A resolution designating the first day of April 2005 as "National Asbestos Awareness Day".

Parliamentary inquiry: Was there time reserved for the Senator from Vermont prior to the vote?

Mr. President, I seek recognition in my own right.

Mr. President, am I correct that we are planning to vote at 11:30 on the Kyl amendment?

Mr. President, I will speak for 3 to 4 minutes on the Kyl amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Maine.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the provisions in the Collins- Lieberman bill establishing a privacy and civil liberties oversight board and to respond to some of the disturbing discourse and efforts to undermine those provisions.

It is unquestioned that one of the key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission was the creation of a civil liberties board to fill a clear void in government structure for addressing these concerns. The Commission discovered that there was ``no office within the government whose job it is to look across the government at the actions we are taking to protect ourselves to ensure that liberty concerns are appropriately considered.'' In response to this vacuum, the Commission explicitly recommended that ``at this time of increased and consolidated government authority, there should be a board within the executive branch to oversee adherence to the guidelines we recommend and the commitment the government makes to defend our civil liberties.'' The 9/11 Commission concluded: ``We must find ways of reconciling security with liberty, since the success of one helps protect the other.''

The Commission was certainly right. There is no doubt that such a board is needed given the heightened civil liberty tensions created by the realities of terrorism and modern warfare. The tools of the information age include precise data-gathering, networked databases, and tracking and sensing technologies impervious to the common eye. The legal tools are similarly powerful, ranging from substantial capabilities under the USA PATRIOT Act and under our immigration laws. As the Commission noted, ``[e]ven without the changes we recommend, the American public has vested enormous authority in the U.S. government.'' In an even more pointed and ominous assessment of these powers, Vice Chairman Hamilton noted, in a recent Judiciary Committee hearing, these developments are ``an astounding intrusion in the lives of ordinary Americans that (are) routine today in government.''

One of my colleagues suggested that this bill is solely to strengthen our intelligence tools and ``not a bill regarding our civil liberties.'' But this is a myopic view. You cannot divorce one from the other. Security and liberty are always in tension in a free society, and that is readily apparent today. It is our vigilant duty to work hard at striking the right balance. We must enhance our capabilities, but with such powerful tools comes heightened responsibility, and the Commission has challenged us to take up those reins: ``This shift of power and authority to the government calls for an enhanced system of checks and balances to protect the precious liberties that are vital to our way of life.''

We have an obligation to ensure that there are mechanisms in place that will see to it that this power is subject to appropriate checks and balances and congressional oversight. An effective civil liberties board can help provide those checks and contribute to preserving both liberty and security.

We need a civil liberties board whose members collectively can think critically and independently about the policies we implement as a nation and about how they affect our fundamental rights. The board must be able to participate in the policymaking process, review technology choices and options, peer into various agencies and assess actions, review classified materials and investigate concerns. This board must have the versatility to work closely with government officials, but at the same time it must be sufficiently independent to assess those government policies without fear, favor or compromise. Given these significant responsibilities, it is equally important that the board be accountable to Congress and the American people.

The civil liberties board outlined in the Collins-Lieberman bill makes great strides toward meeting these goals. It represents a true bipartisan effort from conception to introduction. I was pleased to work with these Senators along with Senator Durbin to make this civil liberties board the kind of board that would honor the 9/11 Commission's intent. It should not go without notice that Commissioners Slade Gorton and Richard Ben-Veniste issued a bipartisan statement that, ``A civil liberties board of the kind we recommend can be found in the Collins-Lieberman bill in the Senate.''

This legislation establishes a bipartisan board that would have access to the documents and information needed to assess our counterterrorism policies that affect the vital civil liberties of the American people. It provides a mechanism for them to work closely with administration officials, including working with a network of newly created department-level privacy and civil liberty officers, whose proximity to decision makers will ensure that these concerns are considered from the earliest stages of policy formation. It requires the board to report to Congress on a regular basis, and--without compromising classified information--to inform the public about policies that affect their vital liberties.

Unfortunately, Senator Kyl's amendment 3801 attempts to gut the carefully crafted, bipartisan civil liberty and privacy provisions that are the hallmark of the Collins-Lieberman bill. It is inconsistent with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and would undermine the civil liberties that we cherish.

First, Senator Kyl's amendment attempts to cut off the information flow that would ensure that the board could accurately, reliably and effectively advise on the impact of policies on privacy and civil liberties. It would also eliminate the board's ability to subpoena people outside of the government who may have important information, such as private sector data collectors working on behalf of the government. It would also eliminate the privacy officers, as well as public hearings and reports to the public.

It is clear that the Commission intended for the board to have access to the information that it needed in order to effectively assess policy. In a recent House Judiciary Committee hearing, Vice Chairman Hamilton said, ``The key requirement is that government agencies must be required to respond to the board.'' He went on to note that the Commission itself had subpoena power, and ``if we had not had it, our job would have been much, much more difficult.'' I would note that the Collins-Lieberman bill does not go as far as to mandate subpoena power over government officials, but rather only over relevant non-government persons.

Given the secrecy and civil liberty concerns that have been pervasive in this administration, we should be enhancing information flow and dialogue, not eliminating it. It is ironic that at the same time that the administration has been making it more difficult for the public to learn what government agencies are up to, the government and its private sector partners have been

quietly building more and more databases to learn and store more information about the American people themselves.

Second, Senator Kyl's amendment would eliminate a provision that gives the board important guidance on how to review requests by the government for new and enhanced powers. This is a critical omission. In order to balance liberty and security, we need to ensure that the board will be looking at policies through a prism that would allow for heightened security protection, while also ensuring that intrusions are not disproportionate to benefits, or that they would unduly undermine privacy and civil liberties. This guidance would also keep the board focused on the right priorities and prevent the mission creep that some fear.

Contrary to assertions that this would be a ``citizen board'' gone wild that would ``haul any agent in anywhere in the world and grill him,'' this board would consist of highly accomplished members who have the appropriate clearance to access classified information, who have extensive professional expertise on civil liberty and privacy issues, and who have the knowledge of how to view these concerns in the context of important anti-terrorism objectives. Again, its subpoena power would be limited to non-government persons, and so could not used willy-nilly to drag in agents from the field.

It simply cannot be that the government can create and implement policies that impinge on our liberties without having to account to anyone. While that may make things convenient or easy, it certainly does not preserve the ideals of the country we are fighting to protect. As the Commission reminded us, ``if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to defend.''

Some have suggested that we leave this responsibility to ``federal agencies that are already equipped and designed for that function.'' But this misses precisely the point raised in the report. There is currently no such suitable entity that can look across government and offer an independent, uncompromised assessment of the impact of government powers on civil liberties. And I emphasize look, because some would suggest that we do not need a board with an affirmative obligation to go out and review policy. To the contrary, what we do not need is passivity. We need to be as vigilant about protecting our fundamental rights as we are in hunting down and capturing terrorists. It is what Commissioner Gorton, a former Republican Senator from Washington, described as a ``watchdog to assure maximum protection of individual rights and liberties in those programs.'' Similarly, Commissioner Hamilton has said that ``it ought to have a very tough investigative staff and it ought to be a very active board and agency.''

Others have suggested that the administration's recent efforts are a suitable substitute. I strongly disagree. Rather, the Executive Order attempted to foist upon us an anemic civil liberties board. I and several of my colleagues noted in a letter to the President that the board was not a bipartisan or independent entity. It had no authority to access information and it had no accountability. It was housed in the Department of Justice, and it was comprised solely of administration officials from the law enforcement and intelligence communities, precisely the communities that the board would have an obligation to oversee. It was the proverbial case of the fox guarding the henhouse. This would not have resulted in a vigorous consideration of policy that the Commission intended.

As the Commission noted, the ``burden of proof for retaining a particular governmental power should be on the Executive, to explain (a) that the power actually materially enhances security and (b) that there is adequate supervision of the Executive's use of the powers to ensure protection of civil liberties. If the power is granted, there must be adequate guidelines and oversight to properly confine its use.''

We should be looking for ways to ensure that this burden of proof will be met, rather than weakening oversight and accountability.

As the 9/11 Commission noted, when it comes to security and civil liberties, ``while protecting our homeland, Americans should be mindful of threats to vital personal and civil liberties. This balancing is no easy task, but we must constantly strive to keep it right.''

Senator Kyl's amendment fails to ``keep it right,'' and I urge that the Senate honor the spirit of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and reject it.

Senators Collins and Lieberman have it right in their bill and we should not allow that to be gutted.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter to the President from myself and others on this subject be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I retain the remainder of my time.

Madam President, I understand my amendment regarding translators, No. 3945, is now before the Senate.

Madam President, this is an amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Grassley. We did this because 3 years ago, a law was passed requiring the Attorney General to report on the FBI translators program, why it was failing, and how he is going to fix it. The Attorney General has never followed the law and submitted that report.

Our amendment requires the Attorney General to submit a report on FBI translators within 30 days of enactment of this act.

Senator Grassley, of course, is well known as being one of the most vigilant people on FBI oversight issues.

Last week the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General released an unclassified version of its Audit of the FBI's Foreign Language Program. The report shows that despite concerns expressed for years by some of us in Congress and by former FBI contractors, among others, and despite an influx of tens of millions of dollars to hire new linguists, the FBI foreign language translation unit continues to be saddled with growing backlogs, systemic difficulties, security problems, too few qualified staff, and an astounding lack of organization.

What is the use of taping thousands of hours of conversations of intelligence targets in foreign languages if we cannot translate the material promptly, securely, accurately and efficiently? The administration owes Congress and the American public an explanation as to why it has repeatedly failed to take the necessary steps to fix these serious intelligence failings.

Almost 3 years ago, Congress required the Attorney General to report upon where the FBI translators program was failing and how he was going to fix it. The Attorney General has never submitted that report.

To make sure that report is delayed no more, and to respond to the Inspector General's recommendations, Senator Grassley and I have offered the Translator Reports Act of 2004 as an amendment. I am proud to be joined in this effort by my friend from Iowa, who has been ever- vigilant on FBI oversight issues.

Our amendment requires the Attorney General to submit a report on FBI translators within 30 days of enactment of the National Intelligence Reform Act. It also adds further reporting requirements that will be crucial to understanding whether or not the FBI is capable of fixing, and has fixed, the problems outlined by the Inspector General.

This report will allow Congress to meet the 9/11 Commission's directive that Congress exercise greater oversight over the counterintelligence and counterterrorism needs of the executive branch. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, it is my understanding I have 10 minutes.

Mr. President, let me say that----

Mr. President, if the Senator will check the record, he will find that without exception I have always yielded for a question but I was in a difficult position because the Senator from Delaware wanted to speak after me. In the entire amount of time given to me, I would have been happy to yield.

I think, frankly, dialog between two Senators is something perilously close to debate in the Senate, which we hardly ever have. I am sorry we did not have that opportunity, but I think we have the opportunity at this moment.

What I hear from the Senator from Alaska is that we should show respect for the Office of the Presidency. I could not agree more. Whether the President is of my party or any other party, he should be given respect. Even if I disagree with that President, his policy or his statements, I am hoping that I will always be viewed as a person who has that respect for the Office of the Presidency. That is the least that is expected of every single Member of Congress, and I hope the people across the United States.

Having said that, I do not believe that disagreeing with the policies of an administration is disrespectful. In fact, I think it is part of the national debate which makes America so unique.

I do not believe it is disrespectful to say that the information given by the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of State was wrong and misleading. It was. I have never used the word ``lie,'' nor would I because a lie means there was a deliberate misrepresentation. I don't have any evidence there was a deliberate misrepresentation. But there was a misrepresentation, at least in four specific elements. Let me tell you what they were.

The administration misled the American people in believing there were weapons of mass destruction--an arsenal of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons set to strike countries in the Middle East as well as the United States--in Iraq before our invasion. We know now, based on clear and convincing evidence, there is no indication that Saddam Hussein ever had these arsenals of weapons of mass destruction. So when the President and the administration said that to justify the invasion, they were wrong. The American people were misled. That is a fact.

Point No. 2, this administration misled the American people about the capacity of Iraq to build nuclear weapons. Yesterday I came to the floor and talked about the most recent disclosure about aluminum tubes. The American people were misled into believing Saddam Hussein was about to become a nuclear power, threatening the region and the United States. The administration was wrong. The American people were misled.

Point No. 3, the administration said there was linkage, and I quoted this morning direct quotes from Vice President Cheney. They argued there was linkage between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 tragedy in America; that somehow Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida were consorting to attack the United States. We have seen repeatedly through the 9/11 Commission Report, the Senate Intelligence Committee report, as well as clear statements now, today, by the Secretary of Defense, that was wrong. The American people were misled. That is a fact.

These elements are facts that cannot be denied. To say the administration misled the American people is there for the record. I have not said the President lied. But I do say he gave wrong information to the American people, and even the President has conceded that fact. When the Secretary of Defense says there is no linkage, when the President removes the offensive words from the State of the Union Address, he concedes the fact that statements made before the invasion were misleading and they were wrong.

Why in the world can't this administration accept that reality? Why do they have to cling to the fiction that was presented to the American people?

The Senator from Alaska said we should show respect for the Presidency, and I agree. But more important, we need to show respect for the American people. They are the ones we serve, the President and every Member of Congress. We need to show them respect by giving them the clear, unvarnished truth so they understand the facts before we make critical decisions.

We have now lost over 1,050 of our best and brightest and bravest American soldiers in Iraq. We lost them because we invaded that country before we let the inspectors do their job in Iraq, before we created a broad coalition of countries that would join us in this military effort, and here we stand today.

Last night, Vice President Cheney said don't demean the coalition. Other countries stand with us. I certainly respect the fact that they would stand by the side of America. But make no mistake, when you open the morning paper, regularly, virtually every morning you learn of the death of another American soldier. It is American soldiers who are fighting and dying in Iraq in much greater numbers, even, than any other country I should say, and much greater numbers than I think should be the case.

Had this President done the same thing his father did, gone to the United Nations for approval of our invasion, put together a coalition of nations

which included Arab nations--President Bush's father understood that, in the Persian Gulf. He knew that to bring in Arab nations as part of the coalition meant there would be less resentment in Arab states for our action. This President did not wait to bring in an Arab state to help us in this coalition of the willing. As a consequence, the resentment against the actions of the United States in the Arab world has been growing apace, and we have found the recruiting efforts to find more terrorists to not only invade Iraq and kill our soldiers but to spread around the world are mushrooming. Are we safer today because of that invasion, because we didn't build the coalition? I think not.

I am glad Saddam Hussein is in prison. I am glad he is out of power. But don't diminish the cost to the United States and the fact that there is no end in sight to this war in Iraq.

There was no plan from this administration to execute this war and protect our troops with body armor, with Humvees armored, with protective equipment on helicopters, and certainly we understand today, based on Ambassador Bremer's statements just 2 days ago, that we didn't have a sufficient number of troops to bring stability to the region.

We are paying the price for those bad decisions. Statements were made by this administration that were wrong and misleading. Decisions were made that clearly evidence that we were not prepared, as we should have been. We are paying that price, and there is no end in sight.

If the Senator from Alaska suggests it is disrespectful to the President to raise these issues, I respectfully disagree with him. It is our obligation to have an open, honest, national debate about the foreign policy of this country, which involves families far and wide in Illinois, Alaska, and around the United States.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. President, let me say in response to the Senator from Alaska before he leaves the floor--I want to let him know I want to respond to his comments so there will be no mistake about it.

First, the statement that Ambassador Bremer's comments had something to do with classified information, what I have said on the floor was based upon some front pages of the newspapers. Ambassador Bremer was reported to have said to a private organization in a speech that one of the problems we have in Iraq today stems from the fact that we had an inadequate number of troops in the field to bring stability, to stop the looting and violence immediately after the deposition of Saddam Hussein. That is not classified. It is on the front pages of the newspapers. Ambassador Bremer has now backed away from those comments. But the fact is he made them, and many believe the same thing--that we had an inadequate number of troops at the right and appropriate moment and are paying the price today because the insurgency has grown.

Second, last night Vice President Cheney, and this morning the Senator from Alaska, make a great deal about the so-called Ayman al- Zawahiri link, a ruthless terrorist who is affiliated with al-Qaida. The Vice President made the statement last night that the Senator made today--that there was a linkage between Ayman al-Zawahiri and Saddam Hussein and, therefore, proof positive al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein were working together justified the invasion.

I commend to my colleagues and those following the debate this morning's report from MSNBC.com from Washington:

A CIA report has found no conclusive evidence that former

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein harbored Ayman al-Zawahiri

which the Bush administration asserted before the invasion of

Iraq.

This is a fact. It comes from the President's own CIA. They continue to build these straw men to justify an invasion when the facts don't back them up--no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear arsenal, no evidence of bringing in yellowcake from Niger, no evidence of linkage with al-Qaida. And they cling tenaciously and stubbornly to these assertions even though the facts defeat them.

How can you trust an administration that will not accept the facts and reality to prepare a defense for America? Shouldn't the defense of our Nation be based on reality rather than theory? Shouldn't it be based on sound intelligence instead of political ideology? I would think so.

Any President who comes to this office with a predetermined set of ideas on what we need to do to protect America regardless of the facts is not serving our country well. I hope both political parties would acknowledge that.

Amendment No. 3801

Let me also say we are about to consider in the early parts of the debate this morning an amendment by Senator Kyl to the underlying bill on intelligence reform. I oppose this amendment. I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing it.

We have come together with a bipartisan agreement on the civil liberties board. It is a board which has been created by both sides of the aisle working to implement the recommendations in the 9/11 Commission report. What Senator Kyl is trying to do is take away some important powers and responsibilities of this board.

For example, he wants to eliminate the board's standard of review. This is the standard that the board uses to take a look at proposed expansions of the government's power and make sure they don't infringe on rights. What Senator Kyl suggests is we take away the standard of review from the civil liberties board. That would frankly create a ship above water.

We need to make sure this board has a standard of review so they can look at government actions and decide whether they go too far. That is what the 9/11 Commission suggested and that is what we should stick to.

Senator Kyl's amendment also would remove the Board's subpoena power. He said he would be concerned that this civil liberties board would be subpoenaing members of our Government, agents of our Government, to come in from all over the world and give them evidence. I hope the Senator from Arizona will read this provision more carefully and more closely because the subpoena authority in this bill is very narrow. It only applies to people outside of the Government.

The Kyl amendment would also eliminate the requirement of the board to inform the public about its activities in a manner consistent with protecting classified information. This directly contradicts the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. We are talking about protecting the American public's rights, liberties, and freedoms. It is essential that the work of the civil liberties board be made public so the American people can understand what they are doing and whether our Government has gone too far. Why the Senator from Arizona would want to keep secrecy and a veil over this activity, I don't understand.

I certainly hope we reject the Kyl amendment which would demolish the Collins-Lieberman civil liberties board, a bipartisan creation. It would upset the delicate balance between government powers and civil liberties this bill strikes. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I have sent three of the pending amendments to the desk in an amended form. These changes have been coordinated with the managers of the bill and I believe they are acceptable to them.

The first amendment, No. 3840, revises the acquisition authority of the national intelligence director and that is at the desk. The second amendment, No. 3830, modifies a certain provision related to the Central Intelligence Agency and that amendment is at the desk. Amendment No. 3882 revises the provisions related to the inspector general of the National Intelligence Authority. It conforms these provisions to those in the Inspector General Act and avoids duplication of the inspector general efforts across the impacted agencies. That amendment is at the desk.

I appreciate the courtesy of the managers of the bill and their staffs, and their willingness to engage in dialog on these amendments with me and my staff.

We are still working to resolve differences over amendment No. 3827 regarding the information-sharing network to address some of the concerns identified by the White House and others. We hope to reach a resolution on that language this morning, but, as I said, I thank the managers of the bill for their help in resolving these issues. It has been a matter of great concern to those of us who have worked with the intelligence community for quite some time.

I now ask unanimous consent that amendments Nos. 3840, 3830, and 3882 be amended as noted in the revised amendments that I have sent to the desk; that the amendments be considered en bloc and adopted en bloc, and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

How much time do I have remaining of the 10 minutes?

Mr. President, I have heard this talk about the inspectors and their conclusion that they have not found weapons of mass destruction. Seventeen times the United Nations asked Saddam Hussein to disclose where the weapons of mass destruction were. We know he used them on the Kurds. We know he used them in Iran. We know we have evidence he was trying to build additional weapons but the inspectors kept asking to return. They asked again and again to return so they could find out if there was evidence of where he had those weapons of mass destruction.

Now they are before the Armed Services Committee this morning and they are going to testify that they have found ``no evidence'' of the weapons of mass destruction. We had the same conclusion with regard to the Iraqi air force. We were told Saddam had destroyed a series of airplanes. Later we found them buried in the Iraqi desert--a whole series of airplanes--the whole airplane buried. It was capable of being dug up, brought out of the dirt and used.

Now, we have not found the weapons of mass destruction yet. This Senator believes he had them. We know he had them in the Kurd area. We know he used them on Iran. This idea that somehow or another the President or the Vice President have lied, I am tired of hearing this disrespect for the President and Vice President of the United States and I will be willing to debate any time what happened in Iraq.

I went to Kuwait time after time, and to Saudi Arabia, and talked to the pilots who were flying the continuous air patrol over Iraq. Since the gulf war, our pilots were up there every day, and every day they were shot at by ground-to-air weapons that Saddam was not supposed to have at all.

This idea that somehow or another the President and Vice President of the United States lied because they believed there were weapons of mass destruction there, I believe there are weapons of mass destruction there and I still believe there are weapons there somewhere. Where they have taken them, I do not know, but they have not found them. The inspectors kept finding enough reason to go back and go back. They went back 17 times.

To say the President lied, what about those inspectors who said, We have to go back; we have not found them yet but we are going to find some more? Did they lie?

I think there ought to be greater respect for the Presidency and the Vice Presidency of this country, and in this campaign. I have never heard such disrespect. I did not go out and campaign against President Clinton and say he lied, and yet we know he did. He admitted he lied about the matters that were before the grand jury. Now we did not go out and accuse the President of lying. We had a lot of discussions on the floor about that.

So if we want to compare Presidents and who lied and who did not, I am ready any time the Democrats want to do it, but I am tired of this disrespect. It is time we showed respect for the system. I do not remember in the past when a Senator asked another Senator to yield and if that Senator had time, it normally would happen. At the very least the Senator would say: Let me finish my statement now and I will yield at the end of my statement. That kind of senatorial courtesy has to come back to the Senate.

If the Senator wants me to yield, I will yield the remainder of my time.

The Senator has 10 minutes on his time on the 1 hour to which the Senator is entitled.

Mr. President, I am delighted to have an opportunity to debate with the Senator from Illinois because I listened to the comments he made before, comments I violently disagree with. For instance, in 1998, President Clinton went before the general officers of this Nation, officers from all of our units of the military, and he told them he believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He laid down a just challenge to Saddam Hussein to come forward and disclose them or he believed he might have to go into Iraq himself. That seems to be forgotten.

Apparently, the Senator from Illinois didn't hear the Vice President when he mentioned Mr. Zarqawi last night, a man who was in Iraq before even the problems of Afghanistan who was operating there. He is back there now. He had operated in Afghanistan and Pakistan, was part of the bad guys there. Now we know he is back in Iraq again. He is mentioned as being one of the senior contacts within the al-Qaida organization that was there before and came back again now. The Vice President has mentioned the contacts that existed in the al-Qaida world in Iraq.

I still believe he was right. There is no question about it. There was a portion of the terrorist organization in Iraq before, and they are back there now.

As far as the weapons of mass destruction, I believe at the time we had seen the briefings--and I am one of the eight in the Congress who received the same briefings the President of the United States got about Iraq. We got them in confidence. As a matter of fact, even the statement the Senator from Illinois made about Mr. Bremer, who is the President's representative, that is from a classified report that we should not be discussing on the floor. It ended up somehow being leaked, that one line from the report. But the report deals with the overall relationship of Mr. Bremer to the whole process.

The problem is this: When we look at the Bremer situation, what Bremer did--we were there. We talked to him. He did want more forces around Baghdad. He thought there should be more. The President relied upon our general officers. He told me personally and he told us as we went to Iraq and came back from Iraq, we are doing what our general officers request, as far as the troop strength is concerned.

The general officers disagreed with Bremer as to the location of those forces. There is no question about it. We probably should have had more. In my opinion, we should have been able to come through Iraq from the north, through Turkey, and come from the south from Kuwait, and had two forces moving through Iraq and squash those people over there.

Instead, because of developments in Turkey, we could not go through Turkey. We flew our troops down to Kuwait, we took their supples all the way around, and when the supplies reached them they then went in, and instead of having forces meet in Baghdad, particularly in Saddam Hussein's home part of Iraq, they then come back to Baghdad, and that left them spread out. My memory is that the insurrection started in the south because the forces had gone north and we couldn't spread them that thin.

People said: Send more troops. Send more troops. We heard that on the floor: Send more troops. The ability to maintain and supply those troops was a real difficult situation, particularly when all the support supplies were coming through Kuwait. We even started sending some supplies through Jordan.

But the problem really is what happened in terms of Saddam Hussein, in terms of the relationship to al-Qaida, and the relationship to weapons of mass destruction. I stood here on the floor of the Senate and called Saddam Hussein a Hitler. I did that at least 9 months before the war started. I still believe he was a Hitler. He invaded Kuwait, and we had to kick him out. He was rebuilding his military within that area that he still maintained control of in Iraq. We had control of the south and north part of his country. Yet look at it in terms of the no- fly zone we were trying to protect.

But in terms of the part he controlled he was rebuilding his military because of the money that came into his hands through the ``food-for- oil'' program.

You can stand here, no matter what you say, and say we haven't found weapons of mass destruction. That is true. We haven't found them. I still believe there are some out there, whether they are in adjoining nations or buried in the ground. Whatever happened to them, he had them.

To accuse the administration of misleading the public when they relied upon the intelligence analysts that we relied on--the same intelligence analysts President Clinton relied on when he made his 1998 speech. Certainly those of us who were here supported the resolution that asked the President to send troops into Iraq; we believed it. When you look at it, if we want to get into situations when Senator Kerry voted against the 1991 war resolution in spite of what Iraq did in invading Kuwait, he voted against us going into Kuwait to liberate Kuwait.

I think my friends on the other side of the aisle have been wrong for 30 years. As a matter of fact, those on the other side of the aisle mainly opposed the Reagan buildup in the 1980s. I was chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and I remember those votes. Fifty times here we voted on amendments that were offered to try to strike weapons systems from the defense bill that I managed to bring to the floor to rebuild the military capacity of the United States. All of those amendments came from the other side of the aisle.

When you look at it, when you look at the trouble, why did we have a shortage of intelligence? President Clinton started degrading human intelligence in the CIA. He denuded the intelligence system as far as human intelligence is concerned because he wanted to rely on the satellites in the air and the communications systems, electrical systems.

I cannot believe we are going to get into these one-sided statements. I would like to have a full debate. I am sort of at a loss. I don't have my records. The Senator from Illinois has his records, but I don't have them.

But I have a feeling that had we not denuded the CIA in the 1990s, we would have had better intelligence. But the information we had relied upon, the American public relied upon, and this Senate relied upon when we voted to give the President the right to go into Iraq.

To say the President was wrong because he relied on the same intelligence we relied upon I think is a faulty argument, and it should not happen on the floor of the Senate in a political season where we are trying to destroy the reputation which the President deserves for having the guts to do what Clinton didn't have the guts to do.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Alaska. I then hope we can proceed to four pending amendments of the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Alaska for working with Senator Lieberman and me to resolve these three amendments. I very much appreciate the good-faith suggestions that were made on both sides, and I am grateful to him for working with us to address his concerns.

I think we have come up with very good suggestions, and I am pleased that the amendments have been adopted.

Mr. President, how much time does the Senator need? I believe 30 minutes has been reserved for

Senator Warner and Senator Levin of the hour and a half of debate that was available this morning.

Mr. President, I do intend to speak, so we need to reserve time. I am also concerned that the two Senators who specifically requested time have not had an opportunity to speak.

Mr. President, I have no objection.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his comments.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Georgia to each have 2 minutes to discuss their amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the two Senators. I understand their concern. This issue is going to be the subject of much discussion, I am sure, in the Senate-House conference. I very much appreciate the issues they have raised. I take them seriously, and I appreciate their cooperation in withdrawing the amendment. I thank my colleagues.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to the consideration of the Roberts amendment, No. 3742, as modified.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Roberts for offering this amendment. As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, his expertise and advice on this bill have been invaluable. As he indicates, this preserves a requirement in section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 that funds appropriated for an intelligence activity must also be specifically authorized before being obligated or expended.

It is my understanding that other committees with interest in this matter have been consulted and there is no objection. I will ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, for the information of my colleagues, I am going to ask unanimous consent that we go to Senator Leahy's amendment No. 3945. I anticipate that being accepted on a voice vote. Therefore, there will be no further rollcalls until 2 o'clock, for the information of my colleagues.

Madam President, I would be glad to amend the request to make it 2:15. I ask unanimous consent that be the order.

Madam President, I appreciate the Senator from Vermont working with Senator Lieberman and me. His amendment would require the Attorney General to submit annual reports to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on the number of translators employed or contracted for by the FBI and other components of the Department of Justice, the needs of the FBI for translation services, a description of the implementation of quality control procedures, among other provisions.

As we know, there is a serious backlog of translation in the FBI, and this sends a very strong message that Congress is going to be carefully monitoring the progress of this program.

I urge support for the amendment.

Madam President, I very much appreciate the fact that the Senator from Iowa has worked with us on it. The revised amendment, unlike the original, is one I support and I, too, urge adoption of the modified amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed to the consideration of Levin amendment No. 3809, as modified.

Madam President, I call up a second-degree amendment to that amendment. The second degree is numbered 3962. I ask unanimous consent that it be considered.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I am going to have Senator Levin first discuss this issue, and then Senator Lieberman and I will respond.

Madam President, the Collins-Lieberman bill grants the national intelligence director the authority to transfer personnel within the national intelligence program to meet higher priorities. This is extremely important authority because we want to make sure the NID can, for example, staff up the National Counterterrorism Center with individuals from a variety of agencies, including military personnel who may be at the Defense Intelligence Agency, for example.

But the compromise that we have reached addresses two important concerns. One, it puts a 3-year limit on the length of time for this personnel. That is important because we don't want to disrupt the military careers of individuals who are temporarily transferred. Second, it makes clear that we are talking about slots, or billets, and not individual members of the military.

In other words, the NID cannot say: I want ``Colonel Murkowski'' to go to the National Counterterrorism Center. Instead, the NID would say: I want a linguist to go to the National Counterterrorism Center, or describe what the slot may be.

I think this is a good compromise on this issue, and it leaves intact the strong authority of the national intelligence director, while addressing the legitimate concerns raised by Senator Levin.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I join Senator Collins in thanking the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Arizona for their support of the bill, for their deep commitment to national security, for raising the questions they have raised, which are good questions, and, frankly, for being willing, as we approach the final passage of this bill, to not press this particular concern and to allow us to go forward.

I look forward to working with them on matters of intelligence and national security in the years ahead.

Mr. President, I strongly support this amendment and thank Senator Roberts for offering it. I thank him generally for the many ways in which he has strengthened this bill.

The bottom line here is this amendment will ensure that intelligence activities, which by their nature are classified and not subject to public scrutiny, receive specific review and authorization by the Senate and House of Representatives Intelligence Committees. It is another way to make clear that what we have said all along, that this bill does not represent an alteration of power and authority between the Congress and the executive branch, is in fact what happens. I thank the Senator and I am glad to support the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for this amendment. It responds to a direct call, a conclusion of the 9/11 Commission report that the FBI did not dedicate sufficient resources to the surveillance and translation needs of counterterrorism agents and lacks sufficient translators proficient in Arabic and other key languages.

The reporting requirement contained in this amendment will obviously help and force Congress to determine the scope of the problem and develop possible fixes. I thank the Senator from Vermont for his initiative and accept the amendment.

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

Madam President, I call up among the pending amendments amendment No. 3821 offered by the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin.

I ask unanimous consent on behalf of Senator Harkin to send a modification of the amendment to the desk.

Madam President, I urge adoption of the amendment, as modified.

Very briefly, the Harkin amendment is focused on a requirement relative to the new board we are creating in this proposal. The new board, to watch out for the privacy and civil liberties rights of American citizens and others, is required to make periodic reports to Congress. This amendment now simply says that in those reports, there should be an opportunity for minority views to be recorded as well. It is a good amendment, as modified, having eliminated some more controversial provisions. I urge its adoption.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I rise to support this modification of the amendment. Here, again, we have reasoned together about the significant changes that will come about as a result of the underlying proposal in the creation of an NID. I think it will come out with a result that is fair and will be effective.

As I have said before, our intelligence forces today are like an army without a general. The whole idea of creating an NID is to put somebody in charge. Part of being in charge has to mean the ability to transfer the forces to places where the director thinks they are needed.

Senator Levin was understandably concerned about the impact that might have on the military chain of command. In an initial proposal he said these transfers could not occur without the approval of the Secretary of Defense. We thought that would frustrate the authority that we are trying to give to the national intelligence director. So we have come to a very reasonable compromise, which is, as Senator Collins and Senator Levin said, with regard to uniform military personnel working within the intelligence community. If the NID believes he needs three, four, or five positions from military intelligence, the slots can be moved. But the NID, with regard to uniformed military personnel, cannot go in and say, I want--as Senator Collins said--``Colonel Murkowski'' to be transferred to the national intelligence center, or some other subdivision of the intelligence community. That is quite reasonable. But it would allow the position, the slot, to be transferred. And then, presumably, for a process of negotiation, it would allow a process of negotiation to go on for the Secretary of Defense or the NID, or their designees, as to who actually filled that slot. With regard to nonuniformed personnel, including military personnel, those within the Department of Defense, they can be transferred by the national intelligence director, acting on his own.

I think this is a very good, balanced compromise. I thank Senator Levin for his characteristic thoughtfulness. I even thank him for his persistence, which I think has brought about a good result. I am happy to support this amendment, as modified.