Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I am submitting a Senate Resolution commending the contributions and record of a most unique and deserving man, the retiring football coach of Kansas State University Wildcats, Bill Snyder. I suppose some, especially non sports fans, might raise an eyebrow or question a Senate Resolution congratulating a football coach, no matter how successful in wins and losses--after all, as some have said, ``it's only a game.'' But in the case of Coach Bill Snyder his contributions transcend his outstanding record of wins and losses; they represent being a mentor and teacher of leadership and values to young men during a time when collegiate athletics and sports in general face challenge after challenge involving unbecoming conduct and worse. Coach Snyder's contribution--football is a game of course but in the case of Bill Snyder one of his greatest contributions has been to enable young men to win in the game of life by being responsible citizens. And, this unique ability on the athletic field became a catalyst for alumni interest and a renewal of financial support throughout the university enabling all students in all academic fields to benefit. Much has been said in Kansas and throughout the football sports world about the amazing turnaround Coach Snyder achieved at K-State; directing and orchestrating a football program success story that is now considered by many to be the greatest in the history of collegiate athletics. The record in the resolution I have introduced speaks for itself; three time national coach of the year, 11 post season bowl games, only the second program in college football history to win 11 games, 6 times in a 7-year time span, 42 NFL draft picks, 45 All America selections, and 68 first team all conference players. That is quite a record. The coaches that first started their careers at K-State under Coach Snyder now read like a ``Who's Who'' in college football. But great as those and the rest of the records are, that does not really tell the Bill Snyder story. Simply put, this is a man who restored and instilled a new sense of pride in a university and throughout our State. This is a man and his family who have given of themselves and contributed countless hours and resources to charitable causes throughout Kansas. With all of his successes and attributes, this is a man who is humble, self effacing, soft spoken, and who knows you can get a lot more done if you don't care who gets the credit. In many ways, Bill Snyder is a private man who has God given ability to inspire others in the public arena. He has taught his players that in the games of football and life, success is never final, failure is never fatal and that in the end its courage that counts. By his example, he showed them the attributes of honesty, character and reputation are not old fashioned. On the playing field and in life he instilled the truism that if you don't drop the ball you won't have to complain about the way the ball bounces. The same is true regarding his individual player marching orders, never say bad things about your opponent win or lose, take care of your self, conduct yourself in your best interests and that of your university and teammates. A coach on the field and a coach in life. I want to get back and emphasize this restoring pride achievement on a more personal basis. I know my example is replete with similar experiences with the thousands of families who make up what is now referred to in the sports pages as the ``Wildcat Nation.'' My Dad was a proud graduate of Kansas State as I was and my son attended Kansas State--three generations. Sports fans and devoted K- State alumni all, we went through what many loyal K-Stater's call the decades of Death Valley Days, seasons of defeat, seasons of eternal optimism always tempered, if not shattered by the reality of yet another loss. There were some average seasons, a few good seasons, but ``depths of despair'' would not be an understatement for many of the faithful who endured and endured and endured. And, the defeats somehow became interwoven with the fabric of our alma mater and apologies for psychological exaggeration but even into the psyche of being a K-State graduate and our self worth. And then came President Jon Wefald and then came Bill Snyder and both men grabbed K-State by the collar and said: Enough, we're going to win both academically and on the athletic field. And, wonder of wonders, they did just that. Sports writers have called it a miracle. To many diehard K-State fans that was not an understatement. Winning season followed winning season and generations of alumni witnessed this success story took it to heart, loved it and lived it. It has been a grand experience. When K- State goes to a bowl game, 25,000 to 30,000 diehard fans are in attendance, win or lose. Bill Snyder and his wife Sharon and their family gave K-State their all and Coach Snyder has given us all pride, self esteem, and confidence. It has been one heck of a trail ride for me and my family as I know it has been for countless others. I just don't know of anyone in their chosen profession who has made more of a difference in so many people's lives than Coach Snyder. Simply put, Bill Snyder has been a class act and then some and collegiate sports, Kansas State University, the State of Kansas and his players and fans have been the beneficiaries. Thanks Coach. ``Every Man A Wildcat!''

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, at this time, under the regular order and a unanimous consent request, the distinguished Senator from Ohio was to be recognized. He has acquiesced in my behalf that I may be recognized for 15 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as in morning business for 15 minutes, to be followed by the Senator from Ohio, and that the Senator from Colorado will be recognized after the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for crafting this comprehensive pension reform measure to strengthen the defined benefit pension system and ensure the solvency of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. One provision that I am pleased we were able to find bipartisan agreement on and include in S. 1783 is language that recognizes the special nature of multiple-employer defined benefit plans. These multiple-employer plans are sponsored by rural electric, rural telephone, and agriculture-related cooperatives. Nationwide, more than 1,700 cooperatives participate in a multiple-employer plan, providing benefits for over 109,000 workers and retirees. In Kansas, more than 160 cooperatives will benefit from the multiple- employer provisions in this bill. These cooperatives are not-for-profit, and provide at-cost services to their consumer owners. Multiple-employer defined benefit plans allow cooperatives to pool experience and expenses by maintaining a single plan as opposed to single-employer defined benefit plans that cover just one company's employees. For companies that sponsor a single-employer plan, if that company goes out of business, the pension plan terminates, and if underfunded, creates risk to the PBGC. Multiple-employer cooperative plans are different because the pension plan continues to operate even if some cooperatives go out of business. Most importantly, no liabilities shift to the PBGC. These cooperative plans are ongoing plans that can outlive many of their participating employers, and are treated as such under this bill. The Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, of which I am a member, and the Finance Committee, both recognized the special nature of multiple-employer plans, and their lack of risk to the PBGC, in their respective pension bills. During consideration of the HELP Committee's pension bill, the Defined Benefit Security Act, an amendment I offered to clarify the treatment of multiple-employer cooperatives was approved by unanimous consent. The Finance Committee adopted a different approach to recognize the unique nature of multiple-employer plans. As the committees worked to bring a bill to the Senate floor, I, along with several of my colleagues, shared our concerns about the need to include multiple-employer cooperative language in a final bill in a letter to the chairmen and ranking members of the HELP and Finance Committees. While different from the provisions of both the HELP and Finance Committee bills, the multiple-employer provisions in S. 1783 achieve their goal. S. 1783 provides a 10-year delayed effective date for these rural cooperative plans, continues to exempt these plans from the bill's at-risk rules, and provides special funding and premium rules during this 10-year period. With regard to funding, these plans will use the four year weighted average of the third segment rate of the corporate bond yield curve created in this bill. For purposes of the premium rules, these plans will use a spot version of the third segment rate. Mr. President, I urge the inclusion of the multiple-employer rural cooperative provisions contained in S. 1783 when a final pension reform bill is sent to the President for his signature. These provisions have bipartisan support, recognize the special nature of rural cooperatives, and provide an important benefit for over 109,000 employees and retirees across the country. I ask unanimous consent to print the letter to which I referred in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Five minutes.

Mr. ROBERTS. As I have indicated or as has been indicated by the distinguished chairman, the subject matter before us now pertains to the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Committee. The amendment, as I understand it, of the Senator from Delaware does not. I would rather go ahead with the agreed-upon method, and then we could take a look at the amendment and handle that separately.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would simply say that my colleague would have ample opportunity to offer an amendment in its own standing, and this carefully crafted compromise should receive priority attention. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. ROBERTS. This is a second-degree amendment, I inform my colleague.

Mr. ROBERTS. Reclaiming my time, let me say to the Senator, he is welcome to the picnic any time he wants to come. I believe we have resolved this matter in response to the original amendment regarding this subject. Senator Kerry and Senator Rockefeller and Senator Warner and I have crafted a second-degree amendment that will be accepted by Senator Kerry. I recognize the unique concern in regard to the Senator from Delaware. I would hope we could dispense with this first and then enter into a discussion as to the merits of the Senator's concern.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to offer a second-degree amendment, along with the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Rockefeller, in regard to reporting language for certain intelligence activities.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, the Senate did create the Select Committee on Intelligence as a unique means to provide oversight of our sensitive activities in regard to intelligence. I agree with Senator Kerry that more information will improve our ability to conduct the oversight we need to do on intelligence. Senator Rockefeller and Senator Warner and myself, however, believe this intelligence oversight function should remain focused in the Select Committee on Intelligence, as intended by S. Res. 400, the legislation that actually created the Intelligence Committee back in 1976. I can assure my colleagues that the membership of the Senate Intelligence Committee is designed to include significant crossover membership from the various national security committees. For example, I am one of the several Armed Services Committee members currently on the Intelligence Committee, including Senator Warner and Senator Levin. That construct was intentionally created by the Senate to address situations just like this. Transparency is important and open government is critical, but in certain circumstances sensitive information must be handled in a proper way. That is exactly why we created the Committee on Intelligence. This amendment strikes the appropriate balance between the Senate's needs for transparency and the need to handle sensitive information appropriately. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. ROBERTS. Certainly.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague Chairman Craig, for offering this amendment to correct current law, which permits capital offenders to be buried in a national cemetery with full military funeral honors. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this amendment, which would deny capital offenders a hero's funeral. I believe that the congressional intent was crystal clear on this issue when Congress passed two laws denying capital offenders eligibility for burial in a national cemetery and certain funeral benefits in 1997 and 2002. However, a loophole remains and is vulnerable to misapplication. It is unfortunate that it took the mistaken internment of double murderer Russell Wayne Wagner in Arlington National Cemetery earlier this summer to shed light on this egregious loophole. I commend Chairman Craig's immediate response to this oversight by quickly convening a hearing to study how big this loophole really is. According to a study of the law conducted by the Congressional Research Service, CRS, because Wagner's double life sentences carried the possibility of parole, he was technically eligible for burial in a national cemetery. Upon further study, it was determined that this same parole loophole also would apply to Dennis Rader, the serial killer who terrorized Kansans for over three decades. In Kansas, we take honoring those who made the ultimate sacrifice very seriously. Entire towns make their way in the funeral procession of the hometown hero to pay their respects and say a quiet prayer as he or she is laid to rest. This respect was recently demonstrated in South Haven, KS, as the community gathered en mass to honor Sgt. Evan Parker, who died of wounds from a bomb attack during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Neighbors and fellow members of the community poured out their front doors to silently watch the funeral procession and 150 members of the American Legion convened to erect a barrier to block protesters from interrupting the mourners. This is what small town America does to honor those who gave all. It is unconscionable that Dennis Rader, BTK for short, as he referred to himself, who brutally bound, tortured, and killed 10 innocent victims would be granted a hero's funeral. A criminal who is facing 10 life sentences and no less than 175 years of prison could be honored among our Nation's heros under the law as it stands today because his sentence included the phrase ``with parole.'' The idea that the brave men and women of our Nation's military forces like SGT Evan Parker could be memorialized and laid to rest in the same sacred ground as the BTK Killer is outrageous and simply wrong. If current law cannot prevent this brutal murderer from internment in a national cemetery or with military funeral honors, then the law needs to be fixed. This amendment closes the parole loophole by tying eligibility for burial in a national cemetery and military funeral honors to the underlying action of the capital offender rather than to the sentence, which can vary from State to State. I understand that Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin are including this amendment as a part of a broader manager's amendment. I appreciate the inclusion of this important legislation that ultimately protects the honor and memory of our Nation's heros and the hallowed ground in which they rest.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the President.

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. President. I think the best face I could put on this--after this unfortunate situation which was totally unexpected by myself, or my staff, or the Republican members on the committee, for that matter, the Republican leadership--is that we have agreed to do what we already agreed to do; that is, to complete as best we can phase II of the Intelligence Committee's review of prewar intelligence in reference to Iraq. I think it is very important to point out that the Intelligence Committee has had an absolutely outstanding record working with Senator Rockefeller and my colleagues across the aisle to produce the original review in regard to the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate prior to the military activities into Iraq, and also as to whether Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his weapons of mass destruction. That was a 17-to-0 vote. We had some differences, but that report came out. It was a good report. It was a seminal report. As a matter of fact, I take pride in saying that it was a bipartisan effort that was agreed to by the 9/11 Commission, by the WMD Commission that was later formed, and made about 93 or 94 recommendations to the administration of which probably 93 to 94 out of 95 have already been implemented. So we worked in a bipartisan fashion to do that. We also at the same time--and I am basically quoting from the statement the vice chairman and I made on February 12 of 2004--agreed we would go to something called phase II. There has been a lot of talk about phase II. What is phase II? Why is it that has been delayed, if in fact it has been delayed? There was some talk on the floor that got a little personal, and I regret that. It seems to me it was rather convenient because it was only yesterday our staff was working with the staff of the minority indicating that not this week but next week we would spend as much time as possible, 5 or 6 days, to complete our work in regard to phase II. It isn't as though it has been delayed. As a matter of fact, it has been ongoing. As a matter of fact, we have been doing our work on phase II. It is difficult, as I will indicate in a minute, while I go through these provisions on what we agreed to do. So it seems to be a little convenient all of a sudden to go into a closed session of the Senate and call for a full Senate investigation of phase II when the committee is already doing its work. I think that basically is an unfortunate stunt. I would call it something else, but I think probably I will simply leave it at that. Let me tell you what phase II is all about. Again, let me point out that we took a look at whether Saddam Hussein did reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction. That took us a long time. It is a 511-page report. It is a seminal report. It is a good report, and it signifies what we can do in the committee when we at least let one another know what is going on and we work in a bipartisan fashion. This is what phase II is all about. That is what we will begin as we have planned to do and what our staff has indicated to the other side's staff in regard to what we were going to do as of next week--that we will start next week, and we will hope to continue that effort. We will cancel all other hearings until we can reach some sort of an accommodation. Now, if we can do this on the WMD report, certainly we can do it in regard to phase II. My good friends across the aisle are people of good faith. We had strong differences of opinion then. I suppose we will have it in regard to phase II as well. We have seen that happen time and time again. As a matter of fact, we brought up phase II on May 17 of this year. The biggest issue is as follows. There are five things in phase II: Whether public statements and reports and testimony regarding Iraq by U.S. Government officials made between the gulf war period and the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom were substantiated by intelligence information. In other words, the public statements made in the administration and the public statements made by public officials, whether they be in Congress, whether they be in the administration, or whatever, Congress, because we voted for regime change and we voted to go to war. Obviously, the administration, because they looked at the intelligence and thought our national security was in danger, we went to war. Were the public statements backed up by intelligence or were they backed up by flawed intelligence? We have that material. We were supplied about 300 to 400 names by my colleagues across the aisle from all sorts of statements made by people in the administration. We took a good look at what Members of Congress have said about the same intelligence. I must say, at this point, some of those statements are even more declarative and more aggressive than those made in the administration. That is the big issue: the use of intelligence. Whether somebody in the administration or somebody in the Congress made a statement that they thought was based on intelligence that was later proved wrong and somehow we are suppose to get in their head and ask: Why did you make that statement? Is that credible? On May 17, in the spring, we started down the list of statements. We took names off of the statements because I didn't want it to be a situation, in terms of naming who made the statement, because I thought it might perjure or affect how people would vote in the committee. We started down that road. We didn't get very far. We had requests on the total progress of phase II, other portions of phase II. So we started again on the first statement. Does that first statement match up with the intelligence? We didn't get very far. We started phase II in May, and we went back to work to see what we could get done, where we would agree and come back to the ``use'' question, when that would be possible. There are five issues to phase II. Let me read them. The postwar findings about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and their weapons programs and the links to terrorism and how they compare with prewar assessments. That was done by Charles Duelfer and David Kay. Those two paragraphs are already written. You can simply say that Charles Duelfer and David Kay did not find WMD. That was their conclusion. They made some statements about it. It was commensurate, exactly, with what our WMD report said. There shouldn't be any problem with that. That should be adopted by the committee with hardly any dissent or any discussion. The third issue is prewar intelligence about postwar Iraq. That is not necessarily true today. It is post-insurgency Iraq. That was my suggestion, saying if the intelligence community at least could figure out what we expected to find in Iraq postwar, post the military action. Where was the intelligence? That is ongoing. That is ongoing because we have what we think is a pretty good report, but we can make it more concise. I can say right off the bat that intelligence was as flawed as the intelligence in regard to the WMD report. We can agree with that. So there are two we can agree on. Let me go to the next one. Any intelligence activities relating to Iraq conducted by the policy counterterrorism evaluation group and the Office of Special Plans within the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense. This involved a question as to whether Under Secretary Douglas Feith had a special intelligence group that had undue influence in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and whether or not that group and that intelligence had an undue influence on the administration's decision to go to war. We had Under Secretary Feith before the committee. Then we were going to have him up again. And then my good friends across the aisle wanted more information. In the midst of that, there was a statement made by the vice chairman--I will not get into that because it tends to be personal, and I don't want any remarks of mine to be personal, especially after what happened on the Senate floor in regard to this issue. Basically, there was a statement made that what was going on in the Office of Special Plans could be illegal. When that happened, everyone down there at the Office of Special Plans got lawyered up or at least thought about seeking legal representation. The cooperation between that particular department and our committee was not nearly as good as it was. We can clear that up because we have asked the Department of Defense inspector general to come back and tell us if there was anything wrong in regard to what the Office of Special Plans was doing. We will rely on that. We will put that in the report. We can believe the inspector general of the Department of Defense. Finally, the use of the intelligence community of information provided by the Iraqi National Congress. Now, remember back when the Congress was talking to members of the Iraqi National Congress. Mr. Chalabi was the head of that group. I had Senator after Senator come to me and ask, Why don't you have Mr. Chalabi appear before the committee? The people supporting him wanted to vote and eventually did vote for regime change. Then the pendulum swung the other way and people said, Wait a minute. We are not really sure about his position or, for that matter, what he has said in the past, what are you doing, and the question of the INC. The whole question again was, how much effect did the Iraqi National Congress and Mr. Chalabi have on the input to the administration as to whether or not they would go to war. We have found, basically, as far as I am concerned, there is very little evidence, if any, that would take place. I wouldn't think that would take too much time, as well. So those are the five things we had to do in regard to phase II. Let me repeat, again, yesterday our staff talked with my colleagues' staff across the aisle and their staff--not my colleagues across the aisle but their staff--and said the chairman wants to move on this next week. My conversation in regard to the distinguished vice chairman, I think it was last Wednesday, and let me say it was in the middle of a hearing and let me say it was not exactly clear in terms of any kind of a date, but I did talk to Senator Rockefeller and indicated we had to move, we had to get this done. He will doubtlessly say they have written letters and they have tried to get me to move and this, that or the other, but we have been doing this all along. Staff has been working on this very diligently. Consequently, I think we are very close. I am very pleased to announce, on schedule, exactly what we planned to do, we will start next week. We will start on Tuesday, and I will announce the time in the morning. Members of the Intelligence Committee will know Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, how long it takes, working in good faith. We will look into phase II and see what we can do and finish that product. I said a long time ago on the Intelligence Committee we had to work in a bipartisan fashion. I said a long time ago that whatever ended up on the fan, we were going to have to clean it up. I said a long time ago we will let the chips fall where they may, and that went for phase II as well as the WMD special inquiry. I ought to say one other thing. There was a memo that was highly publicized back about a year and a half ago. That memo, which was not provided to Republicans--obviously, it was a Democratic memo--and paragraph four caused a big fuss. It caused us about a month to sort of walk gingerly around one another and smother each other with the milk of kindness and say, Well, let's see if we can't work things out. And we did. I credit a lot of that to Senator Rockefeller. He is not a partisan man. Here is the paragraph: Be prepared to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation any time, but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year. Well, the trigger has been pulled today with an executive session of the Senate that is not needed, not necessary, and, in my personal opinion, was a stunt. I plead with my colleagues across the aisle and my colleagues, all Republicans on the committee, next week when we start this, on Tuesday--we will go through Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday--I have no illusions, we will have differences, but I plead with you, as we have done in the past, for the good of our national security, and to finish the inquiry on whether or not Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his weapons of mass destruction, we were able to do that, and it became the seminal study for intelligence reform and where we are now with the Director of National Intelligence. If we can get back to that mode instead of this surprising stunt on the floor to go into executive session, we will be better off. Phase II, yes, you bet, we have been on phase II, and we will do it exactly as we planned to do it as of next week. I see from the expression of the distinguished President's face my time has expired.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President I have joined with my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, and 19 other Senators to introduce a bill to restore normal beef trade with Japan. Prior to the discovery of BSE or mad cow disease in the United States in December 2003, Japan was the largest export market for American beef in the world. But since that fateful day 2 years ago, U.S. beef producers have been locked out of the Japanese market. To say the loss of this market has been detrimental to the viability of the American beef industry is an understatement. This is an issue that effects every part of the U.S. beef industry from the cowboys in western Kansas to the folks standing in line at the grocery store shopping for hamburger patties in New York City. And perhaps this is felt no where as strongly than in places like Dodge City, KS Dodge City is a town that has built it's economy on the beef industry since the days of the wild west. It is a place where the number of cattle far outnumbers the number of people that live within the county lines. And it is the place that I call home. The beef industry is a major economic driver for Dodge, but it's one of the largest industries in Kansas--representing over $5 billion in annual revenue. We are a state with 6.65 million head of cattle, compared to a human population of 2.6 million. In 2003, cattle represented 62 percent of the Kansas cultural cash receipts and the processing industry alone employs over 18,700 Kansans. And to boot, we rank in the top three of virtually every major beef statistic. But, trade with Japan has an impact that extends well beyond the borders of Kansas--it's an issue that affects all of farm country. The cattle industry comprises one of the largest sectors in American agriculture--with business in every state. Japan is the largest export market for food and agricultural products from the United States and beef is one of the largest and most lucrative exports to Japan. In short, for ranchers across farm country, including those in Kansas, there are few issues more important than the viability of the beef industry--and specifically how we handle BSE. This week marks the year anniversary of the mutual agreement the U.S. and Japan signed to resume normal beef trade. Since then, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, has worked hard to implement substantive improvements in our ability to prevent, identify and respond to BSE. For instance, as a part of their enhanced animal surveillance effort, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS, has tested over 450,000 head of cattle for BSE. Despite this increased testing, Japan refuses to reopen its market and has instead relied upon imports of beef from countries with little or no testing for BSE. The increased U.S. testing, in coordination with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration implementation of safeguards that ensure the safety of our food supply, have bolstered our claim to having the safest and most abundant food supply in the world. Regrettably, the Japanese has failed to match these standards with prudent efforts to change their policy of keeping American beef out of Japan. The Japanese Food Safety Commission, the body with the delegated responsibility to review the process by which Japan would reopen its market, and others within the government have been unresponsive to extensive diplomatic efforts made by U.S. officials during the last year. The office of the U.S. Trade Representative and USDA have worked in concert with President Bush, other cabinet agencies and officials and U.S. Congress to restore regular beef trade. Despite the efforts of even the highest office in our nation's government, Japan continues to keep American beef out of their country. The Japanese Food Safety Commission and others within the government have repeatedly demanded excessive documentation and paperwork with little or no justification. None of these requests reflect the internationally accepted phytosanitary guidelines. Rather, they appear to be a dilatory tool to prevent any effort to resume the purchase of American beef. There have been claims that American beef is unsafe. This is simply not true. The international science says our cattle under 30 months of age are safe and not at risk. Yet, we have agreed to not send meat from any animals under 20 months of age to Japan. Furthermore, after 20 confirmed cases of BSE in Japan, the claim that U.S. beef is not as safe as Japanese beef is simply an insult to American producers. Still the market remains closed to the U.S. In recent weeks, Japan has insisted upon an unwarranted and unjustified trade barrier by preventing the resumption of regular beef trade with the U.S. Japan has a complicated bureaucracy in place to deal with the issue of BSE. In 2003, the Japanese Parliament established the Food Safety Commission as a Cabinet Office tasked with ensuring food safety. This week, the Japanese Food Safety Commission again failed to reach an agreement to remove the blockade to U.S. beef imports. And to insult to injury, four of the Commission's 12 members did not even show up to the meeting because of their alleged concern with the safety of U.S. beef. I am troubled that our negotiations with Japan have deteriorated to this point. Japan has traditionally been a distinguished and important trading partner for the U.S. Furthermore, they have been a critical ally in the War on terrorism. Despite, this long-standing relationship, I am here today to support legislation that requires the U.S. Department of Treasury to implement additional tariffs on goods grown, produced or manufactured in Japan unless the U.S. Trade Representative certifies that Japan has reopened its market to American beef by December 15, 2005. I have long supported free trade. Our country has benefitted from trade agreements with Chile, Australia, Canada and Mexico, and now Central America. These trading relationships are a necessity to ensure the ability of American farmers, ranchers and businessmen alike to compete in the global marketplace. But, these agreements hinge heavily upon the commitment of the participating countries to uphold the principles of free trade--and for agriculture trade that means abiding by the international science standards that set important standards for animal, plant and human safety. Prior to the discovery of a case of native-born BSE in a cow that never entered the food supply, we enjoyed this kind of trading relationship with Japan. However, Japan has chosen to ignore internationally recognized science and has instead based their food safety on emotional, politically-driven arguments. And, this comes at a high price for the American beef industry. Since December 2003, the U.S. beef industry has experienced roughly $6 billion in cumulative economic losses--in current annual economic trade terms, this is about $3.1 billion a year. We've been patient, but with this kind of economic loss, the American beef industry cannot afford to wait any longer. I will not stand idly by while politics and posturing drive our trade relationships. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to send a message in the strongest way possible, that free trade is a two-way street. More importantly, in the context of the pending negotiations in the Doha Round of the World Trade Organization, I urge my colleagues to support this bill because it sends the message to American producers that we will stand up for American agriculture in our trade negotiations.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing the Influenza Vaccine Security Act with Senator Clinton today because I believe this legislation is critical to strengthening our public health preparedness here in the U.S. The experiences of the flu vaccine shortage last year made us all aware that our system needs improvement. This legislation takes a comprehensive approach to addressing the root causes of seasonal flu vaccine shortages by creating stability in the U.S. vaccine market. Our legislation requires the Department of Health and Human Services to set annual production targets for the flu vaccine, to stockpile up to 10 percent of the vaccine each year in the event of a shortage, and to create a vaccine buyback program to provide market guarantees for our vaccine manufacturers. This legislation also provides a much-needed framework for public health officials to track vaccines and provides increased education and outreach about getting an annual flu vaccine. I now want to turn to some of the provisions in this legislation that deal with an issue I believe deserves our utmost attention: pandemic influenza. I think we can agree that we all learned a good lesson from Hurricane Katrina: government at all levels must be prepared to deal with a large-scale public health emergency. Unfortunately, our government is not currently not prepared to deal with pandemic influenza. Our legislation seeks to address this by strengthening the underlying public health infrastructure to heighten our ability to respond to both seasonal and pandemic flu. As Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a member of both the Senate Agriculture Committee and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP), I take the threat of an influenza pandemic very seriously. I view it as not only a public health concern, but a national security concern. The timing for a large-scale worldwide influenza outbreak is ripe. Many experts believe the next flu pandemic will come in the form of avian flu. Unlike the seasonal flu, humans have no natural immunity to avian flu. A routine flu shot for more common influenza viruses won't protect against the deadly avian flu. The Department of Health and Human Services is working with vaccine manufacturers to develop a vaccine, but it is unclear when and how many doses will be ready. Other than a vaccine, the only defense against a new flu strain such as avian flu is an antiviral medication such as Tamiflu. Currently, the United States currently only has enough pills to treat less than one percent, or about 2.3 million people. This is why experts believe the effects of avian flu in the U.S. and around the world could be devastating. Some have predicted the loss of life could reach as high as 160-200 million. A pandemic might infect a third of the U.S. population and cost more than $100 billion alone in medical treatments. A pandemic of this sort could also have catastrophic economic or social effects. It is for these reasons I am pleased our legislation addresses some of the underlying public health infrastructure concerns that can help us effectively respond to pandemic flu. Our vaccine industry here in the U.S. is extremely fragile and our manufacturers need the necessary tools to effectively produce and deliver vaccines in the event of either seasonal or pandemic flu. First and foremost, our legislation ensures vaccine manufacturers and health care providers are not held liable in the event of a public health emergency involving pandemic influenza. Without this necessary liability protection, the ability to develop or deliver a vaccine during an outbreak could be significantly hampered. Our legislation also encourages improved technologies for influenza vaccine development by providing additional funding for NIH research into alternative methods of vaccine development, such as cell-based cultures and a permanent flu vaccine. Currently, flu vaccine production is a strenuous process and takes several months, leaving us extremely vulnerable in the event of a large-scale outbreak and a subsequent need for a mass production of vaccines. Our legislation encourages more companies to enter the U.S. market with domestic-based production facilities and to improve the ability of the current manufacturers to remain in the market. Manufacturers currently do not have the capacity to simultaneously produce enough flu vaccine for seasonal flu and an avian flu vaccine in the event of an outbreak. We must assist our manufacturers in increasing production capacity. Aside from vaccines, our legislation also requires the government to purchase and store additional antiviral medications, such as Tamiflu, to protect against an influenza epidemic. Finally, our legislation provides a framework to identify public health professionals that can provide services in the event of a public health emergency through the use of a medical personnel registry linked at the Federal, State and local levels. I am pleased to introduce the Influenza Vaccine Security Act with Senator Clinton today. We need to fix our seasonal flu vaccine production and distribution problems not only to prevent future shortages, but also to strengthen our public health infrastructure in case of pandemic. As Senator Clinton knows, the HELP Committee will soon be considering legislation to develop countermeasures to protect the U.S. from deliberate and natural public health threats. This legislation, known as Bioshield II, will present a great opportunity to build on the first steps we take in this legislation to protect against pandemic flu. I look forward to working with Senator Clinton and my other colleagues on the committee to deliver a comprehensive package to ensure we are prepared and can respond to all types of public health threats.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing the Influenza Vaccine Security Act with Senator Clinton today because I believe this legislation is critical to strengthening our public health preparedness here in the U.S. The experiences of the flu vaccine shortage last year made us all aware that our system needs improvement. This legislation takes a comprehensive approach to addressing the root causes of seasonal flu vaccine shortages by creating stability in the U.S. vaccine market. Our legislation requires the Department of Health and Human Services to set annual production targets for the flu vaccine, to stockpile up to 10 percent of the vaccine each year in the event of a shortage, and to create a vaccine buyback program to provide market guarantees for our vaccine manufacturers. This legislation also provides a much-needed framework for public health officials to track vaccines and provides increased education and outreach about getting an annual flu vaccine. I now want to turn to some of the provisions in this legislation that deal with an issue I believe deserves our utmost attention: pandemic influenza. I think we can agree that we all learned a good lesson from Hurricane Katrina: government at all levels must be prepared to deal with a large-scale public health emergency. Unfortunately, our government is not currently not prepared to deal with pandemic influenza. Our legislation seeks to address this by strengthening the underlying public health infrastructure to heighten our ability to respond to both seasonal and pandemic flu. As Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a member of both the Senate Agriculture Committee and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP), I take the threat of an influenza pandemic very seriously. I view it as not only a public health concern, but a national security concern. The timing for a large-scale worldwide influenza outbreak is ripe. Many experts believe the next flu pandemic will come in the form of avian flu. Unlike the seasonal flu, humans have no natural immunity to avian flu. A routine flu shot for more common influenza viruses won't protect against the deadly avian flu. The Department of Health and Human Services is working with vaccine manufacturers to develop a vaccine, but it is unclear when and how many doses will be ready. Other than a vaccine, the only defense against a new flu strain such as avian flu is an antiviral medication such as Tamiflu. Currently, the United States currently only has enough pills to treat less than one percent, or about 2.3 million people. This is why experts believe the effects of avian flu in the U.S. and around the world could be devastating. Some have predicted the loss of life could reach as high as 160-200 million. A pandemic might infect a third of the U.S. population and cost more than $100 billion alone in medical treatments. A pandemic of this sort could also have catastrophic economic or social effects. It is for these reasons I am pleased our legislation addresses some of the underlying public health infrastructure concerns that can help us effectively respond to pandemic flu. Our vaccine industry here in the U.S. is extremely fragile and our manufacturers need the necessary tools to effectively produce and deliver vaccines in the event of either seasonal or pandemic flu. First and foremost, our legislation ensures vaccine manufacturers and health care providers are not held liable in the event of a public health emergency involving pandemic influenza. Without this necessary liability protection, the ability to develop or deliver a vaccine during an outbreak could be significantly hampered. Our legislation also encourages improved technologies for influenza vaccine development by providing additional funding for NIH research into alternative methods of vaccine development, such as cell-based cultures and a permanent flu vaccine. Currently, flu vaccine production is a strenuous process and takes several months, leaving us extremely vulnerable in the event of a large-scale outbreak and a subsequent need for a mass production of vaccines. Our legislation encourages more companies to enter the U.S. market with domestic-based production facilities and to improve the ability of the current manufacturers to remain in the market. Manufacturers currently do not have the capacity to simultaneously produce enough flu vaccine for seasonal flu and an avian flu vaccine in the event of an outbreak. We must assist our manufacturers in increasing production capacity. Aside from vaccines, our legislation also requires the government to purchase and store additional antiviral medications, such as Tamiflu, to protect against an influenza epidemic. Finally, our legislation provides a framework to identify public health professionals that can provide services in the event of a public health emergency through the use of a medical personnel registry linked at the Federal, State and local levels. I am pleased to introduce the Influenza Vaccine Security Act with Senator Clinton today. We need to fix our seasonal flu vaccine production and distribution problems not only to prevent future shortages, but also to strengthen our public health infrastructure in case of pandemic. As Senator Clinton knows, the HELP Committee will soon be considering legislation to develop countermeasures to protect the U.S. from deliberate and natural public health threats. This legislation, known as Bioshield II, will present a great opportunity to build on the first steps we take in this legislation to protect against pandemic flu. I look forward to working with Senator Clinton and my other colleagues on the committee to deliver a comprehensive package to ensure we are prepared and can respond to all types of public health threats.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I pay tribute to my colleague and friend, Senator Brownback, for his eloquent speech on behalf of those who are disadvantaged and deserve protection from the law. He made an outstanding speech. I rise to express my support of Judge John Roberts in regard to his nomination as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I know what the committee has done, and I know what the majority of Senators will likely do, and that is to vote in favor of Judge Roberts. But I also believe that an openminded individual, applying Kansas common sense, would reach the same conclusion that I have come to hold. It is no small event for a Senator to have the opportunity to participate in the confirmation of a candidate for the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Over the course of our Nation's history, the Senate has come together 155 times to vote on a Supreme Court Justice. This occasion marks the 17th time to confirm a Chief Justice. So I am humbled and honored to be part of this moment of history. The consultation efforts on behalf of the administration with my fellow Senate colleagues in regard to this nomination have been extensive. That is probably an understatement. The President has made great efforts to open dialog and to invite input and to reach out to Members of the Senate. His nomination of Judge John Roberts is a solid choice and not one made in isolation. Kansans understand that the words inscribed on our Founding Fathers' documents are not as delicate and fragile as the paper on which they are written. They know that the power behind these ideas is what serves as the foundation of our Nation's democratic government. My sense from Judge Roberts is that he, too, rigorously believes in the power of the ideals set forth in the Constitution. As illustrated by his record as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, he adheres to the guidelines outlined in the Constitution. Simply put, he walks the talk. After watching Judge Roberts endure--I guess that is the best word for it--over 20 hours of questioning during the nomination hearings, I find myself not only more familiar with his many qualifications, his impressive experiences, but deeply impressed with his character. Judge Roberts' respectful demeanor and his personal humility in the face of periodic abrasive questioning from some are exactly the type of qualities that a Chief Justice should possess. During the question-and-answer portion of the nomination hearing, testimonies of his colleagues, former clients, and others who attested to his character, Judge Roberts has shown to be a man of high integrity, wisdom, and fairness. This assessment was echoed from those representing a broad range of ideologies. Judge Roberts does possess a brilliant legal mind and a thorough understanding of the law. He performs his duties with a vigor and a meticulous attention to detail that has been noted by all who have spoken about him. As a judge, he approaches a case to understand the legal facts involved and the laws that are affected, while avoiding the temptation to fulfill a specific judicial philosophy. His decisions are based on the merits of the law. His record has earned him the highest rating from the American Bar Association, the ABA. It is worth mentioning that the ABA has often been referred to by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and those on this side as well as the ``gold standard'' for evaluating judges. Most notably, in his opening statement before the Senate committee, Judge Roberts stated: Judges and Justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. And concerning the rule of law, he went on to say: It is what we mean when we say that we are a government of laws and not of men. It is that rule of law that protects the rights and the liberties of all Americans. It is the envy of the world. Because without the rule of law, any rights are really meaningless. Clearly, Judge Roberts understands that the role of a judge is not to rule based on his personal judgments but to adhere to the laws as they are written. The role of the third branch under our Constitution is paramount, as the Supreme Court is often referred to as the ``gatekeeper of democracy.'' The duty to ensure that legislation passed and executed is in line with the Constitution is an important check within our Government. The lifetime appointment provided for in the Constitution is an important protection for our Justices to guard against any pressure in regard to politics. The forward thinking by the authors of our Constitution actually provided for the preservation of our democracy by including these checks and balances between these three branches. Some have expressed concern about Judge Roberts' relatively young age to be nominated to such a powerful position. On the contrary, I believe that age will allow for a term of growth and stability for the Court. In my view, his age is of less importance when compared to his style of judging. In his response to my colleague, Senator Hatch, he explains that his style is that of a modest judge. He went on to explain that: It means an appreciation that the role of the judge is limited, that a judge is to decide the cases before them, they're not to legislate, they're not to execute the laws. However, at the same time, we have witnessed judges acting beyond the scope of their duties in making decisions that in a representative democracy are legislative in their jurisdiction. We have seen that all across the country. This what I consider to be abuse of power is a source of tremendous contention, not only with folks from the great State of Kansas but with Americans nationwide on too many issues. In too many cases, we have seen decisions that are contrary to the will of the people. Americans have questioned the rulings on cases ranging from the Boy Scouts of America to the most publicized recent attack on private property rights. In Kansas, land is gold. And if land is gold, farmland is platinum. We have a healthy respect for property rights in middle America. Based on his comments, I believe Judge Roberts holds a similar opinion. Finally, let us not forget that Judge Roberts is currently a judge. He has already experienced the confirmation process for his judgeship on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Let us also remember that the same accolades that led to Senate approval of his nomination by unanimous consent--no disagreement, every Senator--are certainly applicable as of today. I am hopeful that through the course of debate on this nomination and the next Supreme Court nomination--the next Supreme Court nomination-- we can avoid the destructive partisanship that approached the brink of absolutism and ideology, a different criteria in regard to how we select judges. We have a duty to respectfully reflect the great traditions of this Chamber and rise above partisan bickering. We must raise the level of civility in our political discourse more so than ever in regard to considering the nomination of judges. Our democracy is only as strong as our governmental institutions. Judge Roberts will provide a strong pillar of support in the third branch of our Government. That, and for the reasons I have just enumerated, is why I will vote in favor of Judge Roberts' nomination to be the 17th Chief Justice of the United States. I yield back the remainder of my time. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I have an amendment pending at the desk numbered 1742. I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ROBERTS. I have an amendment. I would like to offer it.

Mr. ROBERTS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, this amendment is very straightforward. It has been cleared by both the chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, and I have also received word that the Risk Management Agency is supportive of this change. Very simply, the amendment amends the section of the Federal Crop Insurance Act regarding the use of written agreements for commodities in counties where the crop has not yet been approved for crop insurance purposes. The problem is that 3 years of cropping history is needed in order to issue a written agreement for coverage. However, producers cannot get a history of planting because the banker won't lend the money if they can't get insurance coverage. Thus, it is an endless cycle. We have many counties where coverage exists for sunflowers, and we would like to use that data to expand coverage to canola. The Risk Management Agency has indicated that this would be an acceptable practice. However, the current law says that data must be used from the same commodity for which the policy is being issued. This amendment simply changes that language to allow data from agronomically similar crops to be used in providing written agreements. The amendment has been given a score of zero by the CBO, and I urge my colleagues to accept it. I yield the floor.