Floor Statements

I thank my good friend from Connecticut. I thank him and Senator Collins, again, for their leadership on this very critically important bill, one that is surely needed, one that surely must be done right. I think we are all determined to do both--to get this bill passed, but to get it passed in a form which not just improves our intelligence capability but also addresses an issue which I have been very much concerned about, which is the shaping of intelligence, the exaggeration of intelligence, the distortion of intelligence to support particular policy purposes.

Unhappily, this is not new. We saw the same problem in the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, with a distortion of the intelligence that was used in order to obtain passage of a resolution which would support the expansion of a war in Vietnam.

We saw the same problem with the Iran-contra matter, where intelligence was distorted, shaped, and misused in order to support a particular policy position.

We recently saw, before Iraq, that intelligence was shaped and exaggerated and distorted inside the intelligence community, in my judgment, after it was received by the policymakers. But even before they got it, it was shaped in a way that pointed, in every single instance where there is an error in omission, toward a more imminent threat, a stronger threat, which thereby supported the position of the policymakers.

I believe in a stronger national intelligence director. We need a stronger national intelligence director, but we also want a director who is going to exercise that power in a way which will not produce intelligence aimed at supporting policy. We need intelligence which is aimed at providing facts--unvarnished, objective, independently arrived at.

While supporting a more powerful director, I do not want to support a stronger ``yes'' man or simply to support a stronger political arm of the White House. Here, when I say that, I am referring to any administration, not just this administration. I don't want national intelligence directors to be shaping intelligence to support the policy of any administration. I want them to be providing information which is critically important to policymakers but information which must be right, must be accurate, must be objective, must be independently arrived at. That is what my goal has been.

The Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Maine, who are leading this effort, and the Governmental Affairs Committee have willingly added a number of provisions which have furthered that goal. There are a number of other provisions which I believe should be added here on the floor.

I will be offering one today. I have not personally been able to talk to the Senator from Connecticut, but I understand that this first amendment of mine may have been cleared now. I want to describe it, in any event.

I ask unanimous consent we set aside the pending amendment and that amendment No. 3808 be called up.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, the 9/11 Commission, in addition to recommending a number of ways in which we could strengthen the national intelligence director and that office and produce more coordinated and helpful intelligence reports where we have all the information necessary to connect the dots and where agencies share information with each other, also reminded us on page 414 of their report that:

In managing the whole community, the National Intelligence

Director is still providing a service function. With the

partial exception of his or her responsibilities for

overseeing the NCTC [the National Counterterrorism Center]

the National Intelligence Director should support the

consumers of national intelligence--the president and

policymaking advisers, such as secretaries of state, defense

and homeland security, and the Attorney General.

The consumers of intelligence are the ones who need to set forth and lay out their needs. What do they need by way of collection? What is it that they and their agencies--whether it is the State Department or Homeland Security Department or the Treasury Department or any other department--what kind of satellite capabilities do they need? Where do they need the electronics to be used? They need to tell that new national intelligence director and the NCTC what it is they need for their purposes. They are in the best position to know what are the requirements of their agency.

When all these requirements and needs are put together, we are then in a situation where the needs and the requirements of the agencies will probably exceed the resources that we have available to meet those needs. At that point, you need somebody to arbitrate. You need somebody to decide: We have this many needs, but we have only this many resources. How do we allocate limited resources--or at least not unlimited resources--among a very finite package of needs which frequently will exceed the resources we have?

Who is going to arbitrate that problem? If the State Department says we have to have satellite coverage here, and another department says, no, we have to have that coverage here, who is going to make that decision?

The answer which this bill provides, and I think rightly so, is that the national intelligence director needs to make the decision as to what needs are going to be met if we can't meet all of them. But in terms of what those needs are, in terms of setting forth the requirements of the agency, that has to be something which the agency head sets up. There is no way that the NID can decide what the State Department needs and what the Defense Department needs and what the Treasury Department needs. Those agencies and others have to lay out what their requirements are, what their needs are.

Where the NID comes in is deciding among those needs which ones have the top priority. That is why the language in the bill which says that the NID will establish the collection and analysis priorities and manage collection tasking is, in my judgment, correct.

I want to make it clear that this amendment is truly intended to clarify what I believe is the intent of the sponsors of this bill. There are other amendments I will be offering which differ on the substance, where there is something I would do differently from the sponsors of the bill. But this amendment is intended to clarify what I believe not only is but should be and must be the intent of the sponsors of this legislation in two ways.

First, as I have just described, and as the 9/11 Commission described, one of the purposes of the national intelligence director is to support the consumers of national intelligence. It is the consumers who must set forth and lay out their needs. When those needs exceed the resources or can't be met for whatever reason, you need an arbiter. That is where the NID should come in. Sorry, we can't meet that department's need; or, Sorry we can't meet the Treasury Department needs because this Homeland Security need has to take priority. You need someone who will make that decision and who can make it quickly. That, I believe, is the intent.

No one is in a position to determine the needs of 15 intelligence agencies with intelligence operations except those agencies themselves. But when you aggregate those needs and they exceed the resources, at that point you have to have a national intelligence director who says, That has priority and we are tasking that particular satellite; we are tasking an agency that has satellite capability to accomplish that particular goal and meet that need rather than their other needs which cannot be met.

That is one part of the amendment.

The other clarification has to do with the analyses, the so-called competitive analyses, which are welcome.

Everybody who testified in front of us--Secretary Powell, Secretary Ridge, the chairman of our committee and the ranking member said this at hearings--``We don't want group-think.'' We want independent analyses. We want analyses which are competitive. We want to encourage that. We don't want to discourage it.

We want to make it clear in the bill that by giving power to the national intelligence director to direct that a competitive analysis be achieved, it is not exclusive. We are still urging all of the intelligence agencies on their own initiative to provide independently arrived at and competitive analysis. We want agencies to tell us those aluminum tubes have two purposes, not just one. We want agencies on their own initiative--not waiting for a direction by the NID but on their own initiative, should they determine that is what they wish to do--to tell us, No, those unmanned aerial vehicles do not have a purpose of delivering biological weapons; they are more suited for a legitimate purpose.

We want agencies, in other words, to give us those competitive analyses which is what is the great antidote to group-think and which the chairman, the ranking member, and every single witness, I think, who came in front of us said should be encouraged. We have language in the bill now which gives the power to the NID to direct a competitive analysis, which is fine. He or she ought to have that power.

We want to encourage independent or competitive analysis, and that means we don't want any agency to think they have to wait for a direction, but they on their own will be encouraged by the NID to engage in those kinds of independent analyses.

I want to assure my dear friend from Connecticut, the ranking member, that this particular amendment does have that purpose. I believe it is a very commonsense amendment which is complimentary to everything that is in the bill.

I will be offering amendments perhaps on Monday which I think are very modest amendments which do, though, make substantive changes to the bill. This would carry out what I hope the intention is of the sponsors of the bill and which has been stated by the sponsors of the bill to be something they deeply believe in.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first let me thank my dear friend from Connecticut.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Inouye be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.

Mr. President, I don't know whether the Senator from Connecticut at this point wants to have a voice vote or wait for the Senator from Maine.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, this fall marks a solemn 2nd anniversary of the sniper attacks which terrorized the Washington, DC area and the country for 3 weeks in 2002. In October of that year, John Allen Mohammad, who was sentenced to death, and John Lee Malvo who was sentenced to life imprisonment, indiscriminately shot 13 innocent people, killing ten.

In a settlement that marked victory for the 2002 sniper shooting victims, Bushmaster Firearms, manufacturer of the XM-15 assault rifle used in the attacks, agreed to pay $550,000 in damages for negligence leading to criminal

violence in connection with the shooting spree.

According to reports, Bushmaster continued to sell firearms, including the XM-15 assault rifle used in the sniper shootings, to Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, WA, even after several ATF audits documented the dealer's inability to responsibly account for its inventory of weapons. Reports indicate that 238 guns had gone missing from Bull's Eye's inventory and over 50 had been traced to criminal acts since 1997. As part of the settlement with victims, Bull's Eye has agreed to pay $2 million for its negligence in failing to account for the assault rifle that ended up in the hands of the snipers.

Earlier this year, I voted with 89 of my colleagues to defeat S. 1805, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. That bill would have weakened the legal rights of gun violence victims by terminating a wide range of pending and prospective civil cases against members of the gun industry. The victims of the sniper shootings would have lost their ability to sue Bushmaster Firearms and Bull's Eye Shooter Supply had S. 1805 become law.

For the families and victims impacted by the 2002 sniper attacks, no amount of money will replace their loss and suffering. However, we should continue to pursue sensible gun safety legislation, including reinstating the expired assault weapons ban, to help prevent future gun crimes and improve the security of communities across our Nation.

Mr. President, I oppose the Specter amendment and I will take a few minutes to explain my opposition. I think all of us are in favor of bold moves, of having a powerful new national intelligence director and having analysis that is independent and objective, much more so than has been the case in the last few decades and recently, to have that analysis done by a group which can bring together all of the information and come up with a coordinated position which is independent and objective, and the NCTC is able to do that.

This amendment would place the National Security Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the NSA and the NGA, and the National Reconnaissance Office, the NRO, under the direction, supervision, and control of the national intelligence director and would do the same for the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency regarding the national intelligence collection mission of the DIA.

In doing so, this amendment would have the national intelligence director basically be substituted for the Secretary of Defense in the military chain of command. There are thousands of uniformed members of our military who are currently in those agencies.

To break the chain of command and to say for the first time we are going to take thousands of uniformed personnel and put them under the supervision, direction, and control of a civilian agency head would create havoc inside of the military, would create a very unfortunate precedent, and would in the process be creating a new agency, a new agency that would require a supervisory staff similar to the supervisory staff that now exists in the Office of the Secretary of Defense for the agencies which would be transferred.

Those are the two major reasons I have problems. There is a third I want to talk about in a moment. But the two major reasons I have are that it would require the creation of a whole new supervisory bureaucracy for these

agencies in the national intelligence director's office. You cannot supervise these agencies, from the national intelligence director's perspective, without having people to engage in that supervision the way the Office of the Secretary of Defense now supervises and overseas these agencies. So we would be creating a new bureaucracy.

We should be breaking down walls between bureaucracies, not building up a new bureaucracy.

When the 9/11 Commission reached its conclusion and when they testified in front of us, they told us they decided not to create a department. They thought that would be overcentralization. They were bold. I don't think anybody can successfully argue here that the 9/11 Commission was not bold. They were bold. They made some major shifts, in terms of budget execution authority and in terms of personnel authority. In shifting those authorities over the agencies which we are debating here to the NID, they made a major decision relative to power, relative to control. But they decided they would not go toward a more centralized new agency; that they would rather coordinate with the budgeting personnel power in a new powerful NID but not create a new bureaucracy in the process.

There are many reasons why their decision--and I focus on the 9/11 Commission recommendation at our hearing--was a wise one. Their approach was not just bold in terms of recommending the transfer of budget and personnel authority, but it was wise in not creating a new bureaucracy in the process.

The chain of command is such that we now do not put large numbers of our uniformed military people outside of the chain of command and under the command and control of civilian supervisors. We do not do that. There is a purpose for having a chain of command from your commander inside the military, which is clear, which you must abide by. That is what you sign up for when you join the military and that is what is so essential to military effectiveness, that the chain of command be solid and that it not be broken in the way this amendment would break a chain of command.

These agencies we are talking about today are integral parts of the Defense Department. They are recognized for the support they provide to combat operations. Indeed, when the Congress adopted the Goldwater- Nichols Reorganization Act of 1986, we created the concept of ``command support agencies.'' Pursuant to that legislation, the DIA and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency have been designated by law as command support agencies. We hear that designation will continue. But it is pretty hard to square that with what this amendment proposes, which is that they would not be inside the military chain of command. They would still have the label but not the reality. They would be called combat support agencies, but they would not be in the chain of command of the Department of Defense.

The combat support functions of the DIA and the NSA and the NGA have been recognized in law. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is required by law to evaluate periodically, and not less often than every 2 years, the responsiveness and readiness of these agencies to support operating forces in the event of war or threats to national security. The pending amendment would preserve the form of the periodic review. That periodic review by the JCS Chairman of the combat support agencies of the intelligence community would be retained, but it would be a report which is in form only because it is the Secretary of Defense who is charged with being responsible for the combat capabilities of the Armed Forces.

The NID, the national intelligence director, does not have the responsibility that the Secretary of Defense has for the combat capabilities of our Armed Forces. So to simply say, well, there will still be a periodic review by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of the combat support agencies of this community, but then to say that report goes to the NID, the national intelligence director, instead of going to the person who we make responsible for the combat abilities of the Armed Forces, is a hollow gesture. It says that one thing will continue to be true, we will still call them a combat support agency, but when it comes to the real world of where that review goes, it will go to the person, the national intelligence director, who is not the person responsible for the combat capabilities of the Armed Forces. So we have a break in the chain of command, which is unprecedented, which creates all kinds of problems inside the military in terms of military effectiveness, which weakens not only the power of the Secretary of Defense but which undermines his responsibility to make sure we have full combat capability inside of the Department of Defense.

For these reasons, that we should not be creating a new bureaucracy, we should be breaking down walls of old bureaucracies; that this amendment would require new supervisory staff over these entities if they are going to be transferred to the national intelligence director in order to help him perform the supervision of these agencies, which is now performed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense; and because this would represent an unprecedented break in the chain of command that now exists, and which is so critical to our military effectiveness, I believe the 9/11 Commission reached the right balance. Their balance was one which was conscious and conscientious; it was bold but it was wise.

I have one other thought which I want to share and then I will yield. These agencies now do analysis on their own. We got some very important analysis before the Iraq war, in fact, from the Defense Intelligence Agency, analysis which was different from the analysis produced by the Central Intelligence Agency. If we are serious about wanting alternative views relative to intelligence; if we are serious, as the 9/11 Commission urges us to be and as I hope we are, about ending the politicization and misuse of intelligence to support policy positions; if we are serious about promoting objectivity and independence of analysis, we would want these agencies not to be shifted because their analysis should not be under the control of the national intelligence director. Their analysis should be independent and objective. For these agencies to be shifted outside of where they now are, separate from the national intelligence director, and put underneath his umbrella, is going to make us weaker when it comes to the most critically important reform we should be producing, which is to have objective, independent analysis of intelligence which can be provided to the policymakers and not shaped to support policies of the policymakers.

To remove these agencies that now are in a position to provide alternative analysis and to put them under the aegis of the national intelligence director will make that many fewer sources of independent, objective intelligence that will be available to our policymakers. That is a real loss.

There are other provisions in this bill and other provisions I hope will be added during the amendment process to promote the objectivity and independence of intelligence analysis.

We have had too much abuse in this area. We have had too much shaping and exaggeration, going back at least as far as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, when intelligence was misused, to the Iran-Contra years when intelligence was misused, shaped, and exaggerated in order to support particular policy positions, and the same thing happened before the Iraq war. We have to find ways to break down any kind of group- think, any kind of a monolithic approach to intelligence, and we have to make it more difficult for a national intelligence director to be doing the shaping, to be in total control of the analysis of intelligence.

That is why having an NCTC office separate from NID is so important. Having an NCTC director who is subject to the confirmation of the Senate is so important. That is why some of the other provisions which we were able to add in committee to promote the independence and objectivity of the intelligence analysis are so important.

We should not be reducing the numbers of sources of independent analysis of intelligence, as this amendment would do, by putting these agencies that now produce intelligence analysis under the aegis, supervision, and operational control of the national intelligence director. It is too much concentration of that critically important analysis power under one person. We

should be wary of doing that. We should be moving in a very different direction.

We should be finding ways to plot independence and objectivity of intelligence so we don't have a repeat of the fiasco we just saw where we had 500 pages, according to a bipartisan Intelligence Committee report, of instances where intelligence was shaped, stretched, and exaggerated, and they all moved in one direction. All those intelligence changes and all the shaping was moved in the direction of supporting a particular policy of the administration. That is a great danger.

This amendment, because it concentrates or would concentrate agencies that are currently involved in intelligence analysis under the NID, increases the danger rather than reduces the danger of having intelligence which is shaped to support policy rather than provide support for objective information and objective estimates to the policymakers.

I oppose this amendment. I hope it will be defeated.

I yield the floor.

I wonder if the Senator from Ohio would address a question which his question raised in my mind, having spent a lot of time trying to figure out what the line is, in terms of supervision and control. Let me put the hypothetical this way. I would also appreciate the managers perhaps listening to it as well.

We have a new national intelligence director. The first question the Senator from Ohio asked, the first that I heard, at least, was: Can that director direct, order--in the words of the chairman, ``task''-- the collection, let's say, of signals intelligence in Iraq instead of Afghanistan? Can he or she make that decision?

We only have certain resources. We have to allocate them. Can that director, after consulting, presumably--because these are day-to-day consultations, as the Senator from Connecticut says; these go on every single day, these decisions on allocations and priorities. But hopefully, after going through that process, can that NID, that director, say: OK, folks, I have heard it; we have to make a decision. We are collecting signals in Iraq; we are not going to do it in Afghanistan.

The chairman's answer was ``yes.'' It seems to me that ought to be very reassuring to folks.

The next question is, should that director be responsible for deciding which airplane it is that is going to do the collection? My good friend from Ohio says no, I think, shaking his head no. But that is what is left to the day-to-day operations. That is why you need to leave that decision on which airplane is going to go over Iraq to the day-to-day operational decisions inside of that agency. You can't transfer all of those decisions to a NID. That is where I think the Senator from Ohio would draw the line, I hope. That is clearly where I draw the line.

I am happy to yield.

If the Senator will yield, I don't know any other way you can.

If the Senator will yield to respond, and I don't want to interrupt, but that is exactly what the words ``controlling operations'' mean. That is what the word ``operations'' means.

I think the Senator from Ohio is correct in pressing for clear answers to the wording in the bill. There are plenty of places where I have some similar questions which I will be raising by amendment, but I don't think this is one of them. I don't think this is one of the places. Because I think the bill is clear here that when the NID issues collection tasking, that is exactly what the Senator from Ohio wants, is to issue collection tasking, I believe.

But what I believe the Senator from Ohio does not want is to control the day-to-day operations as to how that task will be carried out. Yet that is what the Specter language results in.

Rather than clarifying this issue as between the order or the task, and how you are going to carry it out, it blurs the issue. Because once the Senator from Ohio says it is not his understanding of the Specter language that the operations which will now be assigned to NID include the day-to-day operations, then where is that line drawn? If it is not the day-to-day operations, if you are truly shifting those agencies to the responsibility and control of the NID, of course he is responsible for the day-to-day operations. Where is the line, where is the operations point divided between the NID who controls operations under Specter and the operations not controlled by the NID, under your understanding?

I thank my friend from Ohio.

In closing, I do have some questions about certain words in this particular paragraph which I will raise later on the floor, relative particularly to the establishment of requirements, because I think the consumer must establish the requirements and not the NID. I think there is also an issue about analysis, because I think we ought to be promoting greater numbers of analyses, and not getting into group- think. We should be promoting independent, objective analysis and I think this wording probably or unintentionally could concentrate or centralize that in a NID.

I think that is an unintended result, but we can discuss that later. But on this one issue that is raised in this amendment, it seems to me this amendment goes exactly in the direction all of us want, which is we need somebody to make a tasking decision, to have that power, and to do it exactly as our friend from Ohio said. You can't at a critical moment have that confused or diffused or uncertain. If something has to be done quickly, someone has to make a decision, and the person who makes a decision in this bill is clearly the NID on the tasking of the intelligence. That is where the decision, it seems to me, has to reside.

But again, I think the Specter amendment, because it goes into the operational side after the task is issued, goes too far, and rather than clarifying an issue will put the responsibility purportedly on somebody who can't handle that responsibility, who doesn't have the horses to handle that responsibility inside of his agency, unless you recreate the entire Department of Defense almost inside the NID

in order to carry out those day-to-day operations to effectuate the task collection which properly belongs with the NID.

Mr. President, I am honored to recognize Dziennik Polski, or the Polish Daily News, one of Michigan's oldest and honored publications, on its 100th anniversary. The Polish Daily News can be proud of its dedication to generations of Polish Americans and its support of American traditions and ideals. The Polish Daily News has worked together with other organizations in the greater Detroit area to help build strong and effective communities, which has given rise to a diverse and vibrant socioeconomic region in southeast Michigan.

Founded in 1904 by a small group of community members, the Polish Daily News was housed in a building on the south side of Canfield east of Riopelle. This was home to the paper until the 1960s when the offices and print production moved to a location on Van Dyke in Detroit. A third and fourth move relocated the newspaper to two addresses on Joseph Campau, with the last one in Hamtramck. As Detroit's primary Polish newspaper serving the new immigrants who began to settle in what was becoming the Nation's Motor City, the Polish Daily News played a vital role in building a strong Polonia that was committed to full participation in American life. The paper supported a cohesive community that encouraged its members to strive for accomplishments that reflected their shared values of a deep commitment to family, faith, hard work, as well as the American ideals of democracy and freedom. With a circulation of 30,000 during the 1940s and 1950s, the Polish Daily News kept its readership informed about the struggle for Poland's independence from Soviet oppression while advocating for a future democratic Poland and strong U.S.-Poland relations.

Today as the Polish Weekly, the newspaper continues the heritage of promoting both a strong Polonia and citizen participation in the life of the United States. The Polish Daily News is celebrating its 100th anniversary of serving the Polish-American community of greater Detroit on Saturday, October 2, 2004. Families, friends, community leaders, and elected officials will gather at the American Polish Cultural Center in Troy to pay tribute to the important efforts of the Polish Daily News organization which has helped to promote community life and strengthen Polish-American pride throughout the 100 years of its existence.

I know my Senate colleagues join me in also congratulating publisher Bruno Nowicki and the editors and staff, along with the community supporters and many friends of the Polish Daily News/Polish Weekly on this great milestone. I am proud to recognize their record of service to the Polish-American community and their respected standing among all the people of Michigan. A Hearty Sto Lat--Another 100 Years.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize Ambassador H.E. Bader Omar Al-Dafa, a distinguished career diplomat and the current Ambassador of Qatar to the United States. Ambassador Al- Dafa, who earned his bachelor's degree in political science from Western Michigan University in 1975, will receive the College of Arts and Sciences Alumni Achievement Award from Western Michigan University in a special ceremony on October 15, 2004.

Ambassador Al-Dafa is admired in Michigan for his dedication to service and his work in promoting US-Arab relations. His efforts to foster better understanding among America, Qatar and the Arab world through support of important initiatives in the American Arab community are appreciated by many. His respect for diplomacy has been demonstrated throughout his exemplary career which spans more than 25 years.

Upon graduation from Western Michigan University, Ambassador Al-Dafa began his career as a diplomatic attache at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Doha. While serving in his second assignment as First Secretary at the Embassy of the State of Qatar in Washington, DC, he earned a master's degree in international public policy from the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University in 1979. With his solid understanding of America and its people, Ambassador Al- Dafa has been energetic and consistent in his commitment to improving bilateral relations.

Ambassador Al-Dafa has served in his post as Ambassador of Qatar to the United States since September 5, 2000. Prior to this assignment, he served as Non-Resident Ambassador to Mexico; Director of European and American Affairs Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Qatar; Ambassador to The Russian Federation; Non Resident Ambassador to Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia; Ambassador to France and Non Resident Ambassador to Greece; Non-Resident Ambassador to Switzerland; Ambassador to Egypt and Permanent Representative to the Arab League in Cairo, Egypt; and Ambassador to Spain. Through the Washington Embassy, Ambassador Al-Dafa has worked on a wide array of programs, including the establishment of branches of Virginia Commonwealth University, Texas A&M, and Weill Cornell Medical College in Education City in Doha. In addition to Arabic and English, he speaks Spanish and French fluently. Ambassador Al-Dafa is married to Awatef Mohamed Al-Dafa and has three children.

I know my colleagues join me in congratulating Ambassador Al-Dafa on his success and achievements in international affairs and on this prestigious honor that will be conferred by Western Michigan University. I am pleased to offer my best wishes on his continued service and contribution to the close ties and good relations between the State of Qatar and the United States.

I wonder if the Senator from Virginia has the floor. Who has the floor?

I ask unanimous consent I be able to respond to the Senator from Virginia without his losing the right to the floor.

On the first part of the inquiry, what is interesting to me, and ironic, is the Director of Central Intelligence has that same authority the chairman just read from page 12, line 20, that is provided to the NID, which is to develop and present to the President the annual budget for the national intelligence program. That is the same authority as exists in current law to the intelligence director. So there is no change in terms of presenting and developing the budget.

Where the real changes take place are after the budget or after the appropriation is adopted, and then it depends--then the law will change who it is that executes that budget authority. That is where we get very complicated changes.

I think the discussion and debate is very important, that we analyze which specific programs, projects, and activities, budget execution-- not presentation or preparation--but execution is transferred to the NID from where it currently is. That is where I think we all would benefit from a description of specific programs which are not transferred. There are some in the tactical area. But there are also some that are transferred--very few, perhaps 3 percent of the 80 percent of the budget that is transferred, in terms of budget execution to the NID--that in my judgment should not be transferred. A very tiny, few programs, including the intelligence--the J-2 programs that are out in the combatant commanders, including the communications infrastructure between the JCS and the combatant commanders. Those specific programs--and I know my good friend from Virginia knows these programs--those specific programs clearly belong in the Defense Department's budget execution, in my judgment. However, they are transferred.

To try to answer the Senator's question, I think it would be very illuminating, in addition to what he has asked for, if we could take some examples, and there are very few, of some programs where budget execution is transferred to the NID that should not be. I emphasize again, so this is not mischaracterized, I am talking here about less than 3 percent of the 80 percent of the budget which is transferred.

No, I am done.

I ask unanimous consent also that I be given 5 minutes in opposition to the Specter amendment tomorrow morning, and if I am not here because of the full committee meeting we have at Armed Services, that my statement be made part of the record at that time.

Mr. President, as the assault weapons ban expired last Monday, one of our Nation's law enforcement officers was recovering in a Miami, FL hospital from two gunshot wounds inflicted by an AK-47 rifle. According to the Brady Campaign, all models of this make of assault rifle were prohibited at the time of the attack, but are now legal due to the expiration of the assault weapons ban on September 13.

Last Monday, the Miami Herald reported that on September 12, 2004 Miami-Dade Police Officer Keenya Hubert was on a routine patrol when she heard gunshots fired in a nearby neighborhood. She spotted a suspicious vehicle leaving the area, called for backup, and pulled the vehicle over. Suddenly, the driver got out of his vehicle and fired nearly two-dozen bullets at Officer Hubert and her police car using an AK-47 assault rifle. One of those bullets struck Officer Hubert in the shoulder and another grazed her forehead. Later in the week a man was arrested in connection with this attack. Press reports indicate the man had been previously convicted of attacking two other police officers in 1997.

Unfortunately, assault rifles like the one reportedly used in the attack on Officer Hubert's life as well as many other similar assault weapons are once again being legally produced and sold as a result of the expiration of the assault weapons ban. The ban also included firearms that can accept detachable magazines and have more than one of several specific military features, such as a folding/telescoping stock, protruding pistol grip, bayonet mount, threaded muzzle or flash suppressor, barrel shroud or grenade launcher. Common sense tells us that there is no reason for civilians to have easy access to guns with these features.

In 1994, I voted for the assault weapons ban and in March of this year I joined a bipartisan majority of the Senate in voting to extend the ban for 10 years. Unfortunately, despite the overwhelming support of the law enforcement community, the ongoing threat of terrorism, and bipartisan support in the Senate, neither the President nor the Republican Congressional leadership acted to protect Americans from assault weapons like the one used in the attack on Officer Hubert.

Last week, Sarah Brady, the wife of Jim Brady who was shot in John Hinckley's attempted assassination of President Reagan, issued an open letter to President Bush expressing disappointment in his decision to allow the assault weapons ban to expire.

Mr. President, I hope that in the remaining days of the 108th Congress the Republican leadership and the President will reverse course and act to extend the assault weapons ban.

I ask unanimous consent that Sarah Brady's letter to President Bush be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I will vote for this conference report because in this sluggish economy, average American families need all the help they can get. Just a few weeks ago the Census Bureau released new national figures showing that for the third year in a row poverty has risen and incomes have fallen. In fact, the typical family has seen its income fall by more than $1,500. Employer-sponsored health insurance coverage has continued its decline and there are a whopping 45 million Americans who are uninsured. Extending these tax cuts that are aimed at helping families by expanding the child tax credit and the 10 percent income tax bracket in addition to marriage penalty and AMT relief is an important part of any economic plan.

I would have much preferred to vote for a conference report that paid for the extension of these cuts. They could and should have been paid for. Continuing to deepen our extraordinary deficit ditch will ultimately hurt the very same lower and middle class families that this legislation aims to help.

Earlier this year I supported, and the Senate passed, PAYGO, which would have required that in addition to paying for all spending, we would have to pay for all tax cuts as well. This concept is common sense for most families, who work to live within their means by balancing what goes out with what comes in. Unfortunately, PAYGO was rejected by the House Republican leadership, so we do not have to offset the cost of these or any tax cuts. Now that these cuts are going to be extended through 2010, I hope there will be a renewed support for

Madam President, I would like to discuss the issue of federally funded stem cell research. On August 9, 2001, President Bush outlined the policy of his administration regarding federally funded research using only existing stem cell lines. He indicated that he felt this would allow for Federal research dollars to be used on about 60 lines of stem cells. In actuality, over 3 years later, there are indications that Federal research has been done on only as many as 24 lines and as few as 5.

Yet, the administration continues to state this policy is appropriate. As recently as Monday, President Bush stated on a campaign stop in Derry, NH, that his stem cell policy ``balanced good science with good ethics.'' I disagree. We must use modern medical technology to its fullest capability to use stem cells to develop cures for debilitating diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, cancer and ALS, commonly referred to as Lou Gehrig's disease. The Federal Government should not restrict our policy to only existing stem cells but expand the policy to include newly discovered stem cell lines as well as unused cells that would otherwise be discarded from in vitro clinics. This is the position of the majority of the American people and it is the position of former First Lady Nancy Reagan.

On a personal note, a dear friend of mine, William Kooistra, of Grand Rapids, MI, was recently diagnosed with ALS. Bill Kooistra founded Project in Rehabilitation in 1968, seeing the need for the medical community to become involved in treating the problems of drug addiction. Project Rehab is now one of the largest and longest running substance abuse programs in my home State. There is hope that stem cell research can one day cure diseases such as ALS. Although that cure may come too late for my friend Bill, I hope and I know that he hopes that a cure can be found one day so that the generations to come won't have to worry that they are genetically predisposed to contract ALS. I ask unanimous consent a September 12, 2004, letter from Bill Kooistra to the Grand Rapids Press on this subject be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the most important quality I am looking for in a Director of Central Intelligence is someone who can be relied upon to provide objective intelligence assessments independent of the policy and political agenda of the White House. Too often we haven't had that.

The massive intelligence failures before the Iraq war were, to a significant degree, the result of the CIA shaping intelligence to support administration policy. The CIA's errors were all in one direction, making the Iraqi threat clearer, sharper and more imminent, thereby promoting the administration's decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Nuances, qualifications and caveats were dropped; a ``slam-dunk'' was the assessment. The CIA was saying to the administration, to the Congress, and to the American people what it thought the administration wanted to hear.

The problem of intelligence being manipulated and politicized is not new. Forty years ago, Secretary of Defense McNamara used classified communications intercepts, later proved to be very dubious, to push for passage of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which was then used by President Johnson as the legislative foundation to expand the war in Vietnam.

Intelligence was manipulated by then-DCI William Casey during the Iran Contra period. The bipartisan Iran-Contra report cited evidence that Director Casey ``misrepresented or selectively used available intelligence to support the policy he was promoting.''

We need a different kind of DCI, one who is not going to be influenced by the policy choices or politics of whatever administration is in power. After reviewing Congressman Goss's record, I am not convinced that he would be that kind of DCI. For example, the Washington Post reported that in 2002, when asked about intelligence failures in Iraq, Congressman Goss said ``I don't like to see the left- wingers splattering mud on an agency that's done some very fine work.'' The Senate Intelligence Committee produced a unanimous 500-page report on the massive CIA failures leading up to the Iraq war. I would not characterize the committee as ``a bunch of left wingers.'' We need someone who is committed to independence and reform, not an ideology.

During his nomination hearing, Congressman Goss was very reluctant to admit there had been intelligence failures on the part of the intelligence community during the most recent Iraq War. And, when asked questions about some of his partisan comments, Congressman Goss answered many of them by simply saying ``the record is the record.'' Whatever that means, it is not an acceptable answer from a nominee for Director of Central Intelligence.

I will vote against Congressman Goss. I hope that, if confirmed, he will prove me wrong.

Mr. President, last week, at the invitation of the Council on Foreign Relations and the family of the late Paul Warnke, I gave the second annual Paul Warnke Lecture on International Security here in Washington. I spoke to the council about the ongoing efforts here in the Congress to address the issue of the reform of the intelligence community as recommended by the 9/11 Commission and others.

I told the council that to my mind, at least as important as the structural reforms of our intelligence community, and arguably even more so, is the need to protect the independence, objectivity and integrity of intelligence analyses. Too many times in our past, including most recently in the Iraq war, intelligence has been manipulated and politicized to support a specific policy.

I am willing to support the creation of a more powerful National Intelligence Director with greater authority over intelligence budgets and personnel, but only if this increased power is used to help ensure the accuracy, independence, objectivity and integrity of intelligence analyses, and not used to promote policy. I don't want a National Intelligence Director to be a more powerful ``yes man'' for the administration in power.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my speech to the Council on Foreign Relations on September 13, 2004, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to join in celebrating the 150th anniversary of Williams Charter Township. Located in the heart of Michigan, this rural township is a close-knit community that reflects much of the best America has to offer.

John Gaffney, Charles Bradford, William Spafford, Charles Fitch, George W. Smock, and Lyman Brianard were the first to arrive in 1854 on the land that officially became Williams Charter Township. The area's waterways and roads soon became an essential route of transportation for travelers in the region. The fertile soil led to the establishment of many farms, which are providing harvests over a century later. The earliest settlers saw this land as an ideal place to begin their new lives, and by doing so, built a strong foundation for the generations that have followed.

The sesquicentennial festivities of Williams Charter Township took place this past weekend, and its residents and their families and friends came together to commemorate the land's rich history and to celebrate the continued growth of this wonderful community. The occasion was marked with many memorable activities, including living historical re-enactments and an awards ceremony to honor some of the township's most outstanding citizens.

I know my Senate colleagues will join me in congratulating the residents of Williams Charter Township on this important milestone. I am proud to represent this township and wish them many more years of success and happiness.

I wonder if the Senator would withhold making the point of

order for a few minutes so I have an opportunity to speak in support.

I greatly appreciate my old friend from Mississippi yielding.

We are in an energy crisis. I will speak about that part of the Byrd amendment particularly, which would use the money from not continuing to fill the 96-percent filled Strategic Petroleum Reserve and taking the money that would then be made available and using it for some critical homeland security needs.

I congratulate the Senator from West Virginia for both identifying some very significant needs in the homeland security area, as well as paying for it in a very rational way; that is, to suspend further deliveries into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

The energy crisis is obvious. We are paying a record amount per barrel for oil. The addition of these millions of barrels to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is significantly adding to the cost of oil and is weakening our economy.

Last week, Alan Greenspan stated:

[E]conomic activity hit a soft patch in late spring. . . .

That softness in activity no doubt is related, in large

measure, to this year's steep increase in energy prices.

Chairman Greenspan further stated:

Most macroeconomic models treat an increase in oil prices

as a tax on U.S. residents that saps the purchasing power of

households and raises costs for businesses.

Yet in the face of this crisis, the administration is decreasing rather than increasing the supply of oil. Day after day, month after month, regardless of how much American consumers and industry need oil, regardless of how high the cost is of this oil, the administration has been taking millions of barrels of oil off the market and depositing them into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And by doing that, the administration is increasing the price of oil and gasoline and decreasing our energy security.

The use to which the $470 million that would be saved by using this oil in the commercial market rather than depositing it into a reserve-- which is already 96 percent filled--those uses provide a win-win situation for national security and energy security. For energy security, we would have this energy placed into the private sector, into commercial inventories, rather than into the Petroleum Reserve. For national security, the way in which the Senator from West Virginia would use these funds--for airline security, port security, mass transit and rail security, firefighter grants, State and homeland security grants--these are all very important needs and uses.

Now, very quickly, supplies are tight. That is the reason crude oil prices are high. Demand is strong. Commercial inventories are low. Supplies are vulnerable. Supplies are tight because OPEC is producing barely enough oil to meet demand. Private sector inventories of crude oil are near the lows, historically, for this time of year. Of course, there is also great concern over the vulnerability of Iraqi oil supplies to terrorism--we see that again today--the problems in Russia with Yukos, the largest oil company in that country; and the turmoil in Nigeria and Venezuela, which have added a premium to prices.

Over the last 2 years, private sector inventories have declined significantly. Last January, private sector inventories fell to their lowest levels since the mid-1970s. The SPR Program is a major reason for the decline in private inventories. From April 2002 through December 2003, the Department of Energy deposited about 78 million barrels of oil in SPR. During that same period, private sector inventories declined by about 61 million barrels. Thus, the total amount of oil in inventory in the United States in both private and public storage increased by only 17 million barrels over this entire period.

The SPR Program is directly the reason for recent price increases to the extent of somewhere between 10 cents and 25 cents a gallon when looking at gasoline.

Goldman Sachs, one of the largest and most successful crude oil traders in the world, reported, on January 16 of this year, that ``large speculative positions, builds in strategic petroleum reserves, and low inventory coverage have contributed to current price levels.'' In this report, Goldman Sachs also stated that ``past government storage builds will provide persistent support for the market,'' and that ``current plans for the injection of 130 thousand [barrels a day] of royalty-in-kind barrels into the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) between now and the end of September . . . will likely provide even further support.''

Goldman Sachs estimated that the strategic reserve programs in the United States and Europe in 2003 and 2004 are adding about $4.25 to the price of each barrel of crude oil sold in the United States.

Now, DOE's plans, regardless of the price of oil, are to continue to deposit oil into the Petroleum Reserve. Until late 2001, the policy of the Department of Energy was to buy oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when prices were low and to buy less oil when prices were high. That policy was explained by DOE officials, in late 2001, to energy officials in other countries, and the presentation was entitled: ``The Key To A Successful Strategic Reserve Is Cost Control.'' The DOE identifies the ``Lessons Learned to Control Oil Acquisition Costs'' as follows--this was the DOE, before they changed their policy in 2002--1, ``let the markets determine your buying pattern;'' 2, ``buy in weak markets;'' 3, ``delay delivers during strong markets;'' and 4, ``use your acquisition strategy to stabilize markets.''

That was prior to early 2002. They have now reversed it. Instead of buying low and selling high, they are buying high and shorting supply. It makes absolutely no sense to do this. We are all paying more for the price of gasoline and heating oil and jet fuel as a result of this policy. We should stop continuing to deposit oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is 96 percent filled. And when we do this in a tight supply, which is now the case, we are adding to gasoline prices alone somewhere between 10 and 25 cents per gallon.

Indeed, ``buy low, sell high'' is just plain common sense. Unfortunately, in early 2002, the Department of Energy abandoned this commonsense approach. Instead, since early 2002, DOE has been buying oil for the SPR without regard to the price of oil. No matter how high the price of oil has been or will be, DOE has been and will be buying more and more oil for the SPR.

Since over this period the price of oil has been very high--often over $30 per barrel--and the oil markets have been tight, this cost- blind approach has increased the costs of the program to the taxpayer and put further pressure on tight oil markets, thereby helping boost oil and gasoline prices to American consumers and businesses.

It is a rip-off of the taxpayers to pay $45 a barrel for oil in today's market, when the same oil could be acquired for $10 to $15 a barrel less in a couple of years.

We need oil in the private sector more than in the SPR. In the current tight market, there is a critical need to prevent minor shortages or disruptions from causing major price spikes. Increasing private inventories, not the SPR, is the best way to meet this need.

Canceling the deposits into the SPR could lower gasoline prices by 10 to 15 cents a gallon. Each $1 increase in the price of oil increases gasoline prices by about 2.5 cents. Depending on which estimates of the effect of the SPR fill is correct, postponing the upcoming SPR deposits therefore could lower gasoline prices by 10 to 25 cents.

Postponing SPR deliveries will signal speculators that the U.S. Government is willing to take action to put a lid on increasing prices. The administration has repeatedly stated that it will keep on filling the SPR regardless of price. The market, therefore, correctly believes DOE will not stop SPR deliveries or release SPR oil no matter how high the price of oil. This has eliminated an important potential brake on speculation that prices will keep rising. In effect, the administration's statements have taken off any lid on prices. Stopping SPR deliveries will signal this is not the case, and could take speculative steam out of the market.

In 2002, DOE SPR staff urged the postponement of deliveries in tight markets. In 2002, when the administration told DOE to change its policy and buy oil for the SPR regardless of the price, the DOE career staff attempted

to persuade the administration to retain the old policy of taking price into consideration.

DOE staff wrote the new policy:

[I]s a business model different from that followed by all

private market participants, and if followed by a significant

number of market participants would lead to explosive price

swings.

In another memo, DOE SPR staff reported the current policy ``appears irrational to the market place.''

In spring 2002, as prices were rising and inventories falling, the DOE SPR staff recommended that DOE postpone filling the SPR:

This is good public policy. Commercial inventories are low,

retail prices are high and economic growth is slow. The

Government should avoid acquiring oil for the Reserve under

these circumstances.

The market conditions today are the same as they were in 2002 when the DOE SPR staff recommended that SPR deliveries be postponed.

Many other oil industry leaders and economists believe now is not the time to fill the SPR.

In May of this year, Bill Greehey, CEO of Valero Energy, the largest independent refiner in the U.S., said:

They tell Saudi Arabia to produce more oil. Then they put

it into Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It just doesn't make any

sense at all.

Writing in Forbes magazine, Professor Steve Hanke of Johns Hopkins University, commented:

The oil price run-up and scarcity of private inventories

can be laid squarely at the White House's door. Since Nov.

13, 2001 private companies have been forced to compete for

inventories with the government.

This May, The Houston Chronicle stated:

With oil at more than $40 a barrel and the federal

government running a huge deficit, it should take a timeout

on filling the stockpile until crude prices come down from

record levels. That would relieve pressure on the petroleum

market and ameliorate gasoline prices.

A leading energy consulting firm, PFC Energy, wrote this May:

The Bush Administration has actually been helping OPEC to

keep spot prices high and avoid commercial stock increases by

taking crude out of the market and injecting significant

volumes into the SPR.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of other comments be included in the Record.

The Senate has twice acted on this issue to restore some common sense to our SPR policy. The Senate passed an amendment Senator Collins and I offered, by a bipartisan vote of 52 to 43, SPR deliveries and use the receipts from the sale of the royalty oil for homeland security programs. The Senate amendment regrettably was not retained in conference.

Last fall, the Senate unanimously passed an amendment to the Interior Appropriations Bill that Senator Collins and I offered that would have required DOE to adopt procedures to acquire oil for the SPR in a manner that minimizes the program's cost to the taxpayers while maximizing our overall energy security. The Senate amendment was not retained in conference, and, unfortunately, DOE has chosen to ignore the Senate's direction in the amendment.

The major reason given by DOE for not postponing any of the scheduled shipments into the SPR is that, according to DOE, the amount of oil that is placed into the SPR is only a small fraction of the global daily supply and demand. This comparison is not relevant in a tight market. The amount that is being put into the SPR is about as much as is produced in several of our own States--Wyoming or Oklahoma, for example. It is about three-quarters of our daily imports from Kuwait. In a tight market, this additional demand can cause a large price increase. Moreover, these daily deposits add up to a lot of oil over weeks and months. The Department of Energy's own documents explain this effect as follows:

Essentially, if the SPR inventory grows, and OPEC does not

accommodate that growth by exporting more oil, the increase

comes at the expense of commercial inventories. Most analysts

agree that oil prices are directly correlated with

inventories, and a drop of 20 million barrels over a 6-month

period can substantially increase prices.

I support the filling of the SPR, but not at any price. DOE, like any well-managed business, should acquire more oil when prices are low, and less when prices are high. DOE should not be diverting crude oil from depleted private-sector inventories when prices are high and supplies are tight. Deferring further shipments to the SPR at this time will reduce energy prices, lower taxpayer costs, and help strengthen our economy. It will also make about $470 million available for vital homeland security programs.

Clearly, now is not the time to be taking more oil off the market. This amendment is a win-win for consumers, taxpayers, and the Government.

I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I commend the Senator from West Virginia for his amendment, for both parts of it, for both adding money to needed homeland security needs but also finding the source from suspending deposits in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Exhibit 1

comments on the spr program

``Commercial petroleum inventories are low, retail product

prices are high and economic growth is slow. The Government

should avoid acquiring oil for the Reserve under these

circumstances. . . . Essentially, if the SPR inventory grows,

and OPEC does not accommodate that growth by exporting more

oil, the increase comes at the expense of commercial

inventories. Most analysts agree that oil prices are directly

correlated with inventories, and a drop of 20 million barrels

over a 6-month period can substantially increase prices.''

John Shages, Director, Office of Finance and Policy,

Strategic Petroleum Reserves, U.S. Department of Energy,

Spring 2002.

``As a U.S. Senate committee pointed out Wednesday, the

U.S. government was filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

last year as prices were rising. And by my estimate, had the

U.S. government not filled the Strategic Petroleum Reserve or

returned the 20 million barrels they'd put in back to the

market, prices right now would be around $28 a barrel instead

of $38 a barrel and gasoline prices might be 25 to 35 cents

lower.'' Philip Verleger, NPR Morning Edition, March 7, 2003.

``We believe the administration has been making a mistake

by refilling the reserve to the tune of about 11 million

barrels since the start of May. . . . Washington should back

off until oil prices fall somewhat. Doing otherwise is

costing the Treasury unnecessarily and is punishing motorists

during summer vacation driving time.'' Omaha World Herald,

August 14, 2003.

``They've continued filling the reserve--which is crazy,

putting the oil under ground when it's needed in

refineries.'' Dr. Leo Drollas, Chief Economist, Centre for

Global Energy Studies, The Observer, August 24, 2003.

``If that was going into inventory, instead of the reserve,

you would not be having $29 oil, you'd be having $25 oil. So,

I think they've completely mismanaged the strategic

reserve.'' Bill Greehey, CEO of Valero Energy, largest

independent refiner in the U.S., Octane Week, September 29,

2003.

``Over the last year, the [DOE] has added its name to this

rogues list of traders by continuing to acquire oil for the

nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). In doing so, it

has (1) wasted taxpayer money, (2) done its part to raise

crude oil prices, (3) made oil prices more volatile, and (4)

caused financial hardship for refiners and oil consumers.''

Philip K. Verleger, Jr., The Petroleum Economics Monthly,

December 2003.

``U.S. taxpayers and the economy would realize greater

economic potential with a more prudent management of this

national asset by not further filing the SPR under the

current market structure. The DOE should wait for more

favorable prices before filing the reserve both today and in

the future.'' Richard Anderson, CEO, Northwest Airlines, NWA

WorldTraveler, January 2004.

``The government is out buying fuel, it appears, without

much regard for the impact that it is having on prices.''

James May, Chief Executive, Air Transport Association, quoted

in U.S. Airlines Blame Bush for Cost of Oil, Associated

Press, January 2004.

``Government storage builds have lowered commercially

available petroleum supplies'' and ``will provide persistent

support to the markets.'' ``Changes in global government

storage injections will have [a] big impact on crude oil

prices.'' Goldman Sachs, Energy Commodities Weekly, January

16, 2004.

``The average price per barrel for 2003 was the highest in

20 years and to date, the price for 2004 is even higher. All

the while, our government continues to depress inventory

stocks by buying oil at these historic highs and then pouring

it back into the ground to fill the strategic petroleum

reserve.'' Larry Kellner, President and Chief Operating

Officer, Continental Airlines, Continental Airlines Earnings

Conference Call, January 20, 2004.

``The act of building up strategic stocks diverts crude

supplies that would otherwise have entered the open market.

The natural time to do this is when supplies are ample,

commercial stocks are adequate and prices low. Yet the Bush

Administration, contrary to this logic, is forging ahead with

plans to add [more oil to] the stockpile.'' Petroleum Argus,

January 26, 2004.

[Bill O'Grady, Director of Futures Research at A.G.

Edwards, Inc.] also notes the Bush administration has been on

an oil-buying binge to stock the nation's strategic petroleum

reserves. He guesses that artificial demand boost is adding

as much as 15 cents to the cost of a gallon of gas.'' Las

Vegas Review-Journal, February 29, 2004. [West Coast gasoline

about $2/gallon at the time].

``When the government becomes a major purchaser of oil, it

only bids up the price exactly when we need relief. I know

that you recently testified to Congress that the SPR fill has

a negligible impact on the price of crude oil, but we

politely disagree.'' Letter from American Trucking

Association to Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham, March 9,

2004.

``Normally, in Wall Street parlance, you're supposed to buy

low and sell high, but in Strategic Petroleum Reserve

actions, we're buying higher and higher and that has really

helped keep oil prices high.'' Larry Kudlow, Kudlow & Cramer,

CNBC, March 22, 2004.

``Filling the SPR, without regard to crude oil prices and

the availability of supplies, drives oil prices higher and

ultimately hurts consumers.'' Letter from 53 Members of the

House of Representatives (39 Republicans, 14 Democrats) to

President Bush, March 22, 2004.

``Despite the high prices, American officials continue to

buy oil on the open market to fill their country's strategic

petroleum reserves. Why buy, you might ask, when prices are

high, and thereby keep them up? The Senate has asked that

question as well. It passed a non-binding resolution this

month calling on the Bush administration to stop SPR

purchases; but Spencer Abraham, the energy secretary, has

refused.'' The Economist, March 27, 2004.

``[T]he Energy Department plans to buy another 202,000

barrels a day in April. It can't resist a bad bargain.'' Alan

Reynolds, Senior Fellow, CATO Institute, Investor's Business

Daily, April 2, 2004.

``In my opinion, we have grossly mismanaged the SPR in the

last 12 months. When Venezuela went on strike and we had the

war in Iraq we probably should have drawn down some of the

Reserve in order to build up supplies in the Gulf Coast of

the U.S. We didn't do that. When the war was over we started

adding to the Reserve, so we were actually taking oil out of

the Market. We took something like 40-45 million barrels that

would have gone into our inventories--we put in the strategic

reserves. . . . We should have stopped filling the Reserves 6

months ago.'' Sarah Emerson, Managing Director, Energy

Security Analysis, Inc., Interview, New England Cable News,

April 4, 2004, 8:59 p.m.

``The administration continues to have its hands tied on

the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, particularly with candidate

Kerry's `high ground' proposal to suspend purchases putting

Bush in a `me too' position.'' Deutsche Bank, Global Energy

Wire, ``Election-Year Oil: Bush Painted into a Corner,''

April 6, 2004.

``At a time when supplies are tight and prospects for

improvement are grim, Bush continues to authorize the

purchase of oil on the open market for the country's

Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Bush is buying serious

quantities of oil in a high-price market, helping to keep it

that way.'' Thomas Oliphant, Blatant Bush Tilt Toward Big

Oil, Boston Globe, April 6, 2004.

``He pointed out that Senator Carl Levin, D-Mich. had a

good idea earlier this month in proposing earlier this month

cutting back the contribution level to the Strategic

Petroleum Reserve, which Kerr said is 93 percent full. `By

reducing the input, it could provide a great deal more supply

to help rein in prices a bit.' '' CBS MarketWatch, Gasoline,

crude prices pull back, April 23, 2004, referring to the

views of and quoting Kevin Kerr, editor of Kwest Market Edge.

``The Bush Administration has actually been helping OPEC to

keep spot prices high and avoid commercial stock increases by

taking crude out of the market and injecting significant

volumes into the SPR.'' Crude Or Gasoline? Who Is To Blame

For High Oil Prices: OPEC Or The US? Market Fundamentals &

Structural Problems, PFC Energy, May 6, 2004.

``Kilduff said the Bush administration could have stopped

filling the SPR, saying `it's not the best move to start

filling the SPR when commercial inventories were at 30-year

lows.' '' John Kilduff, senior analyst, Fimat, in Perception

vs. reality, CBS MarketWatch, May 17, 2004.

``Oppenheimer's [Fadel] Gheit said Bush's decision to fill

the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the wake of the

Sept. 11 attacks caused a crisis of confidence around the

world that led to the perception of short supply and drove up

prices. `The administration has not tried hard to dispel

notions and rumors and perceptions and concerns over supply

disruption,' [said Gheit]. `Gasoline prices are at record

levels because of mismanagement on a grand scale by the

administration.' '' Fadel Gheit, oil and gas analyst at

Oppenheimer & Co., in Perception vs. reality, Camps debate

Bush influence on Big Oil, CBS MarketWatch, May 17, 2004.

``With oil at more than $40 a barrel and the federal

government running a huge deficit, it should take a timeout

on filling the stockpile until crude prices come down from

record levels. That would relieve pressure on the petroleum

market and ameliorate gasoline prices.'' Houston Chronicle,

Keep the oil in it, but take a timeout on filling it, May 18,

2004.

``They tell Saudi Arabia to produce more oil. Then they put

it into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It just doesn't make

any sense at all.'' Bill Greehey, CEO of Valero Energy,

Washington Post, May 18, 2004.

``The Bush administration contributed to the oil price

squeeze in several ways, according to industry experts.

First, it failed to address the fact that demand for gasoline

in the United States was increasing sharply, thanks to ever

more gas guzzlers on the road and longer commutes. The

administration also continued pumping 120,000 barrels a day

of crude into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, making a tight

market even tighter.'' David Ignatius, Homemade Oil Crisis,

Washington Post, May 25, 2004.

``How can the administration rectify its mistakes? It could

calm the market by moving away from its emergency-only

stance. It could also stop buying oil to add to the strategic

reserve. The government has done a good job making sure that

the reserve is at its 700-million barrel capacity. But now

that we are close to that goal there is no reason to keep

buying oil at exorbitant prices.'' Edward L. Morse and Nawaf

Obaid, The $40-a-Barrel Mistake, New York Times, May 25,

2004.

``President Bush's decision to fill the reserve after the

terror attacks of September 2001 has been one of the factors

driving up oil prices in recent months, along with reports

that China, which recently surpassed Japan as the second-

largest importer of oil, is going ahead with plans to build

its own petroleum reserve.'' Simon Romero, If Oil Supplies

Were Disrupted, Then . . . New York Times, May 28, 2004.

``The oil price run-up and scarcity of private inventories

can be laid squarely at the White House's door. Since Nov.

13, 2001 private companies have been forced to compete for

inventories with the government.'' Steve Hanke, Oil and

Politics, Forbes, August 16, 2004.

Mr. President, today I join all of my colleagues in paying tribute to one of the giants of the United States Senate, a son of Michigan, Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg.

Earlier today, the Senate Commission on Art unveiled a wonderful portrait, painted by Tennessee artist Michael Shane Neal, of Senator Vandenberg in the Reception Room just outside of this Chamber. The Senate, in 2000, selected Senator Vandenberg for this rare honor, along with Senator Robert F. Wagner of New York. They join only five others, known as the ``Famous Five'' whose portraits grace the beautiful Reception Room, Senators Henry Clay of Kentucky, Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, Robert M. La Follette, Sr. of Wisconsin, and Robert A. Taft of Ohio.

Arthur Vandenberg was born in Grand Rapids, MI on March 22, 1884. After studying law at the University of Michigan, he worked as a reporter for the Grand Rapids Herald, later becoming the managing editor for the paper. Following the death of U.S. Senator Woodbridge Ferris in March 1928, he was appointed by Governor Fred Green to fill the vacancy, a seat that he was already campaigning for. In November of 1928, he was elected in his own right. He was reelected three times, rose to become chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the President Pro-Tempore of the Senate and served in the Senate until his death, from lung cancer, in 1951. Although he is best known for his views on foreign policy, among his many notable accomplishments was the establishment of the FDIC, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 1933.

Vandenberg entered the Senate as an isolationist, an advocate of very limited U.S. involvement in international affairs. However, after the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, he recognized the Nation's greater interest and rose above partisanship to become one of the strongest proponents of a bipartisan foreign policy. On January 10, 1945, in this chamber, he delivered the ``speech heard round the world'' calling for the establishment of the United Nations. He was largely responsible for drafting the 1945 United Nations Charter, and he steered its passage through the Senate. He played a leading role in constructing the Marshall Plan, and he engineered the Senate ratification of the NATO Treaty.

A couple of years ago I read David McCullough's best-selling biography of Harry Truman. The book makes clear the indispensable role of Vandenberg in forging and maintaining the bipartisan coalition in Congress that supported Truman's successful post-World War II strategy establishing America's place as a leader of the free world and setting in motion the foreign policy which ultimately decades later won the cold war.

Senator Arthur Vandenberg's call to ``unite our official voice at the water's edge'' resonated for many years, uniting Republicans and Democrats in support of the Nation's foreign policy through administrations of both parties. The impact of his words were all the greater because of his own political roots as a isolationist Republican leader. Vandenberg, himself, often liked to

point out, Pearl Harbor ended isolationism for any realist.

Arthur Vandenberg was a forward-looking man who saw beyond partisan politics and worked for the good of the country. His service in the Senate is an example of true bipartisan leadership, which is so desperately needed today.

I know that all of my colleagues in the Senate and the people of Michigan join me in celebrating the life and works of this son of Michigan, and in congratulating the family of Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg.

No, the amendment would only apply to new contracts signed after the date of enactment.

The Senator is correct. The intent of the amendment is to only capture new contracts.

The Senator is correct, the amendment is not intended to impact that contract or any task orders issued under the US VISIT contract.