops. After our company lost our first man, Sergeant Mike Mitchell, Nick was best able to verbalize our sense of loss and what that grief meant to us, despite his junior rank, experience and young age. I will never forget his ability to joke and see the brighter side of any situation and his ability to identify with everybody regardless of rank. Nick's loss hit the 3rd Platoon and all of Crusader Company very hard and resonates through my company still. I would like to share with you now an e-mail message posted on a soldier memorial Web site following Nicholaus's death. It is from the sister of that same Sergeant Mitchell. The sister writes: To the family and friends of Nick--my name is Christine, and I am the sister of Michael Mitchell, who served with Nick. My brother was taken from us on April 4, 2004. My heart goes out to you because we definitely can understand your pain. . . . I want to thank you all since I will not be able to tell Nick myself. I guess Nick was helping the soldiers with the death of my brother. I read a letter that Captain Moore wrote where he said, ``Nobody will ever forget that Nick Zimmer was probably one of the most verbally expressive soldiers in this command and that he more than anyone else in the company helped us to identify the effects of Mike Mitchell's death so we could soldier through it and understand it.'' So Nick, thank you. You and my brother are together now. Please take care of each other. I have no doubt that they are taking care of each other. Soldiers take care of each other in life and in death. When Nicholaus passed away, family, friends, and members of the Powell community came out to show their support for the Zimmer family. American flags lined the yards down the street, and neighbors stood along the road to pay their respects as the funeral procession passed, a procession that included Nicholaus's father and dozens of motorcycles adorned with flags. Though it is never easy to say goodbye, the funeral of Nicholaus Zimmer was what he would have wanted. A two-star general sat next to a skateboarder with multiple piercings. Looking through the crowd, one could see tattooed bikers, men in business suits, and teenagers with a variety of unconventional hair colors. Yes, I think he would have liked it. Indeed, Nicholaus Zimmer was a unique young man, a unique young man with the ability to bring people together of all walks of life. This was apparent at the funeral. It was apparent to anyone who knew him. As his father said: Look at Nicholaus as an example . . . He always lived the way he wanted to--and he died that way, too. Mr. President, I never had the chance to meet Nicholaus Zimmer, but I wish I could have. I did have the privilege of meeting Nicholaus's family during the calling hours for their son. I thank them for sharing their memories with me. They told me that Nicholaus was not the only member of their family to serve overseas. Nicholaus had an uncle who served in Vietnam and a grandfather who saw action in Korea. The Zimmer family is proud of their son's service. Our Nation, too, is proud of his service. Mr. President, I will conclude with a message from the extended family of Army Specialist A.J. Vandayburg, an Ohio soldier from Mansfied, who was also killed in Iraq in April. They wrote the following to the Zimmer family: Thank you, Nicholaus, for protecting us all. Sometimes we forget what our Armed Forces are doing for us. Freedom, unfortunately, comes with that unforgivable, unfathomable price. You will not be forgotten for your sacrifice. To your family, we say thank you, too, for your sacrifice. There are no words to replace a child, a brother, an uncle--a loved one. When you are able, seek out those who have given their all. We know from experience the price you have paid, and we mourn with you. God bless you all. Mr. President, I think that letter expresses our sentiments, as well, to the family. marine lance corporal will stevens

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, we are all well aware of the horrible devastation that has been caused by the four hurricanes that have hit the United States and have hit other countries so far this season: Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne. We have seen pictures of the damaged homes. We have seen the victims interviewed on TV. We have seen the floodwaters that have drowned many towns and villages. My home State of Ohio has also suffered damage from these storms, damage that has warranted the classification of 30 of our counties as Federal disaster areas. These counties include: Athens, Belmont, Carroll, Columbiana, Gallia, Guernsey, Harrison, Jefferson, Mahoning, Meigs, Monroe, Morgan, Muskingum, Noble, Perry, Stark, Trumbull, Tuscarawas, Vinton, and Washington. Last Friday, when I was home, it was my privilege to tour some of the flooded areas in Ohio and to talk to some of the people who are victims. I must say, while I have seen floods before, been along the Ohio Valley before, and seen what floods can do, I was, again, overwhelmed at what I saw. Some areas looked like a war zone. The power of water never ceases to amaze me, whether it is the Ohio River when it comes up, or in creeks and streams a long way from the Ohio River when flash floods come up and do unbelievable damage and homes are literally ripped apart and trailers are ripped apart. I saw this when I was home. At its highest, the floodwaters in Marietta, along the Ohio River, covered the first floor of many buildings. From this picture, a photo taken by the Washington County Sheriff's Office in Marietta, you can get some idea of what Marietta looked like when the river came up-- absolutely unbelievable. People used boats to get around as they surveyed what they lost and what they could possibly save. In other areas, trucks were washed away, mobile homes stood on their sides, and debris was everywhere. There was garbage strewn clear up into the trees. Many businesses were, of course, forced to close, as owners went out to salvage what was left. As you can see from this picture, it did not look like this Wendy's restaurant--after this picture was taken--would be serving Wendy's hamburgers very soon. But we do know that people are resilient. When I got there, it had been 5 or 6 days since the peak of the water, which you are seeing in these pictures. People were already getting back into business. Businesses were opening. People are unbelievably resilient. This picture of Wendy's is absolutely unbelievable at the height of the flood. Belmont County and the village of Neffs, which I visited, experienced severe flash flooding--a different kind of water damage, a different type of flooding, but unbelievably devastating as well. I toured Neffs, and water was freely flowing in and out of houses as the long cleanup process began--again, another picture of what this looked like, not when I was there, but during the height of the storm. Twenty Ohio counties are like this--20. Already, nearly 4,000 individuals in the disaster-declared counties have called to apply for assistance. Part of the tragedy of the floods is that so many residents simply did not have the warning that they needed. Senator Voinovich and I and Congressman Strickland and Congressman Ney and others are asking the National Weather Service to give us an explanation for what happened because when I was in Marietta a number of people told us that night they received a flood warning, but then the National Weather Service took that warning off. People went to bed. Yet during the night the flood warning was put back on. Many businesspeople and homeowners, for example, whom I talked to simply were not prepared. The floodwater came up during the night and did tremendous damage. People were not prepared for that. So our question to the Weather Service is, why was that mistake made? Why was the flood warning on, then off, and then back on again? It was very misleading to people, and we want to know exactly what the explanation is. We have written to the Weather Service and we want a full explanation about that. One of the most heartening things, though--you see this, and I have seen it before in Ohio; I know we have seen it across the country--is the number of people who help neighbors, who come out and do unbelievable work. They come out of nowhere and volunteer. I saw amazing displays of human kindness, generosity of the human spirit, neighbors helping each other get their lives back together. As they have done so many times before, Ohioans have pulled together as part of a community effort to reclaim their houses and businesses from the floodwaters. I met a woman, for example, who is originally from Neffs, the town I was talking about, but now lives in Columbus and works at Ohio State. She asked for 4 days of vacation time--it was granted--so she could go back home, back to Neffs and help with the cleanup. She joined several other volunteers to help serve meals in the basement of one of the local churches, a place I had the occasion to visit. It is that kind of spirit we see. This is one of the countless acts of generosity exhibited by people that I saw. I saw a business, for example, in Marietta. The woman who was cleaning up--it was horrible; all her inventory had mud all over it; it was a mess--she said: Senator, come in the back. I want to show you something. I went back with her, and clear in the back through her business, back in the back alley. And she said: Look. There were people there who came in to volunteer, and they had an assembly line, and they were washing the inventory she had, these little toys, these little different things. It was an amazing thing to see. These were all volunteers, all people who came in. They had some adults and some younger kids who were in there who were volunteering and helping her. I saw another man in Marietta. He was cleaning up his business. He took me back and showed me where there was a piano. He said: You will not believe this story. He said: The flood kept coming up and coming up and coming up. We were up in the second story of our house. He said: I kept taking pictures and posting them on the Internet. All of a sudden my phone rang. I couldn't figure out who was calling me. He said the person who called on the phone said: Are you--and the person said his name. He answered: Yes, this is such-and-such business. He said: We are outside. He said: You can't be outside. There is nothing but water outside. He said: Well, look outside. So he went to his window on the second story and there were a couple guys in a row boat. And they said: We are here to help you. And they had come in from the countryside, rode their boat into Marietta, and they had some cement blocks they had brought because they had heard that his piano was getting soaked and he couldn't do anything about it. It was getting ruined. So they brought that boat in, landed the boat in his place of business, tied the boat up, unloaded the cement blocks, lifted the piano up, put the cement blocks under the piano so the piano would not get wet. He said: I had never seen those guys before. They left and I still don't know who they are. But I had tears coming out of my eyes when they left because I couldn't believe it, that someone would do that for me. That is the type of thing you see, in spite of all the horror, replicated not only in Ohio but across this country. I must also say, I was so impressed by the work of the men and women of the Ohio National Guard--they always do a great job--the Ohio Emergency Management Agency, the great professionals who are always there; FEMA; the county directors, their staffs, countless other volunteers who have worked tirelessly to help bring food, clean water to the area. They have already distributed almost $5 million in disaster assistance and continue to work as we speak tonight. We appreciate their efforts and thank them. It is going to take months before these flood-ravaged communities return to normal. We must make sure to employ every resource available to make sure Ohioans can get back in their homes and back to their jobs, the day-to-day business, as soon as possible. It has been rough going for so many different people in Ohio. I, again, thank all those who have volunteered and assisted in the cleanup and rebuilding. I know what I saw in Ohio with our flood damage has been replicated in so many other States, not just in this country but in other countries. There are many other people hurting. I came to the floor tonight to share with my colleagues what I saw as I traveled around my State last week. It is so heartening to see how people fight back. I know this Congress will continue to be of assistance and of help to them as we reach out to all the victims of the hurricanes and we give them a hand up and help them through this crisis. My experience has been that in the immediate days after the hurricanes and flooding, it is always tough. But the weeks and months even beyond that are tough as well. We are not going to forget them. I know my colleagues in the Senate will not forget them, and the Federal Government will not forget them. We need to let them know we are still going to be there with them through the Federal agencies and be of assistance. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 17 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I come to the Senate this evening to pay tribute to a fellow Ohioan, a brave soldier who lost his life while making our own safer. Army PFC Kevin Ott disappeared north of Baghdad, Iraq, on June 25th, 2003. Three days later, on June 28th, everyone's worst fears were realized. The military personnel found Kevin's body following a very exhaustive search. Kevin Ott was only 27 years of age. When I think about the loss of young soldiers, I am reminded of something that President John F. Kennedy said to the 1st Armored Division in Fort Stewart, GA, as they were prepared to deploy to Cuba. In 1962 this is what President Kennedy said: Many years ago, according to a story there was found in a sentry box in Gibraltar, a poem which said: God and the soldier all men adore In time of danger and not before When the danger is past and all things righted God is forgotten and the soldier slighted. President Kennedy continued: This country does not forget God or the soldier. Upon both we depend. President Kennedy said it so well. We depend on our service men and women. We depended on Kevin Ott. We will not forget him. We will never forget him. I rise this evening to remember Kevin, to remember him as he was and will forever remain, a devoted son, supportive brother, and patriotic soldier. Kevin Ott grew up in Orient, OH, son of loving parents Alma and Charles Ott. He and his sisters and brothers were close and would remain so throughout their lives. Kevin went to Westfall High School. He was on the basketball team and enjoyed spending time with friends. He graduated in 1993 and then attended Bluffton College where he was a sports lover and played defensive end on the football team. While Kevin's love of sports certainly ran deep, his passion also was for motorcycles. He certainly loved that bike. His sister Pam remembers how Kevin took her for a ride one afternoon. She said: I was afraid because I knew he loved to go really fast. But, to my surprise, he went slowly because he knew I was scared. Kevin was a good brother, son, and friend. He was deeply devoted to his family, and with their love and guidance he became devoted to his church and his faith. Throughout his entire life Kevin was a strongly spiritual person. He was active in his church from the time he was 4 years old. His parents fondly remember how his faith guided their son's decisions and how it directed his life. At the Southwest Community Church of the Nazarene, Kevin worked with the youth group, sang in the choir, and went on a mission trip to Mexico where he helped build houses. These experiences taught him to see the hand of God in all things. It increased his faith, the faith that would see him through the difficult times in his life. The tragic events of September 11 changed the course of Kevin's life as it changed the course of so many people's lives. It was then that he decided he wanted to join the military. He wanted to prevent such a tragedy ever happening again. Kevin left his job as a machinist with J.W. Groves and Sons to enlist in the Army in January 2002. He immediately excelled. His comrades remembered him as a capable soldier, someone they could always count on. Kevin's brother-in-law Jim Pack recalled that Kevin loved the military. He said that he had found his calling in life. Kevin was assigned to Battery B, 3rd Battalion, 18th Field Artillery Regiment, based out of Fort Sill, OK. While in Iraq, Kevin was in charge of guarding an ammunitions depot. He wrote home often, and his parents could tell their son was proud of his service. They saved Kevin's postcards and looked forward to any contact they had with him. They recognized that their son loved Army life and knew that he believed in what he was doing. Though the news of Kevin's death was, of course, devastating to the Ott family, Charles said his son was at peace with his faith and was not afraid to die. His faith saw him through and took him to his final resting place. When we lost Kevin Ott, our Nation mourned. Charles and Alma lost their loving son. Pam, Julie, Joyce, Diane, and Doug lost their loyal brother. They miss his joking nature, his love of sports and motorcycles. They miss him coaching his nephew's Little League team. But most of all they just miss spending time with him. So, as President Kennedy said, over 40 years ago: ``This country does not forget . . . the soldier.'' This country will not forget Kevin Ott.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague from Maine for answering these questions. As always, she is very eloquent and has been very thoughtful in her questions and her work on the bill. I congratulate her for the good work she has done. Madam President, I do appreciate my colleague's answers. I will be voting in favor of the Specter amendment simply because I think it is more clear. I think it adds something to this bill. I think it makes it more specific. It is clear. When we are done with our work, then it will be up to the great bureaucracy, the men and women who are out there to defend us--and I do not use ``bureaucracy'' in a derogatory way at all; these are great people doing wonderful work out there who are defending us--it will be up to them to make this work. We have an obligation to do our best to give them something that will work and to give them the language that will allow the clearest lines of authority. I believe if you take the Collins-Lieberman bill, which is good work, and you then add the Specter amendment, the Specter amendment makes it clearer, makes it more precise, and makes the lines of authority much easier to understand. I believe it also will deal with a concern I have had for a long time, as we saw this reform coming, and that is my fear that we would create this new position, give them authority, and do a pretty good job, but not quite give them all the authority this person needs. We have had the opportunity in the Intelligence Committee to listen to some of the things that have gone wrong for the last few years, and there have been a lot of things that have gone wrong. It is not only organization. It is not only line authority. It is not only the fact that the DCI did not have enough power, but that is part of it. This bill goes a ways to deal with that. I believe the Specter amendment improves it further and makes it clearer, and is the right way to go. Somebody has to be in charge. The buck has to stop somewhere. Never again do we want to be in a position where it is not clear who is in charge. Never again does this country want to be in a position where the top person in intelligence doesn't have all the authority he or she needs to protect us, to protect our children, to protect our families. The Specter amendment will make it very clear where the buck stops. The buck will stop with this person whom we are now calling the NID and who is called the NID under the Collins-Lieberman bill. So I will vote in favor of the Specter amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. I appreciate that. I will have to go back and study this a little bit more. I say to my colleague from Maine, I am happy with her answer when she responded to my question, can this be ordered, and her response, I believe, was yes. In other words, under her bill the NID could order the satellite to be moved. Because I think there is a problem. The evidence is that in the past there have been some problems--I am not saying it is a problem that occurs all the time; it probably gets worked out most of the time--but there have been some problems and I think this needs to be a situation where there has been a problem or there might be a problem, be ordered, it has to be. So I certainly appreciate the response. Let me ask another question, if I could. Moving to the area of signal intelligence, NSA, let us say the NID, under the Senator's bill, decided it was in our national interest to move the assets, move the resources, from listening to country X to terrorist Y organization. It is the same type of issue but again a real world issue. We are moving our assets; we have to make this decision very quickly in the real world. Could that person order that to be done?

Mr. DeWINE. If I could respond?

Mr. DeWINE. My colleague and I have, I think, the same objectives. My colleague from Maine and I have the same objectives. I think our differences are, frankly, down to what language accomplishes this. I think, also, I have more skepticism and bring to the table maybe more skepticism about how the world works. I am usually the optimist. But on this I am skeptical about the ability of this new position, someone whom we are now throwing into a newly created position, to be able to drive his or her agenda. I am concerned about it. I think it is a concern based on reason. There is a reason to be concerned about it, knowing the bureaucracy and how it works. I think the Specter language is more clear, it is more precise: Supervise, direct, control operations. That doesn't mean picking planes or worrying about the day-to-day activities. That is not how I interpret it. It is not how I interpret it.

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I come to the floor to support the Specter amendment. I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Maine for the fine job she has done. This is a very difficult bill to put together. It has taken a lot of work. She and Senator Lieberman are certainly to be congratulated. I would call everyone's attention to the fact that the 9/11 Commission was not the first commission to point out the need for more power in the person who is in charge of our intelligence. Just about every commission that has looked at intelligence reform has come to this conclusion. Beginning in 1947, the period right after World War II gave birth to the modern intelligence community. Ever since then, this has been a problem. There was a grand compromise that was made at that time and that compromise set us on this path. The situation, though, has gotten worse and worse as time has gone on. And as some of my colleagues have pointed out, we have reached the point where, when George Tenet knew and understood, as frankly few people in this country did, about the threat from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida and declared war, he looked around and frankly did not have the troops. And the reason he did not have the troops was he did not control the budget. He did not have the power. He had the responsibility, but he did not have the power. So we have a problem and everybody, I think, understands that. My concern all along has been that we would create this new position, supposedly over the entire intelligence community. Yet this new position would not have the authority. I think Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman have given that person authority, but I don't think, frankly, they have gone far enough. If you look at the language Senator Specter has included in his amendment, it is a significant improvement over the language of this bill. I ask my colleagues to read the language. If you are concerned about giving this person authority, the Specter language is much better. The worst thing we could do would be to create this new position and think we have given him or her authority and not have given them the authority. I wonder if I may get the attention of my colleague from Maine at this time, if I may explore with the Senator part of this bill. Again, I thank my colleague for the great work she has done on this bill. I believe she has done a very good job. I am trying to understand the language. As I have told her privately and I have told her again publicly, I prefer the Specter language. But I would like to clarify a little bit what this new position, the NID position--whoever occupies it--what he or she would be able to do under the Senator's bill. If I may pose a couple of questions. If we can start with the NGA and the whole issue of the satellites, this has been a problem in the past. We don't have to on the floor today go over the problem of the moving of satellites. I ask my colleague this. Let's say that the NID did, in fact, want to move a satellite positioned on country A, and wants to get intelligence from country Z. What ability does that person have to do that? Can you point to the specific language in the bill that would get this done very quickly?

Mr. DeWINE. If we can just talk back and forth a minute, let me interject and then the Senator can respond. I appreciate the progress the Senator has made in regard to the budget, and I think that is very important, but we have seen from our work on the Intelligence Committee, in looking at the intelligence community, a lot of these decisions that are being dealt with in the real world, are very time sensitive so when a budget change is made, we are talking about the next year or 2 years. Those are very important. They are changing directions. That is important. So I congratulate the Senator for making that change. I am not concerned that the Senator has not done that in her bill. The Senator has done that. What I am concerned about is the execution. For example, I see in the Specter language: direct, oversee, execute the national intelligence program. Then he goes on to say: supervise, direct, and control the operations of the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, et cetera. So what I see in the Specter language that gives me a great deal of comfort is ``supervise, direct, control operations.'' To me, ``operations'' is the key language because now we are dealing with things that are very time sensitive. What I worry about is not the long-term planning. I am convinced that the Senator has taken care of that and I congratulate her for that. What I worry about is real world examples that I have now, such as we are listening to one country, or we have assets over here that we need to move very quickly over here and target a terrorist organization, and say we have limited assets, can we do that. It is a hypothetical, but could that decision be made?

Mr. DeWINE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DeWINE. I appreciate that. If my colleague could answer this: In a real-world situation, when we are dealing with satellites--and we will not go into the countries on the floor--if a decision had to be made in a matter of hours, if we need this information and we need to move from here to there, could that be ordered? I am using the word ``ordered.'' I am not talking about consultation or prayer together. I am talking about ordering it. Can that be ordered? Can this person order this to be done, saying it will be done, I don't care what anybody else says?

Mr. DeWINE. I appreciate the response. I was just saying to my colleague that my understanding of the reading of recent history has been that the power has not been adequate, with all due respect, and that the history has indicated there have been times when it has not been satisfactory, the results have not been where they should have been, which would indicate to me that the status quo is not acceptable. That is why I am asking whether the new language--I am trying to understand whether the new language is a significant improvement over the status quo. We are on the floor under the understanding that the status quo is not acceptable. I congratulate my colleagues for trying to improve the status quo. I know they are working to do that. That is why I asked that question. Let me move on to another question.

Mr. DeWINE. And I appreciate that. But in direct response to my question, the Senator is saying that person could, in fact, make that command decision, pick up the phone and say, ``We are moving 50 people,'' and that would be done, and that would be it. I want to make sure on the record because I think it is going to be very important 2 years from now or 18 months from now, and I would hate for the NID person to come before our committee and say: ``I can't move people around.''

Mr. DeWINE. I appreciate that. What I do not understand, though, is what I thought I heard earlier on about the Senator's distinction between tasking and control. That does sound like control to me. The Senator from Maine is saying they can task but they cannot control. Basically, that sounds like control to me if you can move someone.

Mr. DeWINE. If I can respond, I understand my colleague's point. It strikes me that we have come a long way in this debate and the evolution of this bill. I think we have gone in the correct direction. I look at where we were 2 months ago or 3 months ago in this debate--it is all for the good. When every one of us speaking on the Senate floor, all four of us who are down here at this moment are basically saying we want the same thing and what we are now debating, I believe, is the language to get there. I think my colleagues, Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins, my colleague from Michigan, would agree we are saying basically we want the same thing. I think that is good. We are going to vote different ways on the Specter amendment, but I think this is progress because there is a consensus that has emerged that we want this head of intelligence in this country to be accountable, to have the control that person lacking them has, so the buck will stop with that person, so when they come in front of our committee we can't hear the excuses. It is going to be a great improvement. I congratulate my colleagues for the great work they have done. I think this debate we have had here for the last 45 minutes has been a very good one. I think we have clarified some things and we clearly clarified, at least in my mind, the intent of the authors of this bill. I think we created some interesting legislative history about what the power of this person should be. There should be no doubt in any person's mind in the future, NID or anyone who has to deal with him, what their powers should be in this area. I think that is all for the good. I thank my colleague and yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. I will yield.

Mr. DeWINE. Reclaiming my time, so there is a change?

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jack Livingston, a fellow on the Intelligence Committee staff, be granted floor privileges during the pendency of this bill.