Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I wish to thank Senator Gregg for his generosity in regard to allowing me, with the gentleman yielding to me, to make some additional comments. I was saying that all of these tragedies end up in the headlines. We know, and all of us who are privileged to represent rural areas, especially the Plains, that we have had a drought not 1, not 2, but in some cases 5 or 7 years in a row, and we know we don't have any subsoil moisture. We also know energy prices have gone up 113 percent since 2002. It isn't exactly that we were rolling in clover to begin with, but now there is no clover that will come up. We also know, although people may not want to talk about it right now, that the current farm bill doesn't work in this circumstance. I voted against the current farm bill. It is not my intent to come down here and discuss the farm bill, however, there are some very real problems. First, it is the countercyclical program. It means when a farmer doesn't have a crop, he gets no payment. It also means he has no real crop insurance because the average production history on his crop insurance has gone down. So no crop insurance, no payment. High and dry. This is the only way we are going to provide assistance to farmers. Now, I regret it is the 11th hour and 59th minute. I fully expect an objection. I hope that would not take place. But at any rate, we are building a case that if we have to come back here during what is called a lameduck session, something can be done. I credit the Senator for his leadership in this regard. A drought is a drought is a drought, and it doesn't get much attention, but the people affected suffer just as much as people who suffer from other tragedies. I again credit the Senator for bringing this up. I am a cosponsor. Whatever we get done, I look forward to working with him. We have done it in the past. We did it with the supplemental. It was taken out in the House, by the way. We need this relief, and we need it now. As I said before, I will vote for the bill, and I will speak for it, as I have done. And quite frankly, if this is headed for a Presidential veto, I will vote to override it. I thank the Senator.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be granted an additional 5 minutes. I know there are other Members waiting, but I would like to at least proceed with the Senator, my friend, for another 5 minutes, if that would be all right.

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to this legislation.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, the reason we know it would pass, I would say to the gentleman, and I thank him for introducing this--and I am a little out of breath because I didn't realize we were debating this, so I ran over here. But at any rate, I thank my colleague for introducing this bill. The reason we know it would pass is it has already passed the Senate as part of the supplemental. It is about $4 billion. Everybody understood at that particular time we had an urgent need in farm country. Everybody understood at that particular time we had a lot of problems with disasters, but as others have pointed out, if you have a hurricane, you get in the headlines. If you have a forest fire, you are getting headlines. If you have those kinds of tragedies, like a flood or even a mudslide in a State where people build houses perhaps where they shouldn't build them--obviously it attracts attention

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Let me repeat what I said in my statement--and I share the distinguished Senator's views, more especially from his experience on both committees, the Intelligence Committee and the Armed Services Committee. We both face the same kind of responsibilities, our oversight responsibilities. We take them very seriously. We may have differences of opinion on the Intelligence Committee or on the Armed Services Committee, but we do our oversight. The simple fact is that the vice chairman, myself, and other members of the committee--and let me stress now full membership of the committee; we worked very hard to get that access--have been fully briefed in the past and the present and also prospectively of the CIA's detention and interrogation operations. The vice chairman and other members of the Intelligence Committee, if people have problems, if people have questions, if people need to get more briefs, if people want to basically get into some--I say ``some'' because I think some of the questions are not reasonable--say they have questions about this, all they have to do is ask. I can guarantee as chairman that those in charge of this particular program at the CIA will be there and have been there. The inspector general of the CIA has briefed the committee--I am not going to get into the details of that briefing--both the vice chair and myself in regards to any question on what has happened, with what has gone wrong allegedly or otherwise with the interrogation and detention program, and we get an update as to where are those cases. If there was egregious behavior, what is happening to those people? Are they being prosecuted? And the answer to that is yes. All we have to do is ask. As I look at this, I must say in scope, it is unprecedented. They ask questions that I think, quite frankly, if I were an interrogator working within the confines of the Central Intelligence Agency, would have a very chilling effect on me to know that four times a year I would be held responsible for all of these questions which I think those in charge at the Agency can certainly respond to any committee request in terms of a briefing. I would be a little nervous. And that is not the case because, as I said in my remarks, the CIA will not be detecting and interdicting unlawful alien combatants; it will be writing one report after another, four times a year. If we look at the length, breadth, and depth, it is not whether we get this information, it is how we get the information. All we have to do is ask. This is a tremendous burden. I must tell my colleagues that I don't know where we are going to get enough staff on the committee to respond to these four mandated reports. It is going to be a rather unique situation when we have a lot of work to do. We have briefings, as the Senator from Virginia indicated, every week. We have one this afternoon--it is terribly important--requested by members. Yet I think we are going to have to hire more people to do this if, in fact, we do this, and I think the CIA will as well. I am not too sure, again, if I were an individual interrogator that I would want to stay in the business.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who is an ex officio member of the Intelligence Committee and does extremely valuable work as we try to work in a commensurate fashion on national security. I rise in opposition to the amendment being offered by my good friend from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, who is vice chairman of our committee. The amendment calls for yet another unnecessary and repetitious requirement of reporting. Now, I do not take issue with some of the numerous questions the Senator from West Virginia seeks. Some of these questions should be answered in the context of our regular committee oversight. The issue is not if reasonable questions are answered, but how and how often. I really question the need for a formal quarterly report-- four times a year--unreasonable in scope and length that will be a very unnecessary burden on the hard-working men and women at the CIA. The simple fact is that the vice chairman and other members of the committee have been fully briefed in the past, present, and prospective future about CIA's detention and interrogation operations and will continue to be briefed. The vice chairman and other members of the Intelligence Committee can get answers to their questions and more through the course of the committee's normal oversight activities. They only need to ask. I just mentioned the prospective future of the CIA's interrogation program. That is because without this legislation, there will be no CIA program. Let's be clear. If we adopt what I believe is an unnecessary amendment, contrary with the House, this bill will end up in conference with the House. If that happens, I fear the bill will languish throughout the fall while Members are out campaigning. Meanwhile, the CIA will be unable to interrogate captured unlawful alien combatants. Forgive me, Mr. President, but I think the American people deserve better than to have this Nation's efforts against al-Qaida bog down because some in this body--and I don't question their intent--are insisting on an unnecessary symbolic and redundant series of reporting requirements that could and will be answered through the regular committee oversight. All we have to do is ask and then to listen and then to respond. Where are our priorities? Where should they be? As I have listened to the debate on this bill in the relative safety and comfort of Capitol Hill, I cannot help but wonder whether some of us have lost our perspective. While we must do our duty as elected officials--and we will do that--we cannot forget that we are a nation at war. Consequently, our first and foremost duty should be to support our troops and intelligence officers at home and abroad, not to mandate four times a year reporting requirements that are unprecedented in scope and detail. The CIA will not be detecting and interdicting unlawful alien combatants; it will be writing one report after another. I am on the side of our hard-working intelligence officers and against the terrorists. I think that is an obvious choice. I think most Members would think they would be in that position. But I do not believe in making their job more difficult by legislating additional reporting requirements which are needless and burdensome and which will likely delay enactment of this vital national security legislation. If this were to pass, we can be reasonably certain that it will have a chilling effect on interrogation operations. We are sending a signal to our intelligence officers to be risk averse, the very thing we don't want to do. In fact, the very implication of this amendment is they are unable to carry out their duties with honor and respect for the law, and that, my colleagues, is just not true. So let us do our duty, as we should, and get this bill done and to the President. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, if the chairman will yield.

Mr. ROBERTS. I am happy to respond to the distinguished chairman. What he has described is accurate. It may be the situation with General Hayden, the Inspector General, or anybody else we request to appear before the committee that they may be in a situation where there would be sensitive intelligence information that at that particular time would not be provided, but there certainly would be the promise that it will be provided if at all possible. So I am not saying that it is a carte blanche kind of situation. That is to be expected. But the great preponderance of requests we make of the General and of the Inspector General have been very prompt and very full, and, again, all we have to do is ask. It is just that--I don't want to call it a book report, but that is about where we are. It is on some very important matters. I know members of the committee feel very strongly about this. I can't recall a time when members on the committee have asked me for help to get information from the executive or from the CIA or from any of our intelligence agencies where I haven't worked overtime to get that job done. I thank the chairman for his question.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the timely passage of this legislation. In my view it is essential to the successful prosecution of our war against the terrorists. Ever since the Supreme Court announced its decision in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, I have made clear that my three primary goals for legislation authorizing military tribunals were: (1) Adjudicating the cases of detained terrorists in proceedings that are consistent with our values of justice, (2) protecting classified information, and (3) ensuring that our military and intelligence officers have clear standards for what is, and is not, permissible during detention and interrogation operations. After discussing these issues with National Security Adviser Hadley and officials at the Department of Justice, I am comfortable in saying that this legislation accomplishes each of those goals. First, the legislation authorizes the President to establish military commissions for the trial of unlawful enemy combatants. Enemy combatants tried under this legal system will have the benefit of a comprehensive process that assures them of legal representation, access to witnesses and evidence, the ability to present a defense, and the ability to appeal any judgment to the Court of Military Commission Review, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and, ultimately, to the Supreme Court. I dare say that some who may be tried by these military commissions will receive more due process and legal protection than they were ever willing to grant to others. Second, while ensuring a full and fair process, the legislation also recognizes the important role that classified information is likely to play in these trials. The legislation expressly provides the government with a privilege to protect classified information. At the same time, the bill provides a number of ways for the trial court to ensure that the defendant is sufficiently apprised of the evidence to be used against him. I think this bill strikes the right balance between providing a full and fair process, and protecting classified information. Third, and most important to me as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the bill provides military and intelligence officers conducting detention and interrogation operations with clear standards. Why is this so important? Because, there is a consensus in the intelligence community that terrorist interrogations are the single best source of actionable intelligence against the plots of a determined enemy. Interrogation is a tool used by our brave men and women in the military and intelligence community to combat a continuing terrorist threat from those who are bent on attacking and killing Americans. The majority of useable and actionable intelligence against al-Qaida comes from terrorist interrogations and debriefings. This tool is vital to keeping Americans safe--it is irreplaceable and it must be preserved. Of particular note is the CIA's detention and interrogation program, which has been a supremely valuable source of information. This program has produced intelligence that has helped disrupt terrorist networks and prevent terrorist attacks. Furthermore, it has been carefully monitored to ensure that it complies with all our laws. But, the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan applied the Geneva Convention's Common Article 3 to unlawful enemy combatants. This threatened to shut down the CIA's detention and interrogation operations. The standard articulated in Common Article 3 is extremely vague. This standard leaves military and intelligence officers in the dark as to what is, and what is not, permitted in detaining and interrogating unlawful enemy combatants. Moreover, because under current law any violation of Common Article 3 is a criminal violation, our interrogators potentially could be subjected to criminal prosecution for otherwise lawful actions. Consequently, Congress must act to ensure that our military personnel and intelligence officers are not forced to operate, or be subjected to prosecution, under such a vague standard. It is our responsibility to provide clear guidance to military personnel and intelligence officers as to what is, and is not, permitted in interrogations. The standard must be clear enough so that our intelligence officers, who are making judgment calls in the field, can continue to operate. The legislation currently before the Senate provides that clarity. It expressly provides for what acts constitute grave breaches of Common Article 3 and what acts would be subject to prosecution. It further allows the President to promulgate regulations for lesser violations of treaty obligations. As a result, in passing this legislation, we will give the dedicated and honorable Americans on the front lines in the war on terror the clarity they need to fulfill their mission. To win this war and keep Americans safe, our troops in the field and our law enforcement personnel here at home need timely and actionable intelligence. We get that intelligence in many forms such as satellite imagery, intercepted communications, financial tracking and human intelligence, including interrogations. In the past months, many of these intelligence collection tools have been damaged by deliberate leaks of classified information. We can ill afford to lose any of these intelligence collection tools if we are to succeed. I am grateful that this bill will allow our Nation to continue its highly valuable interrogation programs. I support the bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, this summer the U.S. Capitol added a new portrait to its collection of Senate leaders. It is a face that is familiar to all of us since he once led this institution and spent 27 years here as a Senator. I refer to Bob Dole, former Senator from Kansas, chairman of the Finance Committee, majority leader, and Presidential candidate. His portrait was unveiled in the Old Senate Chamber on July 25 and now hangs in the Senate Chamber lobby, along with a painting of Senator George Mitchell, his Democratic counterpart. He looks very much at home there. Bob Dole's story is familiar to almost everyone in this Nation: Born and raised in Russell, KS, he went off to serve in the U.S. Army during the Second World War. He was seriously injured in combat in Italy and underwent arduous physical rehabilitation for more than 3 years. He returned to Kansas, got his law degree, ran for the State legislature, and served as county attorney. He first ran for Congress in 1960 and served in the House of Representatives for 8 years. Then, like many of us, he migrated from the House to the Senate. The Senate suited Bob Dole. He is a man who speaks his mind, candidly and forthrightly. Right away he impressed Senator Barry Goldwater, who hailed the new Senator from Kansas as ``the first fellow we've had around here in a long time who can grab 'em by the hair and haul 'em down the aisle.'' While that captures the combative side of the man, there was also Bob Dole the legislative tactician, a statesman who sought common ground among 100 Senators to craft legislation that would best serve the Nation. When President Ronald Reagan sought to shore up the finances of Social Security, it was Bob Dole, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, working with the ranking member of the minority, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who forged the bill that stabilized the system for another generation. As floor leader of his party, in both the majority and the minority, Bob Dole stood front and center in the Chamber, shrewd, vigilant, and masterful. But you could also find him off the floor, sitting in the cloakroom, a legal pad on his lap, surrounded by a knot of Senators, drafting the language of an amendment to break a legislative impasse and get the Senate's business back on track. He did this all with a ready quip and a limitless sense of humor that got him and the Senate through many difficult moments. Bob Dole possesses a sure sense of the ironies of government and the foibles of politicians. He has used this to great advantage in winning over his audiences, whether in small groups or vast arenas. He is smiling in his portrait, as if he had just delivered one of those lines that made his listeners laugh. It is a handsome portrait of a man who well deserves the honor of being included among the artwork of the U.S. Capitol. Future Senators can gaze on it for inspiration, and it will remind visitors of his many contributions to our Nation's history. Bob Dole will most likely glance at it himself when he visits the Capitol and probably make a few wry remarks when he does. Today he is proudly a Senate spouse, married to the senior Senator from North Carolina, Elizabeth Hanford Dole, who carries on his legislative tradition. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the proceedings of the ceremony for unveiling the Bob Dole leadership portrait.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I have yielded the floor, but I will answer the Senator's question.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise in very strong opposition to Senator Reid's amendment. The amendment simply directs the release of three pages in the classified version of the committee's phase II report on the accuracy of prewar intelligence assessments. I just think this amendment is an irresponsible, very dangerous way to seek the release of classified information and would set a very dangerous precedent. To my knowledge, this action is unprecedented--the full Senate considering a bill that has nothing to do with the subject matter that is now being discussed and for the Senate not to declassify the information but to simply release classified information. I can probably conjure up a lot of other different attempts to do this and put the full Senate in the position of trying to release classified information. While we are at war, what the Democratic leader is proposing is that the Congress unilaterally release information that our intelligence professionals--not the administration--that our intelligence professionals have determined to be protected from disclosure. Again, to my knowledge, the Senate has never taken such a drastic step. Now, the Democratic leader's amendment is not about port security. In fact, the amendment will do nothing to enhance our security. The Senate should not adopt a precedent that allows one Senator to release classified information for whatever purpose that he or she would deem fit or for their own purposes. Before I proceed any further, however, I must take issue with the manner in which the committee action on the matter of declassification has been characterized. Senator Reid claims that a bipartisan majority of the Intelligence Committee voted to include in the report a statement that the committee disagreed with the administration's decision--I will repeat, the administration's decision--to classify certain portions of the report's findings and conclusions and said that classifying of this information is without justification. In actuality it was the intelligence community, not the administration, that made the decision to protect the sensitive information contained in those three pages. That decision was based on the community's judgment--their judgment--I know Senators Rockefeller, Reid, and others may disagree with the community--concerning sources and methods. More important, the committee actually classified the declassification this way, and I am quoting from our report: The committee recognizes that classification decisions are often difficult, requiring a careful balancing of our responsibility to protect the national security sources and methods with the need for the appropriate transparency of the intelligence activities. That says it, and it is a very difficult task that one faces when you are approaching that kind of a challenge. Overall, the declassification process on this report--and I am quoting again--``was a substantial improvement over past efforts.'' That is what the committee said. I know that doesn't include the three pages that the Democratic leader, Senator Rockefeller, and others would like to have released. It would still be classified, but it would be released in a bill that has nothing to do with intelligence matters. It is important to understand that this was a broad, bipartisan statement relating to a number of issues. Several Senators, many Senators, this Senator, had things they would have liked to have seen declassified. I worked overtime with the intelligence community in regard to the section on the Iraqi National Congress, to make sure that all of that report was in, all of the nuances and history would be declassified. Did I get everything I wanted? No, but I got a large portion of it. The committee, however, made no specific reference to the issue that Senator Reid brought to the floor today. There was that generic statement that I just said earlier. I am very familiar with the material that the Senator seeks to publicly release. I agree with the Intelligence Community that this material does contain sensitive information that would damage our intelligence sources and methods. I believe it is properly classified. I supported the report's statement that there are certain portions of the report that I believe should have been declassified. This is not one of them. The information the Democratic leader wants to release is very sensitive. Mr. President, it is CIA operational traffic between an undercover overseas field station and CIA headquarters. This type of correspondence exists to permit the rapid informal flow of information and operational guidance needed to execute the mission of the CIA. It is not formal intelligence reporting. It is not a finished intelligence assessment drafted and coordinated to support policymakers, as has been indicated, and it is not routinely available or needed by anyone outside of the CIA. It must be handled with care. Now, the next question, obviously, is why? Because the release of unevaluated information and CIA operational traffic would potentially damage the relationships with foreign country security services that work closely with the CIA. These foreign services do so with the expectation that their words and their actions will remain confidential. Additionally, declassification and public release of such correspondence would certainly impinge upon the speed and frankness that marks this correspondence. CIA's effectiveness is reduced when this happens. For these reasons, and others that cannot be discussed publicly, this information should not be released. In short, this amendment would damage our sensitive sources and methods by recklessly disclosing properly classified information--again, not by the administration but by the intelligence community. There is another way to do this. It is the proper way. A number of Members on both sides of the aisle, including this Senator, have issues concerning the declassification of these reports. They have agreed to work with the National Archives Public Interest Declassification Board, which is the proper way to do it, to review and, hopefully, further declassify some of the remaining redacted portions. This review process will look at all of the information that remains classified, not just the information singled out in Senator Reid's amendment. I think this is a much more responsible approach. I hope my colleagues will proceed in that manner. That is how we intend to proceed in the Intelligence Committee in regard to classification and declassification. I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, let me say to my friend from West Virginia, however, if I might, and my friend from Illinois, I don't speak for the Vice President. I ask the Senator to address that question to the Vice President. It is the information in the cable which is classified, not the format. I think the distinguished vice chairman is talking about the format in another report as opposed to the report that Senator Reid quoted from, and it is that information-- the cable which is classified, again, by the intelligence community. The Senator knows how hard we have both worked to get both reports declassified, to the extent that the American people could at least know what is going on and let the chips fall where they may. That does not include, however, a decision when the DNI and the Director of Central Intelligence insist that basically the information in the cable is classified. I suppose that in future debates on any bill--and it could be port security or the farm bill or any bill that really doesn't pertain to intelligence--somebody can say, you know, I think there is a portion of some intelligence report, or any intelligence, that ought to be released even though it is classified. If we start doing this, if we go down the slippery slope with regard to having this body in executive session or otherwise decide to release classified information, we may as well replace ``E pluribus unum'' up there with the New York Times. It is a dangerous precedent. There is a way to do that. We have a committee set up to go to the review board to see if we can get the most declassification possible. I agree with the Senator that too much is classified. That is a given. In this particular case, I think you have to rely on--or you should rely on the CIA Director and the Director of National Intelligence who say we are going to lose allied support. The Senator knows that every week we get a courtesy call from various people who come in and who are our counterparts representing other countries. The bottom line is: Why can't you Americans keep quiet? So, consequently, I think that has an aspect of this. That has entered into, I think, part of the DNI's involvement here and decisionmaking, as well as the CIA Director's involvement. It is a canard of the first order to say it was the administration. It is not. It is the people who work with this every day.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I would just simply say to my distinguished friend and colleague, and to let everybody know who is listening to this debate, it is an interesting debate; it is a unique debate. It sets a precedent that I don't agree with. But simply because we are having this discussion doesn't mean we are not friends and colleagues and trying our very best to do a job under very difficult circumstances. But we do defer--or at least I think we should defer--to the intelligence professionals here who work with this material. If they make a mistake, we are all over them. So we are at war. Let's let the Public Interest Declassification Board take a look at these reports. That was the suggestion by Senator Wyden, picked up by Senator Bond, endorsed by myself and I think by the Senator from West Virginia. That is the proper way to go about it, not in this format, when we don't even have a bill that pertains to this and where we are setting a precedent where all of a sudden somebody can say: Oh, I think we should release even though it is classified. Once we start down that road, I would say to my dear friend, we will never hear the end of it. We will have everything else declassified. We could conceivably, with all the furor in regards to the ABC documentary over the handling of 9/11, get into reports and get into Presidential findings and everything else. I just don't think that is appropriate. So there is a way to do it. Let's do it the proper way. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. Basically, the decision is made by General Hayden in a letter I would be delighted to read on the floor of the Senate, except that it is classified. He goes down specifically, exactly the comments I have made in a very generic way as to why he didn't declassify them. One report is INC and one is on the accuracy of the prewar assessments regarding weapons of mass destruction. I don't understand the point. By the way, the general indicated that he will provide us a letter that is not classified outlining why the CIA Director feels very strongly that this should not be released.

Mr. ROBERTS. I object.

Mr. ROBERTS. It is my understanding that the operational cables and the INC reports are two separate reports.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, responding to the Senator from Illinois, that is a hypothetical. I did not watch ``Meet the Press.'' I have not studied the Vice President's comments other than what the Senator has said. My name is not Tony Snow. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, I certainly yield to my friend and colleague.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I rise today in opposition to the amendment that is proposed by Senator Reid. The title of the act Senator Reid has proposed is called Real Security. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle actually believe this amendment is real security, I encourage every American to go home and simply lock their doors. There are provisions in the amendment that I like. In particular, I support the passage of the Intelligence Authorization Act as it was reported by the Intelligence and the Armed Services Committees. I hope the Senate can act on that bill by unanimous consent without insisting on needless partisan debate on a bill that has bipartisan support. But now, on the other hand, I oppose the sense-of-Congress language Senator Reid has inserted in that bill that suggests the terrorist surveillance program is unlawful. Talk about the sense of the Congress--that means the Congress would not have any sense. Like most Americans, I believe the President should use all the authority provided by the Constitution and laws of the United States to prevent terrorists from killing innocent Americans. If terrorists outside the United States are placing calls to individuals in the United States, as many people have said over and over and over and over and over again, our intelligence agencies should know about it. The terrorist surveillance program is lawful. It has been effective. I will oppose any legislation that does not support the continuation of that very valuable program. The bottom line on the terrorist surveillance program is this: The men and women of the NSA are working hard to protect our country day in and day out. We should let these patriotic Americans get back to doing their job. Beyond that, I am convinced that my colleagues consulted perhaps a group of tenth grade English teachers in preparing this amendment. I haven't seen so many assigned reports since I was in high school. Instead of providing flexible authorities to protect our Nation, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have proposed approximately 52--a deck of cards, 52--I say that again, 52 new and continuing reporting requirements. That is one new reporting requirement for every 9 pages of the amendment. The U.S. Government should be focused on securing our borders, disrupting terrorists, and protecting our ports. This amendment does nothing but divert focus to reporting requirements. My colleagues have also resorted to an old standby: If you don't have any ideas, throw money and people at a problem. There are about 29 sections that propose new or additional ways to spend our limited resources. We haven't had any committee hearings on these, but they are reported. There are three provisions that increase the size of our Government by adding more personnel. As a substitute for congressional consideration of legislation to respond to the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision, my colleagues have proposed yet another national commission--yet another national commission. I am not going to go through the trouble of listing all of the commissions that we have had in the last 4 or 5 years. This one, however, is to focus on the detention and interrogation of terrorists captured in the war on terror. Let me give my colleagues the bottom line on the Government's detention and interrogation programs--and there will be legislation that already is reported from the Senate Judiciary Committee to take care of that--they have kept this Nation safe. I think we can forego another commission. Finally, Senator Reid's amendment would authorize three new administrative subpoenas: one for the new commission, one for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, and one for a new Senate committee. If Senator Reid and his colleagues want real security, they should strip out these provisions and simply give the FBI an administrative subpoena to track terrorists and spies. But that is the point of this bill; it is not about real security. This bill is about real Monday morning quarterbacking. It is about tying the hands of our homeland security and intelligence professionals as they attempt to protect this Nation. The only way this amendment would make the Nation safer is if we made copies of all of the reports that it requires and carpet-bombed Osama bin Laden. I am certain he would suffocate. I will not support this amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose it as well.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act. S. 3711 takes a much needed and long overdue step forward in our Nation's energy policy. For too long we have looked to others to supply our growing demand for energy. Too many of our energy resources are imported from unfriendly and unstable places in the world like Nigeria and Venezuela. We can no longer afford to rely upon the Hugo Chavezes of the world to fill up our gas tanks, heat our homes, or provide fertilizer to grow our crops. Today we have the opportunity to look in our own back yard for the resources necessary to sustain our economy's growth. S. 3711 opens roughly 8.3 million acres to oil and gas exploration. An area with roughly 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 1.26 billion barrels of oil. One sector of our economy in desperate need of increased oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico is agriculture. Mr. President, farm country is struggling to find our next generation of farmers. Agriculture's future depends on motivating young people to enter into a business with increasing input costs and stagnant product prices. Without a revitalized wave of young producers, our Nation's food suppliers will continue to face an uphill battle. Alleviating high natural gas prices is one way to help current producers and entice young farmers to return to the fields. Agriculture depends on significant amounts of natural gas for irrigation, food processing, crop drying, heating homes and farm buildings, and producing fertilizers which are necessary for plant growth. For agriculture, natural gas is not just an energy source, but it is also a feedstock in the production of nitrogen fertilizer. Natural gas accounts for roughly 90 percent of the cost to produce one ton of nitrogen fertilizer. In 2005, natural gas prices rose to $15.00 per million BTU's. In the past 6 years, the U.S. has gone from spending $50 billion per year on natural gas to $200 billion per year. These high prices have hit the nitrogen fertilizer industry hard. Since 1999, 17 ammonia plants permanently closed due to the high cost of natural gas. The result is a fertilizer industry that recently received 85 percent of its feedstock from domestic sources to one that now relies on foreign imports to supply 50 percent of their natural gas needs. Much attention in Congress has turned to alternative sources of energy to meet our demand. Ethanol used to be a word spoken only in farm country. Now ethanol is part of the daily jargon on the streets of New York and Los Angeles. What some folks may not understand about ethanol produced primarily from corn is that farmers in many parts of the country use nitrogen fertilizer and irrigation systems to grow corn--two inputs heavily influenced by the price of natural gas. You see, Mr. President, if we do not increase the amount of domestically produced natural gas, our renewable fuels industry will grow more and more dependant on imports from volatile parts of the world. Now is the time to change our attitude about our energy supply. Domestic, environmentally safe production can and should take place on American soil and off our shores. S. 3711 moves our Nation's energy policy in the right direction. One that leads to greater energy independence and price stability. I encourage my colleagues to support our agricultural industry and vote for S. 3711. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment proposed by Senator Menendez. While the Senator from New Jersey no doubt has the best of intentions in working to increase grant funding for high population areas, I do not believe that reducing funding for the majority of States in our great Nation is a viable way to protect against terrorism. If we, as a country, are going to be adequately prepared for another terrorist attack, we must not forget that we are vulnerable on all fronts. The 36 States that would be negatively impacted by this proposal contain some of our Nation's most valuable assets. In reducing funding to States such as Kansas, this amendment tosses aside the risks to agriculture that supports our Nation's food supply, the oil and petroleum facilities that provide invaluable energy in this time of need, and the many Federal buildings and places of national significance that are scattered throughout our great Nation. We cannot let ourselves believe that if we only protect large cities and high population states, we will be safe from the devious and calculating minds of those who wish us harm. One need only to look to Oklahoma City in this regard. Rather, preparing for what we expect in densely populated areas is a surefire way to be shocked and horrified should the inexplicable and unthinkable happen again. This legislation has been considered in this Senate before, and it was defeated soundly. To add it now as an amendment disregards the hard work many have done to negotiate a funding formula that most benefits our entire country. We cannot afford to compromise the security of an entire Nation for the benefit of a few areas.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, this amendment has consequences to our allies, including Libya, Tunisia, Jordan, Egypt, even Saudi Arabia, and Israel. Basically, this amendment has consequences, introducing it on the floor of the Senate has consequences, debating it has consequences, and voting for it has consequences. I am going to close by calling to mind a lesson of historical precedent. Upon learning of the attack on Pearl Harbor, Sir Winston Churchill said this: Silly people; that was the description many gave in discounting the force of the United States. Some said they were soft, others that they would never be united, that they would never come to grips. They would never stand for bloodletting, that their system of government and democracy would paralyze their effort. Now we will see the weakness of this numerous but remote, wealthy and talkative people. But, American blood flows in my veins. I thought of a remark made to me years before--the United States is like a gigantic boiler. Once the fire of freedom is lighted under it, there is no limit to the power it can generate. It is a matter of resolve. I say to my colleagues that, if approved, this amendment could, in a matter of minutes, undo that resolve now, and for the next generation who will face new threats to our way of life. Setting an artificial timetable will send the wrong message to the Iraqi's, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done, and our troops, who must know that we are serious about the mission that they are risking their lives to achieve.

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.