Floor Statements

Mr. President, as the senior Democratic woman of the Senate, I rise to tell my colleagues today that we, the Democratic women of the Senate, want to take the floor together and unanimously stand up for Social

Security. We want to stand up for American families, stand up for American children, and stand up against the dismemberment of Social Security. This morning my colleagues will see all of us taking the floor to speak with passion, to speak with fortitude, to say that no matter what happens in the legislative days ahead, the outcome will be that Social Security will always be a guaranteed benefit and not a guaranteed gamble.

When one gets old and they are sick, there are not many things they can count on but they should be able to count on Social Security. Our seniors' retirement should never rely on the bull of political promises or the bear of the market.

We women are at risk, and that is why we want a guaranteed benefit, not a guaranteed gamble. We, the women, know the odds. We know that Social Security cannot be slot machine Social Security, that when one pulls the lever they get a lemon instead of three gold bars.

All of our lives we have been placed in the penalty box just because of who we are. We earn less money than men, and we often work at jobs less likely to have a pension. We are in and out of the marketplace because of family responsibilities. We live longer, and the consequences are when we retire we get less. Social Security is a great equalizer and we want to be out of the penalty box and be in a guaranteed benefit box.

Right now, even in the debate we are already getting ready to face discrimination. Chairman Thomas of the Ways and Means Committee said because women live longer, maybe our benefits should be reduced. That is outrageous. I thought we were all created equal under the Constitution, and we should all be treated equal under Social Security.

I am taking a position, along with my women Democratic colleagues, that we will not support a plan that does not provide a guaranteed, inflation-proof, lifelong benefit.

We, the Democratic women of the Senate, have certain criteria as this debate goes forward: Preserve Social Security's guaranteed lifetime inflation benefit; preserve Social Security for workers when they are disabled and for workers' spouses and children when they are disabled; and protect against the impoverishment of women by maintaining Social Security's benefit structure. Social Security provides a minimum floor against dire circumstances and that is part of the social insurance.

When we talk about a guaranteed benefit, not a guaranteed gamble, it is very clear why. Today we know our benefits are benefits we can count on. We do not have to worry about whether the stock market doing well. We do not have to worry about did we make investments, do we know bonds and stocks and indexes? What we do know is this is the guaranteed benefit. All other private savings, private pensions, are built around it. Social Security is the anchor tenet. Let us not eliminate it.

When we talk about why we need a lifetime benefit, I am concerned about the gimmicks and proposals that are being made now that people could outlive their savings. The great thing about Social Security is one cannot outlive Social Security. It is theirs until the day they die. One can outlive their IRA or their savings, but they can never outlive Social Security. This is an important anchor, particularly because we women live longer.

The plan must be inflation proof. Today, Social Security does not penalize for living longer. We women live longer and we need an adequate cost-of-living increase. When one retires in 2030, they cannot have an income that has been pegged at 1990. That is why it has to be inflation proof.

So we, the democratic women of the Senate, will not support any reform that takes us backward, instead of forward. We will use a checklist we developed to ensure that bad things do not happen to women and families in the name of improvements to Social Security. To have our support, any changes to Social Security must be able to answer these questions:

Does the plan preserve Social Security's guaranteed, lifetime, inflation-protected benefits?

Does the plan preserve Social Security's protections for workers when they are disabled, as well as when they retire, and for workers' spouses and children when workers are disabled, retire, or die?

Does the plan protect against impoverishment of women by maintaining Social Security's progressive benefit structure?

Does the plan strengthen the financing of the Social Security system while ensuring that women and other economically disadvantaged groups are protected to the greatest degree possible?

These principles are the promises of Social Security we will fight to protect. We must keep the ``security'' in Social Security. It must be a guaranteed benefit, not a guaranteed gamble.

Now let me talk about why these principles are so important and why privatization will specifically hurt women. This checklist is important because Social Security is the primary, or only, income for retired women, disabled workers and their families, working families in retirement who usually do not have access to a pension or other retirement and spouses of retired workers.

First, we need to preserve Social Security's, guaranteed, lifetime, inflation-proof benefits. The plan must be a guarantee. Today you know what your benefits are. You know what you can count on. It is guaranteed. We do not have to worry if the stock market is doing well. We do not have to worry if we invested wisely. We do not have to worry if our husbands planned well. We do not have to worry if we suddenly become disabled that we will also suddenly be poor. The benefit is there for us. It must be a guarantee. The plan must last for our whole lifetime.

People are terrified that they will outlive their savings. Any proposed plan must guarantee you cannot outlive your Social Security benefit. You can outlive your IRA. You can outlive your savings. But we must guarantee that you will never be able to outlive your Social Security. This is especially important for women. Women live longer than men. But you must never, ever be able to outlive your Social Security. You must know what your benefit is. It must keep pace with inflation. The plan must be inflation-proof.

Today Social Security also does not penalize you for living longer. Women live longer than men. Women need a plan with adequate cost-of- living increases. $800 a month in 2005 will not buy the same things in 2015.

Think about it: How does rent today compared to 10 years ago, and what will it be in 2005, 2025? We must have a guaranteed plan that protects against inflation.

Second, we need to preserve Social Security's protections for workers when they are disabled as well as when they retire, and for workers' spouses and children when workers are disabled, retire, or die.

Social Security guarantees that if you suddenly become disabled you will not also be suddenly poor. If a woman's husband dies, Social Security guarantees that there will be an income for her. If your spouse suddenly dies, Social Security guarantees that your children will be provided for.

Three million children in this country receive Social Security benefits because their parent was disabled or killed; 52,000 in my State of Maryland alone. We must be able to depend on these benefits. Honor your mother and father.

It is a great commandment to live by--and it is a great commandment to govern by not only as a commandment, but in the federal law books. Make sure it is in the federal checkbooks. Now, this is family values.

Third, we need to protect against impoverishment of women by maintaining Social Security's progressive benefit structure.

Social Security rewards work and recognizes that all work has value. Someone may work for minimum wage but make maximum effort. Social Security provides a minimum floor of protection to keep seniors out of destitution. Social Security has a progressive benefit structure. That means it protects women who work part-time to be a full-time mom. It protects stay-at-home moms who do not earn wages, though what they do is priceless. It protects women who work at minimum wage.

Social Security, with its progressive benefit structure, guarantees there will be enough benefit to live on, even

though you may not have earned much while working. Though you may struggle to make ends meet now, the program will make sure you receive a benefit you can live on. Social Security makes sure you won't be poor.

Fourth, we need to strengthen the financing of the Social Security system while ensuring that women and other economically disadvantaged groups are protected to the greatest degree possible.

For many elderly women, Social Security is not a supplement to their income, it is their income. Compared to men, most women do not receive employer-provided pensions. One-third of women must rely solely on what they receive from Social Security. When you are old and when you are sick, there are not many things you can count on, but you should be able to count on Social Security.

Social Security is more than a safety net. It is a life boat. We need to make sure more senior women and all low-income workers get the benefit of the safety net, and share the life boat. To the people of Maryland, I am on your side. For today and tomorrow, I am going to fight for you to have a benefit that you can count on. In my state, 732,000 people receive Social Security benefits, including nearly 400,000 women. They all need a guaranteed benefit, not a guaranteed gamble.

Without Social Security, almost half of elderly women in Maryland would be poor. Honor your mother and father? We need to protect them and the whole family. We often forget how Social Security protects children. There are 52,000 children in Maryland who depend on Social Security. That means that something happened to one of their parents. They either died or became disabled. We must keep our promise to protect our children. We cannot gamble their future. Now this is a family value. What will privatization cost Americans?

Another big issue for our children is the debt that privatization will create, not just for us, but our children, our grandchildren, and their children.

The transition to a private account system will cost trillions of dollars--yes, trillions of dollars--trillions of dollars that we will have to borrow from another country.

This will cause higher interest rates for our mortgages, our credit cards, our cars, our student loans.

Privatization will squeeze our federal budget even tighter. It will lead to higher taxes on everyone, and cuts in the funding for essential Federal programs besides Social Security, such as Medicare and Medicaid.

This will be bad for the economy, bad for family budgets, and bad for future generations. This is not the legacy we want to leave to our children and grandchildren. Why must we prevent privatization?

Now let me repeat why privatization is bad for America. Privatization will replace the security of a guaranteed check for a guaranteed gamble. Privatization will eliminate the dependability and predictability of seniors income. Privatization will not be inflation protected so year after year seniors incomes will go down. Privatization will eliminate guaranteed survivor benefits for widows.

Our seniors would have to give all this up for the hope that every single one of them will successfully invest in the stock market. We know how unpredictable and brutal the stock market can be. We cannot place the security of our senior citizens in the private market. They deserve better. They have been promised more. I am here to say we are going to live up to those promises.

We are not going to go back to a time when elderly poverty was commonplace and accepted. We need to strengthen Social Security and improve it. How? By not playing politics, by not being ideological, by working together, by being bipartisan, and doing what is right for America. I am prepared to do that. Democrats are prepared to do that.

We did it last time Social Security faced problems. I worked with President Reagan on Social Security. He created a climate of civility and respect. We all worked together, across the aisle stabilized the Social Security program.

We need to make some changes in the Social Security program, but only modest changes to strengthen the program, not gut it, not gambling with our seniors.

President Bush should follow the Reagan Social Security model, seek responsible changes to Social Security, work with Democrats, do what is right for our seniors, and do what is right for America.

I will join him.

I know the Democrats will, too.

There are colleagues on the floor and I want to yield so they have the time to talk. There are many more things on which I am going to elaborate, such as how this privatization will increase debt, how it will cause rising interest rates, how this foolhardy plan is based on a model that we are taking from the Government of Chile. I respect the people of Latin America, but their pension program has gone bust. This is not what the United States of America should be.

So when I cast my vote, I want to vote for the stability of a social contract that has a guaranteed lifetime benefit. I will not vote for something that is a gamble and then puts us in the wheel of misfortune. I am deeply concerned that if we pursue some of the recommendations that are being made, we will have lower benefits, we will have rising interest rates, and we will have instability in both the market, in pensions, and in Social Security.

What is the wheel of misfortune we could end up with? People could end up outliving their savings. They could end up disabled and broke. Social Security could lead to poverty rather than a minimum floor. It could be that there has been a market crash and people could never retire and while that is going on interest rates go sky high.

I remember a time in the late 1970s and early 1980s when one could not get a mortgage for less than 15 percent. If one got a home equity loan at 10 percent, they thought they had died and gone to heaven. Car insurance was at 22 percent. Credit cards were at 24 percent. We do not want to ever go there.

I worked with Ronald Reagan to stabilize Social Security in 1983. I want to work with George Bush in 2005. But I will vote for a guaranteed benefit, not a guaranteed gamble. And I would never want to have Social Security just turn to the wheel of misfortune.

I note that my colleagues are in the Chamber, and I now yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Washington.

I thank the Senator from Washington State for her eloquent statement and her passion. I would now like to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for her longstanding commitment in standing up for what is right in this country, for her eloquent statement on why we need to preserve Social Security, and for outlining what is the real crisis in our country.

We are going to continue our debate with the other Democratic women.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Michigan is in the Chamber, a sister social worker, and actually a person who is licensed to be a do-gooder in our country. She is one who stood up for seniors and who spoke with such passion on the need for prescription drugs. I now yield 10 minutes to her to speak on Social Security.

Mr. President, there are other Democratic women who wish to speak. They are sprinting from the prayer breakfast. I notice that the senior Senator from Arkansas is here, Mrs. Blanche Lincoln. I will be yielding her time.

I want to note for those observing the proceedings that Senator Lincoln is a member of the Finance Committee. She is the only Democratic woman on the Finance Committee. We look to her to champion our position, and at the same time we recognize her longstanding commitment to the people of Arkansas--especially those people who work in those rice mills, end up with a bad back, varicose veins, dirt under their fingernails--and their Social Security.

I yield 10 minutes for her to tell us about it.

How much time remains?

We note that Senators Clinton and Feinstein are on their way. We now note that we have two wonderful women representing Washington State.

We now turn to the junior Senator, Ms. Cantwell, and I yield her 7 minutes.

Madam President, I yield 30 seconds.

Madam President, how much time is remaining on our side?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended 10 minutes, equally divided between the majority and minority.

Madam President, I now yield 7 minutes to the Senator from New York State, Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a long champion of the rights of women, and the rights of the elderly.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended for the majority for 2 minutes, and I thank everyone for their graciousness in extending morning business. I appreciate that.

Mr. President, I rise today on the nomination of Dr. Condoleezza Rice to serve as Secretary of State.

I have three criteria I use to evaluate all executive branch nominees: competence, integrity and commitment to the core mission of the Department. On the basis of those criteria, I will vote to confirm Dr. Rice.

Yet I do have concerns. This vote is not an endorsement of President Bush's foreign and defense policy as we saw it during Dr. Rice's tenure as National Security Advisor.

I have serious concerns with the way we went to war with Iraq: With the overblown assertions of the threat to the United States; with the deeply flawed intelligence analysis from a few biased sources presented as facts; with the failure to build a strong international coalition; with the failure to prepare and send sufficient forces to deal with the aftermath of removing Saddam from power; and with the failure to prepare by providing our own troops the protective equipment they needed to carry out their missions and come home safe.

I know a lot of the responsibility for those failures rests with the Secretary of Defense.

I hope that Dr. Rice's service as Secretary of State will be historic not only because she will be the first African American woman to hold that office. I hope that Dr. Rice will make history by exercising true leadership at the State Department: Rebuilding our tattered international relationships and alliances; seeking to achieve lasting peace in the Middle East and other conflicts; mobilizing the world to meet humanitarian and development needs; and serving as an effective CEO of the State Department to ensure that our dedicated public servants have safe embassies and the resources they need to effectively formulate policy and represent the United States around the world.

Mr. President, perhaps more than any other word, Auschwitz is synonymous with evil.

Sixty years ago today, Russian soldiers liberated Auschwitz.

The horrors of Auschwitz are incomprehensible and undescribable.

Over 1 million people lost their lives at Auschwitz--the largest of the Nazi death camps. Ninety percent were Jews. Hundreds of thousands were children.

Auschwitz represented the Germans' campaign to exterminate a people-- the Jews. They almost succeeded--killing 2 out of 3 Jews in Europe.

As a Polish American, I carry the images of Auschwitz in my heart.

The Nazis considered all Poles to be an inferior race. After Poland was conquered, German authorities expelled much of the native Polish population from regions of the newly annexed territories. Polish cities were given German names and German settlers were colonized on Polish land. In occupied Poland, the Nazi Governor, Hans Frank, proclaimed: ``Poles will become slaves in the Third Reich.''

The Nazis set out to destroy Polish culture. Thousands of Polish teachers, politicians, university professors and artists were executed or sent to Nazi concentration camps. Catholic priests were among the main targets of Nazi mass murder in Poland.

In fact, Auschwitz was created as an internment camp for Polish dissidents. And thousands of Poles were murdered alongside the Jews in Auschwitz.

Many Poles risked their lives to save Jews:

Irena Sendler was a young social worker in Warsaw. She used her position to smuggle 200 Jewish children out of the ghetto to safe houses. In 1943, Sendler was arrested by the Gestapo, brutally tortured and condemned to death. On the day of her execution, she was freed with the help of the Jewish underground.

Irena Adamowicz, a Polish Catholic, aided in establishing contacts between the Jewish Underground and the main Polish resistance organization.

Jan Karski, who, while working for the Polish Government in exile, was one of the few outsiders to visit the Warsaw Ghetto. He appealed to the Allies to do something.

As a Polish American, I traveled to Poland in the late 1970s. I was a Congresswoman. And I wanted to see my heritage. I went to the small village where my family came from. It was a very moving and historic experience.

But I also wanted to see the dark side of my history, and I went to Auschwitz.

In touring Auschwitz, it was an incredibly moving experience to go through the gate, to see the sign, to go to see the chambers. I went to a cell that had been occupied by Father

Kolbe, a Catholic priest who gave his life for a Jewish man there.

And then, for those of you who don't know, I am a social worker, I have been a child abuse worker and I don't flinch.

But then I got half way through that tour and I came to a point in that tour where I saw the bins with glasses and the children's shoes, and this 40-something-year-old Congresswoman could not go on.

I became unglued. I had to remove myself from the small tour, go off into a private place in Auschwitz, cry in a way that shook my very soul. And when I left there, I thought, now I really know why we need an Israel.

And that is why I will fight so hard to ensure the survival of Israel. I know its importance. I know why it exists. I will always fight for the survival and the viability of the State of Israel. My support is unabashed and unwavering.

I also know why it is so important for us educate our young people-- about the effects of hatred, about the importance of history.

That is why I have worked with the Polish and Jewish communities in Baltimore to develop a U.S.-Poland-Israel Exchange program. Young people from America, Poland and Israel will join together to learn about each other's history and culture. They will visit Poland and Israel, to visit historical and religious sites, to learn together about history and to work together to build a brighter future.

In closing, I would like to read the words of Eli Weisel:

Never shall I forget that night, the first night in camp,

which has turned my life into one long night, seven times

cursed and seven times sealed. Never shall I forget that

smoke. Never shall I forget the faces of the children, whose

bodies I saw turned into wreathes of smoke beneath a silent

blue sky. Never shall I forget those flames which consumed my

faith forever.

Never shall I forget that nocturnal silence which deprived

me, for all eternity, of the desire to live. Never shall I

forget those moments which murdered my God and my soul and

turned my dreams to dust. Never shall I forget these things,

even if I am condemned to live as long as God himself.

Mr. President, 60 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, let us pledge never to forget. And let us honor those who died in the holocaust by fighting against bigotry, hate crimes, and intolerance.

Mr. President, today I rise to discuss an issue that Congress tried to address after the 2000 election nightmare. Frankly, I am stunned to be standing before you 4 years later to take up the same issues of voting irregularities and uncounted votes. And I thank my colleague from California for bringing this important issue before the Senate for debate. Her opposition serves as a call upon the Congress to take action this year to address the ongoing problems in our electoral system.

Today, I will vote to certify the result, but once again we see that the election system in the United States does not work to provide absolute confidence in the results. Today, I am voting to certify the results because I do not believe that the voting problems changed the outcome of the election. Certification should not be delayed further under such circumstances. I believe the majority of voters in Ohio have spoken and that result should be certified.

But while I do not question the result, I rise today to call attention to what went wrong, to the disenfranchised voters, the broken machines and problems people had casting their ballots on election day.

This should not be happening in the United States of America. When we vote for President, we should all have total confidence that every vote counts and that every vote is counted.

There simply should be no questions or problems when we vote for the President of the United States. But, here we are, again, talking about voting problems and talking about lost or uncounted votes.

Like many Americans, I was shocked in 2000 to see how outdated the voting systems in America were. I was also shocked to see how easy it was to manipulate those voting systems and how easy it was for votes to be lost or go uncounted.

It was literally unbelievable. I asked myself, how could such things happen here in the United States? In 2000, we all learned that many ballots, many people's votes, were thrown out, lost, misplaced, or miscounted.

We saw election officials who did not know the rules and some who appeared to ignore the rules.

We witnessed innocent mistakes, machine mistakes, ballot mistakes and mistakes that were not so innocent.

The result was that many votes simply did not count.

The Presidential election of 2000 was an eyeopener. Our election systems in this country, the World's oldest democracy, were broken and needed to be fixed.

Republicans and Democrats agreed this had to be done. It was important. It was vital.

And we did something. We passed the Help America Vote Act. We set standards. We authorized money for the states to help them get new machines, new technology and fix their electoral systems. We provided for provisional ballot systems so that if there was a question about a voters registration they could still cast a ballot.

We thought that our voting systems were well on their way to being fixed. We thought that we would never have another election like 2000. We thought that all votes were going to count and all votes were going to be counted.

We were wrong.

We now see, in 2004, 4 years after the 2000 election debacle, we have people standing in lines for hours because polling places could not handle the turnout, people being given the wrong information, machines breaking down, too few machines in some precincts, ballots being lost or misplaced, and voters being told to go to the wrong place to vote. That is simply not right.

It is not clear if these problems by accident or intended, but the result was that again people were not able to cast their votes or their votes simply were not counted. That's just wrong. That is not suppose to happen in the United States.

And where did much of this happen? In minority neighborhoods, in cities, in economically distressed areas, in primarily Democratic areas across the Nation. I ask myself, is this just a coincidence? Those communities do not think so. And it is critical that we let them know that we take their concerns seriously.

What happened in the last election is less important than making sure that it never happens again. These communities need to know that the Congress is taking action to meet their concerns and will work to correct the abuses that were documented in many States in 2004.

This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. Ensuring that every registered voter who wants to vote can vote is not a partisan issue. It is an issue of what it means to be an American. In 2004, everyone should agree that every vote should count and we have to do whatever is necessary to make sure that happens.

I call on the Congress to renew its efforts to ensure that there is true electoral reform that every American who casts their ballot can be sure it is counted and that every American who wants to cast their ballot has that opportunity. This Congress should take three steps:

We should fully fund the Help American Vote Act so that all States have the resources that they need to truly reform their electoral systems.

We need to pass legislation to ensure that there is a voter verified paper trail on electronic machines so voters can verify that they cast their ballot and who they cast it for.

We need to re-examine the issue of electoral reform to see what steps the Congress needs to take to ensure that the voting rights of all Americans are protected. So that we have uniform standards. So that provisional ballots work, people do not have to wait in long lines, machines are operative and voters can get to the polls on election day.

And, we must do it now, before this issue fades from view again. The media will move on to other issues. We will move on to other issues. There are many important issues that this Congress will address this year, but as we look forward, and this year celebrate the 40th Anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, we must make this a priority issue. We must act to protect those vital rights and protect our democracy. There is no better way to honor this historic Act than to ensure that we fix the problems in our electoral system that continue disenfranchise voters.

I thank my colleague, Senator Boxer, from California for giving us the opportunity to debate these important points and focusing the spotlight on the voting problems still facing our democracy. And while I vote today to

certify the election, I do not certify how our electoral system works in the United States and on that front we must now act.

I look forward to working on this with other members of the Senate. But, we must not be here in 2006 or 2008 talking about how shocked we are to see yet again votes not counted, ballots missing, lost and misplaced, and confused election officials. We must act this year, while the spotlight is still on, to do more to ensure that all voters will have confidence in our electoral system.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the National Security Intelligence Reform Act.

I am proud to cast my vote in favor of the first major reform of the intelligence community. Intelligence reform will make our Nation safer and stronger, and ensure we use our resources smarter. We have created a framework that works to prevent a predatory attack on the United States, supports our troops, and provides good intelligence to policymakers so we can guard and guide the Nation.

I am excited that we are going to pass such fundamental reform of our intelligence agencies. I have been fighting for intelligence reform for years. It is overdue and greatly needed. Now is the time.

This is a very good and important bill. This bill will make the American people safer by reforming our intelligence community for the 21st Century, by improving protection of our homeland, and by unifying and strengthening our efforts to combat terrorism.

The reforms will help prevent another 9/11 attack and help ensure we never go to war again on dated and dubious information. These reforms will make highest and best use of the talent in our intelligence agencies, who will have a framework to be able to protect the Nation and speak truth to power.

I have fought for reform of our intelligence community for years. I have been a member of the Intelligence Committee since before 9/11 to be an advocate for reform, particularly regarding signals intelligence.

Since I joined the intelligence committee we have also investigated two serious intelligence failures:

Why couldn't we prevent the 9/11 attacks on America?

Why did we think Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction?

The House and Senate intelligence committees had a joint inquiry into intelligence relating to 9/11. We found insufficient information, missed opportunities, and failures to share information. So many talented and highly skilled people in our intelligence community worked so hard and so effectively, but our intelligence agencies did not serve them or us well.

These investigations convinced me that our intelligence agencies needed fundamental reforms. I recommended the creation of a Director of National Intelligence to unify and lead the intelligence community and many other important intelligence reforms. I am pleased that many of the reforms I have been advocating are part of this bill.

The National Security Intelligence Reform Act also builds on the work of the 9/11 Commission. I want to thank Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman for their work on this bill in Committee, in the Senate, and holding the line in conference with the House. The result is broad, deep and authentic reform.

The bill gives the intelligence community one leader, a Director of National Intelligence, with real authority over the National Intelligence Program budget and personnel, to manage and unify and oversee the intelligence community.

The bill creates a National Counterterrorism Center to unify our Nation's intelligence information and planning to fight terrorism more effectively.

The bill creates a National Counterproliferation Center to provide the same unity of effort and effectiveness in the effort to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

The bill provides for diversity of opinion in intelligence analysis and protects the independence of analysis from policy and political pressures, by using red-teaming to test assumptions and avoiding group- think by ensuring that alternative views are presented to policy- makers.

The bill requires better sharing of intelligence information, both within the intelligence community and with first responders in our States and communities who have a need to know.

The bill provides protections for the rights of Americans by creating a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board and making officials in each agency responsible for protecting civil liberties and privacy rights.

The bill will also unify and streamline the standards for granting security clearances and require that a clearance granted by one agency is accepted by other agencies.

This bill goes beyond intelligence reform to address many of the other 9/11 Commission recommendations: to improve aviation security, including air cargo inspections, to improve maritime security, to strengthen border enforcement, and to strengthen criminal laws on terrorism, building weapons of mass destruction, and financing terrorist groups.

I have been fighting for many of these reforms and am very pleased that this bill includes them. They are going to make America safer, stronger and smarter.

This is not a perfect bill; no bill is. There are some provisions in this bill that raise questions or concerns. You can count on me to be vigorous and rigorous in oversight, to make sure we have real reform to protect America and protect the freedoms that America stands for.

Thanks to the dedication, commitment and persistence of the 9/11 families and the Congress, we had an independent commission to investigate 9/11. The 9/11 Commission brought into the sunshine what many of us knew from our classified hearings. The 9/11 Commission report was not just riveting reading--it was a good blueprint for intelligence reform. Senators Collins and Lieberman picked up that blueprint and ran with it. The Senate produced a bipartisan bill that is a shining example of what can be done around here when we work together, not as blue State Democrats, not as red State Republicans, but as Americans--as members of the red, white and blue party, working together for America and the American people. As a proud member of the red, white and blue party, I enthusiastically support the National Security Intelligence Reform Act.

Mr. President, this is the toughest VA/HUD bill we have ever faced.

In putting this bill together, we were told by the Republican leadership that we had to do two things. First, we had to fund veterans medical care $1.2 billion above the President's budget request. Second, we had to fund NASA at the President's budget request of $16.2 billion. In addition, we had to provide enough money to renew Section 8 housing vouchers. Even though this was not a priority for the President, it was a priority for us.

I agree with these priorities. I have fought for these priorities. But in order to fund these priorities, we had to cut $3 billion from other programs. This is a shell game.

The Republican leadership gave us an allocation for conference that is $3 billion less than we had for our Senate bill. With the exception of VA medical care, Section 8 and NASA, we had to cut all other programs an average of 4 percent below last year.

For the first time in history, we had to cut essential programs to pay for these priorities. These are real cuts to programs that help people and communities. This is the illusion of being compassionate. We were forced to do this because of the budget caps that we are forced to live under by the Republican leadership.

These spending caps put a stranglehold on essential programs. The Republican leadership created this situation and unfortunately, the American people will pay the price.

Our No. 1 priority has always been our veterans. Senator Bond and I will always make veterans the number one priority in this bill. We have increased veterans medical care by $1.5 billion over last year, and $1.2 billion more than the President requested in his budget. We eliminated the President's proposal to increase deductibles and co-pays for veterans. It is wrong to ask veterans to pay more for their medical care, especially when we are fighting a war. We created a new prosthetics and holistic care program to find new ways to treat and care for veterans, especially for our veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

For this reason alone, we had to produce a bill, even under these circumstances. If we didn't produce a bill this year, we would not have enough money to care for our veterans, particularly our veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

We have increased funding for NASA to help fund the repairs to the Space Shuttle so we can return to flight next year and fix the Hubble Space Telescope.

Returning the Shuttle safely to flight is our top NASA priority. We are fully committed to implementing the recommendations of the Gehman Commission, and we have given NASA sufficient funding to accomplish this goal. We have provided the full budget request, $4.3 billion, to fund the Space Shuttle and we have provided NASA with unprecedented flexibility to add more funds for the Space Shuttle, if they need it.

We added $300 million to NASA's budget to fund a servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope, the most successful scientific instrument since Galileo's telescope. I have fought to save Hubble and I am proud that my colleagues have joined me in this fight by providing an additional $300 million to fund a servicing mission in 2007.

We also made a down payment on the President's Exploration Initiative so we can begin a new era in space exploration and we protected NASA's critical science programs such as Living With A Star and Earth science applications to help us better understand the Earth's environment.

For National Service, the overall budget was cut by over $3 million compared to last year but we were able to fund AmeriCorps at a level that supports 70,000 new volunteers, despite the cut in funding. This will allow us to maintain the momentum we started last year.

However, these increases come at a price. To provide these needed increases for veterans and NASA, we had to cut essential programs, ``including housing programs. Senator Bond and I have a responsibility to fund the renewals of Section 8 vouchers. We added funding for Section 8 renewals, but we had to cut other programs to pay for it.

We were forced to cut housing for the elderly by $26 million. Housing for the disabled is cut by $10 million. The Community Development Block Grant Program, one of our most popular programs in this bill, and one of the most important programs for State and local governments, is cut by $200 million compared to last year. We should not have to be forced to shift funding from one essential program to another.

For EPA, we were forced to make cuts because of the budget cuts imposed on us by the Republican leadership. The clean water State revolving

fund was cut by $250 million compared to last year. That means every State will get less money for sewer construction.

EPA's successful science and technology programs--the programs looking at innovative and cost effective solutions for environmental protection--are cut by $40 million compared to last year. Overall, EPA is cut by over $300 million compared to last year.

Thanks to the Republican budget cuts, we are shifting the burden of environmental protection to State and local governments. I am opposed to this and fought it every step of the way.

For NSF, Senator Bond and I have fought to incease funding for science and technology by fighting to double NSF's budget over 5 years. Yet, the budget cuts imposed on us forced us to cut $60 million from NSF's budget compared to last year.

Fortunately, we were able to increase funding for our historically black colleges and universities and maintain graduate stipends at $30,000 per year--two of my top priorities.

But we will not be able to maintain our leadership in science and technology if we are forced to cut NSF funding. We will not be able to produce the new technologies that lead to the new jobs if we have to cut basic research funding. This is not a sound policy.

Senator Bond and I have done the best we could do under the circumstances. We had no choice but to produce a bill. A CR would have been worse for our veterans and we could not let that happen. We have soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Without an increase in VA medical care, we would not be able to care for them once they return and enter the VA system.

Senator Bond and I would never let that happen, but it is wrong to have to cut other important programs to pay for it. I hope that we will not face this situation next year.

Mr. President, I am pleased that we are finally reauthorizing this important legislation, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. I thank Senator Kennedy, Senator Gregg, Congressman Boehner, and Congressman Miller. I know how hard you worked on this bill. You tackled complicated issues and found common ground. I appreciate your efforts.

Overall, I think this is a good bill. It's not perfect. I know there are Marylanders who will be disappointed. I've heard from parents who are concerned that this bill rolls back the guarantee of a quality education for their children. And I've heard from teachers, principals, and school superintendents who want to know where the resources will come from, because this bill doesn't fully fund IDEA. But I'm going to vote for it because we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

This bill takes important steps towards improving special education for students, families, and schools. It sets a clear path for fully funding IDEA. It protects the rights of students. It simplifies complicated rules and makes it easier for schools and parents to navigate--not litigate. And it allows schools to help students who need special attention, but not necessarily special education.

I've talked to Marylanders about this, like the women of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority. They see their children being racially sidelined-- pushed into special education when what they really need is special attention. I'm so pleased that we are doing something in this bill to stop racial sidelining.

My top priority in this reauthorization was full funding. I think it's a shame that the bill doesn't fully fund IDEA. But I'm pleased it takes the first step towards full funding by authorizing specific funding levels for each year, until we get to full funding in 2008.

Why is this important? The Federal Government is supposed to pay 40 percent of the cost of educating children with disabilities, yet it has never paid more than 18 percent. That means local districts must make up the difference by skimping on special ed, cutting from other education programs, or raising taxes. I don't want to force States and local school districts to forage for funds, cut back on teacher training, or delay school repairs because the Federal Government has failed to live up to its commitment to special education. As a member of the Appropriations Committee I will fight to put this money in the Federal checkbook so special education is not a hollow promise.

Parents today are under a lot of stress, sometimes working two jobs just to make ends meet. They're trying to find day care for their kids and elder care for their own parents. The Federal Government shouldn't add to their worries by not living up to its obligations. With the Federal Government not paying its share of special ed these parents have a real question in their minds: Will my child will have a good teacher? Will the classes have up-to-date textbooks? Will they be learning what they need to know?

Parents of disabled children face such a tough burden already. Caring for a disabled child can be exhausting. School should not be one of the many things they worry about, particularly when the laws are already on the books to guarantee their child a public school education.

Special education has made such a huge difference in the lives of students with disabilities. It gives disabled children a chance to succeed in school and in life. I want to do what's best for families and schools. Parents and students need to be able to count on a quality education. That's why I'm voting for this legislation. But know that I will continue to fight for full funding of IDEA, because I don't want special education to be a hollow promise.

Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate will pass the Keeping Seniors Safe from Falls Act of 2004 (S. 1217) that Senator Enzi and I introduced. Falls are a serious public health problem that affects millions of seniors each year. This bill focuses on public education, research, and demonstration projects to help reduce falls by older adults.

The facts are staggering. One out of every three Americans over age 65 falls every year. In 2000, over 10,200 seniors died and approximately 1.6 million seniors visited an emergency department as a result of a fall. Falls are the leading cause of injury deaths among seniors, accounting for 64,000 traumatic brain injuries and 340,000 hip fractures each year. Falls can be financially disastrous for families, and falls place a serious financial strain on our health care system. By 2020, falls by older adults are estimated to cost the health care system more than $32 billion.

These facts do not begin to tell the story of what falls can mean for older adults and their loved ones. Falls don't discriminate. Kay Graham was the victim of a fall. Many of us have friends or relatives who have fallen. A fall can have a devastating impact on a person's physical, emotional, and mental health. If an older woman loses her footing on her front porch steps, falls, and suffers a hip fracture, she would likely spend about two weeks in the hospital, and there is a 50 percent chance that she would not return home or live independently as a result of her injuries.

Two years ago, I chaired a hearing of the Subcommittee on Aging on the problem of falls among older adults. The subcommittee heard testimony from Lillie Marie Struchen, a 91-year-old woman who had recently fallen in her bathroom when she slipped on the tile. Lillie Marie could not reach the panic button in her apartment, and it took her some time before she could get to her feet and call for help. Lillie Marie was lucky. She recovered from her fall and returned to her normal routines. She shared with the subcommittee some steps that she and her family have taken to prevent future falls, knowing that she may not be so lucky next time.

These falls, like the ones that Lillie Marie and thousands of others suffer from each year, can be prevented. With some help, there are simple ways that seniors can improve the safety of their homes and make a fall far less likely. Home modifications like hand rails in the bathroom, rubber mats on slippery tile floors, and cordless telephones that seniors can keep nearby can make a big difference. Well-trained pharmacists can review medications to make sure that two drugs do not interact to cause dizziness and throw a senior off balance.

That's what this legislation is about--getting behind our Nation's seniors and giving help to those who practice self-help. This bill creates public education campaigns for older adults, their families, and health care providers about how to prevent falls. It expands research on falls by older adults to develop better ways to prevent falls and to improve the treatment and rehabilitation of elder victims. This legislation also requires an evaluation of the effect of falls on health care costs, the potential for reducing falls, and the potential for reducing health care costs associated with falls.

Reducing the number of falls will help seniors live longer, healthier, more independent lives. I want to acknowledge the leadership of the National Safety Council on this issue. I also thank Senator Enzi for working with me in such a bipartisan manner to move this bill forward. The support of Senator Gregg and Senator Kennedy was also vital in getting this bill through the Senate. I hope that our colleagues in the House will take swift action to pass this important bill this year.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to the Calvert Alliance Against Substance Abuse, Inc., CAASA, a grassroots organization that has been dedicated to fighting alcohol and drug abuse in Calvert County since 1989.

Since its inception fifteen years ago, CAASA has been working hard to establish a healthy, drug-free environment for the entire community. This grassroots organization meets the people where they are. CAASA encourages citizens to take an active role in preventing substance abuse through public awareness, education, treatment and law enforcement. Its programs benefit students in the classroom, families at home and individuals in the workplace.

CAASA has consistently supported the expansion of school-based substance abuse prevention activities and programs to help abusers and their families achieve a drug-free lifestyle. It has also assisted businesses in promoting an alcohol and drug-free workplace. I believe that the best ideas come from the people. CAASA does just that--it awards grants to members of the community who approach them with new ideas. By working together with the people, CAASA is helping to strengthen our communities and fight the drug war right here in Maryland.

Many of the programs that CAASA has sponsored have benefitted the youth of Calvert County, such as Project Graduation. Project Graduation is a drug-free and alcohol-free all night celebration for the graduating seniors from Calvert County's public high schools. Since the inception of this program, there have not been any drug or alcohol related motor vehicle incidents involving members of Calvert County's graduating classes on graduation night.

This group has proven to be a critical part of our Nation's war on drugs by working locally in communities in Maryland. For this we owe them our graduate. I ask my Senate colleagues to join me today in recognizing the Calvert Alliance Against Substance Abuse, Inc. for showing the community how to ``choose life . . . not drugs.''

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the American Jobs Creation Act. This bill is known as the ``JOBS'' Act because it will bring American jobs home, it will protect American jobs here, and it will create more American jobs.

I have been fighting for a patriotic tax code that closes tax loopholes. This bill is not perfect. I have some yellow flashing lights about provisions that were stripped out in this conference report, particularly those affecting our workers right to overtime and our National Guard and Reservists.

Our middle class is hurting. They are worried about keeping their jobs, paying for health care, and sending their children to college. America is hemorrhaging jobs--2.7 million manufacturing jobs have disappeared since 2001. My State of Maryland has lost 21,000 manufacturing jobs since 2001.

Where are these jobs going? They are going overseas. They are going on a slow boat to China or on the fast track to Mexico. These jobs are headed to dial 1-800 anywhere.

Why are they going? These jobs are leaving because American companies are at a competitive disadvantage. Our American companies pay their workers a livable wage, pay their fair share of taxes, and provide health care and retirement benefits to their employees.

I think it is wrong to give companies incentives to send millions of jobs to other countries when millions of Americans are losing their jobs. It is wrong to put companies who stay in America at a competitive disadvantage. They are at a competitive disadvantage because they have their business here at home, because their workers are here at home, because they pay their fair share of taxes, and because they provide health care to their employees.

We should be rewarding these companies with good guy bonuses for hiring and building their businesses here in America. That is what I am fighting for in the U.S. Senate.

But, this bill is not perfect which is why I fought to improve this bill during the Senate debate. Senator Dorgan and I offered an amendment to end tax subsidies to U.S. companies that send plants and U.S. jobs overseas. Our amendment would have required U.S. companies that open foreign plants or move plants overseas then export those goods made abroad back to the U.S. to pay taxes on the profits from these operations. Our amendment said the U.S.

Tax Code can no longer be used to boost corporate rewards at the expense of American workers.

We should be rewarding our American companies who hire and build their businesses right here in the United States with good guy tax breaks. We should be giving good guy bonuses to American businesses that are providing health care to their workers and to their retirees.

I have fought to help make health insurance more affordable for self- employed individuals by allowing self-employed individuals to be able to fully deduct their health care premiums.

I fought to provide workers and retirees who have lost health insurance due to trade with a tax credit of 65 percent for health care premiums, and I am still fighting to provide small businesses with a 50 percent tax credit for the cost of health insurance premiums for their workers.

I am standing up for America by standing up for a strong economy right here at home. This bill would help American jobs in three ways. This bill will help reinvigorate the U.S. manufacturing sector by creating incentives to retain more U.S. manufacturing jobs here in the U.S. by lowering the cost of production. Next, this bill helps U.S. companies compete abroad by putting U.S. companies on a more equal footing with foreign competitors. Lastly, this bill will help put an end to the tariffs imposed by EU on U.S. exports by repealing the income tax preferences that have been ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization. If we don't pass this legislation, these tariffs would cost American businesses up to $4 billion per year. And that's not okay.

When I consider any tax proposal, I apply three criteria. Does it create jobs? Are the tax cuts targeted or temporary? Does the proposal increase structural deficit? The JOBS bill meets all my criteria. This bill would provide nearly $137 billion in new business tax cuts. There are four major sections of this bill: a new domestic manufacturing tax break; international tax simplification; small business provisions; and, shutting down tax shelters and closing tax shelters.

The JOBS bill would reduce taxes for many of our U.S based manufacturers, by reducing their overall tax rate by 3 percent. This would lower the cost of doing business in the U.S. for U.S. manufacturers, and would help U.S. manufacturers compete against low- cost manufacturing in other countries. The domestic manufacturing tax break is based on the amount of U.S.-based manufacturing profits. So companies can only get the tax break if they manufacture here at home. This bill also includes a very broad definition of manufacturing so it would help a broad range of companies.

This bill also helps American companies working abroad to be more competitive with about $42.6 billion in tax breaks to U.S.-based multinationals. This legislation simplifies international tax rules, eliminates many redundant and complicated tax provisions, and reduces the double taxation of foreign-earned profits for U.S.-based companies. If our American companies are strong at home and abroad, our American economy will be strong. And that's what I'm fighting for.

I know how important small businesses are to the health of the economy and to the communities that they serve. This legislation includes about $7.1 billion in tax breaks for small businesses in two important ways. First, this bill will provide tax breaks for restaurant owners and certain real estate developers so that they can write off the cost of improving their facilities faster, saving thousands of dollars. This legislation also extends the small business tax breaks from 2003 bill which allows small businesses to write off up to $100,000 for the purchase of new equipment. If we do not pass this legislation, our small businesses will only be able to write off $25,000 for investments in new equipment.

This legislation funds tax breaks for our good guys by shutting down the types of tax loopholes used by Enron, cracking down abusive shelters, closing tax loopholes for companies and individuals who hide assets in tax havens to avoid paying U.S. taxes, and ending certain leasing arrangements for public infrastructure projects. I don't believe that the American taxpayer should be subsidizing the Paris metro. I say let's keep those dollars here at home.

Though I am supporting today's bill, I also believe there are problems with it. I introduced an amendment with my colleague from Louisiana--Senator Mary Landrieu. Though this amendment passed unanimously in the Senate, it is nowhere to be found in this conference report. Senator Landrieu and I introduced an amendment that provides benefits to our good guy employers who pay their employees the difference between their National Guard salary and their civilian job. This important provision would have provided a 50 percent tax credit to employers who continue to pay their activated Guard and Reserve employees their civilian wages. This provision would also have provided a $6,000 tax credit to help small business owners hire temporary workers and provided a $10,000 tax credit for small manufacturers to hire temporary workers when their National Guard employees have been deployed. I wish that these provisions were included in the bill that we passed today.

Our National Guardsmen are often our first responders. They are our policemen and firemen in times of crisis. They are ``Our Active Duty Americans''--on duty in times of peace and war. When our National Guardsmen and women are sent to Iraq, Afghanistan, or called to protect our critical military installations here in the U.S., they shouldn't have to worry about paying their bills here at home. It's just wrong that this provision was not included in the final JOBS bill.

I am happy that we were able to reach a compromise and pass a bill, H.R. 1779, which would provide a 50 percent tax credit to small businesses who continue to pay their activated Guard and Reserve employees their civilian wages, and provide a $6,000 tax credit to help small business owners hire temporary workers. But, the bill we passed today leaves out our First Responders. It also leaves out the extra help for our manufacturers. Now that we have done our job here in the Senate, we have to hope that the House takes action on this bill when we return. Well, we all know what that means. I am going to continue to fight for this provision when we come back. I am also going to fight to do the same thing for our federal government employees with the Durbin- Mikulski Pay Security Act.

I have another problem with the legislation we are discussing today. I am so disappointed that the amendment to protect overtime pay was again stripped out in conference. Once again, the White House got its way even though Congress and the American public are opposed to the new overtime rules. Millions of Americans depend on overtime pay to pay their bills and to make ends meet. I thought that in this country the best social program was a job. Yet, up to 6 million workers have lost overtime protection under the new overtime rules. Workers should receive overtime pay for working overtime. It's just that simple. This isn't complicated--it's fair and right.

The JOBS bill makes good things happen by helping U.S. companies. The JOBS bill also stops bad things from happening by going after tax cheats. But, the conference report is not near the bill that was passed by the Senate.

I will vote for this legislation because I think it helps create a patriotic Tax Code, provides good guy bonuses to American manufacturing companies that keep jobs here, creates a level playing field for U.S. companies competing abroad, and cracks down on tax cheats and closing tax loopholes.

I call on my colleagues to think about where America is going in the 21st century. Where are we going to be? Are we going to create more opportunity? Are we going to create more jobs that pay a living wage and have a decent benefit structure?

I really want to have a patriotic Tax Code that brings our jobs back home, helps us compete overseas, and stands up for America.

I urge my colleagues to pass this important bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate will pass the Mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization Act of 2004, H.R. 4555. It is fitting that Congress is reauthorizing the Mammography Quality Standards Act, MQSA, during Breast Cancer Awareness Month. This important bill is about saving lives. That is what the MQSA does. Accurate mammograms detect breast cancer early, so women can get treatment and be survivors.

Mammography is not perfect, but it is the best screening tool we have now. I authored MQSA 12 years ago to improve the quality of mammograms so that they are safe and accurate. Before MQSA became law, there was an uneven and conflicting patchwork of standards for mammography in this country. There were no national quality standards for personnel or equipment. Image quality of mammograms and patient exposure to radiation levels varied widely. The quality of mammography equipment was poor. Physicians and technologists were poorly trained. Inspections were lacking.

MQSA set Federal safety and quality assurance standards for mammography facilities for: personnel, including doctors who interpret mammograms; equipment; and operating procedures. By creating national standards, Congress helped make mammograms a more reliable tool for detecting breast cancer. In 1998, Congress improved MQSA by giving information on test results directly to the women being tested, so no woman falls through the cracks because she never learns about a suspicious finding on her mammogram.

Now Congress is renewing MQSA through 2007 and laying the foundation to improve it even more in the future. Next year, the Institute of Medicine, IOM, and the General Accountability Office, GAO, will release studies examining a number of issues relating to MQSA and mammography. These issues include ways to improve physicians' interpretations of mammograms, ways to ensure that sufficient numbers of adequately trained personnel are recruited and retained at all levels, and access to mammography. I look forward to receiving these IOM and GAO recommendations and considering them in the next MQSA reauthorization.

This legislation that the Senate passed today was passed by the House of Representatives earlier this week and now heads to the President for his signature. I acknowledge and thank Congressman Dingell for his longstanding leadership and work on MQSA, and appreciate the work of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on this issue. I thank Senators Gregg and Kennedy for working with me to make sure that the Senate made MQSA a priority in this Congress and that we reauthorized it this year. I also want to acknowledge Senator Ensign for his important work on MQSA. Senator Ensign joined me in introducing our MQSA reauthorization bill, S. 1879, that passed the Senate earlier this year.

I thank the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, American Cancer Society, National Alliance of Breast Cancer Organizations, American College of Radiology Association, Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization, and the National Breast Cancer Coalition for their input and advice during this reauthorization of MQSA.

This year about 216,000 cases of breast cancer are expected to be diagnosed and over 40,000 women are expected to die of breast cancer in this country. MQSA saves lives. That is why it is so important that Congress is renewing and working to strengthen MQSA.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. He is right, we have just passed very important legislation, one of which is to reauthorize our mammogram quality standards. We have worked very hard on a bipartisan basis. I would like to thank him for his collegiality and cooperation. I see him smiling. Did I interrupt?

It was a little chaotic. I wanted to be quickly complimentary.

Literally, we are going to ensure the safety and security of our mammograms. I just finished the Race for the Cure in Baltimore. I did more of a ``walk for the cure'' this morning. But when you look at the survivors and you know what early detection from mammograms has meant, we really have done a good job.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I support the proposed reform to strengthen our oversight of the intelligence community.

We just passed sweeping, historic legislation to reform America's entire intelligence community. It was a very good bill that will greatly strengthen our ability to develop good intelligence and fight terrorism.

The National Intelligence Reform Act fulfills what I consider the priorities for intelligence reform, including many reforms I have been fighting for: A strong National Intelligence Director to lead and manage the intelligence community. A National Counter Terrorism Center so we have unity of effort to combat terrorism. Information sharing so analysts can connect the dots. An Inspector General for the entire intelligence community. Strong alternative analysis or red-teaming. An ombudsman so our intelligence professionals can speak truth to power. And protection for civil liberties and privacy.

But reform of our intelligence community is only half the job. We must also reform our oversight of the intelligence community. As the 9/ 11 Commissioners said, reforming intelligence without reforming oversight is like one hand clapping.

The 9/11 Commission report says that, ``Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important.'' Our leaders gave this ``most difficult and important'' task to two of our most esteemed colleagues: Senator Reid and Senator McConnell. I thank them for their leadership. And thank the entire bipartisan working group. I thank them for their creativity, cooperation and consideration

to develop the substance of the proposal now before the Senate.

I support all three key recommendations of the bipartisan working group: to create an appropriations subcommittee for Intelligence; to strengthen the Select Committee on Intelligence; and to create a Homeland Security Committee. Let me talk about each of these recommendations.

The bipartisan working group proposal, and the rule we are now considering, will create an appropriations subcommittee for Intelligence. I believe this is one of the most important reforms we can make to strengthen Congressional oversight of the intelligence budget. That's why I wrote to Senator McConnell and Senator Reid urging them to do this.

Some of my colleagues point out that the 9/11 Commission recommended creating a combined authorization and appropriations committee for intelligence. But that was just one option mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

The 9/11 Commission Report also included two provisions supporting an Intelligence Appropriations subcommittee:

The 9/11 Commission, on page 410 of its report, criticized the intelligence appropriations process, noting that ``the final budget review is handled in the Defense Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committees. Those committees have no subcommittees just for intelligence, and only a few members and staff review the requests.''

The 9/11 Commission included the following recommendation on page 416 of its report: ``Congress should pass a separate appropriations act for intelligence. . . .''

Governor Tom Kean, Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, supports creating an Intelligence Appropriations subcommittee. In the September 7, 2004 Intelligence Committee hearing, I asked him directly what he thought of my idea of an Intelligence Appropriations subcommittee. Chairman Kean said, ``I think that would be very much in my mind within the spirit of our recommendations.''

Creating an Intelligence Appropriations subcommittee is the best way to strengthen oversight of the intelligence budget. Appropriations subcommittees conduct rigorous oversight of the agencies they fund. Senator Bond and I certainly do for the agencies funded by our VA/HUD bill. An Intelligence subcommittee will make the Appropriations Committee's oversight stronger: intelligence will have the attention of a full subcommittee, and that subcommittee will have sufficient staff for real oversight of intelligence funding. I hope my colleagues will join me in strong support of the proposal to create an Intelligence Appropriations subcommittee.

The working group also recommends strengthening the existing Select Committee on Intelligence. I am proud to serve on the Intelligence Committee. I take that responsibility very seriously. Senator Daschle appointed me to the Committee in 2001, before the September 11th attacks. I have always used my role to push for reform and modernization so that we have the best possible intelligence for our decisionmakers and our troops.

The bipartisan working group proposal maintains many of the good things about the way the Intelligence Committee is organized: Including members of the Armed Services, Appropriations, Foreign Relations and Judiciary Committees. Ensuring the majority has only a 1-vote advantage. Having subpoena authority. Having a core nonpartisan professional staff.

The rule would also strengthen the committee: Elevating it to an ``A'' Committee. Creating at least one subcommittee to strengthen oversight. Giving the committee a stronger role in reviewing civilian intelligence nominees. Creating designated staff positions for each member of the committee.

So I really think this resolution will help the Intelligence Committee to be more effective.

The third reform proposed by the bipartisan working group is to create a Homeland Security Committee. We know that our colleagues on the Government Affairs Committee did a good job with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, so it's only logical that the current Governmental Affairs Committee would take on responsibility for homeland security. I believe it's important to make sure that other functions within the jurisdiction of Governmental Affairs do not lose out in this reform. I am thinking in particular of the Committee's work on government management and the Federal workforce, to ensure that we support our federal employees who serve the American people in so many ways.

Having an authorizing committee for homeland security should be a real help in the unfinished business of making the Department of Homeland Security an effective agency, to work with our States, counties, cities and towns, as well as other Federal agencies, to protect the American people.

The three reforms proposed by the McConnell-Reid working group, and codified as changes to the Senate Rules in this resolution, meet the challenge of the 9/11 Commission and our obligation to the American people to strengthen congressional oversight. That's why I intend to support the Resolution, and urge my colleagues to support it as well.