Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, our former Senate majority leader, Howard Baker, reportedly tells the story about his late father-in-law, Senator Everett Dirksen, who admonished him to occasionally allow himself the luxury of an unexpressed thought. After listening to the current debate on judicial nominations, there is a temptation to say, after all is said and done, pretty much all that can be said has been said. I rise today because I do have something to say. What I want to talk about is of very crucial importance not only with regard to the judicial nominations but, perhaps more important, how we are meeting our obligations in the Senate--or better put, how we are not meeting them. This weekend, an elderly gentleman spotted my Senator's car tag on my car in a parking lot. He wandered up to me and asked: Are you a Senator? And I responded: Yes, sir, I am. Well, he has some rather succinct advice for all of us who ask for and gain the public trust. He said: You know, you fellows up there ought to get busy and quit talking past one another. I think probably no matter the issue, most would agree he was right. I am concerned, and so are a lot of other people--people who care, people who have given much to this country and whose advice we should be taking. One of those people is Dr. David Abshire who is president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency and whose credentials for public service are well-known and admired. Dr. Abshire recently authored a treatise, ``The Grace and Power of Civility'' and the necessity for renewed commitment and tolerance. He quoted John Witherspoon and Samuel Cooper during the days of our Founding Fathers and highlighted what they called ``the consonance of faith and reason,'' if we are to cross the bridge of united purpose. We are not doing what our Founding Fathers did so well. As a matter of fact, we are in pretty sad shape with the shape we are in. Across the bridge? Well, today, the bridge is washed out. We can't swim. And the judges are simply on the other side. I am going to paraphrase from Dr. Abshire. Today, as our Nation and the world confront new and great perils, there are paralyzing forces of incivility and intolerance that threaten our country. Divisions in Congress also reflect the divisions in the country. The so-called wedge issues seem and appear endless. These challenges, if allowed to divide the Nation, might well deny the next generation the prosperity and civic culture that we have inherited. It was Benjamin Franklin who stated that Congress should be a mirror image of the American people. In the sense that there are divisions in the country, the sad fact is, as evidenced by this debate, we seemingly cannot transcend these divisions. We keep talking past one another, saying the same things, but basically being in disagreement. Dr. Abshire quoted the poet William Yeats, who said this, a dire prediction: Things fall apart; the center cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood--dimmed tide is loosed, and Everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all convictions, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. Surely some revelation is at hand. My colleagues, on this issue and so many others, we seem to be locked into an era of partisanship that echoes a mindset of absolutism that can close off dialogue and also mutual respect. In that vein, let me take up the matter of judicial nominations, obviously, the issue at hand that currently has us tied up in partisan knots. First, I understand the opposition on the part of my colleagues to many of the President's nominations. I understand some of my colleagues do not support certain nominees. Their opposition is well within their rights and their belief that they are reflecting the will of their constituents. I have a very simple solution. If you believe that your constituency does not approve of certain nominees, then simply vote against them. I have done that, but I have never denied any Member of this body the right to an up-or-down vote, knowing full well that 214-year tradition of the Senate ensures that a majority vote would confirm or deny a confirmation. Contrary to the great majority of statements made by some of my friends across the aisle, the practice of filibustering judicial nominations is not steeped in Senate history or precedent. This is a brandnew application, quite frankly, of an obstruction tool that the minority has suddenly seized, collapsed to their breast. We are seeing the reinterpretation of history and the claiming of precedent when there is none. Again, the minority is asking the American people to ignore the obvious tradition of a simple majority vote for judicial nominations that has been honored in the Senate for 214 years. Serving in public office for over 25 years in both the House and Senate, I am familiar with the broader points of our Constitution. What I gather from all the lather from my friends across the aisle is that President Bush should just stop nominating these ``out of the mainstream judges,'' for approval. In fact, the President should consult with the minority party to find a judicial nominee that is more appropriate and more mainstream or more in line with their thinking. By this logic, the minority party--not the elected majority, the minority party--would have the determining role in choosing who is acceptable and who is not. Yet article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors and other Public Ministers and Counsels, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for and which shall be established by law.'' Here's the rub: The power to choose nominations is not vested in the Senate's advice and consent role. The Senate's constitutional responsibility is to ratify or to reject. Let's talk about this new higher standard that was put into place only 2 years ago and advocated so eloquently today by my friends across the aisle. Since 2003, two short years ago, 60 votes have been the new minority criteria forced upon the Senate in order to confirm judicial nominations. The Framers of the Constitution identified seven circumstances in which a supermajority vote is warranted by one or both chambers of commerce. Here are some examples: Impeachment--we have done that; overriding a Presidential veto--haven't done that for a while; amending the Constitution--and there are quite a few bills in the hopper that would do that. However, Senate approval of judicial nominations is not among the seven instances identified by the Constitution. Here is the heart of the matter. We do not propose to change anything. We propose to return to the tradition that governed the Senate for 214 years and an up-or- down majority vote on pending nominations. Then there is the charge that somehow restoring Senate precedent is reactionary. I have heard a lot of people compare the Senate to the House. I served in both bodies. Intuitively then, blocking judicial nominations is, therefore, a hallowed and sacred tradition of the Senate Chamber. But history does not support that assumption. In fact, for over 200 years, judicial nominations required a simple majority vote. And again, a simple fact that I seldom read or hear within the national media, paragraph after paragraph after paragraph about the majority trying to change the rules, we are just trying to go back to the rules that were in evidence prior to the last 2 years. This new 2003 standard through the unprecedented use of the judicial filibuster is the result of the minority not making the case against the nominees as demanded by special issue interest group ideology. Why? They are not able to convince the majority of Senators that these nominees are radical and wrong. It has been pointed out that during this debate, for 58 percent of the last 50 Congresses--well over half, almost 60 percent--the same party did control the Senate, the House, and the White House. Now, in all that time, the minority, whether it was the Democrat or the Republican Party, never, ever resorted to this systematic filibustering of judicial nominations. So if the contention is that returning to a simple majority standard for judicial nominations would abridge minority rights, my question is, then why in the last 100 years has that bridge never been built until 2003? Our official Senate majority leader, Bob Dole, summed it up when he said: When I was the leader in the Senate, a judicial filibuster was not part of my procedural playbook. Asking a Senator to filibuster a judicial nomination was considered an abrogation of some 200 years of Senate tradition. And there is the related issue that has been talked about in the Senate. Unfortunately, the disease of obstruction infected other aspects of our work in the Senate last week. Obviously, the fever will not break until high noon tomorrow. Senate business and the committee hearings and the markup of legislation are in early morning slow- motion. In the afternoon, they come to a grinding halt. For those not familiar with the Senate business, for business to be conducted off and on the Senate floor, it takes only one Senator, or in this case the minority leadership, to call a halt to the Senate conducting business off of the floor. I am chairman of the Intelligence Committee. We get hotspot briefings every week, two or three times a week. We are marking up the PATRIOT Act. I asked why this practice was initiated so early; why last week, at a time when our Nation is fighting the global war on terror. I found that obstruction rather appalling. The answer was pretty simple: We wanted to send you a message. That message, as I interpreted it, was whoa, stop the Senate, let me get off until we get our way--something akin to a toddler throwing a temper tantrum in the middle of a grocery store with much of the same rhetoric and name calling. What is the real problem? Let's fully understand where the real controversy lies. Too many in the Senate and too many pundits have been masking the real issue, in this Senator's opinion. It is not about preserving great Senate traditions such as minority rights. It is not about lengthy debate and cooling passions of the day. That is an oxymoron in regard to the Judiciary Committee. It is not about doing away with the filibuster. By the way, it is not about Jimmy Stewart and ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.'' That was a classic movie, but it is the wrong plot unless we are talking about other Jimmy Stewart movies. The movies ``Vertigo'' and the ``Supreme Court'' come to mind. Or perhaps the minority is hoping they can have the Glenn Miller Band play ``Pennsylvania 65000'' within Pennsylvania 1600 in 2008. And it is not about unqualified or unacceptable judicial nominees. It is about a brandnew 2-year-old procedure that will deny--is denying--a majority of Senators their right and constitutional duty to vote on judicial nominees. In my view, we are riding into a box canyon here, where incivility and partisanship and absolutism and further division await. There is going to be a lot of milling around. We do not have to go there. Let us restore the 214-year-old precedent of an up-or-down majority vote and see if we cannot reach accord and ride to a higher--a higher--common ground. I yield back.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Thursday, April 21, 2005, at 10 a.m., in 628 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to consider the nomination of Robert J. Portman to be United States Trade Representative.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 21, 2005, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on ``Regulatory Reform on the Housing Government- Sponsored Enterprises.''

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 21, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing on ``HUD's Fiscal Year 2005 Budget.''

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 21, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on multilateral development banks. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 21, 2005 at 10 a.m. in SD-430 THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. committee on the judiciary

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 21, 2005, at 10 a.m., in open session to consider the following nominations: Mr. Kenneth J. Krieg to be Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics; and Lieutenant General Michael V. Hayden, USAF, for appointment to the grade of General and to be Deputy National Intelligence Director.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 21, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. on Amtrak Reauthorization.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on Personnel be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 21, 2005, at 1:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on the Present and Future Costs of Department of Defense Health Care, and National health Care Trends in the Civilian Sector.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``The Patent System Today and Tomorrow'' on Thursday, April 21, 2005 at 2:30 p.m., in Dirksen 226. Panel I: Jon W. Dudas, Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce, Arlington, VA.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 21, 2005 at 10:30 a.m. for a hearing entitled, ``Employing Federal Workforce Flexibilities: A Progress Report.''

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 21, 2005 at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 21st, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., for a hearing regarding ``An Assessment of the President's Management Agenda''.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, April 21, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen room 226. I. Nominations Terrence W. Boyle, II, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit; Priscilla R. Owen, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit; and Janice Rogers Brown, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit. II. Bills S. 378, Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports Act of 2005, Biden, Specter, Feinstein, Kyl, Cornyn; and S. 629, Railroad Carriers and Mass Transportation Act of 2005, Sessions, Kyl. III. Matters Asbestos, Senate Judiciary Committee Rules. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. joint committee on printing

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Committee on Printing be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 21, 2005 at 2 p.m. to conduct an organizational meeting. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. select committee on intelligence

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am delighted to yield 10 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee whose unflagging, untiring, persevering efforts, along with her coauthor, Senator Lieberman, led to passage of the Intelligence Reform Act that has returned us to this whole process where we have Ambassador Negroponte and General Hayden, an outstanding team, not only to reform but to lead the intelligence community. I thank the Senator for her leadership and her efforts. She persevered, and she was successful.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I regret that I am compelled to speak on this subject. The topic of the day is the confirmation of Ambassador John Negroponte to be the new National Director of Intelligence, but it appears as if that topic has now changed, and I have no alternative but to respond in that basically the purpose and the responsibilities of the Intelligence Committee have been challenged by the vice chairman. I understand that the vice chairman feels strongly about this issue. We have discussed this at length--not as much as I had hoped and that we had intended to--to seek common ground, but he feels so strongly that he offered an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill, which he has discussed. I feel equally as strong, so much so that I filed a second-degree amendment in response. My second-degree amendment is in stark contrast to the amendment offered by my colleague and my friend. My amendment actually expresses support for our Armed Forces and intelligence officers, rather than calling into question their actions, while they are on the front lines in the war on terror. The amendment underscored the Intelligence Committee's continuing aggressive oversight of all aspects of the war on terror, including terrorist detention and interrogation. The Rockefeller amendment is a sense of the Senate, as he indicated, calling for the Intelligence Committee to launch yet another formal investigation of the men and women who are prosecuting the war against the terrorists. The proposed Rockefeller investigation, as I read the parameters originally proposed and then refined, I think would be virtually boundless in its exploration of any matter even tangentially related to the use of rendition, detention, and interrogation of terrorists. I want my colleagues to know that these are the very tools that are being used by our brave men and women in the military and intelligence agencies to combat a continuing terrorist threat against every American and our interests. They are also critical in our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they are saving lives as I speak. I oppose the efforts of Senator Rockefeller to launch yet another wide-ranging investigation because I believe, despite what he believes--and reasonable men can certainly disagree--that it is currently unnecessary. I believe it would be impractical and damaging to the ongoing operations and morale of the people who are doing the job. We are not sitting on the sidelines. We are not being passive, we are not rebuffing, we are not defaulting, and we sure as heck are not going to let the media drive the agenda within the Intelligence Committee with regard to classified information and our national security. The Senate Intelligence Committee, in the conduct of its normal but aggressive oversight responsibilities, is examining the broad issues of the effectiveness of interrogation operations, the humane treatment of detainees, the role of intelligence in tribunals and combatant status review boards, and, yes, rendition operations. In conducting this oversight, just this past month committee staff-- both minority and majority--once again visited the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay for onsite inspections, briefings, and discussions. The committee is continuing its oversight through visits, interviews of relevant individuals and personnel, through requests of documents, reviews of prior investigations, and briefings from intelligence community element, using basically the same methodology we used during the WMD review and investigation. In other words, we are doing our job. I believe we are fulfilling our oversight responsibilities. And there are still ongoing investigations, including the Navy inspector general's investigation into FBI allegations of abuse at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and the comprehensive efforts of the CIA inspector general of which we are fully informed to the degree that we have never been informed before. Further, I believe the Rockefeller proposal is unnecessary because this issue has been thoroughly investigated over the past 3 years. We have investigated and investigated and investigated. In fact, we have investigated the investigations. Let me give you an idea of how many times our own people have been investigated: in January 2002, the Custer report; January 2003, the DOD general counsel and DOD working group, with relation to the interrogation of detainees held in the global war on terrorism; September 2003, the Miller report; November 2003, the Ryder report; May 2004, the Navy inspector general review; June 2004, the Taguba report in regard to the tragedy that happened in Abu Ghraib; June 2004, the Jacoby report; July 2004, the Mikolashek report; August 2004, the Jones and Fay investigation; mid-August 2004, the Schlesinger Commission; August 2004, the Formica report; December 2004, the Army Reserve Command inspector general's assessment of military intelligence and military police training; March 2005, last month, the Church report. This issue has been--and will continue to be--thoroughly investigated by inspectors general and criminal investigators from the DOD, all of the uniformed services, the CIA, and the Justice Department. It is hard to keep track, but I count at least 15 comprehensive national level investigations and well over 300 investigations of specific allegations of abuse. Between these investigations and our regular and aggressive oversight--I will emphasize, our regular, aggressive oversight--I am comfortable as chairman that the Intelligence Committee is meeting its responsibilities. I want my colleagues to also think about something else. Last year, just as we have talked about, we enacted the most comprehensive reorganization of the intelligence community since its creation over 50 years ago. We created the position of the Director of National Intelligence and gave him new authorities and enormous responsibilities, further encumbered by our very high expectations. We have all spoken to that during this confirmation process. If the Intelligence Committee embarks on an unnecessary and boundless what some would even call a fishing expedition that is surely to be tainted by politics, suggested by any leak that has appeared in the press, it will be the first thing that greets the new DNI when he takes office. As Ambassador Negroponte begins the difficult process of fixing what we and numerous commissions have said need fixing, he would be met with endless requests for documents, interviews, and hearings. So Ambassador Negroponte and General Hayden need to hit the ground running, and that would be exceedingly hard to do if they land right in the middle of an unnecessary congressional investigation. I believe that would be a very serious mistake and contrary to the intent of Congress. Finally, I oppose Senator Rockefeller's investigation because it will hinder ongoing intelligence collection, and I believe it would damage morale. My colleagues should know there is a consensus in the intelligence community that terrorist interrogations are the single best source of actionable intelligence against the ongoing plans and plots of our enemy. Terrorist interrogations today are saving lives in Iraq-- American lives, Iraqi lives, Afghan lives--and are subverting plots against our own homeland. The information gleaned from interrogating terrorists is doing exactly what I said in terms of the priority that we have and our responsibilities on the Intelligence Committee in reference to our national security. The majority of usable and actionable intelligence against al-Qaida comes from the terrorist interrogations and debriefings. We must preserve this irreplaceable source of information. Do it right, yes, but we must preserve it. There is no doubt that this is a delicate intelligence oversight issue. The oversight of detention and interrogation does command a large portion of the Intelligence Committee staff and time and effort. We must continue to treat interrogation as a delicate oversight issue or we risk losing it. I am concerned an unnecessary informal investigation would accomplish little beyond what we already do in the course of our normal and, yes, aggressive oversight efforts. As I have said on other occasions, it will likely cause risk aversion, the very thing we are trying to avoid. The constant and repetitive investigations of our frontline personnel will have a chilling effect, a no-confidence vote, really, on the collection of intelligence through interrogations. The Senate and the Intelligence Committee should be publicly supportive of our men and women of our Armed Forces and intelligence agencies because the overwhelming majority of these people are doing their best to protect us all. Where there have been allegations, they are reported and they are being investigated. And after they are investigated, they are turned over to the Justice Department, if warranted, and people are being charged. Frankly, I am fast losing patience with what appears to me to be almost a pathological obsession with calling into question the actions of the men and women who are on the front line in the war on terror. Some of these very courageous individuals wear uniforms and some do not. They leave their spouses and children at home, after assuring them that everything will be all right, with the understanding that it may not be all right, and sometimes it is not all right. They travel to the other side of the world in the service of their country with a reasonable expectation that their country supports them. At times they make mistakes, and sometimes they make serious mistakes for which they must account, and rightfully so, and we are doing that. But as we sit here in the relative safety and comfort of the Capitol complex, I cannot help but think that some of us have lost our perspective. We will and must do our duty as elected officials. As I have indicated, we will continue aggressive oversight on this issue, and we will reach out to our friends across the aisle to incorporate their concerns. But, Mr. President, I say to my friends, we are at war. Therefore, our first and foremost duty is to support our troops and intelligence officers at home and abroad. I, for one, will not advocate using the constitutional authorities vested in this great institution as a blunt instrument on the very people we depend on to keep us safe every day. I am on their side. And make no mistake, if we sanction another needless investigation, it will be a very public vote of no confidence in our men and women on the front lines in the war on terror. I, for one, have not lost confidence in our people. The Senator from West Virginia referred to the almost daily revelations regarding the alleged abuses. It is very clear to me what is happening. Facts already known to us and to investigators are now finding their way into the press through Freedom of Information Act requests and, quite frankly, leaks. In Washington, a leak is not a leak until somebody gets wet. I can tell you, on the Intelligence Committee, we are right about up to here, and the same thing is true in many other agencies. I do not think I am being conspiratorial when I suggest this is a deliberate effort to give the public the impression that this is an ongoing and growing problem. It is not. I do not believe it is. Mistakes have been made by our military and our intelligence agencies, and the Justice Department has responded properly with investigations of abuse and misconduct. We will oversee that. We are being told that, and we are being kept fully informed. I will always meet our oversight duties using facts not press reports. I urge my colleagues to consider this, as we have two options to take. Again, I offer the open door of suggestions just as we did with the WMD inquiry to incorporate concerns of the minority on the committee with responsibilities as I see them as chairman of the Intelligence Committee and do our due diligence. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ROBERTS. Will the vice chairman yield?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank you. Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I rise today in strong support of the nomination of Ambassador John D. Negroponte to serve as our Nation's first Director of National Intelligence. The committee held Ambassador Negroponte's confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 12, and voted favorably to report his nomination to the full Senate on Thursday, April 14. Now, the speed with which the committee acted upon this nomination and the nomination of LTG, soon to be four-star general, Michael Hayden, to be the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, really underscores the importance the committee, and I believe the Senate, places on continuing and ensuring reform of our Nation's intelligence community and, as a result, our national security. While our intelligence community has a great number of successes--let me emphasize that--of which intelligence professionals should be justifiably proud--and the problem here is that when we have successes in the intelligence community, many times either the community or those of us who serve on the committee or those who are familiar with those successes cannot say anything about them because it is classified--but the intelligence failures associated with the attacks of 9/11 and the intelligence community's flawed assessments of Iraq's WMD programs underscored the need for fundamental change across the intelligence community. In my years on the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have met many of these hard-working men and women of the intelligence community who work day in and day out with one goal in mind; that is, to keep this Nation secure and our people safe. They are held back, however, by a flawed system that does not permit them to work as a community to do their best work. So we need to honor their commitment and their sacrifices by giving them an intelligence community worthy of their efforts and capable of meeting their aspirations and our expectations of them. So responding to that demonstrated need for reform, Congress really created the position of Director of National Intelligence with the intent of giving one person the responsibility and authority to provide the leadership that the Nation's intelligence apparatus has desperately needed and to exercise command and control across all the elements of the intelligence community. In short, through legislation, we created the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence, to provide the intelligence community with a clear chain of command and the accountability that comes with that. To facilitate that chain of command, and to foster accountability, the National Security Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 gave the DNI significant management authorities and tools, including expanded budget authority, acquisition, personnel, and tasking authorities. These authorities, however, are limited in significant ways, and the legislation leaves certain ambiguities about the DNI's authorities. As a result, there are questions about the DNI's ability to bring about the kind of change and true reform necessary to address the failures highlighted by the 9/11 attacks and the assessments of Iraq's WMD programs. So the task of resolving these ambiguities and questions will fall to the first Director of National Intelligence. As the WMD Commission pointed out in its recent report, the DNI will have to be adept at managing more through resource allocation than through command. Moreover, the first DNI will define the power and scope of future Directors of National Intelligence and will determine, in large measure, the success of our efforts to truly reform the intelligence community. Bringing about that reform is not going to be easy. Numerous commissions--many commissions--have identified the same failings as those that resulted in the legislation that created the DNI. Yet previous reform efforts have proven largely fruitless. So immune to reform is the intelligence community that the WMD Commission described it as a ``closed world'' with ``an almost perfect record of resisting external recommendations.'' Allow me to relay one example to demonstrate this point. Over 3 years have passed since the September 11 attacks, and the elements of the community have not made the progress that we want in sharing intelligence data amongst the community. The distinguished vice chairman and I call that ``information access.'' Elements within the intelligence community, unfortunately, continue to act--some elements--as though they own the intelligence data they collect rather than treating that data as belonging to the U.S. Government. As a result of the community's failure to repudiate outdated restrictions on information access, and its refusal to revisit legal interpretations and policy decisions that predate the threats now confronting the United States, impediments to information access are reemerging--reemerging, even today--in the very programs designed to address the problem. Clearly, then, the Nation's first Director of National Intelligence will face tremendous challenges and will require unwavering support from both Congress and the White House. I am pleased President Bush has made it very clear that the DNI will have strong authority in his administration. We in Congress must do our part, and we begin with the nomination of Ambassador Negroponte. The President has made an excellent choice in choosing the Ambassador to serve as the first DNI. He has dedicated more than 40 years of service to our country. Over the course of his public service career, the Senate has confirmed him seven times, including five times for ambassadorial positions in Honduras, Mexico, the Philippines, the United Nations and, of course, most recently in Iraq. Ambassador Negroponte has also held a number of key positions within the executive branch, including serving as Deputy National Security Advisor. In short, his career has been dedicated to intelligence and national security matters, and he has a great deal of experience to offer as the new Director of National Intelligence. He is well suited for this position. I look forward to working with him. In my discussions with Ambassador Negroponte, I have made it clear that Congress and the American people expect him to make a difference in the intelligence community. I must say, on behalf of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and on behalf of my vice chairman and myself, we have promised to conduct aggressive, preemptive oversight in regard to helping the DNI answer the challenges he will face with regard to the capabilities we have or do not have with regard to the intelligence community. We expect him to break down those barriers to information access I alluded to earlier. We expect him to improve the human intelligence capabilities we need. And ultimately, we expect him to provide leadership and accountability. In response to these questions, during his confirmation hearing, the Ambassador simply responded ``I will'' with conviction. Clearly Ambassador Negroponte will face significant challenges. He is going to carry heavy burdens. I am convinced, however, he has the character, the expertise, and the leadership skills required to successfully meet these challenges and to shoulder these responsibilities. I urge my colleagues to support this nomination, and I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am more than happy to yield 10 minutes to a valued member of the committee, the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I could ask for unanimous consent to lock in the order, but I think I can just make a suggestion with the few Senators we have here. I am sure more will come. Senator Bond has a time conflict and would like to be recognized for 10 minutes. Senator Feinstein has been waiting, as has Senator Wyden. And then Senator Collins will come to the floor very quickly, one of the coauthors of the Intelligence Reform Act. If we can have an understanding that that would be the order, I think that would be appropriate. Also, I ask unanimous consent that the time consumed by any quorum calls be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield back all time on the pending nomination, other than the 5 minutes that will be reserved for Senator Stevens; provided further that the vote on the confirmation of the nomination occur at 3:45 today. I further ask that at 3:30 today the Senate resume consideration of the emergency supplemental bill for the final 15 minutes of debate and that the votes scheduled on the two amendments and final passage occur immediately following the vote on the Negroponte nomination. I ask that all votes in the sequence after the first be limited to 10 minutes in length and that there be 2 minutes for debate equally divided between the votes. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following this consent, the Senate proceed to a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for a very comprehensive statement. I thank him for what I think is a very accurate statement, more especially with the history he has outlined of the intelligence community; more especially with the contributions of the men and women within the intelligence community who have successes that obviously you cannot talk about, but the obvious need for reform because of what we have gone through; especially for the Senator's comment in relationship to the new DNI in relation to the Department of Defense. That was right on target. There has been a great deal of comment, as the vice chairman knows, that 80 percent of the funding of the intelligence budget goes to the military, and in terms of being the majority user of intelligence nobody would quarrel with that. I don't know of any Member of Congress who would say otherwise. I think we have made great progress between the intelligence and the military and the real-time analysis or real- time intelligence to the warfighter, even though our challenges in parts of the world are very great. But I point out--and I think the vice chairman agrees--that the principal user of intelligence--not majority but principal user of intelligence--is not the military, as important as they are; it is the President of the United States and the National Security Council and the Congress of the United States to determine policy. I thank the Senator for bringing that out and I thank him for a very fine statement and also for being a fine vice chairman. We aggressively tried to provide insight and advice to the new DNI.

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

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, a unanimous consent has been agreed to by both sides for the Senate to immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on today's Executive Calendar: PN 421, LTG Michael V. Hayden, to be General, reported by the Armed Services Committee today; and No. 70, which is the confirmation of General Hayden to be the Deputy Director of National Intelligence. I further ask unanimous consent the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.