Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, this resolution declares Emporia, KS, to be the founding city of Veterans Day. In addition, the resolution recognizes the contributions of Alvin J. King and Representative Ed Rees from Emporia, KS, to the enactment into law of the observance of Veterans Day. On October 8, 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, also a Kansan, signed into law a bill changing Armistice Day to Veterans Day. President Eisenhower stated, ``On that day let us solemnly remember the sacrifices of all those who fought so valiantly, on the seas, in the air, and on foreign shores, to preserve our heritage of freedom, and let us reconsecrate ourselves to the task of promoting an enduring peace so that their efforts shall not have been in vain.'' With the soon-to-be return of our service men and women from the war in Iraq, Veterans Day takes on a new meaning. These men and women who serve in Iraq today, join the other millions that have come before them. I am proud that President Eisenhower, Representative Rees, and Alvin King, all from the great state of Kansas, took the idea for the celebration of Veterans Day from conception to fruition. Emporia, KS, organized and celebrated Veterans Day in 1953, one year before the rest of the United States. Alvin J. King, the man behind the idea, was a shoe cobbler in Emporia. Mr. King befriended many veterans, thus realizing that we needed a national holiday to commemorate all veterans of all wars, not just those of World War I. With support from the community of Emporia, Mr. King took his idea to Washington. There, he found a close ally in Representative Ed Rees, who introduced a bill to change the holiday. Mr. Rees said, ``The United States has now been involved in many great military efforts, and each has produced its number of veterans. We all realize that it would not be feasible to establish a national holiday to commemorate the closing of each war. This legislation does not establish a new holiday. Rather it expands an existing holiday so that we may honor all veterans at the same time.'' On November 11 of each year, we pay tribute to our veterans. Americans, as in all wars have rallied behind the men and women who went off to defend the American way of life. And, as some of those soldiers returned, we embraced and thanked them for their sacrifice. And for those that did not come home we remembered them in somber ceremonies, silent prayers, and grieving moments. On November 11 we pay reverence to anyone that has wore the uniform. We should, also, recognizes the shoe cobbler from Emporia, who had a vision for a national holiday; a representative, who listened to his hometown; and a President, who a veteran himself, saw the completion of this idea. I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Dorgan amendment. I do not think that rule XVI should be waived. The amendment is not germane. More important, speaking as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I believe this amendment is unwise. I think it will damage our Nation's efforts in the ongoing war against terrorism. I, for one, and members of the committee, have read the 28 pages from the Joint Inquiry Report and have been briefed by the FBI and the CIA. As a matter of fact, the distinguished Senator from Florida indicated that we have not even had hearings. That is not correct. We have had hearings. We had hearings in mid-September as to whether or not it would be in our national security interest to release the 28 pages. I would also say to all Members, if they have a keen interest in this--and I am aware of the legislation, or I am aware of the letter that went to the President signed by a great many Senators asking for the 28 pages to be made public--as I said at the time, please come to the Intelligence Committee and we will provide you the information on the 28 pages. Some of the very people who are sponsoring amendments have not read the 28 pages. I wish they would do so. It is my firm position--firm position--in order to protect our national security, specifically the methods and the sources and ongoing investigations, that this so-called redacted material should not be released to the public. I think it would endanger lives. I am not in a position to discuss the specifics in regard to the urgent pleas and the warnings that were provided to us by the FBI during this hearing. But I think I can speak for a majority of the Intelligence Committee who thought this was not a good idea and certainly would be counterproductive to our national interest. I might add that one of the statements I heard as I entered the floor was from the distinguished former chairman of the Intelligence Committee. He is somebody I admire, whose advice and counsel and friendship is very important to me. Senator Rockefeller, who is the distinguished vice chairman of the committee, and I have agreed that we will hold hearings in the next session of Congress on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Some I agree with, some I don't. We were going to make this year the year of modernization and/or reform in regard to the intelligence community, but something interrupted that. It was called a war--the war against global terrorism. In addition, we were going to make an inquiry as to the credibility and the timeliness of the intelligence prior to going to war in Iraq. It is not that we have not wanted to do these things. It is that the schedule of the committee has been taken up almost exclusively by those two subjects, plus our weekly threat briefings of which I know the Senator from Florida is certainly aware. So we will have hearings on the 9/11 Commission recommendations. We made that promise to the families of the victims. But if we disclose the information that compromises the close cooperation we have from our allies in the war on terrorism, and much better cooperation today than before then these same allies may choose not to support us in the future. That is another concern. Again, from the standpoint of endangering sources, methods, ongoing investigations, and, yes, lives--and I think I am speaking for a majority of the Intelligence Committee that has had a hearing on this, has taken a hard look at it--I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, it is a personal privilege for me to rise today to recognize the contributions and many accomplishments of Mr. Peter Dorn, a valued and long time professional staff member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Pete will be leaving our staff this month after 33 years of dedicated service to our Nation. Pete Dorn is the epitome of the professional staffer and he has served the Senate and the Intelligence Committee in an outstanding exemplary manner since he joined the committee's staff in 1991. From advising, if not educating Members, as their professional liaison to drafting legislation or conducting special investigations and projects to implementing and improving the intelligence budget, he and his work will be sorely missed. Pete Dorn's service to our country is quite a pedigree. In 1971, following his graduation from the State University of New York, Pete began serving his country as an officer in the U.S. Marine Corps. He spent 6 years in the infantry and special operations arena before transferring to Marine Corps Intelligence. It was a perfect military occupational and operational fit. For the rest of his Marine career, he honed his skills as an intelligence analyst and staff officer serving the Pacific Joint Intelligence Center, the Overseas Military Air Groups, the Commander of the Pacific Fleet, Headquarters, Marine Corps and the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Program staff. He could not have been better prepared to continue his service in intelligence work and he did so as he continued his career in the White House as a budget and legislative analyst at the Office of National Drug Control Policy. He then served as program and budget analyst at the Director of Central Intelligence's Crime and Counter-narcotics Center. In 1991, Pete's budgeting, intelligence and military experience made him a prime candidate for a professional staff position on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. He has served us as a budget monitor and as a staff liaison to Senator Richard Shelby and to myself and currently, Senator Saxby Chambliss. Pete also serves the committee as staff director for research and analysis. As in the case of many staff members and for that matter, Senators and Members of Congress as well, the laundry list of positions and titles does not tell the real story. The real story regarding Pete Dorn is that he is truly a patriot, has made a real difference in intelligence work, budgeting and legislation and as a consequence helped make our country a safer Nation. After 9/11, it was Pete Dorn who helped me to realize that although the Intelligence Community possessed great collection assets, we had a long way to go in terms of our analytical capability. It is our analytical product that is then turned over to the decision makers that contained mixed and delayed reporting. It has been my goal as chairman to see that this is changed. In this regard Pete Dorn has been my adviser. Personally, he has made a difference in my life and how I look at public service. He believes the role of intelligence is absolutely crucial to our national security, and when he sees things that should be corrected or a miscarriage of justice or something awry in his family--i.e., the intelligence community--he will not stop until he does everything possible to set things right. The case of our ``captured and whereabouts unknown'' gulf war Navy pilot, CAPT Scott Speicher, is a classic example. We will not rest until the fate of this pilot is known. The person who did not rest and who pressed for better intelligence and honest answers was Pete Dorn-- not only for Scott Speicher and his family but for every warfighter who wears the uniform. We now have legislation that changes the way we handle our prisoners of war and those missing in action. The credit for that legislation goes to Pete Dorn. There are many other examples I could outline, some classified and some not. Simply said, Pete Dorn's perseverance and commitment to our country and fellowman has been remarkable. Thank you, Pete, for putting up with and educating me, from a new member of the Senate Intelligence Committee to my current position as chairman. Thank you for your friendship and advice. Vice Chairman Rockefeller and the members of the Intelligence Committee, both past and present, who have enjoyed and benefited from their association with Pete extend their personal thanks for his exceptional dedication, his loyalty, his integrity, and his distinguished service. We wish all the best to Pete and his wife Kathleen, and to the entire Dorn family. So, thanks again, Pete. And, from one marine to another, well done, and Semper Fi. I yield the remainder of my time, Madam President.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 10 minutes. I know it is the minority's time.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, may I inquire of the Senator from New Jersey if he would like to respond on his time or what his plans are? I have several speakers. I did not want to dominate the discussion.

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask the Senator from West Virginia if he may want to make his remarks at this time.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to express my very strong opposition to the Corzine amendment, not in terms of intent but in terms of substance. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, a new Member of the Senate who has had a great deal of experience serving as a valued member of the House Intelligence Committee, Senator Chambliss.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask for an additional 1 minute for the distinguished vice chairman of the committee.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to recognize the distinguished vice chairman, the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Missouri, a valued member of the intelligence community.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I renew the invitation to my friend from New Jersey to take a look at our committee's work. Our staff is not understaffed. I know some people like to have more staff. They have been working very hard. I can direct you to the information that will answer every single one of the questions set forth in your amendment which reflects exactly the mission of our inquiry. All told, over 40 Members of Congress, numerous professional staff, and countless career nonpolitical employees in the executive branch have looked into this topic which you are suggesting we have another 12 Members do the same thing. Washington has been overrun with independent blue ribbon commissions. The intelligence community has been a frequent target of these activities--Aspin, Brown, Hart, Rudman, and the Bremer Commission, the 9/11 Commission, and the list goes on and on. We have to consider the unseen effects caused by the constant, unrelenting reviews of the intelligence community. I do not discount the importance of reexaminations of our past actions. We have had oversight responsibility. If we don't know the mistakes of the past, we are bound to repeat them. But following September 11, we asked intelligence analysts to aggressively pursue all available leads: Please connect every possible dot, even when the connections may seem weak. We cannot continue to castigate these analysts when they make reasoned judgments based on the available information. This second-guessing erodes morale and it discourages the thoughtful analysis we need. These people have their lives on the line. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. How much time do I have?

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein.

Mr. ROBERTS. So the Senator is making a speech on my time?

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

Mr. ROBERTS. If I might inquire of the Senator from New Jersey if he is ready to make a comment now or would he prefer to wait?

Mr. ROBERTS. I thought there was granted--

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, another valued member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr. Lott.

Mr. ROBERTS. I understand. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, a valued member of the Intelligence Committee, the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner.

Mr. ROBERTS. If the Senator will yield, I would like to make a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, Senator Rockefeller, our distinguished vice chairman, has been granted 5 minutes. I think from a parliamentary standpoint, however, it is my responsibility to yield to him at this particular time. If that is not correct, I stand to be corrected by the Presiding Officer.

Mr. ROBERTS. May I ask how much time I have remaining?

Mr. ROBERTS. I have two other requests for time: Senator Bond and Senator Stevens. Let me simply say, when we first considered the Iraq commission proposal during debate on the Defense appropriations bill, the Senate voted it down. I urge my colleagues to oppose it again today. My opposition to this amendment is simple. I disagree with its underlying principle that Congress somehow is incapable of thorough, independent, and nonpartisan analysis of the prewar intelligence on Iraq. As I address you today, the professional staff, 10 of them, of the Senate Intelligence Committee are diligently conducting the very review this amendment now seeks. Working together, as has been indicated by the distinguished vice chairman, Senator Rockefeller and I have broadly framed the mandate for the committee's review. Our efforts have focused on the following: The quantity and quality of U.S. intelligence concerning Iraqi WMD programs; Iraq's ties to terrorist groups; the regime's human rights violations; and the effect of Saddam Hussein on regional stability. Secondly, the objectivity, the reasonableness, the independence, and accuracy of the judgments of the intelligence community--whether those judgments were properly disseminated to policymakers; and finally, whether inappropriate pressure regarding politics was brought to bear on intelligence analysts. I can report to you that after interviewing many analysts--and I will not get into specifics here--there has been no evidence of that as of today. Those are the goals of the mission of the current inquiry of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and they mirror exactly the nine functions called for in the independent commission as proposed by the Senator from New Jersey. This review is well underway; in my opinion, it is probably 85 to 90 percent done. It is being conducted in the unique nonpartisan atmosphere of the select committee. The work our staff has done is worthy of the Senate's praise. Over 19 volumes of prewar intelligence, thousands of pages of text have been carefully reviewed. As a matter of fact, I offer an opportunity to the distinguished Senator. I will play Bob Barker and say, come on down, come to room 219, and I will be happy to show you the national intelligence estimate, our committee work, and the staff work. I think the Senator would be very impressed with the work of our staff. Additional information has been sought and provided in a manner of cooperation by the executive branch. Numerous interviews of the intelligence community and officials from the administration have also been conducted. Status reports have been provided on several occasions to committee members. In addition to these efforts, committee members have been able to question several in the intelligence community and officials from the administration at a series of closed hearings. The reason it is not public is simple. At the top of every document, and regarding every subject, it says ``top secret code word.'' That doesn't mean we will not have public hearings or a public report. I have promised that and so has the vice chairman. I have also invited all Members of this body who are interested in prewar Iraq intelligence to seek answers to their questions from the committee. I renew that invitation to Senator Corzine. Come on down; take a look at our committee's work. Our staff can direct you to the information that will answer every question set forth in your amendment. I remind the Senator that ours is not the only review of the intelligence community's performance. The able members of the House Intelligence Committee have conducted their review. The President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board is examining the topic. The State Department and the CIA have carefully examined the Niger uranium issue. This list doesn't include the efforts of the 9/11 Commission, the joint inquiry of the congressional intelligence committees, and the efforts of the other congressional committees. All told, over 40 Members of Congress, numerous professional staff, and countless career and nonpolitical employees of the executive branch will have looked into this topic. We don't need another 12 members to duplicate that effort. When we set out on this review, I promised to follow the facts wherever they might lead. I will do so. I remain committed to that promise. We will report our findings and, as necessary, we will recommend any needed improvements. Most important, we will continue our efforts to ensure the intelligence community does provide the policymakers with unbiased and actionable intelligence. As we approach completion of the committee's review, I ask Members not to prejudge our thorough, nonpartisan efforts. At this time, would the Senator like to take his time? How much time do I have?

Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to reclaim my time.

Mr. ROBERTS. How much time do I have?