Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, we have two speakers. I inform the distinguished leader, the minority whip, a man from Searchlight, that we have two speakers. If I could ask Senator Snowe how much time she would like to have.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Second, the independence issue was thoroughly explored at Mr. Goss's confirmation hearing as of this week. Mr. Goss has assured the committee--and I do believe him, knowing him for 16 years in the Congress--that he has the integrity, as Senator Mikulski put it, to look the President in the eye and say no. Mr. President, at present, it does not appear either side has a Member requesting time, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield such time to the distinguished Senator from Florida as he might consume and thank him for his contributions, not only with his strong interest in the Intelligence Committee and the leading intelligence issues and challenges we face today, but for his service on the Armed Services Committee as well, for working with me with regard to Captain Spiker and other issues. I look forward to his comments.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, seeing no other Senators requesting time now, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished Senator from Utah and thank him for his service on the Intelligence Committee. Also, I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his excellent commentary, more especially highlighting Mr. Goss's independence and the fact he will be a nonpartisan DCI.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I will be happy to soon yield to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, a valued member of the Intelligence Committee. On the issue of the HPSCI activity, the House intelligence activity, in regard to reform and other intelligence challenges during the last 3 Congresses, which has been brought up, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Survey of Activities of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence During the 107th Congress. I also commend to my colleagues the Survey of Activities of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence during the 106th Congress and the 105th Congress.

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. President. I now yield as much time as the distinguished Senator from Maryland may use. I thank the distinguished Senator for her service on this committee as she always provides the committee with very candid, independent, and right-on views. I am delighted to yield time to her at this time.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield as much time as he may need to a valued member of the Intelligence Committee, the distinguished Senator from Ohio.

Mr. ROBERTS. How much time does the Senator request?

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield him such time as he would consume.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Mikulski for her very forthright statement. Like the Senator, I understand the point raised by Senator Lautenberg and would only make two points about the notion of Porter Goss's alleged lack of independence from the administration. First, Mr. Goss sent a very candid letter to DCI Tenet, along with Congresswoman Jane Harman, who is the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, expressing deep concern about our intelligence on Iraq. That letter is not the work of a shrinking violet, I can assure you. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may use to the distinguished Senator from Missouri, a member of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any quorum calls that take place during the consideration of the Goss nomination be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues in the Senate to confirm Mr. Porter J. Goss, of Florida, to be the next Director of Intelligence. On August 10, 2004, President Bush nominated Porter Goss to be the next Director of Central Intelligence, or the DCI. In doing so, the President stated that Mr. Goss ``is a leader with strong experience in intelligence and in the fight against terrorism. He knows the CIA inside and out. He is the right man to lead this important agency at this critical moment in our Nation's history.'' The Goss nomination was received in the Senate on September 7. On September 14 and September 20, the Select Committee on Intelligence held extraordinary open hearings on this nomination that were televised and widely covered in the press. At the September 14 hearing, Mr. Goss was introduced to the committee by both of Florida's distinguished Senators, Bob Graham, former chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, and Bill Nelson, who is well known to the Intelligence Committee as an interested and informed supporter of our efforts. That both Florida Senators reached across the aisle to support this nomination is a testament to the wide bipartisan support that it does enjoy. After 2 days of thorough and wide-ranging public hearings, the Goss nomination was placed before the Intelligence Committee membership for a vote yesterday morning. In yet another impressive display of bipartisanship, the committee approved the Goss nomination and ordered it reported in a vote of 12 to 4. At this time, I would like to congratulate the Intelligence Committee members of both parties for their sober, penetrating, and thorough consideration of this nomination. The committee's handling of this nomination is very much in keeping with the bipartisan spirit that has animated its work during a very difficult year of challenges in the global war on terrorism in Iraq and in other areas around the world. This bipartisan spirit did produce important steps forward, such as the committee's report on Iraq WMD, in understanding intelligence problems and gaps and also making recommendations in that regard. As such, the committee's work will certainly help Mr. Goss as he strives to make the intelligence community better and to produce the best possible intelligence product. I want to say I also appreciate Mr. Goss's efforts during his 2 days of public hearings to respond to members' concerns and questions. He took these hearings very seriously and with attention to detail demanded by consideration for a position that has in the past been part of the Cabinet. In my opinion, during his confirmation hearings Mr. Goss showed the qualities we want to see in a good DCI. They are coolness under pressure, a willingness to look at alternative views and, very importantly, a willingness to ``take a few licks'' for past judgments. Most important of all, he demonstrated his ability to put the lawmaker's so-called partisan hat aside and take up the strictly nonpartisan duties of this critical executive branch office. As I noted at Mr. Goss's first public hearing on September 14, the role of the Director of Central Intelligence is of paramount importance to the security of this Nation. It is also one of the most challenging jobs in the executive branch today. Obviously, this Nation is currently engaged in a war not only in Iraq, not only in Afghanistan, but elsewhere around the globe. In this war, for the most part there are no trenches. There is no barbed wire. There is no well-defined no man's land. On the contrary, in this war of shadows and darkness, intelligence defines the front line and indicates its weak points and gaps. Recently, a distinguished former National Security Adviser remarked to Senators that during the last 3 years our world has changed dramatically. In the old world, the threats were posed by nation states and organized military forces. In our new world, the greatest threats may be domestic. These threats may come from nation states and their agents and terrorist groups such as al-Qaida. Organized military conflict is only one of many threats. In our new world, we are not fighting against nation states but against a network of disparate terrorist groups that operate not only in the shadows but at times right in our own midst. Whether Afghanistan or Iraq or here at home, defeating this enemy depends primarily upon the ability of our intelligence services to locate, to penetrate and, yes, to destroy the terrorist cells. We are involved in a world war which requires timely and actionable intelligence to ensure victory and the safety of the American people. The Director of Central Intelligence is personally responsible for producing this intelligence. As we fight Islamic terror, other global threats continue to menace our Nation, and among them are these: The development of nuclear programs by adversary regimes such as those in Iran and also North Korea; the steady transformation of the People's Republic of China into a power capable of challenging our interests broadly and exercising influence over the region; and the continuing worldwide expansion of WMD technology. The Director of Central Intelligence is also responsible for producing intelligence to keep the President and policymakers informed about these threats. And if that were not daunting enough, Mr. Goss has been nominated for a position which in all probability may not exist for much longer. As Senators know, the President and many in the Congress now support the creation of a new national intelligence director. There has been a great deal of discussion among my colleagues about reform. Above all, we must ensure that a national intelligence director is something more than a weak and ineffective figurehead. Most of the debate outside the Intelligence Committee has centered on how to grant increased authority to the new national intelligence director while leaving the structural status quo undisturbed. Many on the Intelligence Committee believe this is simply unworkable. In other words, significant structural change is vital to real reform. I believe strongly that we must create a new structure. This new structure must accommodate the diverse activities of our intelligence agency by giving direct responsibility and control of primary intelligence disciplines and the corresponding agencies to a truly empowered national intelligence director and his assistants. And true empowerment includes both budget authority and line authority to direct and control the activities of the intelligence activities. One without the other may leave us with an intelligence head who can neither succeed nor be held accountable, and that would be a most unfortunate outcome. We don't know how or when reform will finally be enacted. Until then, however, we need a strong Director of Central Intelligence with the necessary skills to manage a community which needs reform. Porter Goss understands these issues. As chairman of the House Intelligence Committee he helped create momentum for reform. Porter Goss will be a good man to have in the intelligence community driver's seat as Congress, in cooperation with the executive branch, goes through the consideration of major reform. His unique background will serve him well as he meets these and other challenges while directing our intelligence community. For over 40 years, Porter Goss has been serving his Nation, his State, and his community. As an Army intelligence officer, a clandestine CIA case officer, a newspaper man, a county commissioner, a U.S. Representative, and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Porter Goss has done his duty with skill, with honor, and with integrity. I believe, and Members on both sides agree, that his experience makes him uniquely suited to serve as the Director of Central Intelligence. I have known Mr. Goss personally for 16 years. I served with him in the other body, the House of Representatives. I have worked with him on a weekly basis since I joined the Intelligence Committee. I have formed a strong opinion about his fitness to lead the intelligence community. One of Porter Goss's most important characteristics is that he does not ride in a partisan posse. In that sense and in many others, the President has selected an outstanding public servant to be his principal adviser on intelligence. In concluding my opening statement on the Goss nomination, I would like to underscore an important point. If, as I earnestly hope, the Senate approves this nomination today, this body will not simply have performed a routine pro forma duty. On the contrary, Porter Goss's confirmation as the DCI represents perhaps the most important changing of the guard for our intelligence community since 1947. This confirmation represents a fresh start for our Nation's intelligence community. He will be the first Director of Central Intelligence in a new and hopefully better intelligence community. It is not the same entity that George Tenet inherited when he was confirmed by this body 7 years ago. It is not the same entity that existed on September 10, 2001. The intelligence community has undergone vitally important changes since the terrorist attacks of 2001. These changes are the result of many factors: statutory requirements, Executive orders, and other major changes in policy. That snapshot that we took of the intelligence community back on September 10, 2001, and the snapshot today is much better in terms of improvement. A key factor is the vigilance and dedication of the intelligence community rank and file, to include those men and women who, today, as I speak, are putting their lives at risk in remote and dangerous places to protect our Nation. Still other changes are on the immediate horizon as Congress considers major intelligence reform. So let us understand clearly what we do here today. Porter Goss, as the new DCI, will lead a new intelligence community into a new chapter. Senate confirmation of Porter Goss does not mean simply painting a new name on the mailbox at Langley. It represents the opening of a new era for the intelligence community. The errors and omissions of Iraq are well known. They must be corrected. Steps have been taken and will be taken to ensure that. The errors and the omissions of 9/11 are very clearly and thoroughly described in both the joint inquiry that was conducted by the Senate Intelligence Committee, the House Intelligence Committee, and the 9/11 Commission Report. These errors and omissions must and will be corrected. Porter Goss's task will be to build, inspire, and open a new chapter in our intelligence activities. We must never forget the errors of the past or their human cost. Likewise, we should not dwell on them or allow them to paralyze us. We must grapple with them and overcome them. That is what is happening now, with structural intelligence community reform. Porter Goss's task will be to open the new chapter and lead the intelligence community into that fresh start. Today, perhaps our highest legislative priority is to repair what is broken in the intelligence community. We must not let this laudable desire immobilize us. John McLaughlin, the Acting Director, has done a professional and commendable job as the Acting DCI. He, no less than the rank and file of the intelligence community, needs long-term, permanent leadership, and we need it now. One of the concerns voiced by the 9/11 Commission was that it takes too long to put key intelligence community officials into place. In the case of this nomination, I believe the Senate definitely got the message. The watch word for this nomination since the beginning has been goodwill and bipartisanship. As I stated at the beginning, Senators Graham and Nelson of Florida introduced and strongly endorsed this nominee at his first confirmation hearing. We had an impressive bipartisan vote on this nomination in the Senate Intelligence Committee. The ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, the Honorable Ms. Jane Harman, has pointed with pride to her committee's involvement in intelligence reform under Mr. Goss's chairmanship. Expressions of support for this nomination have come from both sides of the aisle and both sides of Capitol Hill. This nominee is ready to go to work and he is needed. I urge the Senate to confirm him as soon as possible. I, personally, and I think I speak for the members of the Intelligence Committee, look forward to working with Porter Goss, the next and possibly last DCI. I understand the vice chair is waiting to speak, but I ask his indulgence to permit Senator Chambliss to speak first.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I rise in support of the Baucus amendment. This amendment ensures that farmers and ranchers across the country will receive assistance for losses sustained through natural disasters. In Kansas this assistance is critical to provide aid to our farmers and ranchers who have been hit hard by a multiyear drought. While many have viewed the terrible destruction wrought across Florida and the Southeastern U.S. by successive hurricanes in recent weeks, I cannot forget the terrible drought that has continued to grip much of the western portion of Kansas. I also cannot forget the eerie photographs, taken earlier this summer, of a giant dust cloud that swept across western Kansas. This dire result of continuous drought caused Interstate 70 to shut down, its dust inundated homes and hospitals and even caused a tragic traffic accident that claimed the life of a distinguished Kansan, the late State Senator Stan Clark. It may surprise my colleagues, but I am no fan of Federal disaster programs for agriculture. They are difficult to pass and often a disaster to implement. It is unfortunate that the current farm bill, which I voted against, does not provide producers with assistance when they need it most--when there is no crop to harvest. Without the crop insurance program, which I fought to improve and enhance in 2000, and additional Federal disaster aid, many Kansas producers might not be around another year to continue participating in the current farm bill. Mr. President, I stand in support of the Baucus amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I discuss the amendment we are about to vote on. Let me state at the beginning: I am supportive of a tobacco buyout for our tobacco producers and quota holders, and I will work to help them achieve this goal. However, it should be a buyout without strings attached and that will truly end the program. Unfortunately, this legislation does not achieve this goal. While the bill does provide a buyout, it then implements annual restrictions on acreage and production. I have previously stated on this floor my opposition to acreage and production controls for all crops and commodity programs. This program should be no different. I am also concerned that these acreage controls may not be legal under our World Trade Organization commitments. If these controls would indeed be declared illegal under our commitments, we could be subject to a ruling that would put us far above our WTO agriculture spending caps. This would not only have significant impacts for tobacco and this program, it could have a significant impact on all our commodities and farm programs. I cannot support voting for this proposal and putting all our other commodities at risk. If these provisions were removed, I believe there would be no question that this proposed program would be WTO legal, and I would have no trouble supporting the buyout. I will let my colleagues that serve on the conference of this bill make their own decision regarding FDA regulation and the funding mechanism for the buyout. But, I urge them to support the House language implementing a buyout with no future acreage and production restrictions being put in place.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to make several important points regarding the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement. As chairman of the Intelligence Committee and member of the Armed Services Committee, I am well aware of the valuable friendship that our two countries share. Australia's commitment to the fight in the Global War on Terror is unwavering. Australia's support in liberating and rebuilding Iraq has been crucial there. This agreement provides better opportunities for Kansas manufacturers, especially those in the aviation and transportation sectors to increase exports to the Australians. I understand that there is strong, bipartisan, interregional support for this agreement across industries and across the country. However, I feel compelled to share with my colleagues several things which trouble Kansas about the way this agreement was constructed. I must tell our colleagues that in all the years I have had the privilege to serve Kansas and agriculture in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives, there have been few, if any, times when there was as much open hostility to trade as I sense in some areas today. In Dodge City terms, ``The bloom is off the lily, and the lily was run over by a lawn mower.'' I have had more than one producer ask me just what we are doing being involved in all these trade agreements when it seems that agriculture is under attack. We have dealt with and continue to deal with the BSE hurdles for our beef products, our farm and export programs are under attack through the Brazilian cotton case and our food aid programs are being attacked by others in the Doha round of WTO negotiations. We have now completed, and this body is considering a free trade agreement with Australia that exempts a single commodity--sugar--at the expense of others, particularly wheat and beef. Kansas producers, who do pay close attention to trade matters, are taking a look at this list of issues and saying: Hold on a minute, Pat. What is going on here? I will share with you and the rest of our colleagues what I tell the folks at the coffee klatch in Dodge. In addition to setting a dangerous precedent for future trade agreements, exempting sugar from the Australian FTA also sets a dangerous precedence for agriculture, especially for sugar itself. In the past, whether in trade agreements or trade disputes, whether it be in farm bills or budget reconciliations, the commodity and producer groups have sank or swam together. Sugar's insistence on not participating in this free trade agreement makes it very likely that the rest of US agriculture will opt not to participate in sugar's defense the next time that program faces a WTO challenge, budget reconciliation measure, or amendment to end sugar's support program during the next farm bill. Simply put, if sugar falls or jumps off the ag-boat in the future, it may very well find itself treading water while watching the rest of US agriculture drift away silently. Our producers will insist that we extract real concessions on state-traded enterprises, quotas, tariffs, etc. in future trade negotiations for their support for concessions on imports of agricultural goods here at home. Simply put, you don't bring a knife to a gun-fight and expect our producers to stand with you. I intend to support the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement. I believe that it is in the best interest of our relationship with our friend and ally, Australia. However, singling out individual commodities in future trade agreements is not in the best interest of our Nation and threatens agriculture's support and, therefore, my support for future trade agreements. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask unanimous consent that Senator John Breaux be added as a cosponsor to a bill I introduced on June 12, 2003, S. 1246, to permit charitable and educational organizations to make collegiate housing and infrastructure grants and continue to be treated as tax- exempt organizations.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished chairman. I rise to join the senior Senator from Virginia in opposing the Dodd amendment. I agree with the concern raised by the Dodd amendment, but let me point out that, as far as I am aware, no committee has held a hearing on how to lessen our reliance on contractors. Our armed services and our other agencies do rely very heavily on contractors. The distinguished chairman has held three open hearings in regard to all of the incarceration problems and the problems that have been so heavily publicized. We have had three hearings in the Intelligence Committee that have been closed. We are going to follow up with a report by General Fay and others. In the Intelligence Committee, we have asked for the legal memoranda from the Justice Department on this whole issue. I think this amendment attempts to prejudge the important work we would like to do on issues that are related to contractors and also detainees; yes, the military police; yes, the military intelligence. Now, let's not forget that while some contractors--or for that matter, MPs, or military personnel--have been highly publicized in actions that nobody wants to see, contractors are saving lives right now in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they are giving their lives in the war on terrorism. So the problems that have come to our attention, it seems to me, my colleagues, are not necessarily inherent simply to contracting, but they are resulting from very poor management and also supervision. We can address the problems as raised by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, but we ought to do it in the right way. I do not think the Senate should act hastily on an important area. We are on top of it. We are conducting oversight. So I must oppose this amendment and urge other Members to do the same.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a great educator and champion of science and technology, who recently passed away. Dr. John Hopps was a true public servant who most recently furthered the cause of our national security as deputy director of defense research and engineering and deputy under secretary of defense for laboratories and basic science at the Department of Defense. As chairman of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, I had the privilege of knowing John and witnessing first-hand his support of programs, projects and personnel in the defense laboratories. Prior to his position with the Department of Defense, Dr. Hopps worked to encourage our Nation's youth in their pursuit of academic excellence, especially in this fields of physics and chemistry. As provost and senior vice president for academic affairs and professor of physics at Morehouse College, John was in a position to guide young minds and manage academic departments and multi disciplinary programs. Immediately before joining Morehouse College, John Hopps served as director of materials research at the National Science Foundation. During his tenure with Draper Laboratory, which began in 1977, John was manager of energy program development, manager of the laboratory's fault-tolerant systems technology research program, and education director for the laboratory. During his tenure as deputy director of defense research and engineering, Dr. Hopps made great strides in reaching out to the scientific and academic communities and in working to ensure the technological superiority of the defense laboratories and workforce who develop the tools, protective equipment and weapons that are so important to the U.S. warfighter of today and tomorrow. Under his leadership, the Department increased the National Defense Science and Engineering Fellowship Program and pursued a program and structure-- Materials World Modules--he developed to connect students of all ages to the excitement and value of science. This year's defense authorization bill contains a provision that authorizes the Department to establish a pilot science, mathematics and engineering scholarship program that will continue much of the work championed by John in his efforts for the Department of Defense and in his other positions both inside and outside the Federal Government. John's academic background combined with service in the Federal Government gave him a unique perspective on the importance of basic research for future technological advances, linkages he helped us all to make. John Hopps' patient, deliberative manner, keen sense of humor, and compassionate approach to life and work will be missed by the many students, educators and public servants, whose lives he has touched. My deepest sympathies go out to Dr. Hopps' wife, family and friends, and to all who knew and loved him.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, from Civil War to the war against racism, Kansas has been a battleground in the fight for equality. Oliver Brown was a soldier in this struggle, as he courageously fought to prove that separate among the people of this great Nation is not equal. The watershed case that bears his name stands for all time as an important victory in the civil rights movement. On Monday, May 17, 2004, we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of this momentous decision. And in Topeka, KS, we will gather to dedicate Monroe Elementary School as the Brown v. Topeka Board of Education National Historic site. This new addition to the National Park Service will afford us the proper setting to fully reflect on what this decision has meant to our Nation, and will provide future visitors with a more complete understanding of how Linda Brown's struggle changed the course of our Nation's history. The Monroe Elementary School, purchased in 1877 by the Topeka Board of Education, was one of the four segregated elementary schools for African American children in Topeka. The current building is actually the third Monroe school to stand there, built in 1926. Monroe was a good school, built by the same architect who built other schools in Topeka, including those reserved for white children. And the teachers were well-trained, many of whom had advanced degrees. This wasn't a case of substandard facilities, or a lack of educational opportunities for Linda Brown and her classmates. This was simply injustice under the law, and the need to right a grievous wrong. The Brown Foundation, under the leadership of Cheryl Brown Henderson, has worked diligently to preserve the bricks and mortar that were a part of this historic case. Far more than just a building, however, this site represents the genesis of the movement to strike down our Nation's segregationist policy. Thanks to his daughter Cheryl's efforts, and those of countless others, Monroe Elementary was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1991. I, along with Senator Robert J. Dole and Senator Nancy Landon Kassebaum, am proud to have supported legislation creating the Brown v. Board of Education National Historic site, which was signed into law by President George Bush in 1992. As stated in the legislation, the purposes of this important site are: To preserve, protect, and interpret the places that contributed materially to the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision which ended segregation in public education, to interpret the role of the Brown case in the civil rights movement, and to assist in the preservation and interpretation of related resources within the city of Topeka that further the understanding of the civil rights movement. That bill challenged us to properly commemorate and interpret this history, and ensure that the story of Linda Brown and the thousands of other children who were denied access to white elementary schools is told. This new site has met every expectation of ours, and pays proper tribute to the struggle for civil rights. As we dedicate the Brown v. Board of Education National Historic site, what was once a building designed to educate a few, now stands ready to educate us all.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the distinguished service of Officer Johnny Lee Wilson of the U.S. Capitol Police. Officer Wilson has been posted at the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for the past 14 years. Regrettably, on April 30, 2004, Officer Wilson will retire from the Capitol Police after more than 27 years of dedicated service. Officer Wilson was born in Shelby, NC, on November 5, 1945. Following a move to Washington, DC, he finished high school. He then served in the Armed Forces, where he saw combat in an Army infantry unit in Vietnam in the late 1960s. At the conclusion of his tour, he was decorated for outstanding performance. Officer Wilson then returned to Washington, DC, to pursue his college degree. In 1975, he graduated from Washington, DC's Howard University with a bachelor of science degree. In April 1977, Officer Wilson began his service with the U.S. Capitol Police. For nearly three decades, he has dedicated himself to protecting the lives of visitors, staff, and Members as they go about their daily business here on Capitol Hill. It is a job which has become increasingly stressful since the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Despite the added threats, Officer Wilson has performed his duties superbly. His patience, discipline, and attention to detail have made him an asset to the Capitol Police and to the Intelligence Committee. Officer Wilson's tireless dedication to the U.S. Capitol Police should serve as an inspiration to everyone in law enforcement. He is a tremendous officer and a great friend to many in the U.S. Senate. He will be truly missed as he enjoys his well-earned retirement. Congratulations Officer Wilson, you are a fine public servant and a man of integrity and character. I extend my best wishes to your wife Weddie and your children--Gina and John-Paul. Good luck to you in retirement and thanks again for your fine service. Mr. ROCKEFELLER, I add my voice to the comments of my colleague, Senator Roberts, concerning the contributions and outstanding performance of Officer Johnny Wilson from the United States Capitol Police. Officer Wilson is a 27-year veteran of the Capitol Police who is scheduled to retire in a few days. He has spent the past 14 years posted outside the offices of the Senate Intelligence Committee. During that time, we came to think of Johnny as part of our staff and part of our family. It will be both odd and disappointing not seeing him outside our door every morning. Officer Wilson, a Vietnam veteran, joined the Capitol Police on April 4, 1977, and has dedicated his career to protecting the lives of Members of Congress, their staffs and the thousands of tourists who visit Capitol Hill each year. He is a fine example of the professionalism, dedication and work ethic of the men and women of the United States Capitol Police. But what sets Johnny apart is the way in which he carries out his duties. He is outgoing and upbeat, with a hello and a kind word for anyone who crosses his path. Everyone that passes through the second floor corridor outside the Intelligence Committee Hart Building offices knows Johnny and he knows them--if he doesn't he makes them think he does. At the same time he is unflappable when confronting tense situations and approaches his responsibilities with complete seriousness. In an era of technological advancements in biometrics and other enhanced security identification methods, there is absolutely no substitute for a professional law enforcement officer on the first line of defense. With Officer Wilson on the job, we all knew we were well protected. Officer Wilson's dedication to the United States Capitol Police has been proven on many occasions and he has been an excellent example of someone raising the bar of excellence for his peers. He has been a great friend to many in the United States Senate and he truly will be missed. I congratulate this fine public servant, a man of integrity and character, and I wish him well in his impending retirement.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following bill, the Eliminate Colorectal Cancer Act, be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following bill, the Eliminate Colorectal Cancer Act, be printed in the Record.