Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, under the time agreement, is this the time that I will have to speak on the amendment?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, first I want to speak on the broader subject, and with only 5 minutes, I don't have much time. But I am really worried that what we are doing here is not enough. I understand that the whips, who have been designated to carry out this task by our leaders, Senator McConnell and Senator Reid, have worked very hard to try to accommodate everybody's interests and concerns, but there is something bigger here than just individual interests and concerns or turf or jurisdiction, and I feel a lot of that is still at play. If we do not do anything more to this resolution than what is already in it, it is worth having. I do not want to complain about that. At least we are making the Intelligence Committee permanent. There are a number of things that are in this resolution that are worth having, but I am worried it is not enough. I don't like going against my friends and colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, Senator Cochran. I have faith in both of them. But I don't have faith in the way the system is set up now. The way things are spread out all over this institution, both on intelligence and homeland security, it is a prescription not to be able to do our job. That really does bother me. I didn't feel this way until I went on the Intelligence Committee. But I say to my colleagues, after a year and a half on the Intelligence Committee, I am really scared. I am worried that our intelligence community has not done its job and that it is not organized properly. We are trying to do something about that with the legislation we passed yesterday. I don't think we did enough. I still think there are a lot of people trying to protect the status quo. The Pentagon doesn't want to give up 80 percent of the budget. They want to make sure that everything is done the way it has been being done. The Pentagon wants to make sure the Secretary of Defense still controls certain nominations. Again, too many people are worried about trying to keep what they have now when what we ought to be worrying about is how do we do a better job of getting better intelligence, not only for the men and women in the military but across the board in intelligence. And this is the thing that really bothers me: part of it is our fault. We have not been doing our job. What is the proof? Look at 9/11. Look at the other things that we have found that the intelligence community did not know were about to happen or gave us information that was not accurate. If they failed, we failed. When these two pieces of legislation are finished, both the intelligence reform in the administration and the congressional reform, are we going to be better off? Are we going to have somebody we can hold accountable? Are we going to be able to make sure the Pentagon is doing its job, the CIA is doing its job? I don't believe so. The intelligence authorization committee is not set up to do the job. Even with this arrangement we are working on now, it is all going to be controlled by appropriations and the black budget. I want to emphasize, I trust Senator Stevens, and I know he wants the security of this country to be looked after. But if we are not going to have an Intelligence Committee with the authority to do the job and without the knowledge of what is happening on appropriations, I would recommend we all get off because we are going to be held responsible and we are not going to be able to do the oversight that is necessary. We are working at it. That is good. I commend everybody. On the homeland security, I debated on this particular point. I am on the Commerce Committee. I want all the jurisdiction we can possibly get. I am very concerned about the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard should be more than port security. The Coast Guard is about search and rescue. The Coast Guard should be about drug interdiction, which it is. It has a big agenda. I think you can make a strong case that it ought to stay in the Commerce Committee, and under the amendment, as I understand it, it would. That is a critical point. But if we are going to have a separate homeland security committee, or if we are going to put that issue under the Governmental Affairs Committee, we ought to do it in a way where we do cut down this duplication. I, again, am worried that we are talking about doing more than we are really doing. I have debated about whether we need a separate homeland security committee. But I think if we are going to do it, to only put 38 percent of the homeland security matters before the committee is not accomplishing the job, just like I am worried that on intelligence authorization, we still have not solved the problem with sequential referral to the Armed Services Committee. We still have not solved the problem about how do the authorizers know what the appropriators are doing, and how do the appropriators know what the authorizers are doing. We are not doing enough. I urge my colleagues, as we to go conference on the other bill, more work needs to be done. As we work toward completion on this legislation, I hope we will strengthen the hand of those who have negotiated on it and those who are going to be held responsible for what is the end result. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to announce that in accordance with Title V of the Rules of Procedure of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, the Committee has updated the Senate Public Transportation Subsidy regulations effective October 1, 2004. Based on the Committee's review of the 1992 regulations which authorize the issuance of tax free ``de minimis fringe benefit'': transit fare media, and a review of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-78), the Committee has concluded that its regulations should be updated to reflect statutory changes in the dollar amount allowed to be issued as a ``de minimis fringe benefit.'' In addition, the Committee has streamlined the process for office participation in this program. Public Transportation Subsidy Regulations Sec. 1. Policy It is the policy of the Senate to encourage employees to use public mass transportation in commuting to and from Senate offices. Sec. 2. Authority The Tax Reform Act of 1986, as amended by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-78) allows employers to give employees as a tax free ``de minimis fringe benefit'' transit fare media of a value not exceeding $100 per month. The Fiscal Year 1991 Treasury-Postal Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 101-509) allows Federal agencies to participate in state or local government transit programs that encourage employees to use public transportation. Sec. 3. Definitions (a) Public Mass Transportation--A transportation system operated by a State or local government, e.g. bus or rail transit system. (b) Fare Media--A ticket, pass, or other device, other than cash, used to pay for transportation on a public mass transit system. (c) Office--Refers to a Senate employee's appointing authority, that is, the Senator, committee chairman, elected officer, or an official of the Senate who appointed the employee. For purposes of these regulations, an employee in the Office of the President pro tempore, Deputy President pro tempore, Majority Leader, Minority Leader, Majority Whip, Minority Whip, Secretary of the Conference of the Majority, or Secretary of the Conference of the Minority shall be considered to be an employee, whose appointing authority is the Senator holding such position. (d) Qualified Employee--An individual employed in a Senate office whose salary is disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate, whose salary is within the limit set by his or her appointing authority for participation in a transit program under these regulations, and who is not a member of a car pool or the holder of any Senate parking privilege. (e) Qualified program refers to the program of a public mass transportation system that encourages employees to use public transportation in accordance with the requirements of Pub. L. 101-509 whose participation in the Senate program in accordance with these regulations has been approved by the Committee on Rules and Administration. Sec. 4. Program requirements (a) Each office within the Senate is authorized to provide to qualified employees under its supervision a de minimis fringe employment benefit of transit fare media of a value not to exceed the amount authorized by statute currently not to exceed $100 per month. (b) Each appointing authority may establish a salary limit for participation in this program by his or her employees. If such salary limit is established, all staff paid at or below that limit, and who meet the other criteria established in these regulations, must be permitted to participate in this program. (c) For purposes of these regulations, an individual employed for a partial month in an office shall be considered employed for the full month in that office. (d) The fare media purchased by participating offices under this program shall only be used by qualified employees for travel to and from their official duty station. (e) Any fare media purchased under this program may not be sold or exchanged although exchanges of Metro Card Media for transportation on the Virginia Railway Express (VRE) or the Maryland Transit Administration's MARC trains are permissible. (f) In addition to any criminal liability, any person misusing, selling, exchanging or obtaining or using a fare media in violation of these regulations shall be required to reimburse the office for the full amount of the fare media involved and may be disqualified from further participation in this program. Sec. 5. Office administration of program Each office electing to participate in this program shall be responsible for its administration in accordance with these regulations, shall designate an individual to manage its program, and may adopt rules for its participation consistent with these regulations. An employee who wishes to participate in this program shall make application with his or her office on a form which shall include a certification that such person is not a member of a motor pool, does not have any Senate parking privilege (or has relinquished same as a condition of participation), will use the fare media personally for traveling to and from his or her duty station, and will not exchange or sell the fare media provided under this program. The application shall include the following statement: This certification concerns a matter within the jurisdiction of an agency of the United States and making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent certification may render the maker subject to criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C.Sec. 1001. Safekeeping and distribution of fare media purchased for an office is the responsibility of the program manager in that office. Participating offices may not refund or replace any damaged, misplaced, lost, or stolen fare media. Sec. 6. Senate stationery room responsibilities The only program currently available in the Washington, DC metropolitan area at this time is ``Metro Pool,'' a program established through Metro by the District of Columbia. Transit benefits will be provided through Metro Pool for participating offices in the Washington, D. C. area. The Committee on Rules and Administration shall enter into an agreement with Metro Pool for purchase of fare media by the Senate Stationery Room as required by participating offices on a monthly basis. A participating office shall purchase the fare media with its authorized appropriated funds from the Senate Stationery Room through its stationery account pursuant to 2 U.S.C.Sec. 119. Each office shall present to the Senate Stationery Room [two copies of] the certification referred to in section 7 of these regulations. A new certification shall be submitted when an employer is added to or deleted from the program. The Stationery Room shall make available to the Senate Rules Committee Audit Section a monthly summary of office participation in this program. In addition, the Stationery Room may not refund or replace any damaged, misplaced, lost, or stolen fare media that has been purchased through the office's stationery account. Sec. 7. Certification The certification required by section 6 shall be approved by the appointing authority and shall include the name, and social security number of each participating employee within that office, and the following statements: (a) Each person included on the list is currently a qualified employee as defined in Section 3. (b) No person included on the list has any current Senate parking privilege and that no parking privileges will be restored to any person on the list during the period for which the fare media is purchased. (c) That each month's fare media for each participating employee does not exceed the maximum dollar amount specified in statute (currently $100). Sec. 8. Other participating programs Section 6 provides for procedures for participation by Washington offices in the Metro Pool program established through Metro by the District of Columbia. Additional programs in the Washington, D. C. metropolitan area, or programs offered in other locations where Members have offices that meet the requirements of the law and these regulations, may be used for qualified employees, subject to the following requirements: (A) Authorization--The public transit system shall submit information to the Committee on Rules and Administration that it participates in an established state or local government program to encourage the use of public transportation for employees in accordance with the provisions of Pub. L. 101- 509 and these regulations. If the program meets the requirements of the statute and these regulations and is approved by the Committee on Rules and Administration, any Senate office served by such transit system may provide benefits to its employees pursuant to these regulations. (B) Procedures-- (1) A qualified program operating in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area that permits purchase arrangements similar to those provided by the Metro Pool program shall participate in the Senate program in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 6. (2) A qualified program operating in the Washington, D. C. metropolitan area that does not have purchase arrangements similar to Metro Pool, or a qualified program located outside that metropolitan area, that permits purchases directly by an office, may make arrangements for purchase of media directly with a participating office. Such an office may provide for direct payment to that system and shall submit the certification in accordance with Section 7. (3) In the case of a qualified program that does not permit purchase arrangements as provided in paragraphs (1) or (2) above, an office may provide for reimbursement to a qualified employee and shall submit a certification in accordance with Section 7. (C) Documentation--The following documentation must accompany a voucher submitted under paragraph 8(B)(2) or (3): (1) A copy of the Rules Committee approval, in accordance with section 8(A), with the first voucher submitted for that transit program, provided subsequent vouchers identify the transit program. (2) The certification. (3) Proof of purchase of the fare media. (D) Voucher Guidance--In the case of a Senator's state office, reimbursement for payment to either a qualified transit system, or a qualified employee shall be from the Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Account (SOP& OEA) as a home state office expense on a seven part voucher. In the Washington, DC metropolitan area, reimbursement for payment to either a qualified transit system, or a qualified employee shall be as follows: (1) in the case of a Senator's office from the SOP & OEA as an ``other official expense'' (discretionary expense). (2) in the case of a Senate committee or administrative office as an ``Other'' expense. Sec. 9. Special circumstances Any circumstances not covered under these regulations shall be considered on application to the Committee on Rules and Administration. Sec. 10. Effective date These regulations shall take effect on the first day of the month following date of approval.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, may I inquire about the time remaining in the morning business period?

Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, many Americans watched the debate between the President and Senator Kerry last week. It was a huge audience, and I think that is encouraging because this is a very important election. Very important decisions will have to be made by the American voters. As always, the issues they were debating are very critical--foreign policy issues, the war on terrorism, the situation in Iraq. My thoughts now, as I have thought all year, are that this is a time for America to have a sure and steady hand at the tiller. There are a lot of difficult situations around the world. There are a lot of important decisions that must be made and commitments have been made that must be honored. Of course, one of the greatest commitments of all is the commitment we made to the men and women in uniform--men and women serving all over the world, including Afghanistan and Iraq. We don't need an uncertain trumpet at a time such as this. We don't need to be undermining or questioning the job they are doing. Let me emphasize that I don't question anybody's integrity on that, and I know everybody supports our troops. But what we say has consequences. We need to be particularly careful when it comes to foreign policy. There were a few times last week when I wanted the President to jump in and make a challenge or a strong statement. But I know he didn't because the President of the United States has to think about what it would mean if he was critical in a debate like that about the United Nations or of a particular country such as, say, France. He withheld the criticism. But we do need consistency and credibility as we go forward with the war on terrorism, as we deal with the situation in Afghanistan, and as we move toward elections in Iraq. I believe we are doing the right thing now by going in and taking out some of the insurgents and strongholds in Samarra, and I presume we are going to take some similar actions in other parts of Iraq so the people of Iraq can exercise that great right of freedom, the right to vote. But the areas where I thought more should have been said are three. First, with regard to North Korea and other parts of the world, Senator Kerry says we need to have the broadest possible coalition; that we should have a summit; we should have done more at the United Nations; we should have done that, this, or the other. But when it comes to North Korea, we should have bilateral negotiations between the United States and North Korea. That was tried in the last administration. I thought they deserved credit for making a valiant effort. I met with former Secretary of Defense Perry, who negotiated with the North Koreans a couple of times. He talked about what they were trying to do. But the fact is, it didn't work; they were cheating. Now, the President has been saying let us exercise patience. Let us bring in the Chinese, the South Koreans, the Russians, the Japanese, a coalition, a discussion group of six. That makes sense to me. Why a broad coalition in other parts of the world, but when it comes to North Korea and a very dangerous situation, we want it to be just between the United States and North Korea, bilateral? Why don't we take advantage of the interests of our friends and neighbors in that region and the Chinese, who certainly have a vested interest in what happens in North Korea? Nobody wants North Korea to have nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them--certainly not the Chinese, the Japanese, or the South Koreans. They are right there. I think the President is pursuing the right course when it comes to North Korea. Another area I have taken an interest in--and I know the Senator in the Chair, the Senator from Nebraska, has looked at this and worked on it and worried about it--and that is this question of nuclear proliferation and what we do about the nuclear weapons and the nuclear materiels the Russians have. There is a program called Nunn-Lugar that is working to try to deal with that problem. Senator Kerry says we are not doing it fast enough; that what we are doing would take 13 years, and he could condense it to 4 years. Well, that may be easy to hope for or to say, but you have to make it happen. There is another party in this deal, and they are called the Russians. They have something to say about proliferation. Would I like to see us do it faster? Should we perhaps put more money in this area? Yes. But the administration has been working in this area. The funding has gone up, and I think it is very important that we do it in such a way that we can make sure the money is going for what it is supposed to; that the money is not siphoned off into corporations that do not do the job and enrich themselves. You can only do so much credibly in a specified period of time. You need to think about that. You need to work with the Russians. That is why a delegation of us went to Russia earlier this year. That is why we have a delegation coming from Russia early next year continuing the dialog between the Senate and the Russian Federation Council. One of the areas we talked about most with the Russians is this particular area. I know Senator Lugar has worked hard on this issue. Senator Lugar goes to the sites. He doesn't just talk to the officials; he looks at the sites to see what has happened. Again, I think there was a problem with what Senator Kerry was saying that was not sufficiently challenged. I am sure it will be challenged over a period of time. But the area that really stood out the most to me was this question of globalization of the war on terrorism. The President raised the question: What does that mean? Are you talking about the United Nations? Are you talking about an organization that for 12 years and 13 resolutions talked tough and didn't do anything? Are you talking about an organization that was supposed to be watching over the Oil for Food Program for the Iraqis that wound up enriching people all over the place and some of our so-called allies being involved, or corporations in those countries being involved in that program in a fraudulent way? Is that what he was talking about? Or was he talking about the Germans and French? That is where the President exercised discretion in his comments. But I have to be more specific. Remember the French? They were the ones who had their Foreign Minister aggressively fighting what we were trying to do at the United Nations by flying all over the world, including to Africa, to specifically try to get people, or nations on the Security Council at the United Nations, not to be supportive of the broadest possible coalition. So when he talked about a broader coalition, again, you need to ask yourself who is he talking about? Is he talking about just the Germans and the French? I also believe there was a problem with diminishing the coalition which has been helpful--the Brits, the Italians, and the Spanish--until there was a change in administrations--and the Australians. How could you leave out the Australians and the Dutch? And the list goes on and on. They may not have hundreds of thousands, but they do have hundreds and in some cases thousands. They are doing the job, they are part of the coalition, and we should not diminish the sacrifice they are making with their presence but, more importantly, with their men and women. So I think when we talk about globalization, we need to be very careful. The President's primary responsibility has to be to the American people. Can we work with other nations? Can we work to have the broadest possible coalition? Can we work with all the international organizations? Yes. The President cannot ever cede the responsibility for making the decisions and making decisions for the American people to some other entity or to some other country. I think the debate last week was telling. It was of concern to me because of some of the approaches that were suggested by Senator Kerry. I hope the American people will look at this very carefully. This is a time for a sure and steady hand, a time for consistency and credibility. President Bush has exhibited all of those traits. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, Oct. 5, 2004, to conduct a special meeting of the Committee to consider a resolution related to recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. For further information concerning this meeting, please contact Susan Wells at 202-224-6352. committee on indian affairs

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, since September 11, there has been an on- going debate about the quality of our Nation's intelligence capabilities. In recent months, this debate has intensified as questions have arisen about pre-war intelligence concerning Iraq's program for developing weapons of mass destruction. In this period, when the United States is engaged in a global war against terrorism, it is imperative that our intelligence resources are used to the utmost of their capability. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is charged with the responsibility of overseeing our Nation's intelligence capabilities. As a member of that committee, I can attest to the quality of the work performed by members and staff who serve on the committee. But there is a huge learning curve to fully comprehend how our Nation's intelligence capabilities are being deployed. There are very complex technological issues associated with international intelligence and Senators often do not have the time to develop expertise in understanding all of these systems. And that makes it difficult for all committee members to engage in effective oversight. I believe the current structure of the Intelligence Committee handicaps the committee's ability to perform truly meaningful oversight. Unlike any other committee in the Senate, there are severe restrictions placed on how long a member can serve on the Intelligence Committee. A Senator can only serve on the committee for eight continuous years. And one-third of the members of the committee are required to cycle off the committee every 2 years. I think the Senate can no longer afford the luxury of cycling members on and off the committee. We need an Intelligence Committee whose members have years of experience in understanding the entire spectrum of global intelligence just as we have a Finance Committee whose members have spent years learning the nuances and intricacies of the tax laws and Medicare. For that reason, I am today submitting a resolution eliminating both the 8-year term limit and the mandate to replace one-third of the committee every 2 years. I would note that the 9/11 Commission recommended that term limits on the committee be eliminated. S. Res. 445 Resolved, That section 2 of Senate Resolution 400, 94th Congress, agreed to May 19, 1976, is amended by striking subsection (b) and by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (b).

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I presume we are about ready to perhaps dispose of this amendment.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, while the amendment is being sent to the desk, let me say I appreciate the way these two Senators and all involved have worked this out. I think this is a suitable arrangement. The spectrum issue and its availability to first responders is very important. But this loophole was an opportunity for the spectrum issue to be avoided, perhaps in perpetuity. I think the language we have here is reasonable language. I commend my colleagues for being willing to work through it where we will not have an extended debate through the afternoon, which is the right thing to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to announce that in accordance with Title V of the Rules of Procedure of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, the committee has updated the Senate Service Pin regulations effective September 22, 2004. Based on the committee's review of the 1987 regulations which authorize the issuance of a staff service pin when a Senate staff member has served 12 years in the Senate, the Committee has concluded that service pins should be awarded to staff members who have served 20 years in the Senate and to those staff members who have served for 30 years. Regulations adopted by the Committee on Rules and Administration on September 22, 2004, to replace similar regulations approved by the Committee on September 23, 1987, pursuant to S. Res. 21, agreed to September 10, 1965, relative to the awarding of service pins to Members, officers, and employees of the Senate: 1. Service pins of the material and design suggested by the Secretary of the Senate and approved by the leadership of the Senate and the Committee on Rules and Administration, together with appropriate Certificates of service signed by the Secretary of the Senate, shall be procured and awarded by the Secretary of the Senate. 2. Each Member of the Senate and each elected officer of the Senate shall receive his/her pin and certificate upon taking office. 3. Each employee of the Senate shall receive a pin and certificate after the completion of 12, 20, and 30 years on the Senate payroll. 4. Senate service shall be limited to all service--whether continuous or not--performed while on the Senate payroll. 5. Former employees of the Senate are not covered unless they were on the Senate payroll on or after September 22, 2004, and were otherwise qualified. 6. After the initial award of pins and certificates, the Secretary of the Senate shall arrange for presentation of subsequent awards to those who qualify pursuant to the pertinent provisions of this regulation. 7. Each individual who qualifies will receive a pin and certificate and no additional pins will be subsequently awarded to such individuals for more than 30 years of Senate service, except that appropriate date plates and/or seals may be presented by the Secretary of the Senate at termination of service.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended by 5 minutes on each side.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, as we look at the situation in America and in the world today, we face serious challenges. Obviously, the war on terrorism is one of the most serious challenges we have had in many decades, one that is different because there are no specific battles that are won or lost. There may not be a moment when we say it is over. Because we are dealing with a moving, shadowy element that uses the most dastardly types of attacks on individuals, innocent men, women, and children. We have seen the situation in Florida, where the people there have been hit repeatedly by hurricanes and disasters. I guess you could say in many respects these are times that try men and women's souls. We are under attack in a lot of ways. But, also, these are the times that require a certain trumpet. We cannot have uncertainty in terms of leadership. We cannot have an uncertain trumpet. We have to have direction, strong leadership, and courage to take a stand and follow it through. That is why I am very much worried about what I see in Senator Kerry and the positions he has taken, first on one side and then the other. I was greatly distressed last week when we had the Prime Minister of Iraq here. He is a man who is showing strength, leadership, and great courage because his life is on the line every day with repeated assassination attempts directed at him. He came here. He said: Thank you, America. He said: We are going to have elections. We are going to have peace and freedom and democracy. We chose justice and the rule of law rather than chaos and anarchy. He did a magnificent job. I was inspired by what he is doing and by his speech. Yet Senator Kerry attacked his speech before he even left town. Where are the basic courtesies that we have in the past extended to leaders of other countries? President Bush, on the other hand, has shown strength, leadership, and courage. He is dealing with the issues of security. People see in him and hear in his voice a determination, a commitment, that will get us through this. But Senator Kerry has been flip-flopping back and forth on Iraq for not just the campaign but actually for years, going back to 2002 where he took one position and where now, in 2003 and 2004, he has taken a different position. On September 20, 2004, he said that our most important task is to win the war on terrorism. On March 6, 2004, he balked at calling the war on terror an actual ``war.'' On September 20 he said Iraq was a ``diversion from'' the war on terror. Yet back in December of 2003 he said that Iraq is ``critical'' to the success of the war on terror. In September of 2004 he said the evil of Saddam was enough to justify the war. Yet before that he agreed with the administration's goal of regime change. He also said that Saddam's ``breach of international values'' was a sufficient cause of war. In 2004 he said Saddam's ``downfall . . . has left America less secure.'' Yet in December of 2003 he questioned the judgment of those claiming Saddam's capture doesn't help American security. The list goes on and on. I ask unanimous consent this list be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT. But it goes beyond just the war on Iraq. What worries me is there is a pattern here, across the board, not only in that area that threatens our very security and our lives, the war on terrorism, but in area after area, issue after issue. For instance, in 1991 Senator Kerry supported most-favored trade status for China and now he criticizes the Bush administration for trading with China. Which is it? You cannot be for it and against it when you talk about international trade. Trade is good. America can compete. We do need to enlarge the pie. We need to make sure we have fair trade. But you cannot vote one way on trade and then be critical of it on the other side. In October 2003, Senator Kerry called the fence that is being built in Israel for security purposes a ``barrier to peace.'' He was critical of it. Yet in February of 2004, he calls the fence a ``legitimate act of self-defense.'' You can't get into a very dangerous and sensitive situation like this and say one thing and then the other. What is it? Which is it? An uncertain trumpet takes lives. Even in the case of eliminating the marriage penalty for the middle class, Senator Kerry said he will fight to keep the tax relief for married couples. He said Democrats fought to end the marriage penalty tax. Yet in 1998, he voted against eliminating the marriage penalty relief for married taxpayers with a combined income of less than $50,000 a year. Last week when we actually extended the elimination of that marriage penalty tax, of course, he didn't vote. He even flip-flopped on the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act is a favorite punching bag now. I was here when the death debate occurred. I remember the broad unanimous support involved in passing that legislation. We needed to do some things to give our law enforcement people the ability to deal with these terrorists. If you look at what has transpired since then, this great fear of having your library card checked or a ``knock in the night'' is not occurring. So he voted for it, and now he attacks the PATRIOT Act. He said: We are a nation of laws, and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. I think that is an unfair shot at our former colleague, the Attorney General of the United States. Again, Senator Kerry was for the Patriot Act and now he is against it. On the gay marriage amendment, in 2002, Senator Kerry signed a letter urging the Massachusetts legislature to reject a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Yet now in 2004 he won't rule out supporting a similar amendment. Which is it? Is it one thing in Massachusetts and another here in Washington? Also, I think when you get into other issues like the death penalty for terrorists, these are relevant issues we can't take the wrong position on. Yet, in 1996, he attacked Governor Weld of Massachusetts for supporting the death penalty for terrorists. But now he said he might support the death penalty for terrorists. On the No Child Left Behind Act, he voted for it, and now he attacks it as a ``mockery.'' He trashed it as an ``unfunded mandate'' with ``laudable goals.'' Let me tell you that I am a son of a schoolteacher. I was in public education all my life. I didn't go to some elite school. I went to public education. I stay in touch with teachers and administrators. And they tell me it is making a difference. We have goals and challenges. Teachers are doing better, students are doing better, and the money has been going up every year. On issue after issue, he has flip-flopped. I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of this lengthy list be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Texas for her determination in this area. It is one of the places where there was a gap in our aviation security. It is one that she has been working on, thinking about, going back to the last Congress. I think one of the last things we did in the last Congress was the Senate let this issue go through, but we didn't get it completed. She has continued to work on it. There were some concerns. Those concerns have been worked on and developed and straightened out, and this is a good piece of legislation. It passed the full Commerce Committee overwhelmingly last week. It is supported by the industry. I want the record to show that it would not be happening if it were not for her determination and her leadership. It is good legislation. The title of this bill is National Intelligence Reform Act. I want us to concentrate on the intelligence area and the reforms that are necessary to give the national intelligence director the real strength he or she may need to make sure our intelligence community does its job. It talks about the national counterintelligence center. This was done at the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission for intelligence and security reforms. So while I don't want this to just become a debate about various security areas, I would like us to focus on intelligence. This is an area where there clearly was a gap. This is an area where thoughtful legislation was available. I believe it is appropriate to be added. I hope we will support the chairman of the committee and the ranking member who have worked hard to get this legislation through in a reasonable time. We will have some good debates, and we will have some disagreements. We will have some votes. But at the end of the day, we need to get this done because the Commission has made it clear where there are gaps and where there are problems, both in the executive branch and in the legislative branch. We also have to have the follow- on congressional reforms that will allow us to do a better job on oversight because we are part of the problem. For those who have questions or have concerns or have amendments, my argument is, come forth. Let's have the amendments. Let's debate them in the light of day. Let's have a full debate and let's vote. But let's get this done because this is about real issues. A lot of times we debate, we vote on things that won't affect our lives immediately or affect people's ability to do the job under national security. But this legislation is about lives. It is about what happened on 9/11. It is about what will happen again if we don't step up to this important issue and make sure that our executive branch is set up in such a way as to do the job, that they have the right chain of command and that somebody is in charge, somebody who reports only to the President, somebody who can make a decision about the placement of satellites, somebody who will give us the information we need to know, not only about how much money is spent but where it is spent. That has been one of our problems. The Congress has not been putting money in many instances where it should have gone so that our intelligence community would have had what they needed to do the job. Just this very day, we understand the FBI does not have the linguists they need to translate intercepts. Now it has become so voluminous it is uncontrollable. That is scary. But it is a real problem. We are not going to solve it just with this bill or just in this week. If we don't begin now, it will make the day even more inevitable or closer that we are going to have another disaster on our hands. I am here today to tell the committee members I support their effort. They have done a good job. We can make it stronger, I believe. But I am going to be supporting getting this work completed. I thank the chairman of the committee and I thank the sponsor of this amendment for the work she has done on this cargo security issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe the chairman of the committee had indicated a desire to yield 5 minutes, or what time the Senator may consume, to Senator Allard of Colorado. It would be my intent to follow Senator Allard.

Mr. LOTT. I yield to the chairman.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. I also commend the chairman and the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee for the very difficult job they have been performing, leading the Intelligence Committee. It has to be one of the toughest jobs that I have witnessed in the Senate. It takes time, it takes experience, and it takes intellect to be able to deal with the issues that come before this committee. I also commend them for the way they have handled this particular nomination. They were patient. They gave every Senator ample time to make their points and ask questions, and they have been commended by Members of both sides of the aisle for the way they handled the nomination. That is why I think the nomination was approved by the Intelligence Committee, and why I believe this nomination will be confirmed by a wide margin. Before I get into a little more discussion about why I support Porter Goss to be head of the CIA and director of intelligence, I will talk about my overall concerns regarding the intelligence area. As a member of the leadership over the years, I was able to have briefings and meet with Director Tenet. There are specific requirements in the law that certain Members have to be notified when particular actions are taken. I always took those matters very seriously and spent the time that was necessary to get those briefings. For the last year and a half, I have been on the Intelligence Committee. I must confess that when I went on the committee, I thought I would be a big defender and big supporter of our intelligence community, because I think that what they do is so important. I do support the men and women who work in that community. But I must say, over the last year and a half, I have developed many concerns about how that job is being done, how the Congress does its job. I didn't appreciate how important oversight is regarding intelligence matters, how important it is that a Senator develop expertise to be able to ask the right questions, do the oversight, and understand what is going on. I have come to the conclusion that our intelligence community is not set up properly and we are not doing our job in the Congress. We can point fingers and blame somebody else, but a lot of the problem resides here in this body and in the Congress--not because we don't try to do our job, but we are not organized properly to do it. We have this multifaceted process of so many committees claiming jurisdiction, and with good reason. Armed Services needs to be aware of what's going on, as do Foreign Relations, Appropriations, and Governmental Affairs. Is there anybody who doesn't have their finger in this intelligence pie a little bit? Basically, nobody is doing the oversight job properly, because the members of the Intelligence Committee are not there permanently; they come and go and are on the Committee maybe 2 years, 4 years, or 8 years. Once you get to where you know what to ask and what is going on, you leave the Committee. Frankly, I think the CIA and the intelligence community's attitude is: Don't give them anything; give them a little bit of a courtesy, a brush-off, and we will get what we want from the appropriators in the end. I think we have real problems in the intelligence community and in the Congress, and we need to fix them. I don't have a magic design. I want to hear what the experts have to say and see what legislation is proposed. I know this: Something has to be done in the way the intelligence community operates. You cannot operate under a construct where you have 15 different agencies and 80 percent of the money going to the Defense Department, with the director of intelligence having little or no control over the money or many of those intelligence agencies. We need major changes, and we need them now. I am concerned about concerns that were raised yesterday that if we do not do this right, if we rush to reorganize the intelligence community, we could do damage because the job of gathering intelligence has to go on every day. Men and women are putting their lives on the line to gather intelligence. We need to be careful, but we need to press forward with change. I know this body is loath to change anything. Any kind of reform is looked at suspiciously: Oh, we can't do that; it has always been done this way. I have taken the time over the years to look at a lot of these issues, and it has not always been done this way. A lot of what we do and say around here, which some say is sacrosanct and cannot be changed, is relatively new. It evolved over the years. At some point, you have to say there is a higher priority, that there is something more important than turf or jurisdiction or the way it was or is being done. What is most important is how we are going to do the best job for the men and women in uniform, men and women in intelligence, and for the American people. So I think we need to make necessary changes. The important point is that we have to have somebody in charge. We have good people in the CIA doing the job. We have an Acting Director who is a good man doing a good job. But we do not need an Acting Director forever. We need a man or woman in charge making decisions, making changes that need to be carried out even without legislation that overhauls the whole operation, and we need it now. This is a dangerous time we are in. We need to not only confirm this nominee right away, but we need to do it overwhelmingly. We need to show him, we need to show the agencies, and we need to show the departments that he has the confidence of the American people through their representatives in the Senate. We are dealing with very important issues, and it is so important that we have leadership at the top. We need to do it right away. We have a good man who has been nominated. A lot of thought went into his selection. I know the President sought out the counsel, advice, and the thinking of a number of Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, in the House and Senate, before he went forward with this nomination. He has nominated a man who is uniquely qualified to be the Director of Intelligence. Porter Goss is the right age. He is in his mid-sixties, still young enough to do the job, and old enough to know what needs to be done. He has a background of military experience, where he was in Army intelligence for 2 years. He worked in the Directorate of Operations of the CIA for many years. Most of this is in the Record, but I think it is worth repeating so that my statement will make sense, hopefully, in its entirety. When he left the CIA, he continued to be involved in trying to serve his fellow man and his community. He was a leader in his hometown in Florida. He served on the city council, was mayor, was a member of the board of commissioners, and has served in Congress since 1988, which is a pretty good period of time. He eventually became chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence where I know he did a good job. I have watched him. I have watched him deal with difficult issues. I have watched him take a leadership role, and I have watched him work with the ranking member of that committee and with Democrats, and I have been impressed with the job he has done on the Intelligence Committee in the House. So he knows the CIA. He knows it from having been in Army intelligence, he knows it from having been in the CIA, and he knows it from the position he held as chairman of the Intelligence Committee. He knows where the problems are because he was there, and he knows how to strengthen the intelligence community and make it better. He is no stranger to the difficulty and the complexity of foreign intelligence. When I look back on some of the former heads of the CIA, frankly, some of them did not have much of a background in that area. But here is a man who is uniquely qualified. He has been in the intelligence community. I know that some people say that if you are in the institution, you are part of the problem. But, my experience leads me to ask, how can you solve a problem if you do not really understand an institution? There are some in Washington that say, if you know the subject, whether it is transportation or oil or intelligence, you should not be in government because you have been coopted. I think absolutely the opposite is the case. Practical experience is invaluable. You have to understand the culture, you have to understand the people, and anybody who has paid close attention to the intelligence community in recent months and years knows what changes should be made and have to be made. Porter Goss, a Member of Congress, has been critical of the intelligence community. He does not sugar-coat it. He has called the human intelligence program dysfunctional. He has spoken the truth about the way we have funded the CIA, which he says has not been adequate, it has not been done in the right way, and we have not put enough emphasis on human intelligence. In fact, Congress stopped this nation from having the human intelligence we needed, if we go back and look at the results of the Church Commission some 30 years ago. Once again, we are part of the problem. He knows we need to do more in linguistic training, and he has raised these questions as chairman of the committee and in his communications with the DCI. His confirmation would bring stability and experience to the intelligence community. One thing that worries me, as I have talked to some of our intelligence personnel, is a certain concern about whether they are really appreciated, and are the old experienced hands going to stay, or are they going to leave. I have noticed some of the intelligence people I see are getting younger, younger, and younger. They need a firm and experienced leader. They need a person who has been there with them, understands their needs, and appreciates the job they do, and Porter Goss would do that. He does support what Congress is about to do. We are going to create a national intelligence director position, and we are going to pass legislation that is going to reorganize the intelligence community at some point, maybe sooner than later. Again, he has the right attitude and supports the position I believe that Congress is going to be taking. There are those who have questioned his independence. Is he a partisan? Is he a politician? Whatever happened to congressional courtesy? Over the years, I have supported Members of the other party from this body and the other body, even though they have sometimes been very partisan politicians, very aggressive in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate, but I knew them to be good men and women, and I knew when they took on a different role. When you are in Congress, when you are in politics, you are a politician. That is not a damnation. That is somebody involved in the art of government. When you are a member of a party, sometimes members of the other party get under your skin, and you speak out. I noticed over the years, Porter Goss has not been one of those rabid partisans. He has been very calm and very stable. Sometimes he gets a little upset. Maybe he thought perhaps the Senate was getting carried away with some of our hearings recently. On occasion, I have thought we did a little grandstanding in the Senate, and I said so even though it was sometimes directed at my own party. I know he is an independent thinker, and I know he will put his job as head of the CIA, uppermost. He will put his political past and his partisanship behind him. He also will be a man, I believe, who can go in and meet with the President at those early morning meetings and say: Mr. President, this is what we know, this is the truth about the situation, and if you go this way, you are going to have certain problems. He has that stature, he has that credibility, and he will have the independence to do that. I think having served so many years, having been on the Intelligence Committee, and having the record he built at the Intelligence Committee, is proof that he will be independent to do that job for the American people. I believe he will be more candid with the Congress. Quite often when we had testimony before the Intelligence Committee, I felt as if I did not get a complete story. Frequently, testimony was less than fully satisfactory or sufficient. Porter Goss is going to be able to speak to us on a level basis, not from the perspective of a former staff member. He was one of us, and he will not try to fool us. I think he will tell us the truth. By the way, I think we will be very comfortable telling him: Mr. Director, we don't believe that. We will be able to be very candid with him. I believe he will show flexibility as we move from where we are to where we need to be. He has been questioned about the positions he has taken, but he satisfied the members of the Intelligence Committee by a vote of 12 to 4 with several Democrats voting for his confirmation. They asked him the tough questions. They had their reservations, and those reservations have been satisfied. I cite one point of how he dealt with the former Director. On September of 2003, he wrote a letter to DCI Tenet pointing out concerns he had with intelligence. He joined with the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee in the House, Congresswoman Harman, and indicated there were significant deficiencies with respect to the intelligence community's collection activities concerning Iraq's WMD programs and ties to al-Qaida prior to the commencement of hostilities there. So he did not wait until after the fact; he raised concerns when they needed to be raised. If my colleagues have taken a look at that letter, it certainly shows independence and it was the kind of thing that the DCI needed to hear at that particular time. So I can attest from experience, from observation, and from a written record that this Congressman will be an independent, thoughtful, strong voice at the CIA. I urge my colleagues, let us have our discussion but let us have a vote and let us make it overwhelming. Let us do it now because we need strong leadership and we have the right man to do this job. Porter Goss will provide leadership for the intelligence community. He will be able to work with Congress and he will help give the intelligence community the ability to do an even better job. I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Hugh Langdon Elsbree, who served as the Director of the Library of Congress' Legislative Reference Service, LRS, from 1958 to 1966. The LRS was the forerunner of the Congressional Research Service, CRS. Dr. Elsbree, a resident of the Washington area for more than 50 years, died on August 30, 2004. He was 100 years old. Dr. Elsbree joined the Legislative Reference Service as a research counsel in 1945 and served as senior specialist in American Government and Public Administration from 1946 to 1954. After he was promoted to Deputy Director in 1955, he became Director in 1958 and served in that position until he retired in 1966. Dr. Elsbree was born in Preston Hollow, N.Y., on Feb. 24, 1904. He graduated from Phillips Andover Academy in 1921 and received three degrees from Harvard University: a Bachelors in 1925, Masters in 1927, and Doctorate in 1930. He was also elected a member of Phi Beta Kappa. Dr. Elsbree taught in Harvard's Government Department from 1928 to 1933 and then at Dartmouth University from 1933 to 1943. Dr. Elsbree was a political science professor from 1937 to 1943 and chairman of Dartmouth's Political Science Department from 1937 to 1941. His Government service began with a short stint as a research specialist for the Federal Power Commission in 1934 and continued during World War II. He moved to Washington and worked for the Office of Price Administration as principal business economist from 1943 to 45 and for the Bureau of Budget as an administrative analyst from 1945 to 46. During the period of his library service, he was given a special assignment as deputy director of research for the Commission on Intergovernmental Relations from 1954 to 1955, and from March 1957 to September 1958 he served as chairman of the Political Science Department at Wayne State University. A longtime member of the American Political Science Association, Dr. Elsbree was the managing editor of the American Political Science Review--1952-56. After he retired from the LRS, Dr. Elsbree and his LRS predecessor, Ernest S. Griffith, edited a series of 35 volumes on U.S. Government departments and agencies. When Dr. Elsbree retired in 1966, the Senator Robert Byrd paid tribute to Dr. Elsbree's accomplishments in the Congressional Record. Senator Byrd said in part: A political scientist of wide repute and a dedicated public official, Dr. Elsbree has earned the respect and the confidence of the Congress through his skillful and competent leadership of the Legislative Reference Service in a period when Congress has experienced its greatest need for research assistance. To Dr. Elsbree's brother, Willard, his son, Hugh L. Elsbree, Jr. and his family, friends, and former colleagues, I extend the Senate's deepest sympathies.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I rise to pay tribute this morning to Susan Wooten Wells, a native of Jackson, MS, who today is marking her 30th year on my staff. Many of you knew Susan when she worked with me in the leader's office. She started off as a scheduler but over the years worked up to be executive assistant and then was administrative assistant in the majority leader's office. Today she serves as the majority staff director of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, and she has overseen a lot of the moves and renovations and has worked with Senators and their staffs on a number of issues over the past year and a half, and has done a wonderful job. I first met her in 1974, when she was starting out, teaching eighth grade English in my hometown of Pascagoula, MS. Despite the fact she is an alumnus of the other university in my State, Mississippi State University, and I am a graduate of the University of Mississippi--she is very proud of that institution, and she points out that comedian Jerry Clower and thriller author John Grisham and Washington Redskin Fred Smoot are also graduates of that university, so over the years we have had fun picking at each other about our alma maters--she came to Washington and worked with me for what was supposed to be 1 year, helping me out in a crunch to get my staff filled and to do the scheduling. Well, here she is 30 years later. She has had a tremendous influence on my office operations, on my life, and I believe on this institution. I am very proud of the fact she went from being an English teacher--and helping me with my English along the way--to being a real leader on my staff for these many years. In fact, I refer to her as my Mikey, from the old television commercial. I used to call Paul Coverdell, the great Senator from Georgia, Mikey because if we had a task nobody else wanted or would not do, Mikey would do it. Well, that has been Susan on my staff. If there needed to be something done and we wanted it done right, Susan would handle the job. When I decided years ago to bring 150 Mississippians to annual events here in the city for a day-long seminar, she made it happen. When I decided to bring in entire communities from Hancock County to cook gumbo for the congressional community once a year, she got the assignment, and she made it happen. It turned out to be a tremendous event. A lot of people enjoyed it and everybody benefited from it. In the process, she did go from being one of the staff members to being a real leader in the majority leader's office. She helped expedite the construction of the Capitol Visitor Center. I believe history will look back on it, when it is completed, as one of the wisest things we have done in maybe 100 years in terms of this Capitol and the security of our constituents, their convenience and safety and education as they see this building and all it stands for. She oversaw a lot of the Capitol restoration, including changes in this Chamber. She helped me with the Leader's Lecture Series which turned out to be an acclaimed program of oral history lectures by former Senate leaders and Vice Presidents. Parts of our public and private lives over this time obviously have been intertwined. We have shared three decades of America's triumphs and three decades of accomplishments for our beloved State of Mississippi. Together we have also endured tragedies that have befallen our country and our families. In fact, last month the love of her life, Milton Wells, passed away, and I shared her grief at that moment and continue to work with her as she comes through this difficult period. Throughout this time she has been loyal, she has been respectful. She has been very helpful to many people. I could not let this day pass without making a public record of my appreciation for Susan Wooten Wells and her service to this institution. So many times we forget to say thank you to the people who are on our staffs, who work day in and day out for us, the people in this Chamber, the people who make this place function, who serve us and help us in so many ways. We should not forget to say a small word of thanks.

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I would like to inquire about the time remaining and how it is divided.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I do not want to use all that time if others have a need to come and make comments, but I do have a couple issues I would like to speak on briefly this morning.