John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I think I have the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think I have the floor. I am quite happy to yield to my colleague to respond to my inquiry.

Mr. WARNER. Yes, if I could make a preliminary statement, and then I will be glad to yield. As a matter of fact, I will yield the floor. If you seek the floor, I am going to yield it momentarily.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first I thank the distinguished manager and ranking member for engaging in I think a very important colloquy. I wanted to make a record for some colleagues who have asked a number of questions, and I think we made an interesting record here that will help in their deliberations and thought processes. I will have amendments tomorrow, hopefully to clarify some things which I feel should be clarified. They are constructive amendments, I say to the distinguished chair and ranking member, because I want to be cooperative and supportive of the President and your efforts. But I do feel very strongly that there are some amendments. My colleague, Senator Levin, and I have worked together. It may well be we will jointly put in some amendments tomorrow on this subject. Not in a manner of a turf battle. I am really quite in temper that that word continues to be brought up, because I personally am striving to do what is best for this country and to make our intelligence system stronger as a consequence of this legislative process. I think it can be achievable. But I have to get clarifications. The language in this message that came up today about full budget authority seems to be somewhat contradictory of some other things. But we will work it out. I thank the distinguished managers and I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today, as part of the Working Families Tax Relief Act, the Senate will pass legislation that I authored to extend for another 2 years an important tax relief provision aimed at America's teachers. The teacher tax relief benefit in this legislation will provide almost a half a billion dollars worth of tax relief targeted directly at our Nation's teachers. Why do teachers need this kind of specific tax relief? It is estimated that the average teacher, who is already underpaid, is spending $521 out of their own pocket each year on classroom materials--materials such as pens, pencils and books. First-year teachers, who typically earn less than the average teacher, spend even more, averaging $701 a year on classroom expenses. Why do they do this? Simply because school budgets are not adequate to meet the costs of education. Our teachers are picking up the slack. The Teacher Tax Relief Act is a small, yet important sign of recognition by the Federal Government of the many sacrifices that our teachers make. Originally signed into law in 2002 by President Bush, this legislation, which was authored by Senator Collins and myself, allowed teachers to take up to a $250 above the line Federal deduction for classroom expenses. The deduction is available when teachers reach into their own pockets and take money out to buy simple things like pencils, erasers and books to help their students succeed in their education. As passed in 2002, the Teacher Tax Relief Act was a 2-year tax relief provision. Accordingly, without the extension provided in the Working Families Tax Relief Act, teachers would soon have faced a higher tax bill. With passage of today's legislation, teachers are guaranteed that they will be able to utilize this important tax benefit for at least the next 2 years. I remain committed to working to expand the Teacher Tax Relief Act and to make this important legislation a permanent part of our Tax Code.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Yes, thank you.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my good friend and colleague, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee. I hope the Senate appreciates the thoroughness with which Chairman Roberts has gone into this nomination. He has provided the members of the committee and many others with an opportunity to express their views with regard to the nomination. An extensive series of hearings have been held--more than have been held on a nominee in a long time. Maybe only Supreme Court Justices occasionally see the volume and thoroughness with which this nomination has been carefully viewed by the Senate. I compliment the chairman, and indeed the ranking member who participated very actively in this, as well as the members of the committee. I first came to know the nominee about a decade ago. I remember one of our most revered, distinguished contemporary colleagues, Senator Moynihan, who sat right back there. I was on the floor and he stood and said it was time to abolish the CIA. He had a lot of concerns about the Agency. At that time, I was the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee. Together, with Porter Goss and some others, we put together a piece of legislation establishing a commission to examine some of the concerns of our distinguished late colleague from New York. Porter Goss and I served on that commission. Les Aspin was the first chairman. He had an untimely early death and he was followed by Harold Brown. That was my initiation to work with this fine, able individual. I commend the President for selecting him to take on this important assignment. I thank Representative Goss, his wife, and family for undertaking another chapter of public life. All of his credentials have been carefully reviewed. I would like to talk about somewhat of a different aspect of the challenges that will face Porter Goss. We just concluded a very extensive briefing upstairs with the Secretary of Defense, Ambassador Negroponte, the commander of CENTCOM, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the Deputy Secretary of State, almost three-quarters of the Senate being present. The briefing was about the situations primarily in the Iraq and Afghanistan theater, but it was about terrorism on the whole. As part of our discussion, we talked about the ongoing work in the Congress of the United States with regard to the 9/11 report, which all of us believe is a very significant contribution by a conscientious group of tried, tested, and able public servants. But we worked through these equations and options. The Governmental Affairs Committee is doing the markup of what will be the primary vehicle. Senator Roberts contributed his views on it. The Senate Armed Services Committee had a hearing with the Secretary of Defense, as well as the Acting Director of the CIA. So the Senate has done a lot of work in preparation. How does that relate to Porter Goss? I cannot predict, and I don't think anyone can, at this time what will eventually evolve with regard to the legislative achievements of this body and the House in a conference. Perhaps a lot of people have high expectations that a bill will be before our President shortly. I intend to work conscientiously, as I have, and will continue to work, forgetting any question of turf, to try to achieve a strong bill that clearly improves and strengthens our intelligence system. I brought in a reference to the briefing today because in some discussion with our colleagues--and it was a classified briefing, but I can share this--General Abizaid said he is acting on intelligence daily to conduct his mission. Lives are at risk, and he clearly, drawing on his extensive experience in the Army said: Today the intelligence collection that my soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines need and have and use is vastly improved over what we had in gulf war 1 in 1991.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for another 4 minutes.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, there has been steady progress in the improvements in our intelligence system. The Department of Defense is the largest user, and these senior people in the Department of Defense--civilian and military alike--have not tried to tell the Congress what to do but respectfully told us what not to do: Don't do anything to weaken the improvements that we have achieved--I say we, working with the Congress and the President--we have achieved to date since 1991 in the first gulf war and, indeed, since 9/11 with President Bush and Executive orders, a wide range of implementation of important things that have been done to improve our intelligence system, particularly from the standpoint of the tactical use by the U.S. military. If confirmed and if we pass a new law signed by the President, Porter Goss will be the man entrusted to implement that law. And I say to my colleagues with the deepest respect, that is a daunting task--to do it in a way not to shake the confidence of the tens upon thousands of conscientious employees in the various departments and agencies, the CIA, the Department of Defense who are concerned about their jobs, concerned about their futures. We need to hold the team in place. We need to keep what is working now going as we phase in such new laws and provisions as this body, working with the House and signed by the President, may enact. I do not know of another individual who has the experience of Porter Goss or is better qualified to take on the task of implementing such new laws as the Congress and the President may enact. I urge my colleagues to give this very fine, outstanding American who, once again, was thinking about a quieter form of life the opportunity to move into this job. There was printed in the Record a report that was issued by the CSIS, prepared by a number of former colleagues and others in the intelligence community trying to say to the Congress we best move with considerable caution as we enact this new legislation. I found this very helpful in my work participating in drawing up this bill, and I commend it to my colleagues. Mr. President, again I thank the distinguished chairman and the distinguished vice chairman of the committee for their work in making it possible for this nomination to have been carefully reviewed by the Senate in terms of a series of hearings and a very active and thorough debate on the Senate floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to commend and congratulate the American Youth Philharmonic Orchestra of Annandale, VA on its fortieth anniversary. The cultural and political history of the United States has changed dramatically over the last five decades. During that time, however, the American Youth Philharmonic Orchestras have provided a vital service for young musicians throughout northern Virginia and the District of Columbia. The 2004-05 concert season will commemorate the 40th year in which the American Youth Philharmonic Orchestras have trained new generations of children, teenagers, and young adults to become extraordinary musicians. To give an example of the marvelous impact that this institution has had, over 100 public and private schools from Washington's metropolitan area are represented within the orchestra's current enrollment. The students of the American Youth Philharmonic constantly strive for excellence in their performances; such preparation increases the chance that they will seek to make a positive impact on our society, whether through the arts or other endeavors. With a group of approximately 400 students, the orchestra has represented Virginia and the District of Columbia with distinction in the performances at the Kennedy Center, the Festival of Youth Orchestras, and the Spoleto Festival in South Carolina. Remembering this Nation's tragic losses on September 11, 2001, the Philharmonic performed a touching concert, entitled ``The Spirit of Freedom,'' at New York's Carnegie Hall in January 2002. In addition to their exceptional performances in the United States, the American Youth Philharmonic was a dignified cultural ambassador for this country at the International Rachmaninoff Festival in Russia, the Aberdeen International Youth Festival in Scotland, and the British Festival of Youth Orchestras. The young men and women of the orchestra have offered the diplomatic language of music to our friends abroad, and they deserve to be recognized for their efforts. If we were to gauge the success of the American Youth Philharmonic by the rate at which its students are accepted to the best musical and educational schools in the United States, we would see that the American Youth Philharmonic is unrivaled in its training of our Nation's best and brightest. Members of the American Youth Philharmonic have continued their study of music at the Oberlin Conservatory, the Juilliard School, Carnegie Mellon, and the Cleveland Institute of Music, while others proudly accepted offers to Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, and the University of Southern California, to name a few. Beyond the beauty of the sound generated in their performances, the American Youth Philharmonic Orchestras have given their time and service to the surrounding communities of Northern Virginia and the District of Columbia. The American Youth Philharmonic created a music mentorship program that trains designed high-school members to offer free tutoring to younger musicians in the area. In this way, the students of the orchestra are able to strengthen their own abilities as teachers while providing an enriching experience to those who are limited by financial circumstances or their special needs. Recognizing the value of this community service, the First Place Arts Council of Fairfax County, VA recognized the American Youth Philharmonic with the Arts for Special Audiences Award in 2000. We must also credit the constant dedication of Maestro Luis Haza for the brilliance of the American Youth Philharmonic. Mr. Haza has given 20 years of service to this ensemble in addition to his 29 years of ongoing performance as a violinist with the esteemed National Symphony Orchestra. Born in Santiago, Cuba, Mr. Haza was honored with a Washington Immigrant Achievement Award in 2004, and he truly demonstrates a commitment to the values of democracy and freedom on which this country was founded. While Mr. Haza has shared his talent for musical direction with the London Symphony Orchestra, our own National Symphony Orchestra, and the national orchestras of Panama, El Salvador, and Guatemala, his passion for music is never more evident than in his direction of the American Youth Philharmonic. Mr. Haza has dedicated a lifetime to sharing the gift of music with young people throughout the Americas, and his legacy to this country will be reflected in the values of his students for many years to come.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to note the April 20th release of the Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. This comprehensive report, the first of its kind in 35 years, lays out an ocean blueprint for the 21st century for implementation by the Congress and the Administration. The Ocean Commission, led by former Chief of Naval Operations and Secretary of Energy, Admiral James D. Watkins, USN (Ret.), is to be congratulated for its diligence and dedication to its mandate to make recommendations for a comprehensive and coordinated national ocean policy for the United States. The Commonwealth of Virginia has always had a strong connection to the ocean. From the arrival of settlers in Jamestown in the early 1600's, to the current day when the ports of Norfolk, Portsmouth and Newport News play a vital role in our Nation's economy and security, Virginia has always depended on the oceans. While the Commonwealth has long recognized the importance of the oceans, one of the most valuable contributions of the Ocean Commission's report is its finding that oceans and their resources are important to all States, and that we all have a role to play in their protection and management. The Ocean Commission's preliminary report represents the culmination of 2\1/2\ years of work, including 15 public meetings around the country, 17 site visits to gather more detailed information, and input from 445 witnesses, resulting in nearly 1,900 pages of testimony. The report is over 400 pages long and contains almost 200 recommendations designed to improve the Federal governance structure, enhance and increase ocean science and research, improve coastal water quality, sustain our Nation's fisheries, and improve the stewardship of our oceans through an expanded education and outreach program. An overarching theme of the report is the need at the Federal, regional and State levels to move toward an ecosystem-based management approach that acknowledges the complexities of both ecosystems and human needs. This approach recognizes the relationships among all ecosystem components and requires fundamental changes in governance and greatly improved science and education. Through its active participation in the Chesapeake Bay Program, Virginia understands the many advantages to be gained by developing regional, ecosystem-based approaches to address the complex inter-relationships of activities in many States that impact the Bay. As the former Chief of Naval Operations under President Reagan, Admiral Watkins well knows the role oceans have played in protecting United States national security interests. The Ocean Commission's preliminary report, while not focused primarily on national security issues, contains recommendations on ports and marine transportation, vessel operations, increased ocean research and exploration, improved management of our ocean resources, and accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea--all of which will contribute to our Nation's security and future well-being. As the Commission finalizes its report I look forward to working together with the administration and my associates in this body and in the House as we take advantage of the opportunity presented by the work of the Ocean Commission to implement a new vision for the future of our Nation's oceans.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WARNER. First and foremost, I can't comment on the Washington Times article. But yesterday, in the course of an Armed Services Committee briefing by General Dayton, who at this point in time is also briefing the Senate Intelligence Committee--and I just left the Intelligence Committee meeting to come to the floor--the matter was discussed. That much I will confirm, as appropriate. As a member of the Committee of the Armed Services, my able friend knows that at every juncture our committee, largely through yourself and Senator Roberts most often, brings up a current report on that. I will not say, other than it was a matter that was discussed, and General Dayton shared with us his views. But I wish to point out, in discussing it with General Dayton, he finds that whatever was carried today, reflects it as his views, and he simply wants to say the final decision rests with the Secretary of the Navy, not General Dayton, as to the course of this investigation. So that much I will say. Beyond that, I believe, regrettably, it was a top secret briefing, but nevertheless information might well have gotten out. That is regrettable. I thank the Senator for bringing it up. I, too, join you in fervently wishing and praying for Scott Speicher. The Senator has to be commended for the amount of time he has spent on this situation.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend my colleague. He has worked very hard on the Speicher case and undoubtedly his commitment will carry forward. I suggest, based on what was said yesterday, that he will be in consultation with the Secretary of the Navy. He has the authority to make disclosures as he sees fit about this case, but I believe General Dayton, in a very professional and conscientious way, will discharge his duties. The 9/11 Commission Report

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to provide this Senator's observations, very preliminary though they may be, with regard to the report of the 9/11 Commission which was made public today. Yesterday I joined about a dozen or so Senators, the distinguished majority leader, and others to receive a brief private briefing. That was our first official glimpse of this report. I have not had the opportunity to, of course, go through this rather prodigious volume-- each Member received a copy--but I do intend to do so because I think it is a very important contribution by this Commission. I think many parts of it can provide a roadmap for things that must be done. It has been my privilege to serve in the Senate--this is my 26th year, and I commit to work with other colleagues, all colleagues, to see what we can do to strengthen our ability, not only in intelligence, but across the board in all areas of national security. As privileged as I am to be the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am prepared to listen to how the responsibilities of that committee should be changed for the better. I will not participate in any obstruction simply because of turf. I have been here too long. Also, this changed world in which we live is so very different than when I came to this institution a quarter of a century ago, and most particularly in the aftermath of the tragedy of 9/11. So I think it is incumbent upon all of us in the Congress and, indeed, the executive branch to have a strong self-examination of the areas covered by this report; to use this report, along with input from other commissions, groups, and individuals, as a sort of roadmap to guide us into those areas which need to be carefully reviewed. Out of that process, which I hope is a carefully thought through, not rushed, deliberative process, I hope will evolve such changes as we, Congress, deem necessary to strengthen our capability to deter and, if necessary, engage further in this war against terrorism. So, therefore, I say with respect, I welcome the recommendations of the Commission. I commit to study them and commit to work with my colleagues. Yesterday a specific question was put to the two cochairmen of the 9/ 11 Commission: Is America safer today? And their unhesitating acknowledgment was it is safer today, and I agree it is. Is it as safe as we need? None of us believe that. But I think conscientious efforts have been made all along the way to make this a safer Nation, and we have, in large measure, succeeded with the goals within the timetable we have had. I am disappointed, however, that there was not more thorough dialog between the 9/11 Commission and Members of the Congress. I do not take that personally. I did have an opportunity to visit in my office some 2 weeks ago--a very pleasant visit--with one member, at which time we exchanged views. Somehow I do not feel that was the type of consultation that enabled us to get into the report and make constructive contributions. I do not suggest all 535 Members of Congress troop up before the 9/11 Commission. We do not have time to do that. Somehow it seems to me a better balance could have been struck between the knowledge and the ideas we have in the institution of the legislative branch of our Government that could have been shared with this Commission. After all, the Commission was, in many respects, created as a consequence of the actions of Congress. Having said that, I am going to take some specific issue with this rather sweeping indictment that we have been dysfunctional in our oversight. All throughout my public service, I have been privileged to have a number of jobs, and I am very humble about it, but I am far from perfect, and I have always welcomed constructive advice and criticism. But this time this dysfunctional brush that was wiped across struck me as not fair to certain things I personally have a knowledge of that were done by this body, the Senate. I will start back some years ago in 1987 when, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, we structured the Goldwater-Nichols legislation which had sweeping ramifications in our overall defense setup. It has been hailed since that period of time as a landmark achievement by the Congress to begin to transform our military from the cold war era to the era of the threats today which are so diverse and so different as compared to those we confronted during World War II and in the immediate aftermath of the cold war. That was quite an accomplishment and, in large measure, is owing to Senator Goldwater and Congressman Nichols. Again, I had the privilege to serve with those two men for many years, long before we started the Goldwater-Nichols Act. As a member of the Armed Services Committee--and I say with humility and personal pride, I was a close personal friend of Senator Goldwater. I admired him so much and looked forward to the times we worked together and traveled together. I remember Congressman Nichols bore the scars of World War II, having been a very courageous serviceperson in that war. He was extremely conscientious about his duties on the House Armed Services Committee. These two giants in the way of thinking got together and relentlessly drove this legislation through both bodies of the Congress, and it has withstood the test of time. Contemporaneous with this, I remember my dear friend with whom I came to the Senate, Senator Cohen, who later became, after he resigned from the Senate, Secretary of Defense. We worked together as a team with others to carve out of the Department of Defense, taking from the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marines some of the best and the brightest to create the Special Operations Command. While today most colleagues have seen their magnificent performance worldwide, particularly as a front line against terrorism, I remind them it was a tough and long struggle, vigorously resisted by the Department of Defense, to create this new entity and to give them their dedicated assets of modest naval vessels, modest number of airplanes, and other equipment which was their own. But we succeeded. Today those forces have established themselves in the contemporary military history of this country as an essential part of our military structure, much admired by all, much envied by all, and their performance record is second to none. I do not mean to suggest by that they have outpaced or outperformed the basic elements, particularly combat-committed elements of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. No, it is that the whole military looks with a sense of pride toward their accomplishments. I am proud to have been a part of establishing this important part of our armed forces. Then in 1999, when I was privileged for the first time to become chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I went in there and I changed basically a structure that had been in place for decades, the subcommittee structure. Again, I carved out a new subcommittee called Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities. This is 1999. This is not in the aftermath of 9/11. This is 1999. I must say, I have had the constructive support of the members of the committee, and by pure coincidence--I am speaking of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities--the first chairman of that subcommittee, the distinguished Senator from Kansas, Mr. Roberts, just walked into the Chamber, and perhaps he will have a word or two about the functions of that subcommittee. Mr. President, I say to my distinguished colleague, I was saying the 9/11 Commission has brushed the Congress as being sort of dysfunctional, and I was going back in history. The Senator from Kansas was one of my principal supporters on establishing the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities. He has been ranking member or chairman of that subcommittee, and under his leadership and that of the full committee, we have achieved a great deal, and have helped the Department of Defense move forward in the areas of joint experimentation, homeland defense, counterterrorism, and future technologies and concepts that will be needed to confront future threats. That subcommittee was directed to look forward a decade and determine what are the threats that are going to face the United States of America and how best our Department of Defense needs to transform itself and allocate assets and men and women to take up the positions of responsibility to meet those threats. That subcommittee has done its work and done it admirably and has measurably enhanced the overall strength of our military today. My distinguished colleague, Senator Roberts from Kansas, is chairman of the Intelligence Committee. I am privileged to serve on that committee today. In years past, I was privileged to serve 8 years. We have this rotation in the Senate, and this is my second tour on that committee. When I was vice chairman, together with other members of that committee, we fought hard against the cuts in intelligence. I ask unanimous consent that portions of the minority view report be printed into the Record.

Mr. WARNER. I have the report that accompanied the 1994 bill. This was written in July of 1993. This report covered the ensuing fiscal year. I wrote the minority views, which were joined in by other colleagues on the committee at that time: Senator Danforth, who is now our Ambassador to the United Nations; Senator Stevens, who is currently chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee; Senator Lugar, who is currently chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee; and our former colleague, Senator Wallop. Here is what we had to say, and I do not think this is dysfunctional participation, but I will let my colleagues judge for themselves after I have read portions of this report. The minority views of the following Senators: The United States must maintain and strengthen U.S. intelligence capabilities to provide for the future security of the Nation and for the protection of its interests around the globe. The U.S. should commit more resources to achievement of that objective than the fiscal year 1994 intelligence authorization bill reported by the Select Committee on Intelligence would provide. We were, of course, members of that select committee. The U.S. faced grave security risks during the Cold War, but it faced them in an international environment that was comparatively stable and predictable. With the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact military alliance, the U.S. had hoped for a ``New World Order'' with stable and steady progress toward greater democracy, freedom and free enterprise. What the U.S. faces in the post-Cold War era, however, is a more chaotic environment with multitude challenges to U.S. interests that complicate the efforts of the U.S. and cooperating nations to achieve the desired progress. In an unstable world of diverse and increasing challenges, the need for robust and reliable U.S. intelligence capabilities has grown rather than diminished. America faces a world in which: Ethnic, religious and social tensions spawn regional conflicts; a number of nations possess nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them on a target; other nations seek nuclear, chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them; terrorist organizations continue to operate and attack U.S. interests (including here at home, as the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York reflects)-- This is 1993. It is interesting. It was June 30, just about this time-- international drug organizations continue on a vast scale to produce illegal drugs and smuggle them into the U.S.; and U.S. economic interests are under constant challenge. To the extent that the end of the Cold War allows a reduction of U.S. resources devoted to intelligence capabilities focused on military capabilities of countries on the territory of the former Soviet Union, the U.S. should reallocate the gained resources to strengthen intelligence capabilities to deal with growing risks to America's interests. The U.S. should make such resources available for strengthened intelligence capabilities focused on the problems with which the U.S. Government must deal in the coming decades, including proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, international narcotics trafficking, and the illegal transfer of U.S. high technology. I shall not read further because I will put it in the Record. This is not dysfunctional action by legislators; this is legislators looking into the future and seeing much of what is occurring today. I only wish we had the opportunity to advise the 9/11 Commission of this and other contributions by many others in this Chamber at that period of time who were in the service of the Senate and their States. This was not dysfunctional. In the days ahead, we do need to look at how best to organize the intelligence elements of our national security structure, along with many other components. We must not, however, do anything precipitously. In the specific area of intelligence, our intelligence services, even with the flaws that have been recently pointed out, are the best in the world, by far. They are not perfect, and their business is, by definition, one of uncertainty--best judgments made with the information that is currently in hand. Any changes we make must be carefully constructed to preserve existing excellence, while improving other functions. As we consider any changes, we must remember that intelligence is an integral part of military operations. Recent military operations by our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq have been extraordinarily successful, in large part because of excellent intelligence, and because of the close relationship between military operations and intelligence that has been so carefully built over the years. Intelligence is part of a whole Department of Defense, as well as part of a larger intelligence community. Moving defense intelligence functions under the authority of another cabinet-level official could have unintended consequences--we must move with careful deliberation. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for consideration of the following nominations on the Executive Calendar. Mr. President, I ask the Senate act favorably upon nomination No. 688 and No. 691, all military nominations reported by the Armed Services Committee during today's session. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, the President be immediately notified, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. WARNER. I inquired of that and I was told I could proceed. I just saw the Senator momentarily.

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I see the distinguished Senator from Nevada is on the floor. On behalf of the majority leader, I wish to put this following unanimous consent request before the Senate relative to S. 2724, small business technical corrections. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2724 which was introduced earlier today by Senators Snowe, Kerry, and Talent.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements regarding this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in order to address the Senate on a procedural matter, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I respectfully request if the chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator Inhofe, would engage in a colloquy with me on the impact of the several Surface Transportation extension bills on the so-called ``donor'' States. As the chairman is well aware, TEA-21 contains a fundamental principle of fairness for donor States which guarantees that no State will receive less than a 90.5 percent rate of return of their gas tax contributions to the Highway trust fund. In the preceding extension bills for fiscal year 2004, this matter was not addressed because it was expected that a full surface transportation reauthorization bill would be enacted this year. I know my chairman has worked tirelessly to pass a new transportation bill, but regrettably we have not completed our work. As we face the end of the fiscal year, the multiple highway extension bills have not followed the TEA-21 Minimum Guarantee program and the result is that, to date, many States will not receive the 90.5 percent guarantee in fiscal year 2004. I am particularly concerned because again this temporary extension bill does not follow the TEA-21 formula. I appreciate the chairman's diligence on this matter and I am aware that some funding remains in fiscal year 2004 which may be used to correct this problem. I would like to ask the chairman if my understanding of this situation is correct, and would be grateful for the chairman's view of this matter.