Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, if I could just ask one more additional question of the Senator?

Mr. ROBERTS. Did you ever solve the problem with the rabbits with regard to the cactus they would eat or wouldn't eat? And I was wondering if you thought about just basically desert rocks? They have some beautiful rocks out there and I doubt seriously if the rabbits would have eaten the rocks.

Mr. ROBERTS. Rubber tires, perhaps?

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the distinguished Senator. While sitting in my capacity as the acting Presiding Officer, going back to chapter four of your book, I got a little confused as to how the city of Searchlight actually was named Searchlight. I got mixed up between Lloyd Searchlight and the kitchen matches. I was wondering if you, with your intimate knowledge of who is a chef and who is a cook and poor Bill who has died--obviously you don't have any fish fries anymore, but I am interested in the goulash--but with your intimate knowledge of Searchlight, do you have a theory, a pet theory as to how Searchlight actually got its name, of the three hypotheses that you mentioned?

Mr. ROBERTS. Will the distinguished Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ROBERTS. I thought perhaps with your cousin, again, you could replace those cactus with rocks and I know the rabbits wouldn't eat the rocks. But in any case I think the operative thought would be to simply ``rock on.''

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to reinforce the very serious concerns just raised by the distinguished leader and my colleagues, and I thank them for that. The Senator from Tennessee is an ex officio member of the Intelligence Committee. He has also been a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. He thoroughly understands the complex and important foreign policy issues which depend on reliable intelligence for their proper resolution. I associate myself completely with his comments and agree with him that neither the Intelligence Committee nor the Senate, let alone the American people, are well served in the current atmosphere of raw partisanship that was created by a minority attack strategy that was revealed this week. I have come before the Senate many times to report on the progress and good work that has been done by the committee staff in a bipartisan way on the Iraq intelligence review. That has been under review since the spring of this year. Two days ago, I expressed an interest in getting back to work in the Intelligence Committee. Some Senators across the aisle have taken this sentiment as an expression of readiness to simply close the book on this episode and pretend like it never happened. They are mistaken. What has occurred in the Intelligence Committee was not a simple misunderstanding over policy or a mild disagreement about philosophy or oversight responsibilities. Far from it. What occurred was a direct assault on the heart of what makes the Intelligence Committee a unique and credible and respected entity in behalf of our national security. It was a direct assault on our concept of oversight that is the product of some of our country's most trying days. It has functioned well, although imperfectly, for nearly 30 years. And now we find ourselves at a crossroads, and, boy, is this a road we didn't have to take. Unless and until this reprehensible attack plan and strategy to derail the committee's important work is properly addressed, I am afraid it will be impossible to return to business as usual in the committee. I remain absolutely stunned that just one Member of the minority of the Senate has disavowed this destructive strategy and said we are on the wrong trail, said it would lead to a box canyon. That courageous Member saw it for what it is: ``A highly partisan and perhaps treasonous memo.'' Those are his words, Mr. President. What really disturbs me the most is that most Democratic Members just haven't remained silent about this outrage; some of them have openly embraced it. They have actually tried to make a silk purse out of this sow's ear by dressing up their planned attack on the Intelligence Committee as some kind of frustrated cry for help from their committee staff. That is not going to wash. Democratic reaction to the attack memorandum is as destructive as the strategy itself. We face mounting intelligence challenges in places such as North Korea, Iran, and, of course, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Members across the aisle should carefully reflect and decide whether their caucus should repudiate or disavow--pick any word you want--this plan and embrace our Nation's security instead of self-interest. Critically important work lies ahead for the Senate Intelligence Committee, and an atmosphere of mutual trust and professionalism must be restored. According to Senator Bob Kerrey, a former Senator and a former vice chairman of the committee said: Rank partisanship like this destroys the comity needed for compromise. There is a way to restore that comity quickly and completely. It seems to me that Democratic Senators must clearly repudiate or disavow the blatantly partisan strategy laid out in the attack memo. If they refuse, it seems to me, then, that the Democratic caucus must be prepared to accept responsibility for destroying the Intelligence Committee's 25-year, almost 30-year tradition of effective nonpartisanship when the country needed it most. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to provide a few brief comments on the Agriculture appropriations bill and to also make a few comments regarding my friend and colleague, the distinguished new chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from Utah. The chairman has done an outstanding job putting this bill together under a difficult budget allocation, and I congratulate him for his work. I also want to make a few comments regarding several programs in this bill that are of particular interest to me in my role as the chairman of the Intelligence Committee. I urge the chairman and the members of the subcommittee who will sit on the conference to support as much funding as possible for USDA's homeland security funding request and the Dole-McGovern International School Lunch Program. Both of these programs are vital to our ongoing war against terrorism. The USDA homeland security funds will support the rapid response animal and plant health diagnostics networks established last year by USDA. These networks will allow us to respond quickly to an animal or disease outbreak that occurs, whether naturally occurring or intentionally introduced. While this may not seem like a serious risk, I can tell you that the threat is real. We know some of the 9/11 hijackers had agriculture training, and the former Soviet Union had weaponized many of these diseases. The intentional introduction of any of these diseases would have a devastating impact on both the agriculture and national economies. Regarding the Dole-McGovern program, it often provides the only meal that many students--particularly those in the Middle East--receive each day. Young girls go to school so they can receive these meals. They gain an education, they broaden their horizons, and it will eventually help to bring greater stability to that part of the world. Young boys go to schools where they can receive a meal and instruction in math and science instead of radicalism and extremism. Many terrorist recruiters get their youngest members through the offer of a warm, nutritious meal each day. We must give these students the opportunity to be fed and get a basic education, rather than spending their days learning how to fire an AK- 47. Thus, I urge support for these programs as this bill moves to conference. Before yielding the floor, I also wish to make a few comments regarding our new subcommittee chairman. When I first heard he would become chairman of the subcommittee, I didn't know whether to congratulate him or send him a sympathy card. I have spent the better part of the years I have had the privilege to serve Kansas in the House and Senate wandering around in what you might call the agriculture policy pasture. For a short time, I even served as the head of the sometimes powerful House Agriculture Committee. What my ears in that pasture have taught me is that if you spend much time dealing with agriculture policy, you often end up feeling like your are straddling the barbed wire fence. The issues are never easy. There are often strong and very real policy differences among the farm groups and varying regions of the country. They are some of the most difficult issues I have ever faced, and they have certainly been known to tie this bill up in past years. Earlier, it appeared that many of those issues would bog the bill down again this year. However, as we would say in Dodge City, he took the bull by the horns and charged ahead. I know that it has not been easy, but I also want the chairman to know that I think he has done a remarkable job. He managed to balance a severely reduced budget allocation in a manner that was fair to all members and regions of the country, and he has worked to find the middle ground on many issues. As a result of his efforts, we will spend only 1 or 2 days on the bill this year, instead of the week or more we spent in recent years. He has taken what is often a thankless job and has performed admirably. He deserves both the thanks and praise of the Senate. I say to the chairman, job well done.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Missouri, Senator Bond.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. ROBERTS. I say to my friend and colleague, we are in the process of conducting an inquiry. That inquiry I would say is about 85 percent complete. We have had full cooperation--not full cooperation but a spirit of cooperation from the White House, State Department, Department of Defense, and the CIA. Once our inquiry is complete, I think I can answer the question the Senator has posed. We are on the right track. We want to get at the timeliness and the credibility of the intelligence that was provided. We had four goals to do that, agreed upon by Senator Rockefeller. We will do that job. At that particular time, why, the Senator's question would be pertinent. I yield.

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Arizona.

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. ROBERTS. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, as members of the Senate Intelligence Committee are well aware, we have spent almost 6 months pouring over thousands of documents that are related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and its ties to terrorism. We have interviewed over 100 people. This is probably the most thorough and complete review of intelligence that has ever been conducted, and the committee's process is completely open and transparent to Members on both sides of the aisle. All staff involved certainly participate on an equal basis. I have worked to ensure the minority's voice has been heard at all times. There should be no legitimate question as to our approach or our dedication to following the information no matter where it leads. I have said that over and over. We have asked the hard questions. When the inquiry is complete, I believe strongly the facts will speak for themselves. Yet despite all efforts to handle this review in the most professional and bipartisan way, we have learned of an effort to develop a plan to discredit the committee's work, undermine its conclusions, no matter what those conclusions may be. Our goal is to discover the facts, not to target any individuals or to serve any agenda. We want to know that the assessments reached by the intelligence community were based on sound intelligence and that the policymakers, including the President and the Congress, got the best information possible. I have been asked, Where do we go from here? The answer is simple: We go back to work. We build a bridge and go back to work. We have a number of documents yet to review. We have a handful of interviews yet to conduct. Then we will begin the process of drafting a committee report and preparing for public hearings. It is critical that all of this take place in an atmosphere of good faith and mutual trust. Secret plans to undermine the committee's work are examples of neither. I urge my friends across the aisle, those members of the committee, to disavow--and if that word is too strong, just to say not to go down this path of a strategy of attack, and join us to work together to complete the business of the committee. The American people, and particularly those currently serving in uniform overseas, deserve nothing less. I know Senator Rockefeller. He is a good friend. He is a good colleague. We have had a good private discussion. It is time to put this in the past, build a bridge to the future, and let the Intelligence Committee, unique among the committees in the Congress, do our work, our congressional oversight on behalf of national security. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. By all appearances, the demand for sorghum in our food aid will be growing in the near future. USAID has doubled the amount of sorghum programmed in food aid over the past three years. My sorghum farmers are appreciative of this fact. I think both of us want USAID and USDA to provide food aid recipients with the commodity that they want, whenever the commodity is available in the market place.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, currently, USDA does not distinguish between white (food grade) sorghum and yellow feed grade sorghum in our food aid programs. Unfortunately, sorghum that is used to make animal and pet food, or used to make ethanol, is being sent to African countries where people have been eating sorghum for generations. In fact, sorghum originated in Africa. They are keenly aware of the difference between the food grade sorghum that they eat and the feed grade sorghum that is fed to cattle. It is my view that USDA should provide recipient countries with sorghum that has the food qualities and characteristics with which the people receiving the aid are familiar.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the chairman for his support. eliminating avian influenza in rhode island

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chairman for his support.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I would like to engage my good friend and colleague Senator Bennett, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, in a colloquy regarding funding for an alkaline digester for Kansas State University. This digester will be used to conduct important animal disease research to protect the United States from an agroterrorist attack.

Mr. ROBERTS. The published committee report for this legislation indicates that $225,000 has been provided for the digester. However, I understand this is typographical error and the Committee has actually provided $1 million. Is that correct?

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, as the Acting President pro tempore has indicated, there will be 60 minutes of morning business. Following that, the Senate will begin the consideration of H.R. 2673, the Agriculture appropriations bill. It is the majority leader's intention to complete action on that measure during today's session. The Senate will begin working through amendments to the bill this morning. Senators who have amendments are asked to contact the bill managers as soon as possible.N O T I C E Effective January 1, 2004, the subscription price of the Congressional Record will be $503 per year or $252 for six months. Individual issues may be purchased at the following costs: Less than 200 pages, $10.50; Between 200 and 400 pages, $21.00; Greater than 400 pages, $31.50. Subscriptions in microfiche format will be $146 per year with single copies priced at $3.00. This price increase is necessary based upon the cost of printing and distribution.

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Georgia.