Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

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

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. In summing up, I support the amendment that has been introduced by the Senator from Oklahoma and would say it is a matter of resolve in the eyes of the Arab world. It is much larger than Iraq and much larger than a $10 billion loan or $5 billion here or $5 billion there. In fact, it will be viewed in the Arab world, in the Arab community, as a test of America's resolve, and I do not want us to fail that test.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am going to start off with a quote from Winston Churchill and people are going to say: Why on Earth would I be quoting Winston Churchill in this regard as to whether or not we will come to the assistance of the Iraqis with a loan or a grant? But I think it has application, and it refers back to what the distinguished Senator from Indiana said. I would like to repeat what the Senator from Oklahoma has stated. I have nothing but admiration for the work the Senator from Indiana and others who have spoken to this amendment have done on this issue. Senator Bayh is a very valued member of the Intelligence Committee. Let me get back to my point, and that is, Churchill said on hearing about the attack on Pearl Harbor--if you stop and think about it, 9/11 is our modern-day Pearl Harbor, so I think it is an apt quote. He said: Silly people, that was the description many gave in discounting the force of the United States. Some said they were soft, others that they would never be united, that they would never come to grips, they would never stand bloodletting, that their system of government and democracy would paralyze their war effort. Let me repeat that: that their system of government and democracy would paralyze their war effort. Now we will see the weakness of this numerous but remote, wealthy and very talkative people. Then Churchill said: But, I had studied the American Civil War fought out to the last desperate inch. American blood flowed in my veins. I thought of a remark made to me years before--the United States is like a gigantic boiler. Once the fire of freedom is lighted under it, there is no limit to the power it can generate. It is a matter of resolve. Let me repeat that: It is a matter of resolve. Why do I bring up the Churchill quote and the issue of resolve in regard to whether or not we apply a grant or a loan to the Iraqi people? I think it is a question of resolve in the eyes of more especially those in the Arab world, more especially the Iraqis. In the last 2 days, I have had visits from three ambassadors. I am not going to go into their names or countries. It was a confidential discussion. Obviously, they were countries directly involved in this whole effort. They asked me quite frankly about American resolve. They asked me about the whole WMD issue, whether or not the American people still had the resolve to see this through. Then they asked me about this loan situation and this grant situation. They were very mindful of the attitude the Senator from Indiana already spoke to that there will be those in the Arab world, our adversaries, if you will, who will interpret this as a grab that they originally described as to why the United States became involved in this conflict--a grab for the oil of Iraq. On April 8, 2003, the President and the Prime Minister of Britain said in a joint statement regarding the future of Iraq: We reaffirm our commitment to protect Iraqi's natural resources, as the patrimony of the people of Iraq, which should be used only for their benefit. U.S. interests in Iraq lie solely with the development of a free and democratic nation. Congress should not now add a condition of our involvement that suggests the United States had an interest in Iraqi oil all along. Using the Iraq's oil as collateral for loans would play now into the hands of those who wrongly attributed an oil motive. That is in reference to a statement made by both the President and the Prime Minister of Britain. Now, the distinguished Senator from Indiana said that is not true. I do not think it is true either, but I think it is true in the minds of many Arab leaders. I do not know who is paying attention to this debate tonight. There are not many Members present. We are going to have a vote later, but most Americans are probably watching the playoffs in regard to the World Series, so I doubt if too many people are paying attention. I tell my colleagues who will pay attention: Every intelligence community and every Arab leader in the world will go over every word of what we say tonight. I have had three ambassadors come to me wondering about the resolve of the United States and are we reneging in regard to our support for the war. Rightly or wrongly, I think that is a real problem. I think we also have a real problem with the timing of this in regard to the loan, just as the President goes overseas, goes to the donors conference. People say, well, this will allow us a seat at the table. My colleagues, we are the table.

Mr. ROBERTS. I request an additional 30 seconds, if that would be possible.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Tennessee for his very eloquent speech in regard to the life and contributions of Johnny Cash. I suppose some might wonder why people in the Senate would stand up and choose basically to praise an individual who some might think was a simple country western star. Simple is right. But, perhaps, they would ignore the fact that this was a unique star in the horizon of stars that means a lot to Americans. The Senator from Tennessee called him ``the poet for the working poor.'' I might call him the minstrel for the working poor. I came across Johnny Cash when I was in Phoenix, AR trying to be the William Allen White of Arizona with a career in journalism. Up to that point, I had not been a country-and-western aficionado, if you will, or even a fan. Then, in a place called South Phoenix, which is certainly history now, the performers would perform in California, stop in Phoenix and go on their way to Texas. I am trying to think of the various performers who came in there, along with Johnny Cash. He was part of that show. I think it was before Waylon Jennings and Willie Nelson. I really can't think of other performers. It doesn't make much difference. But people wanted to come and see Johnny Cash. Other performers finished--and the South Phoenix ballroom was not exactly the Metropolitan Opera in terms of demeanor and what went on there. People used to see the shows and then stay and watch the fights. But anyway, the lights went off and then the spotlight went on. And here was this tall man in black, who said, ``Hello. I am Johnny Cash.'' And the place erupted. He went through the repertoire of his famous hits at that particular time. He was magnetic in his appeal. He had a special appeal for the people who could really identify with what he was singing in terms of their daily life, their pocketbooks, and the challenges they went through. The second time I had an opportunity to hear him was when he came to Washington at the Merriweather Post Pavilion. The place was packed. At that time, he was married to June Carter. I think that was probably the top act in show business, at least on the western and country side. The thing I wanted to mention is we had the Bicentennial ceremonies here on The Mall in 1976. The Senator from New Mexico indicated The Mall is sacred ground--until we had our Bicentennial ceremonies. We went through quite a bit of activity in getting the Capitol spruced up. A lot of artwork was redone at that particular time. Guess who the master of ceremonies was on The Mall celebrating our Nation's 200th anniversary. Johnny Cash. Guess who performed at a Joint Session of Congress with his rendition of Our Flag. I think I have that right. I may have it wrong. But there is a beautiful rendition--a historic rendition--of the Flag. He sang, I believe, a medley of patriotic songs before the Senate and the House. I thought to myself: Here is someone who came from the Depression, who had a rough time in show business, and then was a great entertainer. And who else would be more appropriate to head up the Bicentennial ceremonies than Johnny Cash? The third time I had an opportunity to meet him was at the Kennedy Center Honors where he was being honored along with great performers of our day. His health was none too good. But I stood in line with everybody else shaking his hand. I said to him, ``I wanted to see the man in black. I saw you in Phoenix way back in 1962. I was very proud of you in 1976 when you headed up the Bicentennial, and it is a real pleasure and a privilege to make your acquaintance as of today.'' He was a very down-home man, very humble, and said it was a privilege. He asked my name. We had a very nice conversation. I can't think of any other entertainer who represents American talent better than Johnny Cash. I have, by the way, I tell the Presiding Officer, about eight albums--not CDs, albums. If we could just find a turntable, we could go back to Johnny Cash and the Tennessee Trio, and later we could ``Walk The Line'' together. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask to speak for 5 minutes under the morning business provision under which we are now operating.

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

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am pleased to appear before my colleagues to support early Senate passage of the fiscal year 2004 intelligence authorization bill. This is a good bill, crafted within the unique bipartisan process used for over a quarter century by the Senate Intelligence Committee. No bipartisan effort can be effective without good personal cooperation. I have received such cooperation from my friend and colleague, the distinguished Vice Chairman, Senator Rockefeller. It is a privilege to be working with him on these important national security issues. This bill will serve our Nation's security interests during a time of troubling international conflict. I would like to review a few of the bill's significant provisions and some of the difficult budget choices which the Intelligence Committee made. The version of our bill which Senators are considering reflects changes which the Armed Services Committee made to the bill on sequential referral. The Intelligence Committee and Armed Services Committee reconciled differences in the bills amicably and professionally, with the equities of both committees in mind. The unclassified fiscal year 2004 intelligence bill contains reasonable new management and national security authorities for the intelligence community. For example, section 311 will give the intelligence community additional flexibility to act quickly to meet higher priority needs by eliminating the ``unforeseen requirements'' criterion for reprogrammings. Section 312 of the bill accounts for increased construction costs by raising (but not eliminating) the thresholds for notification to Congress on certain intelligence community construction and renovation projects and by shortening or removing the waiting period for beginning urgent or emergency projects. Section 315 would set up a program to cultivate and encourage college students to become intelligence analysts. Good analysts do not grow on trees. As the intelligence community fights the war on terrorism, good language and area specialists are more important than ever. The bill also creates a series of ``one-time'' reporting requirements in critical areas. Many of these reports will form the basis for committee efforts to address the concerns outlined in the report of the joint inquiry into the attacks of September 11. For example, we require reports on the following topics: The threat that ``cleared insiders'' like Robert Hanssen pose to classified computer networks; the adequacy and future direction of U.S. Government security investigations and clearance procedures; the creation of a ``community of intelligence experts'' by transferring civilian intelligence personnel among all elements of the intelligence community; the modifications to law and policy necessary to facilitate intelligence sharing; the strategic planning by the Director of Central Intelligence and Secretary of Defense with respect to the intelligence community; and the growing dependence by the United States on computer hardware and software manufactured overseas. Two of the reporting requirements deal with Iraq. Section 337 requires a report to the Congress on Intelligence lessons learned in Iraq--similar to a provision in the current House intelligence bill. Section 338 of the bill requires a report on the conventional arms and ammunition acquired by Saddam Hussein in violation of U.N. sanctions. Given the subject matter, these reports will also be made available to the Senate Foreign Relations and House International Relations Committees. Section 339 reduces burdens on the intelligence community and reconciles oversight priorities by repealing a number of recurring reporting requirements relating to intelligence activities. Reviewing reporting requirements and clearing out the cobwebs is a healty exercise for any committee. In title IV of the bill, there are notable ``CIA-specific'' provisions. Section 401 removes the ``prior notification'' requirement for a limited category of CIA ``quality of life'' benefits that have already been authorized by law for members of the Foreign Service. It does not disturb advance notification requirements for agency-unique benefits adopted under the CIA Act. Section 402 affords tort immunity benefits to CIA security protective officers (SPOs) and protective detail personnel designated by the DCI to protect certain agency employees, defectors, their immediate families, and other persons in the U.S. under CIA auspices. The provision would afford to SPOs and protective details the same protection against liability for assault, battery, false arrest, negligence, and other common law torts that certain law enforcement and Diplomatic Security Service officers enjoy already. Section 404 of our bill is a technical amendment to the recently passed Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) of 2002. The FISMA amendment permits inspector generals authorized by laws other than the Inspector General Act, such as the CIA inspector general, to perform security evaluations on information systems at their respective agencies. Title V of the bill contains provisions related to intelligence community elements residing in DOD. Section 501 of the bill would exempt certain National Security Agency operational files from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act and is identical to the provision recently approved by the Senate in the Defense Authorization bill. Section 503 allows designated NSA security officers to carry firearms while on official duty to protect NSA employees and property in the U.S. This provision would provide virtually identical protections to those in Section 402 for CIA security protective officers. Turning to the budget, when we began to review the President's fiscal year 2004 request, I became very concerned at the recent growth in intelligence funding. There is clearly not enough money in future years to fully fund the intelligence programs in this year's budget request. That is the sad reality of this budget. The intelligence community is stretched thin, with far more requirements than available funds. Too many projects and activities have been started that cannot be accommodated in the top line. It does not matter what caused this problem. The problem exists. A significant issue that must be addressed by the executive branch is the manner in which cost estimates for the procurement of major intelligence community systems are conducted. The magnitude and consistency in the cost growth on recent acquisitions indicates a systemic intelligence community bias to underestimate the cost of major systems. This ``perceived affordability'' creates difficulties in the out hears as the National Foreign Intelligence Program becomes burdened with content that is more costly than the budgeted funding. This underestimation of future costs has resulted in significant reshuffling of the NFIP to meet emerging shortfalls. Unless there is a dramatic and sustained increase in the intelligence budget, we face some hard choices. My colleagues and I decided that there is no time like the present to make them. In the reported bill, we have made an effort to address some of the shortfalls that came to light as a result of the joint inquiry into the September 11 attacks. In this bill, the committee tries to emphasize programs which begin to correct those deficiencies. We also sought to support the war on terrorism by supporting related intelligence community programs. We try, in this measure, to accelerate advanced technology programs to provide better intelligence in the future. In the managers' amendment, we would statutorily mandate a fundamentally more sound approach to cost estimates for major systems. In short, the committee made some tough choices. It is our hope that some of the additional programs we were forced to cut can be funded through alternative means. In closing, we have vetted and prepared a managers' amendment that reflects a number of additional items which Senator Rockefeller and I recommend for Senate passage in this bill. we have included some highly technical corrections to the bill and have worked to address concerns expressed by some Members regarding the committee's attempt to relieve the intelligence community from burdensome and dated reporting requirements. We have also added several substantive provisions, based on supporting materials supplied by the administration and further investigation by the committee staff. Our amendments would: create a one-time report to examine the analytic arm of the Department of Homeland Security and the interaction between the Department and the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC); require the preparation and submission of independent cost estimates to accompany budget requests for major systems acquisitions over $500,000,000, and require the preparation of budgets consistent with these estimates; help prevent money laundering by ensuring ex parte and in camera review by the presiding judge of classified information used to identify jurisdictions, institutions, transactions, and accounts that are of primary money laundering concern; and permit Central Intelligence Agency employees in the compensation reform pilot program to contribute bonus pay to their Thrift Savings Plan--an added incentive for exceptional performers. The committee staff and I will provide any member additional information concerning any of the provisions or programs in the intelligence bill. Again, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, may I inquire as to how much time remains that was yielded by the Senator from Nevada to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chair. As his neighbor to the west, I share Senator Bond's concern for our health care providers and patients. But it seems that we have a ``tale of two cities'' between Kansas City, KS, and Kansas City, MO. Just across the State line, we in Kansas have problems and challenges. But we don't have the same severe problems Missouri doctors and patients are facing. That is because, in the 1980s, Kansas enacted sweeping medical liability reform legislation that does create a hard cap of $250,000 on noneconomic damages. By contrast, that same cap in Missouri is $557,000 and can go even higher under certain circumstances. As the Senator from Missouri said, you won't find it surprising that nonsurgical specialists in Missouri are now seeing very dramatic liability premium increases that have been, until now, limited to surgical specialties. One pulmonary practice's quote for traditional insurance went from $35,000 to $125,000 per year. Another pulmonary specialist quit practicing at North Kansas City Hospital because he couldn't afford the premium on his Missouri practice. Now, as the Senator knows, he practices in Kansas. Here is another example. We have learned that both neurosurgeons in Independence are moving out of Missouri this summer leaving eastern Jackson County with no neurosurgeon. There is no trauma care basically between the Kansas State line and Columbia, 2 hours to the east. According to the Kansas Medical Society, the two largest companies in Kansas that provide medical liability insurance, Kansas Medical Mutual Insurance Company and Medical Protective, had increases that were not nearly as excessive as the increases in Missouri. Kansas Medical Mutual, the largest insurer in Kansas, took rate increases of 16.2 percent last year and 8.5 percent this year. Medical Protective took a 13-percent increase last year. Premiums for the standard policy in Kansas that have been available for the last 15 to 20 years were actually lower in 2002 than they were in 1991. As I have stated, premiums for the standard policy in Kansas are actually lower than they were in 1991. I simply want to make the point in the short time I have that we have a tale of two cities. We have a Kansas law in which we have 15 percent more doctors in Kansas than in the past. Their premiums are not excessive. People are leaving Kansas City, MO, to practice in Kansas. It is a tale of two cities. That is why I think we should support the bill that has been authored by the Senator from Nevada, S. 11. A study by Weiss Ratings on medical malpractice caps was mentioned yesterday evening. The study found that States with caps experienced higher premium increases than those States without. I cannot speak for other States but I can speak for Kansas, and the reports conclusions were untrue. First, as I have stated, premiums for the standard policy in Kansas are actually lower now than they were in 1991. Secondly, the point needs to be made that all caps are not the same. The Weiss report lists the 19 States with caps, but only 5 States, including Kansas, have $250,000 caps on noneconomic damages. The rest are significantly higher, thus reducing the cap's impact on payouts and premiums. There is no question that the cap on noneconomic damages has had an impact on premiums. It has created an unparalleled period of premium stability for Kansas physicians and hospitals. Yes, premiums are increasing in Kansas but at a much lower rate that other States. Case in point: a family physician who delivers babies paid $13,790 in 1991 . . . . in 2001, that same physician paid $12,575--an 8.8 percent reduction. Similar reductions exist for virtually every specialty. In the aggregate, physicians paid $75.3 million in premiums in 1991 and $60 million in 2002. Finally, I wish to point out that there are probably about 15 percent more physicians practicing in Kansas today than there were 12 years ago, and the total premium is still lower. Senator Bond and I have shared with our colleagues what good medical liability reform can do. Our Kansas City doctors have provided an outstanding example of how medical liability affects doctors and patients on different sides of the State line. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to take a closer look at the differences between our two States and the positive impact medical liability reforms have had in Kansas. I hope that the Senate will support S. 11 so that States like Missouri which are struggling to retain doctors and offer the best patient care are not left out in the cold. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004. I commend Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin for their skillful stewardship. I believe the committee completed its mark-up in near record time, with one of the fastest subcommittee marks in history occurring at the panel I currently chair, the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities. Nonetheless, Senator Jack Reed and I were able to provide funding for a number of important programs. We focused not only on enhancing the capabilities of our men and women in uniform, but also on those initiatives that address threats we face right now here at home. In fact, since Chairman Warner established the subcommittee in the Winter of 1999, most of the ``emerging threats'' have become current realities. I am talking in particular about the use and potential use by terrorists of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). I am certainly thankful for the leadership of President Bush as we try to navigate through this environment, one that includes apocalyptic terror groups acquiring and employing WMD. Let us remember, day to day, it is the President of the United states who is responsible for preventing terrorism where we live and work. I am confident President Bush is doing all he can to protect us. He may not be popular in European cafes, universities, or newspapers, but he gets results for us here at home. Foreign actors, be they governments, individuals, or groups, know our President will hold them accountable for terrorism against us. Perhaps more than any policy action or innovation, this posture contributes to success in achieving a secure environment in which we find ourselves right now. Up against the most asymmetric, organized, determined, and merciless enemy the United States has ever faced, we have not had a major terror attack in the homeland since beginning the Global War on Terrorism shortly after 9/11. In this urgent threat warning atmosphere, knock on wood, Mr. President. Indeed, there have been recent attacks in Saudi Arabia, Israel and North Africa. At the same time, however, the State Department reports that, globally, 2002 saw the lowest number of incidents of terrorism since 1969, a 44 percent drop from 2001. That is the lowest number of attacks since the birth of modern terrorism. I recall these facts because the nature of recent comments from certain Members who suggest virtually every act of terrorism is somehow the fault of our Commander in Chief. That is not only inaccurate but counterproductive to the war against terrorism. In closing, I would like to briefly summarize the funding authorizations achieved by the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats & Capabilities for fiscal year 2004 include the following: $88.4 million to field an additional 12 Weapons of Mass Destruction- Civil Support Teams (WMD-CST), resulting in a total of 44 teams by the end of 2004. $76,6 million to the Chemical Biological Installation/Force Protection Program, doubling the number of bases, from 15 to 30, that will be fully equipped with a highly effective suite of manual and automated chemical and biological detection equipment. $147.0 million in innovative technologies to combat terrorism and defeat asymmetrical threats. $135.0 million to rapidly accelerate the development and acquisition of unmanned systems such as UAVs. $1.5 billion in university based research for transformational defense technologies. $10.7 billion for the Defense Science and Technology program, including an additional $515.0 million for critical, high-payoff science and technology programs, including approximately $150.0 million for technologies to combat terrorism. $6.7 billion for the Special Operations Command, including an additional $107.0 million for weapons systems, psychological operations capabilities, and enhanced intelligence. $450.8 million for the Department of Defense's Cooperative threat Reduction (CTR) Program, as well as authorization for CTR projects and activities outside the states of the Former Soviet Union, and one year authority to waive the conditions that must be met before continuing the Russian chemical demilitarization program at Schuch'ye. Again, I commend Senators Warner and Levin. I also thank Senator Reed for being an outstanding partner in completing the tasks given to our panel this year. We believe we are continuing the committee's investment in science and technology, cutting-edge systems, and efforts to prevent the proliferation of WMD. I thank the Chair and I urge my colleagues to support the Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, as chairman and vice chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Rockefeller and I have submitted to the Senate the Report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence of its activities during the 107th Congress from January 3, 2001 to November 22, 2002. The Committee is charged by the Senate with the responsibility of carrying out oversight of the intelligence activities of the United States. Much of the work of the Committee is of necessity conducted in secrecy, yet the Committee believes that the Intelligence Community and this Committee should be as accountable as possible to the public. The public report to the Senate is intended to achieve that goal.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter dated May 7, 2003, be printed in the Record in regard to the NATO enlargement protocol.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for admitting Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. As NATO's focus evolves to include transnational threats, it is important to have as many like-minded nations abroad as possible. At the same time Congress and the President must ensure NATO as a military alliance can act efficiently and with precision in the post 9/ 11 world. These days I hear some pundits talk about rebuilding the alliance as if it is in the same shape as post-war Iraq or post-war Afghanistan. NATO is in no such condition. The inability to achieve North Atlantic Council approval for assistance to Turkey was damaging but not catastrophic. NATO is in good shape. Nonetheless, it would be productive for NATO to consider improvements that would streamline its decision-making process, increase operational planning for contingencies, and more appropriately respond to a member nation who refuses to uphold basic alliance mandates such as Article IV. Toward that end, I am pleased to join Chairman Warner and Senator Levin in offering an amendment to the Resolution of Ratification that adds a declaration concerning potential reforms to NATO internal processes. Specifically, the declaration includes a Sense of the Senate that the President should place on the agenda for discussion at the North Atlantic Council the consensus rule as well as a process for suspending a member nation that acts contrary to the provisions of the North Atlantic Treaty. Further, the Warner-Levin-Roberts amendment requires a report from the President regarding Alliance dialogue on these issues as well as methods to provide more flexibility to NATO's military leadership for operational planning prior to formal alliance approval. My primary focus is on the process of consensus and planning for new contingencies. The decision-making process of consensus within the NATO alliance served the organization and is purpose well in the 20th Century. While the bipolar security environment of the previous century shaped our command, and defined our mission, the 21st Century requires that we depart from the clearly defined role of territorial defense. NATO must recognize the need to change from the traditional terrain- based military of a defensive alliance to an effects-based alliance in order to prepare for a new set of security challenges. Our adversaries do not recognize international law, sovereignty or accepted norms of or behavior. As we recognize the growing need to conduct operations outside the alliance's boundaries as we do in Afghanistan in order to protect our interests and enhance our security, we also need to acknowledge the inherent limitations of consensus voting by 26 nations. Issues of security and the need to take military action will likely not be perceived uniformly in an organization that spans a wide geographic area, encompassing different interests. Recognizing this reality and the need to adopt a different modality for decision making within the alliance is imperative. I would argue NATO needs to consider adopting--I emphasize needs to consider--a decision-making model that doesn't require a consensus vote to act. Nations that choose not to take military action would not be compelled to participate. However, they would not block the alliance and those nations that decide to act from carrying out military operations. That brings me to contingency planning. Currently, NATO's military leadership is forbidden to even conduct prudent planning for contingency operations until the matter is voted on in the North Atlantic Council. The difficulty in crafting viable plans to often complex military operations amongst nineteen separate nations is a daunting task. The measure of difficulty to conduct planning will be exacerbated with the addition of seven new members. Current planning processes may even prevent the full realization of the NATO Response Force, something that could be stood up at the June principal meeting. This capability is central to NATO's appropriate effort to develop an agile and responsive force that will enable the alliance to respond to terrorism and instability. To transform the military capability into a viable, very responsive force without the means to rapidly employ it, is counterproductive. It is time for NATO to consider developing a methodology by which the military leadership is permitted to conduct prudent planning for contingency operations. These are my concerns, as we vote--and I will vote--to approve further expansion of the alliance. I commend my colleagues, the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, for sharing these concerns and for crafting a worthy amendment. I am a cosponsor, and I urge support for Warner-Levin-Roberts amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I am proud to cosponsor the Hagel IDEA bill, S. 939, which will finally make Congress pay its promised share of special education funding. I have long been a supporter of fully funding IDEA and I am pleased today to support this important piece of legislation. Nearly 30 years ago, Congress made a promise to our schools to share the cost of special education. The promise was simple--the Federal Government pays 40 percent of the excess cost of educating a special needs child. Sadly, we have yet to fulfill that promise and I believe it is well beyond time that Congress relieves our State and local governments of the financial burden they have been forced to shoulder. This bill will fully fund IDEA in 8 years by increasing funding by $2 billion annually for 7 years and $1.8 billion in 2011. This funding will have a tremendous impact in my home State of Kansas. The Kansas Department of Education estimates that this legislation will provide the State an increase of $19 million in overall funding for IDEA each year. Kansas schools may then spend these newly freed-up dollars in areas where they need it the most, such as professional development, title I programs, or technology. In the State of Kansas, special education costs have skyrocketed to over $530 million for 2002. Unfortunately, the Federal Government only picks up about 16 percent of that figure, leaving 84 percent of the funding to State and local governments. In dollar amounts, the State of Kansas pays over $251 million in special education costs, while local schools must fork out an additional $200 million to cover the costs of special education. This is unacceptable. IDEA is the ``granddaddy'' of all unfunded mandates and I can assure my colleagues that funding IDEA at the promised level of 40 percent would not only relieve schools in my home State of Kansas, but would also relieve schools in each and every State in our great Nation. I stress to my colleagues that there is no better time than now to help our local schools by fully funding IDEA. I would like to share with my colleagues the current budget situation in Kansas. Like many other States, Kansas is facing ominous cuts in the State budget, and schools across the State are worried about shortfalls in their own budgets. Rural schools all over Kansas are considering consolidation to alleviate budget woes. Schools in western Kansas are cutting the school week to 4 days in order to save money. Schools in eastern Kansas are cutting academic programs in order to cut costs. If Congress would pay its promised share of special education funding, then our schools would be able to use those freed-up dollars for other educational needs. We are talking about real dollars for real people. Fully funding IDEA is not just something that Congress should do, it is something we promised to do. I would like to thank my colleagues for the commitment to education funding. I do believe that Congress is on the right path to fully funding IDEA, and I am pleased that education funding has been a top priority over the last few years. Since 2000, Federal special education funding has increased by approximately 58 percent and title I funding has increased by nearly 45 percent. I am proud of this support for education funding, and I urge my colleagues to continue on the course to fully funding IDEA. It is our duty to once and for all meet the promise we made nearly 30 years ago.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to day to discuss several issues related to agriculture funding in the budget resolution proposed by the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. While there are no specific reconciliation instructions for agriculture in this proposal, the summary documents issued by the committee indicate an assumed savings of $80 million from the crop insurance program. I have been one of the strongest defenders of this program in the Congress, and I have fought hard to improve the program for producers throughout the country. Simply put, cutting $80 million from this program is exactly the wrong thing to do at this time. As budgets continue to tighten, both the administration and Members of this congress have said that producers must do more to rely on crop insurance as their primary risk management tool and decrease reliance on emergency disaster assistance programs. Last fall we also saw the collapse of the largest seller of crop insurance in the country. This was the result of several factors, but the significant drought we have suffered took its toll as indemnity payments to producers added up. And, several other companies are not in strong financial positions for the same reason. Finally, the entire insurance industry has struggled with reinsurance since 9/11. This is also true in the crop insurance industry, and the difficulties of obtaining reinsurance have been compounded by the drought. The bottom line is this: We have worked hard to make crop insurance the primary risk management tool for producers. But, crop insurance is struggling along with the entire insurance industry, and this cut many be something it can not recover from. It could put several of the smaller companies out of business and lead to further consolidation in the industry and concentration in agriculture. I urge the chairman to omit this specific cut in any reconciliation instructions that may come out of the conference with the House. Finally, I understand that an amendment was offered during committee discussion of the resolution that shifted funds from commodity programs to the conservation budget. I am not going to discuss the merits of the proposal that accomplished this shift. I think that is a discussion best conducted within the Agriculture Committee. However, if we are going to shift funds to the conservation program, I believe they should go to our well-established programs that benefit producers throughout the United States. These include the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Conservation Reserve Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, and the Farmland Protection Program. I do not think these funds should go to the Conservation Security Program--a program that will divert the largest potion of the funds to only a couple States that can undertake farming practices that simply do not work in regions of the country where the land is not on the river bottom and the rain comes down sideways with a 50-mile-per-hour wind. Lets put the money where it will actually work and achieve real conservation benefits. I thank my colleagues for listening to my views on these issues, and I hope they will continue to consider them as this process toward a final budget agreement progresses.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, as a citizen, Senator, and former marine, my hopes and prayers are with the troops and their families. I returned just a few weeks ago from the Persian Gulf and will be going back as soon as possible. I went to the region to assess whether the war fighters in the field were armed with the best intelligence possible to fight and win a battle against Saddam Hussein. Take my word for it, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are ready. They will take care of business consistent with American values. They will take care of each other. When they return, they will receive the accolades of a greateful nation. The operation in Iraq is a component of the war against terrorism. We depend on our men and women in uniform to keep the terror plotters and operators far off our shores, away from our families, communities, and our Nation. That is quite a responsibility. I can not imagine a more important mission. I support the resolution under consideration, and I am pleased it mentions those who have yet to return home from the original conflict in 1991, most notably Navy Captain Scott Speicher. I am also pleased that colleagues have come to the chamber not to argue about Iraq, rather to proclaim support for our service personnel. The debate ended last October while a 77-to-23 vote to permit a military option, should one be needed, in the case of the Baghdad regime. In passing H.J. Res. 114, Congress specifically authorized the President to ``use the Armed Forces of the United States in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Council resolutions regarding Iraq.'' This action was, of course, in addition to the Iraq Liberation Act, which Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law October 31, 1988. That act clearly states the United States should foster regime change in Iraq. The House passed that bill by a vote of 360 to 38, with 157 Democrats joining 202 Republicans. Lastly, on November 8, 2002, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1441 which gave Iraq one last opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations. A few months later, the Director of Central Intelligence declared ``Iraq has in place an active effort to deceive the UN inspectors and deny them access. This effort is directed by the highest levels of the Iraqi regime. Baghdad has given clear directions to its operational forces to hide banned materials in their possession.'' Let's be candid on the issue of compliance. The truth is that no amount of U-2 surveillance flights nor increase in the number of inspectors would have solved the problem of Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. Now I don't want war. Nobody wants war. The fact is, however, we are already at war. Over the last two decades, 5,700 Americans have lost their lives as a result of the kind of terrorist activity Saddam Hussein supports. I recall that the Marine Barracks in Lebanon, Pan Am 103, Khobar Towers, the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the USS Cole, and of course, September 11, 2001. Only after the latter tragedy, did we begin to fight back. So I say to our troops and their families, thank you and I support you. You are freedom's best hope.

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

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, first, I wish to sincerely thank my distinguished colleague and my dear friend from Nevada--Searchlight, NV, by the way--Senator Reid, for his very kind comments. It has been a team effort in behalf of Senator Reid and myself as we have tried to serve--some people would say sentenced to--the Ethics Committee. But we have been very conscientious in fulfilling this duty, and I think we have done so with Senator Reid's unique ability to not only come up with what is right, according to the ethics manual, but what is basically common sense. As a matter of fact, Senator Reid has this notion that continually is expressed: Gee, Pat, we ought to sit down and really see if we can rewrite the ethics manual to make it actually understood by Members of the Senate and reform it, make it adhere to a criterion--a yardstick, if you will--of common sense. I always tried to dissuade him from that. No. 1, I did not want to undertake that mountain to climb, and it would be a big mountain to climb, because just as soon as you start that, why, other Members add other mountains. At any rate, Senator Reid has been a joy to work with. I admire his leadership. He is soft spoken and, as I have indicated, has brought a lot of common sense and has tried to make the Ethics Committee proactive and very helpful to Members. As a matter of fact, with every new class of Senators that comes in, we have a briefing, and Harry always points out: Ask; ask first before there is any problem. And that is certainly good advice. I thank Senator Reid for his very kind remarks. I do not know about the decades of public service that I have accrued. Gosh, decades sounds like a long time. I may be fossilized here before we are through with these remarks. I am an old piece of furniture around here, I guess, in the House and Senate. With that experience comes at least some expertise and some real appreciation in behalf of certain staff. We are only as good as our staff, I do not care whether you are an individual Member's staff, committee staff, select committee staff, whatever. It is a real honor for me to offer a few brief remarks for our outgoing Senate Ethics staff director, Mr. Victor Baird. He has 16 years of service, and he now leaves this to enter retirement and, doubtlessly, what will be a new phase of life. His retirement is certainly well deserved, but his absence will be a great loss to the Senate. Sometimes the most important positions are the ones that go unacknowledged. This is certainly true with the staff director of the Ethics Committee. It is one of the few positions where accolades do not really accrue. Only when a storm or controversy presents does the spotlight focus on the staff director. When this occurs, the director faces intense challenges from all angles, including media scrutiny, public outcry, and, yes, even partisan bickering. Yet he endures all this for one supreme objective, and this is what Victor did--to preserve the integrity of this institution we call the United States Senate. For almost a decade and a half, why, Victor Baird has assumed this thankless but important job. It is a job requiring keen attention to detail, mastery of the rules, and a precise level of foresight on how ethics rulings affect the Senate, not only in the present but for future generations. Just as the Sergeant at Arms and Capitol Police guard the physical structure of the Senate, Victor Baird guarded the reputation of these halls. He accomplished this by insistence that Members adhere and remain accountable to high ethical standards. During his tenure, he guided the Senate through some very tumultuous times that often really threatened the reputation of the Senate. As we all know, a compromised reputation will diminish credibility, and diminished credibility threatens a mandate to govern. It is that important. With this loss, our whole system of checks and balances would suffer which is vital to the strength of our democracy. All of us, regardless of what side of the aisle we sit on, should understand this. Thankfully, Victor handled all ethics proceedings, and particularly those with intense media focus, judiciously, without staining the dignity of the Senate. He safeguarded us. This is not an easy task, and all of us should be very grateful. The Senate is unlike any other governing body in the world. Deliberative by design, it exists to make sure we thoroughly consider our actions. In a town fueled by hotly charged emotions that often makes decisions for the moment, thankfully Victor was always available for advice and counsel. My friend and colleague, Senator Reid, and I often sought his well- reasoned, objective legal opinions. We respected his vast institutional knowledge and understanding of how this body should conduct itself. When dealing with ethics issues, it is important Members rise above partisan politics, which is hard to do sometimes, and examine each issue on a case-by-case basis. This is what our Founding Fathers intended. Maintaining the Senate's distinguished legacy is a task all of us must assume, regardless of politics. Victor knows this; Victor knew this, and always kept this premise at the forefront of his responsibilities. His most important contribution was understanding that the committee's ultimate goal was proactive and preventive in nature. He made sure that all Members and their staff knew the rules of acceptable conduct at the outset. In public office, innocent mistakes can quickly break a career. This is why the Ethics Committee, and in particular the staff director, is so important. He is the gatekeeper. He is the adviser. He is the counselor to us all. Victor Baird certainly filled each of these roles with the utmost professionalism and integrity. On behalf of the entire Senate, we thank you for your service and your dedication, Victor. Your influence has preserved the reputation of this governing body for the past 16 years, and we salute you. In the U.S. Marine Corps, we always conclude by saying: Semper Fi. That means always faithful. You have been always faithful, Victor. Semper Fi. I yield the floor.

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 and honored to join with my colleagues to introduce two pieces of legislation to help meet the child care challenges facing families around the Nation. These bills entitled the ``Caring for Children Act'' and ``A Boost for Child Care Act'', or the ABC's Act. 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'' and `A Boost for Child Care Act'' take the first steps in addressing this challenge through a responsible approach. This legislation expands child care opportunities without increased government costs or intrusion in our lives. This legislation builds into the existing network adding more government intervention or mandates. This legislation will help families that have two working parents and families that have a stay-at-home parent. This legislation will help to increase the supply of quality child care. First, in order to provide additional tax relief and increased affordability of child care, the ABC's Act expends the Dependent Care Tax Credit by raising the income level to $30,000 at which families become eligible for the maximum tax credit. This legislation also raises the maximum percentage of child care expenses that parents can deduct to 50 percent. These changes make the Dependent Care Tax Credit more realistic for families that face increasing child care costs. Additionally, the ABC's Act accelerates and makes permanent the child tax credit at $1,000 for qualifying taxpayers in order to further ease the financial burden on families. Increasing the income level and the percentage of child care expenses that are deductible will help families where both parents work. But, we must also recognize that families who choose to have one parent remain at home have child care expenses as well. Therefore, this legislation extends eligibility for the Dependent Care Tax Credit to families with a stay-at-home parent. This provides greater options to more families and leaves child care choices where they should be--with the family. In order to target this credit to parents who need it the most and meet our fiscal responsibilities, the credit is phased out for higher income wage earners. 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 to provide child care services for employees. This program is more of a demonstration project that will sunset at the end of three years. In the meantime, small businesses will be eligible for grants up to $100,000 for start-up costs, training scholarships, or other related activities. Business must continue to meet state quality and health standards. Businesses will be required to match Federal funds to encourage self-sustaining facilities well into the future. Parental access to child care information and technical assistance to child care providers both play a strong role in increasing the supply of quality child care. The Caring for Children Act includes a grant program to allow entities to develop and operate technology-based child care training infrastructures to enable child care providers to receive the training, education and support they need to improve the quality of child care. The legislation also provides funds for the Department of Health and Human Services to collect and disseminate state of the art information on topics related to child care health and safety, as well as early childhood development. This information could be distributed through brochures, the internet, a toll-free information hotline, or resource and referral organizations. 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 ``Caring for Children Act'' and ``A Boost for Child Care Act'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am pleased and honored to join with my colleagues to introduce two pieces of legislation to help meet the child care challenges facing families around the Nation. These bills entitled the ``Caring for Children Act'' and ``A Boost for Child Care Act'', or the ABC's Act. 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'' and `A Boost for Child Care Act'' take the first steps in addressing this challenge through a responsible approach. This legislation expands child care opportunities without increased government costs or intrusion in our lives. This legislation builds into the existing network adding more government intervention or mandates. This legislation will help families that have two working parents and families that have a stay-at-home parent. This legislation will help to increase the supply of quality child care. First, in order to provide additional tax relief and increased affordability of child care, the ABC's Act expends the Dependent Care Tax Credit by raising the income level to $30,000 at which families become eligible for the maximum tax credit. This legislation also raises the maximum percentage of child care expenses that parents can deduct to 50 percent. These changes make the Dependent Care Tax Credit more realistic for families that face increasing child care costs. Additionally, the ABC's Act accelerates and makes permanent the child tax credit at $1,000 for qualifying taxpayers in order to further ease the financial burden on families. Increasing the income level and the percentage of child care expenses that are deductible will help families where both parents work. But, we must also recognize that families who choose to have one parent remain at home have child care expenses as well. Therefore, this legislation extends eligibility for the Dependent Care Tax Credit to families with a stay-at-home parent. This provides greater options to more families and leaves child care choices where they should be--with the family. In order to target this credit to parents who need it the most and meet our fiscal responsibilities, the credit is phased out for higher income wage earners. 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 to provide child care services for employees. This program is more of a demonstration project that will sunset at the end of three years. In the meantime, small businesses will be eligible for grants up to $100,000 for start-up costs, training scholarships, or other related activities. Business must continue to meet state quality and health standards. Businesses will be required to match Federal funds to encourage self-sustaining facilities well into the future. Parental access to child care information and technical assistance to child care providers both play a strong role in increasing the supply of quality child care. The Caring for Children Act includes a grant program to allow entities to develop and operate technology-based child care training infrastructures to enable child care providers to receive the training, education and support they need to improve the quality of child care. The legislation also provides funds for the Department of Health and Human Services to collect and disseminate state of the art information on topics related to child care health and safety, as well as early childhood development. This information could be distributed through brochures, the internet, a toll-free information hotline, or resource and referral organizations. 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 ``Caring for Children Act'' and ``A Boost for Child Care Act'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee for yielding time to me. Everyone understands, on a bipartisan basis, I say to the distinguished Senator from Montana, that we are not in very good shape with regard to farm country. It does not matter if you have been hit by hurricane, flood, or record-breaking drought. Last spring, I warned this is exactly what would happen because the current farm bill was structured to provide assistance to producers when they had a crop, but left them dangling in the Kansas, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Montana wind when there was no crop to harvest, not to mention other parts of the country suffering these kind of weather disasters. It seems to me, and maybe I took it a little personal, we will not get into partisanship because we have to accomplish some degree of relief, but I was criticized on the floor of the Senate last spring. They said I didn't know anything about agriculture because producers with high prices are just fine and need no Government assistance. Well, as everyone here knows, with the wheat, sorghum, corn, and soybean prices have experienced the highest levels in the last few years, but like most of the producers in Kansas or throughout the Great Plains or in other sections of the country, it does not do much good if all the producer had to harvest was a dust cloud. Prices are high because the drought cut production and supply. What are we going to do about this? We heard that we have one approach that is $6 billion. I question that, really. Not in regard to the intent of the distinguished Senators who brought it forward, but if my second-degree amendment to the $6 billion bill as of last year was $2.9 billion, an amendment that was not allowed because of some parliamentary maneuvers, now costs $4.03 billion, I have to assume that the $6 billion is probably closer to $7 billion or $8 billion. But that is not really the issue. The issue is the chairman of the Agriculture Committee really brought forth this amendment and worked with many of us to ensure that we are directing the bulk of assistance to those areas that have actually experienced the crop losses in recent years. This past year in Kansas, we have really gone through a very difficult time. Kansas State University estimates the crop losses in the State at over $1 billion. Thankfully, these have been partially offset by $406 million in crop insurance indemnity payments. That is the other half of the equation, and yes we had to improve the crop insurance program in 2000 but thank goodness for that. But the losses are very substantial. Livestock losses total over $300 million in Kansas; 26 percent of pasture conditions are rated poor to very poor. We have seen a winter, in many parts, the driest on record. And net farm income is forecast to be approximately $10,000. When all is figured in for 2002, this is estimated to represent a shortfall of about $35,000 in simply meeting family living expenses. On top of all this, the total government payments on the 2002 crop were estimated to be 60 percent less than received in 2001. That is right. Under this farm bill described by the other side as the best farm bill ever--the greatest farm bill ever, pardon me--our Kansas producers have seen a drop of 60 percent in government assistance because it is a price support program. We have high prices but no income support. That is why we are back again, despite the predictions that we would not have another disaster bill. I heard from many bankers who say there will be no next year for many of our producers unless we grant relief. You know, you can't take issues and promises to the bank. That is what we have. Issues do not pay bills. Promises do not pay bills. Debate will not pay bills. We need to give them hope and an assistance package that can actually pass. Everyone here knows that the House of Representatives will not pass the proposal that has been put forth by my good friends on the other side of the aisle. It will not pass the House. There are many reasons for that: Budget reasons, any other reason you can come up with. Some sections of agriculture who do not want to open up the farm bill. It will not pass the House. It will not be signed into law by the President of the United States. That is a given. We can argue the merits of that and the politics of that. We did all last year. But now is not the time to keep arguing about that. Put politics aside. It is not the best bill that I could possibly write or that the distinguished Senator from Mississippi could write, but it is a bill that will be passed by the House and signed into law by the President. As I said, the amendment is not perfect, but it does give them hope. It targets assistance to those areas which were actually declared a disaster area. It provides vital livestock assistance that will aid producers throughout the country. It provides assistance for specialty crops. And it does replenish some of the section 22 account so these funds can be used for nutrition programs and purchase programs for specialty crops and the meat sector. It doesn't bust the budget; it is paid for. It doesn't take any money out of the agriculture baseline. The back of the envelop math is $190 million for Kansas. I don't know what it is for the other States that are represented here on the floor. But it is substantial. Is it enough? We can argue that all day long. But this is a decision whether we have $190 million that goes to Kansas, hard-hit Kansas producers and livestock producers, or nothing. So that is the issue. Coming pretty close to the truth is coming pretty close, but it is still not the truth, and that is the truth. We could have an issue or a bill. Our farmers are sick and tired of being sick and tired. It may well be that if it doesn't rain, we will be back here again later on this year to try to fix the farm bill, do some technical correction, or come with additional assistance. I don't know. But right now you had better pass this $3.1 billion package put together by the distinguished Senator from Mississippi and backed by some of us who want something as opposed to nothing. That is the way it is. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator from Kentucky.