Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

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. ROBERTS. Mr. President, pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I am submitting for publication in the Congressional Record changes to the Rules of Procedure for the Select Committee on Intelligence. I ask unanimous consent that the rules of the committee be printed, in the Record to reflect the amendments adopted by the committee.

Mr. ROBERTS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to share with the Senate a story that I truly hope is the exception to the rule. It begins last year, when a member of one of Kansas's local fire departments was called to active duty in Iraq. Certainly, that is no unique happening where today in every State people are called to service, whether they be in the service or National Guard. This gentleman, Mr. Steven Welter, and his wife have worked hard to make a good life for themselves and their three children. They live in the small community of Osawatomie, KS--it is a very fine community--where they are surrounded by friends and family. They recently purchased their first home. Well, knowing that with Mr. Welter called to active duty they might face some real challenges meeting their mortgage payment, they contacted their mortgage provider to make them aware of their situation and to seek relief under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. Now, Congress has long recognized the burden that military duty places on soldiers' lives when they are called to active duty. During the Civil War, Congress placed a moratorium on civil actions that were brought against servicemembers. Today, through the Service-members Civil Relief Act, Congress provides important rights and legal protections to lessen the burden on military servicemembers. A key component of that act, initially passed by Congress 40 years ago as the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act, is to provide the protection for servicemembers whose military service makes it difficult for them to meet financial obligations incurred prior to being called up for active duty. That seems pretty simple. It does not forgive debt. It does not relieve a servicemember of their obligation to meet their financial responsibilities. Among other protections, the act shields a servicemember or their family from eviction or from losing their home. The Welters sought relief under the act, requesting that their mortgage company work with them to help them meet their financial obligation. However, the mortgage company responded by sending notice to Mrs. Keira Welter that the company had initiated court proceedings to foreclose on her home. You can imagine this lady's distress. Not only is she worried about the safety of her husband in Iraq, she is now faced with losing her home, with three children, the very scenario the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act is designed to prevent. Not knowing who to turn to--and she thought pretty hard about it and didn't know who to call--she contacted my office and requested our assistance. After numerous conversations with her mortgage lender, Wells Fargo, I believe we have resolved her situation. I remain concerned, however, that those responsible for complying with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act are not fully educated about their obligations, and that that problem is nationwide. What is particularly appalling about this situation is that the mortgage company initially claimed they were unaware of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, a law that has been on the books for 40 years. They further claimed that ``they just can't be expected to keep up with everything that goes on in Washington.'' I can appreciate that last sentiment on a lot of different fronts. But ignorance is no excuse. Every financial institution has a compliance officer whose job it is is to ensure that financial institutions comply with laws and the regulations. Lord knows, I often hear from our financial institutions, banks, savings and loans, and others, about the regulatory burden our Government does place on them. Not only do they have to read all of the paperwork and the burdens and regulations; I think they have to weigh them. I appreciate those concerns, especially in the small banking community. I once spent an entire day in my hometown bank in Dodge City learning the ins and outs of what a compliance officer does. She described her job as being a ``bad news bear.'' She had to go to loan officers and say, whoops, here is another regulation you have to put up with. I know that is not an easy task. However, today's example of egregious disregard for a 40-year-old law, and one we amended 2 years ago to provide additional protection to our military men and women, is simply unacceptable. Let me be clear. I know our Nation's financial institutions do support our men and women in uniform. That is a given. I am also confident that they understand their obligation and responsibility to comply with this act, and that most do so. In Kansas, I know many financial service providers, and they all know that the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act is not only the law, but it is the morally right thing to do. They live in the same town. They attend the same church. They share the military family's concerns when somebody from their hometown is called to active duty, and they are so rightfully proud when they come home. I also want to be clear it is not only financial institutions that are responsible for complying with this act. Landlords and other creditors also have certain obligations in this regard as well. I recognize that with many service members called to active duty, raising awareness of the requirements of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act is necessary. We need a lot more education. Congress should encourage anybody who is working with a service-member called to active duty, or that servicemember's family, to make sure they are aware of their obligation under this act. Let me also take this opportunity to commend the efforts of many organizations who are working with the military families on base, veterans organizations, support organizations, and others, to ensure they receive the protections that are provided for under this act, and to provide other assistance to families of our servicemembers. That is a real win-win story all across this Nation. I recently learned from a member of the VFW, who works with military families, who stressed that ``education about the protections that are provided under the act is key.'' Too many military families have experienced instances where a landlord, unaware of this act, sought to evict the family while the soldier was on active duty. That is egregious. I am calling on the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the OCC. I hope they can see their way clear as to what they should be doing in this regard, and others who have responsibility for enforcing this act--by the way, the acronym is SCRA--to strengthen their enforcement in education of this important law. Any military family who has a mortgage with a national bank and who needs relief under this act can contact the OCC's consumer assistance group if they have difficulty with their bank. That number is 1-800-613-6743. Right off the bat, I can suggest that they need an easier number to remember. I feel as though I am on television trying to sell something here--and I am. It is education for our service members. Again, the number is 1-800-613- 6743. I am also going to visit with my colleagues on the Veterans Committee, the Banking Committee, Armed Services Committee, upon which I serve, and all who have jurisdiction under this act, and ask them to review what Congress can do to ensure that this situation doesn't happen to other military families. So today I share this story to reassure our military men and women in uniform that we will make certain the protections provided in the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act are enforced. This act is intended to ensure that when a wage earner is called to active duty, their family has financial security and other protections provided for in the act while they are deployed. It means a soldier fighting in Iraq can better focus on his or her mission, without the added stress of wondering if their family is financially secure at home. We owe nothing less to our men and women in uniform who answer the call to duty. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for yielding. I rise today in opposition to the joint resolution that has been brought forward by the distinguished Senator from North Dakota. This is a great ``while I'' speech. While I share the Senator's concern, while I share his sense of frustration, while I share his sense of making sure that our beef is safe from BSE, I cannot support the resolution. I am from Dodge City, KS. This is a town that began during the cattle drives of the Wild West days and which still bases much of its economy on the beef industry. You cannot have anybody more interested, more vitally concerned about the beef industry than this Member. In fact, the number of cattle in Ford County, where Dodge City is located, far outnumbers the citizens of the county. I used to say they were in a lot happier mood. Not only is the beef industry king in Ford County, Dodge City, southwest Kansas, and the State of Kansas, it is a huge industry representing over $5 billion in annual revenues. We are a State with 6.65 million head of cattle compared to a human population of 2.6 million. Cattle represented 62 percent of the 2003 Kansas agriculture cash receipts, and the processing industry alone employs over 18,700 Kansans. We rank in the top three of virtually every major beef statistic. There are few issues as important to the people of Kansas as the issue of how we handle actions that are related to BSE. Prior to the discovery of BSE in the United States in December 2003, Kansas was one of the top exporters of beef to the Japanese market. Since that fateful day in December of 2003, Kansas and U.S. beef producers have been locked out of the Japanese market. We should not still be locked out of that market by taking action like we may do as of today on this vote. The international science--I mean international science in every country concerned--says our cattle under 30 months of age are safe and not at risk for BSE. Yet we have agreed to not send meat from any animals under 20 months of age to Japan. Still that market remains closed to the United States. The market is not closed because of scientific concerns. It remains closed because of internal Japanese politics, and that is a fact. But we are moving forward, and I am hopeful that by continued pressure from the administration--from the President, the Secretary of State, everybody who has been in contact with the Japanese Government, and this Congress, many Members of Congress--we can somehow reopen that market, we can expedite that process. But today, be careful what you ask for. We will take a giant step backward in our efforts to reopen markets to Japan--or, for that matter, anywhere--if we vote to approve this resolution. The same international science and guidelines that say that U.S. beef and animals under 30 months of age are safe also say that the beef and animals in Canada under 30 months are safe as well. That is the international standard. That is the sound science standard. If we vote today to approve this resolution, the United States will be taking the same actions as the Japanese. I am not going to say it is based on politics. I know all of the concerns of my colleagues who are up on the northern border and the long history of those disputes. But we are going to be basing our decision on those concerns instead of sound science. I fear it will have both short-term and long-term ramifications. In the near term, it will undoubtedly set us back in our efforts to reopen the Japanese export market. How can we argue that they are not basing their decisions on sound science if we cast a vote that is not based on the same sound science? We have staffers today meeting, Agriculture Committee staffers, under the direction of the distinguished chairman, with ambassadors from Japan. If we vote on this today, why meet? What kind of progress could we possibly make? Long term, how can our negotiators in this Congress argue in the international arena that all agricultural issues--not just this issue--including biotech crops, beef hormones, food safety, and any number of other issues should be based on sound science if we ourselves vote on the concerns of individuals? I have heard some Members talk about they are going to vote for this because they worry about the lumber that is coming in from Canada. Are we about to open a trade war? I am concerned about that. But this is not the way to approach it. I understand the concerns of many of our producers and of my colleagues who support this resolution. Senator Conrad--I affectionately call him the agriculture program policy chart man because he has, at last count, 4,153 charts he has brought to the floor since I have had the privilege of serving here--is really a champion explaining rudimentary agriculture program policy, not only to colleagues but to all who watch these proceedings. So I understand his concern. I did oppose the entry of beef from animals over 30 months of age because it did not make any sense to allow that beef in the United States if we would not allow any cattle over 30 months due to safety concerns. That is a given. The international science and guidelines are clear on this issue. Animals under 30 months and meat from those animals is safe. If we vote for this resolution today, we will turn our back on the longstanding U.S. position in all international trade negotiations. We are going to hurt our efforts to reopen the Japanese market. We will be setting a very dangerous precedent for future trade policy battles, and Lord knows we are going to have those with the WTO ruling brought by Brazil. We have too much at risk to base this decision, no matter how difficult it may be, no matter how strong our feelings may be, on the politics and the passion of the moment. The long-term future of the U.S. beef industry may very well turn on this action we take today. I fear that this vote in favor of this resolution will send a negative message that will come back to haunt us on this issue and many other agriculture trade matters for years to come. I do not think we can allow that to happen. So I respectfully disagree with the Senator from North Dakota and I urge the defeat of this resolution. I yield back whatever time I have remaining.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am pleased and honored today to introduce the ``Caring for Children Act''--a bill designed to help meet the child care challenges facing families, child care providers and small businesses around the Nation. Child care, in the home when possible and outside the home when both parents work, goes right to the heart of keeping families strong. Unfortunately, finding quality, affordable child care is one of the most pressing problems for families in Kansas and around the country. It is estimated that quality child care can cost as much or more than college tuition in some areas. The ``Caring for Children Act'' takes the first steps in addressing this challenge through a responsible approach. This legislation expands child care opportunities without unnecessary government intervention or mandates. This legislation will help working families who want quality child care for their children, child care providers who aim to provide the highest quality of care, and small businesses who currently may not have the resources to provide child care for their employees. The ``Caring for Children Act'' recognizes that small businesses play a critical role in providing child care options to millions of working parents. Unfortunately, small businesses generally do not have the resources required to start up and support a child care center. This legislation includes a short-term, flexible grant program to encourage small businesses to work together or with established local child care organizations to provide child care services for employees. This program is more of a demonstration project that will sunset at the end of five years. In the meantime, small businesses will be eligible for grants up to $250,000 for start-up costs, training, scholarships, or other related activities. Businesses, however, will be required to match Federal funds to encourage self-sustaining facilities well into the future. Business must continue to meet State quality and health standards. In essence, this grant program takes the necessary steps to ensuring small businesses and other local organizations are able to work together to provide child care for employees. The ``Caring for Children Act'' also addresses another key component of quality child care: child care training. My bill creates a new grant program to allow organizations to develop and operate distance learning child care training infrastructures and to develop model technology- based training courses for child care providers. These infrastructures and courses will enable child care providers to receive the training, education and support they need to improve the quality of child care. The ``Caring for Children Act'' encourages grantees to work with secondary schools, institutions of higher education, state and local governments, and child care organizations to promote networking, information sharing, and resource sharing. These grants will be targeted to those areas with the fewest training opportunities for child care providers. Child care is an issue that impacts each and every one of us. While parents continue to struggle to meet the constant demand of work and family, we must continue to do our part to expand child care options and protect our nation's most valuable resource, our children. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in this important effort. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am pleased and honored today to introduce the ``Caring for Children Act''--a bill designed to help meet the child care challenges facing families, child care providers and small businesses around the Nation. Child care, in the home when possible and outside the home when both parents work, goes right to the heart of keeping families strong. Unfortunately, finding quality, affordable child care is one of the most pressing problems for families in Kansas and around the country. It is estimated that quality child care can cost as much or more than college tuition in some areas. The ``Caring for Children Act'' takes the first steps in addressing this challenge through a responsible approach. This legislation expands child care opportunities without unnecessary government intervention or mandates. This legislation will help working families who want quality child care for their children, child care providers who aim to provide the highest quality of care, and small businesses who currently may not have the resources to provide child care for their employees. The ``Caring for Children Act'' recognizes that small businesses play a critical role in providing child care options to millions of working parents. Unfortunately, small businesses generally do not have the resources required to start up and support a child care center. This legislation includes a short-term, flexible grant program to encourage small businesses to work together or with established local child care organizations to provide child care services for employees. This program is more of a demonstration project that will sunset at the end of five years. In the meantime, small businesses will be eligible for grants up to $250,000 for start-up costs, training, scholarships, or other related activities. Businesses, however, will be required to match Federal funds to encourage self-sustaining facilities well into the future. Business must continue to meet State quality and health standards. In essence, this grant program takes the necessary steps to ensuring small businesses and other local organizations are able to work together to provide child care for employees. The ``Caring for Children Act'' also addresses another key component of quality child care: child care training. My bill creates a new grant program to allow organizations to develop and operate distance learning child care training infrastructures and to develop model technology- based training courses for child care providers. These infrastructures and courses will enable child care providers to receive the training, education and support they need to improve the quality of child care. The ``Caring for Children Act'' encourages grantees to work with secondary schools, institutions of higher education, state and local governments, and child care organizations to promote networking, information sharing, and resource sharing. These grants will be targeted to those areas with the fewest training opportunities for child care providers. Child care is an issue that impacts each and every one of us. While parents continue to struggle to meet the constant demand of work and family, we must continue to do our part to expand child care options and protect our nation's most valuable resource, our children. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in this important effort. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, paragraph 2 of Senate rule XXVI requires that not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress, the rules of each Committee shall be published in the Record. In compliance with this provision, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules of the Select Committee on Intelligence be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am pleased to once again introduce, along with my distinguished colleague Senator Brownback, a bill designating the Bleeding Kansas and the Enduring Struggle for Freedom National Heritage Area. This project, which we hope will receive the congressional recognition it deserves, has joined communities throughout eastern Kansas in an effort to document, preserve, and celebrate Kansas' significant role in the political struggle that led to the Civil War and in other historic struggles for equality that took place in our State. National Heritage Areas are places where natural, cultural, historic, and recreational resources combine to form complete and distinct landscape. The State of Kansas, which has a proud heritage and compelling story, will benefit from this national designation that helps preserve and celebrate America's defining landscapes. By enhancing and developing historic sites throughout eastern Kansas, we will ensure that the traditions that evolved there are preserved. During the Civil War, William Quantrill, the head of an infamous gang of Confederate sympathizers, led a raid on Lawrence, KS. Though far from the main campaigns, this massacre caused Bleeding Kansas to become a prominent symbol in the fight for the freedom of all people, and the territory would become a battleground over the question of slavery. After these attacks, the abolitionist Senator Charles Sumner delivered his famous speech called ``The Crime Against Kansas,'' in which he brought the escalating situation into sharper focus for the nation. Almost 100 years later, Kansas became the battleground once again, as Oliver L. Brown fought to prove that separate among the people of this great Nation is not equal. In fact, we will soon celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Brown v. Topeka Board of Education Supreme Court decision, which was a landmark victory in the civil rights movement. These are only two of the historic chapters that will make up this heritage area, marking an important era in our Nation. I commend the Lawrence City Commission, the Douglas County Commission, and the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, who have worked diligently on this project for over 2 years. We have a great opportunity to pass this important piece of legislation during the 109th Congress, and I encourage the Senate's swift consideration.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am pleased to once again introduce, along with my distinguished colleague Senator Brownback, a bill designating the Bleeding Kansas and the Enduring Struggle for Freedom National Heritage Area. This project, which we hope will receive the congressional recognition it deserves, has joined communities throughout eastern Kansas in an effort to document, preserve, and celebrate Kansas' significant role in the political struggle that led to the Civil War and in other historic struggles for equality that took place in our State. National Heritage Areas are places where natural, cultural, historic, and recreational resources combine to form complete and distinct landscape. The State of Kansas, which has a proud heritage and compelling story, will benefit from this national designation that helps preserve and celebrate America's defining landscapes. By enhancing and developing historic sites throughout eastern Kansas, we will ensure that the traditions that evolved there are preserved. During the Civil War, William Quantrill, the head of an infamous gang of Confederate sympathizers, led a raid on Lawrence, KS. Though far from the main campaigns, this massacre caused Bleeding Kansas to become a prominent symbol in the fight for the freedom of all people, and the territory would become a battleground over the question of slavery. After these attacks, the abolitionist Senator Charles Sumner delivered his famous speech called ``The Crime Against Kansas,'' in which he brought the escalating situation into sharper focus for the nation. Almost 100 years later, Kansas became the battleground once again, as Oliver L. Brown fought to prove that separate among the people of this great Nation is not equal. In fact, we will soon celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Brown v. Topeka Board of Education Supreme Court decision, which was a landmark victory in the civil rights movement. These are only two of the historic chapters that will make up this heritage area, marking an important era in our Nation. I commend the Lawrence City Commission, the Douglas County Commission, and the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, who have worked diligently on this project for over 2 years. We have a great opportunity to pass this important piece of legislation during the 109th Congress, and I encourage the Senate's swift consideration.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and, I might add, the new chairman of the committee, for yielding this time to me. I look forward to working with him. On behalf of the man whose job it is to feed America in a troubled and hungry world, we could not have made a better choice--I am using the editorial ``we''--for a man to lead the Senate Agriculture Committee. He brings to the job extensive experience and commitment to represent not only the producers of Georgia but those all throughout the Nation. So I thank the Chairman. I look forward to working with him. I rise today to speak on the nomination of Governor Michael Johanns of Nebraska to serve as the next Secretary of Agriculture. But first I would like to thank our outgoing Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary Ann Veneman. Ann has been a longtime and dear personal friend of mine. While she now has accepted a new challenge as head of UNICEF; that is, the United Nations Children's Fund, I want to personally thank her for the 4 years of service she has given to this Nation. Her steadfastness on behalf of agriculture was inspiring to us all. So to Ann Veneman: A job well done. Her legacy will be her commitment to trade and food and agricultural security, which is in the best interest of all Americans. On her watch she dealt with some of the most difficult issues any Secretary could ever face: first, a threat of foot and mouth disease almost as soon as she took office, later followed by BSE issues and the introduction of something called Asian soybean rust, which is a very severe problem. She handled all of these problems well. And she also established a plant and animal disease monitoring system. Again, that will be her legacy. I also wish Governor Johanns all the best as he becomes our new Secretary of Agriculture. It will not be an easy job, and he knows that. Secretary Johanns will be forced to confront many of the same issues Secretary Veneman faced. He will face food safety and security surprises that will make it all the more important to continue to protect the safety and security of our food supply and the agricultural sector. He will also face challenges with regard to budget pressures, the farm bill reauthorization, and also continued competition--I want to emphasize this--if not an outright ambush to U.S. farm programs through the World Trade Organization. That is going to be a very big challenge to all of us. Mike Johanns is up to and qualified for this task. I had the pleasure to visit at length with the Governor prior to his confirmation hearing. I attended the entire hearing. Actually, I had the gavel when we moved the nomination. Knowing the Governor from a neighboring State, I can tell you he has a passion for this job. He has committed to do well on behalf of our farmers, ranchers, food safety, and our nutrition programs. The Department of Agriculture is an immense agency, and he is well qualified for this task. He was raised on a farm. He understands agriculture. Most important, he is someone who will be a bully pulpit champion, if you will, for production agriculture. He is the type who will certainly be willing to sit on the wagon tongue with the farmers and ranchers, asking for their advice and their suggestions. I have heard many stories from the Kansas producers on the northern borders of Kansas who have told me of crossing the border to Nebraska, not for a football game but simply on business, walking into the local coffee shop, and there they would run into Governor Johanns and he would be carrying on the coffee shop conversations with his farmers. This is the kind of man we want in this position. President Bush has picked an outstanding candidate in nominating Mike Johanns, the former Governor of Nebraska. I look forward to working with him. I urge my colleagues to support the swift approval of his nomination. I again thank the distinguished chairman and yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I have allotted to me 10 minutes. I had originally understood it was 15. I ask the distinguished chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee if she could yield me 5 minutes out of her time, which I know is precious, thus making it 15?

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I thank the chairman. Mr. President, one day after the 62nd anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, and 3 years and 82 days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on our country, we will now pass the National Security Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. I rise in strong support of this conference report which is a remarkable first step in our goal to strengthen and improve our Nation's intelligence capabilities. My colleagues, we should start--and others have said this, and it is certainly true--by recognizing Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman and their staff for their efforts to get a bill which will have a positive impact on our intelligence community. They have put in a tremendous amount of hard slugging, sometimes very contentious and very difficult work, and overtime, since they began this effort back as of the 1st of August. I thank them. Together, we will have made a positive difference in behalf of our national security. I would also like to thank President Bush for his instrumental efforts in getting this conference report moving. Without his leadership, this reform would still be in the midst of a turf and issue gridlock. The President knows that national security demands intelligence reform and that the status quo is not an option. So I thank the President for weighing in. All one had to do is listen to the debate on this bill in the other body yesterday to understand that this bill by necessity is a compromise. When you compromise you do not get everything you want. In my case--and in the view of many who serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee--it does not do everything that I believe is necessary to clearly streamline the structure of our intelligence community. It is no secret that I believe we should have gone farther. It is perplexing to me and a paradox of enormous irony that after the 9/11 investigation by both the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, after our Senate committee's WMD report, after the findings of the 9/11 Commission, after the report of the President's WMD commission, and after all of the hearings we have held within the appropriate committees and the Senate Intelligence Committee--we have held over 200 hearings this session, 60 percent more than the previous session of Congress--after all of this, and the knowledge of the attacks on the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, and the embassy bombings, 9/11, terror attacks all over the world that we know are connected, that still some believe we do not need comprehensive reform or have or will vote against this legislation because they believe it is a rush to judgment or that the legislation did not include what they deem their top national security priority. In this regard, some have argued that this bill will interrupt the military chain of command or prevent the men and women of the armed services from receiving crucial intelligence information. Certainly these arguments should not be ignored. But in the end, this legislation does very little to modify the chains of command within the intelligence community. The tactical intelligence elements of the U.S. Government remain clearly and explicitly under the command of the Secretary of Defense. The leadership construct for national intelligence assets remains largely unchanged. The Director of National Intelligence remains primarily a budget and policy leader for national intelligence assets. Undoubtedly, the Director's budget and policy authorities are strengthened. But day-to-day operational control of our national intelligence collection agencies remains dispersed. The Central Intelligence Agency will now be led by an independent Director. The Secretary of Defense retains the operational control of the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and the National Reconnaissance Office. Note the word of all three agencies, ``national.'' These are not only combat support agencies, but national policy assets. I cannot see how the existing chains of command have been seriously changed. The history of the intelligence community does not support the opponents' second argument--that the Armed Forces will somehow be deprived of intelligence by a stronger Director of National Intelligence. The former DCI has always set requirements and priorities for collection by national assets. Moreover, neither the President nor Congress--certainly not this Member of Congress, a former marine--would ever permit the crucial intelligence needs of our military to be ignored by the Director of National Intelligence. Certainly, the requirements of our men and women in the military must be met. That has been said over and over again, especially in the House. But we must also recognize that the principal user of national intelligence that is produced by our national intelligence agencies are our national policymakers, primarily the President of the United States, the National Security Council, and the Congress of the United States. The DNI must have authority to ensure that the intelligence requirements of the President and other national policymakers are met. Thus, while the Department of Defense is by volume--everybody understands that, by volume--the largest user of national intelligence, we must not forget that our national collection assets at the CIA and at the NSA, the NRO and the NGA--what the critics call combat support agencies--serve our policymaking needs as well. However, while this is not the best bill possible, it is the best possible bill. It is also a big step in the right direction. As has been said it will create a Director of National Intelligence, or a DNI, who is separate from the Director of the CIA. It will give this Director, the DNI, marginally improved budget authorities over our intelligence community agencies. It will provide authority to conduct quality control checks of the analytic products of our intelligence community. It will also create a National counterterrorism Center which will, I hope, eventually serve as the Nation's true clearinghouse for terrorist- related intelligence. These are, in my view, very positive steps forward in our intelligence community. I would also like my colleagues to take note of several other important and long overdue provisions in this bill. For example, this bill will consolidate what is now a needlessly complicated and expensive background investigation and security clearance process under one agency. Today, it takes too long to get good people in very crucial positions. Noting the debate in the other body, it is important to stress this bill will also bring important improvements to our Nation's border security. I am not, however, under any illusions. This bill is not perfect. No bill is. Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman were forced to put the Senate bill through the filter of the demands of the House and still manage to get a bill that is a step in the right direction--a big step. In conjunction with the administration, we in the Congress--more especially those of us who had the privilege of serving on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees--will need to nurture this new intelligence structure over the years and clarify as necessary the various authorities in order to make it effective. For those who are uneasy with the unprecedented speed with which this bill was brought to this point, I would like to offer the reassurance that what we will pass today is certainly not the final chapter on the reform of our intelligence. After this bill becomes law, we will monitor its implementation and make any needed adjustments in subsequent years. If one looks at history, the process of amending and improving the National Security Act of 1947 began almost immediately following its passage. I expect that this bill will be no different. This bill is only the beginning of the intelligence reform process. Since July, several other Senators and I have made it clear that while we believe this bill has many good provisions, what it fails to do is create a leader of the intelligence community who is clearly in charge and as a result is fully accountable. That does not make this a bad bill. It just means that Congress must continue to monitor and guide the intelligence reform process. We must continue the logical reform of our intelligence community. If we are not diligent, our newly created Director of National Intelligence could end up a director in name only. Our national security certainly demands better. I am determined to work with my colleagues in this Congress and the administration to continue the process that has been started by this reform effort. This process will be difficult, but it is essential and we must persevere. President Eisenhower, a five-star general, a national hero, was unable to achieve the reforms he sought to unify the Department of Defense in the 1950s. Instead, President Eisenhower's reforms would have to wait another 30 years for the Goldwater-Nichols Act which made the U.S. military the very remarkable and unified force it is today. The forces of the status quo beat back President Truman's efforts in 1947 to put military operations under the control of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the unified commands that had shown their utility during World War II. Instead, in 1947, President Truman was forced to accept a National Security Act that codified a system in which the military services were loosely joined under a very weak Joint Chiefs of Staff organization that had no significant authority independent of the military services. The compromise President Truman was forced to accept mirrors in many ways the compromise bill we are voting for today. But there is reason for optimism. That shell of a Joint Chiefs of Staff which was codified in 1947 did provide the foundation upon which the Goldwater-Nichols Act would build the remarkable unified command and control structure we have today. In addition to serving as that important foundation, the Joint Chiefs of Staff also became a voice. That voice was independent of the military services turf interests in the debate over how to continue the process of the reform of our defense. That was the first step in the struggle that resulted in the Goldwater-Nichols Act and a major overhaul of the military command structure. This bill does not give the Director of National Intelligence all of the authorities I would like to provide. It is my sincere hope, however, that it will at least create the same kind of voice, independent of the institutional interests that currently divide our intelligence community, a voice that can lead us toward the ultimate goal: a more rationally organized intelligence community with a clear chain of command and the real accountability that comes with it. Since 1949, 24 attempts have been made to pass comprehensive intelligence reform legislation. I thank all concerned that we have been successful on the 25th attempt. It has been 3 years and 82 days since September 11. On behalf of the families of the victims of September 11 and on behalf of national security and every American, I am thankful we will not wait another day. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for the President's nomination of Dr. Fran Harvey to the post of Secretary of the Army. Our forces are deployed around the world as they have never been before. They are fighting hard and they are fighting well to defend Americans in the war on terror, and the Army is at the front line of that fight. Gone are the days when massive and overwhelming force was all this country needed to ensure victory. The threats we face and the stresses they cause on our force require visionary solutions. Fran Harvey is the visionary we need at the head of our largest force. Fran Harvey knows how to look at a large organization where the bureaucracy is an overwhelming force in its own right, and mold it to meet future threats. Dr. Harvey is a successful executive who has extensive experience in leading and managing large organizations, particularly program based organizations involved in the development and deployment of technology and systems. He will bring a results oriented management approach to an organization where results matter more than anywhere else. As part of this approach, Dr. Harvey places major emphasis on business transformation through process improvement in combination with the application of information technology. Fran Harvey's broad base of experience has been multi-dimensional in terms of industries, functions, and markets. His industrial experience is very diverse and includes aerospace and defense, environmental and infrastructure, energy, government facilities management, communications and information systems and electronics. Fran Harvey has the requisite experience to be Secretary of the Army, but what is more important, he is a visionary where long-term vision is badly needed. It is my great pleasure to support what I am sure will be a successful tenure leading our Army.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. May I inquire of the distinguished Senator, are we getting time limits now? I wanted to have a good colloquy with my dear friend and esteemed chairman of the Armed Services Committee who has a willing offer to make because I am not quite sure in regard to this issue what it will be, and if we put in an artificial time limit--I don't know.

Mr. ROBERTS. I haven't quite figured it out yet. I got wound up pretty good. I have one more page, and the Senator from Pennsylvania asked how long will that take? How about 2 minutes, 3 minutes.

Mr. ROBERTS. No.

Mr. ROBERTS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, could I ask the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee whether his 12 minutes will defer to the Bayh amendment or the Chambliss-Kennedy amendment?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I wish all of my colleagues could have been on the floor to hear the remarks from the distinguished Senator from Indiana, who is a very valued member of the Intelligence Committee. We have some very good members on both sides of the aisle. Senator Bayh always asks incisive questions. He gets to the bottom of the very comprehensive and complex issues we discuss. I thank him for being a valued member of the Intelligence Committee. I want to thank him for offering this amendment, which, outside the beltway and I suppose on the floor of the Senate and for anybody listening or watching, is pretty mundane, or arcane: What on Earth is he talking about, ``on-demand sequential referral of legislation, reporting from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence''? Were it not for the fact that Senator Bayh is an excellent speaker and a highly appreciated Member of this body, probably nobody would be even understanding this, or paying any attention. I know this Senate wants to get this bill done. I know we want to go to conference on intelligence reform. I know we have the tax bill. I know we have the omnibus bill. I know people want to leave for the weekend. People are tired, and Lord knows we have been wrestling with this issue on how we reorganize the Intelligence Committee to make it more effective, in line with what the 9/11 Commission has recommended, what every commission has recommended down the years--the Bremer Commission, the Gilmore Commission, the Hart-Rudman Commission, the CIS Study, all these commissions, not to mention the 24 times we have tried reform of the Intelligence Committee since Dwight David Eisenhower and failed in each and every case. I know the fatigue factor, the high- glaze factor has set in in this body, as evidenced by the membership, as evidenced by my dear colleagues and friends across the aisle now talking about something else, even though I could probably talk as loud as the Senator from Massachusetts. But, having said that, let me try to tell Members what this is about. His amendment would eliminate the current practice, again, of on- demand sequential referral of legislation reported from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. This very common sense measure--Mr. President, may I have order?

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I have two amendments to offer. I wish to offer them in sequence, taking 2 minutes at most for each one. I propose to only give a very brief description of each amendment. Amendment No. 4019 To Amendment No. 3981 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 4019.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to support Senator McCain and his amendment to the McConnell-Reid measure amending S. Res. 445. First, I pay tribute to the former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr. Graham. I thank him for his service to our country. He is retiring, although that certainly does not describe the Senator, but I thank him for his leadership and his suggestions as we go through this very difficult task of reforming how we do our oversight responsibilities in reference to our intelligence obligations. Back to Senator McCain and his amendment, if we approve the McCain amendment, Senators will implement what is the most important recommendation of the 9/11 Commission for improvement of congressional oversight of intelligence activities--most important by the 9/11 Commission. Now, why is John McCain getting in the middle of what would have to be termed a sheep and cattle war, if one goes back to the history of Arizona, and taking on the challenge of suggesting that the Intelligence Committee, or any authorizing committee, have appropriations power? That is tough. I mean, that really is tough. I think everybody knows there is more than one way to skin a cat that is sticking his head in a bootjack than simply pulling on his tail. That is hard work. That is where nobody wants to reach their hand into, but there again that is John McCain. John is from Arizona. I used to reside in Arizona. There is a lot of cactus in Arizona. One does not have to sit on each and every one of them. Sometimes people think that Senator McCain does that. Why is he doing this? Why is he fighting this sometimes lonely battle? Well, on page 420 of the 9/11 report, the Commissioners wrote this: Under the terms of existing rules and resolutions the House and Senate intelligence committees lack the power, influence and sustained capability to meet this challenge. He is right. He is dead on. He is pulling that cat by the tail in the bootjack. And in terms of being right, there are times that one can take on tough measures and sort of let them go and slide or one can do the right thing. The truth of it is that I can tell my colleagues, as chairman of the Intelligence Committee and an 8-year veteran of that committee--and it has been a privilege--we are fractionalized when we talk to Lee Hamilton, Governor Kean, Bob Kerrey, the former Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman, and others. They came to visit before the Intelligence Committee with Senator Rockefeller and myself, Senator Rockefeller being the distinguished vice chairman and my bipartisan partner in trying to do what is right on behalf of our national security--and we think we have done a good job, by the way, backed up by 22 professional staffers, the most of any committee. So, consequently, what happens to us is that when we do our work as quoted by the 9/11 Commission--and after the visit by the 9/11 Commission to the Committee, they agreed with us that we are fractionalized, that our job is pretty tough, that in terms of being an authorizing committee we probably are expected to have the most obligation, independence, leadership, clout in regards to oversight in reference to intelligence and national security of any committee in the Congress, but we have the least. Why is that? It is because we are fractionalized in terms of sequential referral on demand. I am not going to get into that speech again because I think we are trying to work it out. I think we have a compromise, or I hope we have a compromise, and I thank Senator Rockefeller for being a leader in this instance. Whatever we do, we know that we have to then first go to the Armed Services Committee and then, of course, we have to go to the Appropriations Committee. Now, that is not a bad thing because we have many fine people serving on the Appropriations Committee. I do not mean to perjure the Appropriations Committee. Far from it. They have many obligations. They have their constitutional authority to do this. But what happens? The intelligence community comes before us during the long session of 6 months, 8 months, 9 months when we do our authorization and make priority changes and make recommended changes and make reform changes, some of which have been very dramatic. And I think they understand that, obviously, then we are going to have to go to the Armed Services Committee and then, obviously, we are going to have to go to the Subcommittee on Defense of the Appropriations Committee where they have done, I might add, a splendid job of doing their very best in terms of their obligations to meet our national security obligations vis-a-vis the intelligence community. Now, what would someone do if they were a member of the intelligence community? They would appear before the authorizing committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee--and I am not saying it was wink them, blink them, and nod to a committee that has no authority, but one can sort of make that case--and I do not perjure anybody who has come before the committee because they are great people. They are laying their lives on the line. They are dedicated people. That is not my point. What they do, however, is go to the Senate Armed Services Committee and then they also go to two primary members of this Senate whom I personally call friends and admire and respect, and there have been no two people in the Congress of the United States, perhaps in the history of the United States, who have done more for the military and done more during those times where we were stretched thin and hollow and addressing the tremendous problems we have today. I am talking about the distinguished Senator from Alaska, who is chairman of the committee, Ted Stevens and his counterpart, the Senator from Hawaii, Dan Inouye. I do not know who has been the stagecoach driver and who has ridden shotgun. During these particular years, they both worked equally well. But what happens to them is that time demands come in and the intelligence community comes in and says: Wow, we have a problem. We have just had an ``Oh, my God'' hearing before the Intelligence Committee. Oh, my God, how did this happen? Khobar Towers, embassy bombings, USS Cole, the lack of really trying to figure out what happened when we missed the India nuclear explosion, 9/11, Somalia--do you know what. It was all tied together. So the Appropriations Committee is faced with this urgent need, and they respond. And the intelligence community pretty well gets what they want. That is not all bad, especially when we are facing some kind of emergency, but it basically cuts out the Intelligence Committee's authorization process to some degree. It cuts out what the Armed Services Committee does as well. It is time based. The 9/11 Commission took a look at this and said: Congressional oversight for intelligence and counterterrorism is now dysfunctional. Congress should address this problem. We have considered various alternatives. The primary suggestion: a single committee in each House of Congress combining authorizing and appropriating authorities. The McCain amendment will accomplish this alternative. The McCain amendment will accomplish this by giving appropriations authority to the Senate Intelligence Committee. The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, a man whom I admire, a man who has been a great friend, basically cited the example between 1865 and 1885 that when they took away powers from the Appropriations Committee, storm clouds arrived, lightning struck, and it was doom and gloom time until they restored that authority. Let me suggest another number. It is called 9/11. Let me suggest all the hearings we have held in the Intelligence Committee--I call them ``Oh, my God'' hearings: Oh, my God, how did this happen?--indicated the systemic failure of the global intelligence community in regard to WMD and the situation in Iraq--not just the United States, everyone, including the United Nations. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee and his counterpart, the ranking member--when he says there is no turf battle, I believe him. I don't know of any two Members who would put turf over conscience and turf over performance and the obligations of what they have already done. I know the chairman has mentioned that he and the members and the qualified staff of the Appropriations Committee have gone the world over, and they have. I know. I have been with them on many occasions, looking at intelligence and looking to see how the money is spent on the ground, taking a hard look. I understand that. But we have 22 staffers, 22 professional staffers who have background and experience in regard to being an analyst at the DIA, being an analyst at the CIA with at least 10 years' experience. We have the staffers who put together the 521-page WMD report, where the chips fell where they may. Guess what happened. The intelligence was wrong. Some people try to put that at the foot of the President. He made very declarative and aggressive comments. Others in this Congress received the same intelligence and made the same statements. Now, of course, a lot of that has changed because it is an even-numbered year, and you know what kind of situation we are in. But I am trying to say your Intelligence Committee stands ready to do a professional job in regard to budget authority, should we be granted that privilege, with 22 professional staffers. We have done that. There have been occasions where we have been granted access. I don't mean that in a cynical way because the Appropriations Committee usually is in a big hurry with what they have to do, meeting obligations that are emergencies--where we have made our suggestions. Some of them, not all of them--as a matter of fact, not very many of them--were accepted by the Appropriations Committee or, for that matter, the Armed Services Committee. Some of them, a lot of them, ended up on the cutting-room floor. In some cases we were not granted access because of the time equation, and wouldn't you know that many of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and many of the problems we have experienced that nobody wants to see that we have had hearings on are the same kinds of things we have tried to fix in the Intelligence Committee and maybe could have had we not had this fractionalized process that the 9/11 Commission has talked about. I have talked about what a hard job this is. I talked about the courage Senator McCain has had to approach this topic. It is a tough topic. Really, this is not hard. Members have a choice. They have a choice to make. A vote for the McCain amendment enhances the congressional oversight by addressing the findings of the 9/11 Commission, period. The amendment will enhance the power, influence, and sustained capability of the Senate Intelligence Committee; that is, to conduct oversight of this Nation's intelligence activities. It couldn't be any more simple. Members, you should vote for the measure if you want to enhance the Senate Intelligence Committee's ability to conduct congressional oversight as recommended by the 9/11 Commission and, by the way, virtually every other commission that has studied this. So the McCain amendment is in harmony with the 9/11 Commission's major recommendation for improving congressional oversight and intelligence activities. I am not saying the appropriators or the Armed Services Committee has done anything wrong, egregious, dysfunctional, whatever. They have done a great job under the circumstances with the setup of the Congress as it has been. But we stand ready with 22 professional staffers to do the job. I believe we can do the job. I am voting for the McCain amendment. In behalf of our national security, I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized after the distinguished Senator from Florida.