Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the Class Action Fairness Act, a bill to stop unfair and abusive class action lawsuits that ignore the best interests of injured plaintiffs. This legislation is sorely needed to help people understand their rights in class action lawsuits and protect them from unfair settlements.

It is also needed to reform the class action process, which has been so manipulated in recent years that U.S. companies are being driven into bankruptcy to escape the rising tide of frivolous lawsuits and has resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs, especially in the manufacturing sector.

Unfortunately, not enough Americans realize that we are in a global marketplace and businesses now have choices as to where they manufacture their products. Many of our businesses are leaving our country because of the litigation tornado that is destroying their competitiveness. The Senate must start taking into consideration the impact of its decisions on this Nation's competitive position in the global marketplace.

I believe that for the system to work, we must strike a delicate balance between the rights of aggrieved parties to bring lawsuits and the rights of society to be protected against frivolous lawsuits and outrageous judgments that are disproportionate to compensating the injured and made at the expense of society as a whole. This is what the Class Action Fairness Act, does, and I am proud to cosponsor it.

Since my days as Governor of Ohio, I have been very concerned with what I call the ``litigation tornado'' that has been sweeping through the economy of Ohio, as well as the Nation.

Ohio's civil justice system is in a state of crisis. Ohio doctors are leaving the State and too many have stopped delivering babies because they can't afford the liability insurance.

From 2001-02, Ohio physicians faced medical liability insurance increases ranging from 28 to 60 percent. Ohio ranked among the top five States for premium increases in 2002. General surgeons pay as much as $74,554, and OB-GYNs pay as much as $152,496. Comparatively, Indiana general surgeons pay between $14,000-$30,000; and OB-GYNs pay between $20,000-$40,000.

Further, Ohio businesses are going bankrupt as a result of runaway asbestos litigation. And today, one of my fellow Ohioans can be a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit that she doesn't know about and taking place in a State she has never even visited.

In 1996, as Governor of Ohio, I was proud to sign H.B. 350, strong tort reform legislation that became law in Ohio for a while. It might have helped today's liability crisis, but it never got a chance.

In 1999, the Supreme Court of Ohio, in a politically motivated 4-3 decision, struck down Ohio's civil justice reform law, even though the only plaintiff in the case was the Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers--the personal injury bar's trade group.

Their reason for challenging the law? They claimed their association would lose members and lose money due to the civil justice reform laws we enacted.

The bias of the case was so great that one of the dissenters, Justice Stratton, had this to say:

This case should have never been accepted for review on the

merits. The majority's acceptance of this case means that we

have created a whole new arena of jurisdiction--advisory

opinions on the constitutionality of a statute challenged by

a special interest group.

From this, it is obvious to me that the way we currently administer class actions is not working.

While we were frustrated at the State level, I'm proud to have continued my fight for a fair, strong civil justice system in the United States Senate.

To this end, a few years ago I worked with the American Tort Reform Association to produce a study entitled ``Lawsuit Abuse and Ohio'' that captured the impact of this rampant litigation on Ohio's economy, with the goal of educating the public on this issue and sparking change.

Can you imagine what this study found? In 2002 in Ohio, the litigation crisis costs every Ohioan $636 per year, and every Ohio family of four $2,544 per year. These are alarming numbers. And this study was released on August 8, 2002--imagine how high these numbers have risen in 2\1/2\ years.

In tough economic times, families can not afford to pay over $2,500 to cover other people's litigation costs. Something needs to be done, and passage of this bill will help!

Mr. President, this legislation is intended to amend the federal judicial code to streamline and curb abuse of class action lawsuits, a procedural device through which people with identical claims are permitted to merge them and be heard at one time in court.

In particular, this legislation contains safeguards that provide for judicial scrutiny of the terms of class action settlements in order to eliminate unfair and discriminatory distribution of awards for damages and prevent class members from suffering a net loss as a result of a court victory.

This bill would establish a concept of diversity jurisdiction that would allow the largest interstate class actions into Federal court, while preserving exclusive State court control over smaller, primarily intrastate disputes. As several major newspaper editorial boards-- ranging from the Post to the Wall Street Journal--have recognized, enactment of such legislation would go a long way toward curbing unfairness in certain state court class actions and restoring faith in the fairness and integrity of the judicial process.

This bill is designed to improve the handling of massive U.S. class action lawsuits while preserving the rights of citizens to bring such actions.

Class action lawsuits have spiraled out of control, with the threat of large, overreaching verdicts holding corporations hostage for years and years.

In total, America's civil justice system had a direct cost to tax payers in 2002 of $233.4 billion, or 2.23 percent of GDP. That is $809 per citizen and equivalent to a 5 percent wage tax. That's a 13.3 percent jump from the year before--a year when we experienced a 14.4 percent increase which was the largest percentage increase since 1986.

Now, some of my colleagues have argued that this bill sends most state class actions into Federal court and deprives state courts of the power to adjudicate cases involving their own laws. They argue that the bill therefore infringes upon States' sovereignty.

However, in one empirical study done by two attorneys from O'Melveny & Myers, their data indicated that this bill would not sweep all class actions into Federal court. Rather, the bill is a targeted solution that could result in moving to Federal court a substantial percentage of the nationwide or multi-State class actions filed in class action ``mill'' jurisdictions (like Madison County, IL), while allowing State courts everywhere to litigate truly local class actions (the kinds of class actions typically filed in State courts that do not endeavor to become ``magnet'' courts for class actions with little or no relationship to the forum).

There is just no evidence for the assertion that this bill deprives State courts of their power to hear cases involving their own laws. In fact, it is the present system that infringes upon state sovereignty rights by promoting a ``false federalism'' whereby some state courts are able to impose their decisions on citizens of other States regardless of their own laws.

Another argument against this bill is that it will unduly expand Federal diversity jurisdiction at a time when courts are overcrowded. However, State courts have experienced a much more dramatic increase in class action filings and have not proven to be any more efficient in processing complex cases.

In addition, Federal courts have greater resources to handle the most complex, interstate class action litigation, and are insulated from the local prejudice problems so prevalent under current rules.

Mr. President, I emphasize to my colleagues that this isn't a bill to end all class action lawsuits. It's a bill to identify those lawsuits with merit and to ensure that the plaintiffs in legitimate lawsuits are treated fairly throughout the litigation process.

It's a bill to protect class members from settlements that give their lawyers millions, while they only see pennies. It's a bill to rectify the fact that over the past decade, State court class action filings increased over 1,000 percent. It's a bill to fix a broken judicial system.

I am a strong supporter of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I rise today to join Chairman Lugar and other members of the Foreign Relations Committee to express my strong support for the nomination of Condoleezza Rice to serve as our next Secretary of State.

Dr. Rice has the qualifications, the educational background, and professional experience to serve as an outstanding Secretary of State. She is an academic expert of the former Soviet Union, earning her doctorate before the age of 30, and rising to serve as provost of Stanford University before turning 40. Her experience as provost at Stanford University allowed her to have substantial management experience.

In addition to her experience in academia, Dr. Rice is an experienced professional in the national security arena. She served as Director of Soviet and Eastern European Affairs at the National Security Council under the administration of President George H. W. Bush and most recently as the National Security Adviser to President George W. Bush.

Dr. Rice brings a great deal of talent, skill, and intellect to the table. As our country continues to confront global challenges in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world, it is essential our Secretary of State have the stature, skill, and ability to help protect our national security interests and promote the President's vision of freedom and democracy abroad that he so eloquently communicated in his inaugural address.

This Senator from Ohio shares the President's vision. This vision must be successful so our children and grandchildren are able to live in a country free from the fear of terrorism.

During the last 4 years as National Security Adviser, Dr. Rice has played a major role in the formulation of our foreign policy, serving as a vital part of the administration's effort to promote peace and democracy throughout the world.

Dr. Rice has a close relationship and the confidence of the President which will serve her well as she assumes the position of Secretary of State at home and abroad. She is a good listener, an important trait for someone who is going to be this country's chief diplomat. I know this from contacts with her over the years. I had the pleasure of knowing Dr. Rice since joining then Governor Bush as adviser during the 2000 Presidential elections. I found her ready and willing to work together on important issues, including United States policy toward Southeast Europe, NATO enlargement, and efforts to combat global anti- Semitism.

While working with Governor Bush on the campaign trail--and I will not forget in 2000 Dr. Rice knew of my strong concerns with proposed legislation from two respected members of the Senate, Senator Warner and Senator Byrd, that would have forced the new American President who was to be elected in 2000--at that stage of the game we were not sure who would be elected in 2000--they were going to force that new President by July of the first year of his term to decide whether to remove United States troops from Kosovo. She listened and became involved.

Ultimately, and I remember the debate quite vividly, the provision was defeated with the help of then Presidential candidate George W. Bush and with the help of then sitting President Clinton.

Now, nearly 5 years later I continue to believe it is essential we remain engaged in Southeast Europe, particularly as we look to ensure peace and security in Kosovo following the violence that erupted last March. I know Dr. Rice will continue to work on matters important to the stability of this part of the world and I am confident she understands how important it is for the United States to play a leadership role in the Balkans.

During her tenure as National Security Adviser, I have worked with Dr. Rice on other foreign policy priorities, including efforts to bring seven new nations into the NATO alliance, strengthening a Europe that is whole, free, and at peace. Among these seven countries were the Baltic nations of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia--all countries I strongly believe deserve membership in NATO despite strong objections from Russia. Again, Dr. Rice was willing to listen and to serve as an ear for the President.

I was pleased when the President made clear his support for NATO enlargement during a speech in Warsaw, Poland, in June of 2001. At that time there were many people in this country who were concerned that because the President wanted to move away from the ABM Treaty that he might negotiate with Russia in a quid pro quo for their backing off of the ABM if he would back off from pushing for expansion of NATO, particularly the three countries I mentioned.

President Bush made an outstanding speech in Warsaw, Poland, and he made clear his support for NATO enlargement. He remarked at that time:

I believe the NATO membership for all of Europe's

democracies that seek it.

President Bush went on to say:

As we plan to enlarge NATO, no nation should be used as a

pawn in the agenda of others. We will not create away the

fate of free European peoples.

The seven countries that went in--Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania--all of those people who have relatives in the United States should know it was Condoleezza Rice who worked with the President to prepare that speech so we made it very clear he supports the expansion of NATO. And even though our relations have thawed with Russia today, the fact of the matter is, we have continued to have serious differences of opinion with Russia.

Again, her special expertise--Think about it. We are going to have a Secretary of State who can ponimat po-russki. I think that is very important. We have not had a Secretary of State who is fluent in languages as is Dr. Rice. I think some people may not think that is important, but I will tell you, it is important that people know she thinks enough of other languages that she has become an expert in those languages.

Dr. Rice has also worked with me and other colleagues of the Senate and the House of Representatives to combat global anti-Semitism. We have made important strides in this effort during the last several years, but there is still more to be done, particularly to establish a new office at the State Department to monitor and combat anti-Semitism. Dr. Rice has expressed her support for such action, which is called for as part of the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act, which the President signed into law on October 16, 2004.

I am pleased that Dr. Rice appeared receptive to attending the third OSCE conference on anti-Semitism which is scheduled to take place in Cordoba, Spain this June. Her presence as Secretary of State of the United States at this conference is essential, as was the presence of Secretary Powell at the prior OSCE conference in Berlin, as an example of the concern of the United States about the growing menace of anti- Semitism. I am confident, under her leadership, this good work will continue, and I am hopeful we can take it to an even greater level.

I say that every one of us here, in one way or another, could be critical of decisions made in U.S. foreign policy. It is easy to be a Monday-morning quarterback. As we continue to move forward with efforts to promote stability and security in Iraq and the greater Middle East and other parts of the world, I think it is an advantage to have someone serving as Secretary of State who has experience and has seen the pluses and minuses, and had the opportunity to take away lessons learned.

She has been there for 4 years. Even though some people do not want to admit it, we have had some ups and downs, and she has experienced those. I would rather have somebody who has been there and experienced these things as Secretary of State than bring in some fresh face that has not had that experience. I am sure Dr. Rice has learned some important lessons during these last 4 years.

I agree with the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the largest newspaper in Ohio, which had an editorial titled, ``A little respect, please: Dems should remove petty obstacles to Rice's confirmation, but she owes senators much better answers as secretary of state.''

I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

The first quote is:

[Dr. Rice]'s performance during nearly 11 hours of

confirmation hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations

Committee last week was more than just disappointing. It was

alarming to see an official who played such a central role in

crafting U.S. Iraq policy turn vague and uncommunicative when

specific questions were asked.

Congress deserves fuller responses on critical matters such

as U.S. exit strategy, how soon before adequate numbers of

Iraqi security forces are trained and the overall rationale

for U.S. engagement in Iraq.

I share some of those concerns, and so do lots of other members of the Foreign Relations Committee. I think the administration has not been as candid and forthright with us during the last couple of years in regard to some of the questions I and other members of the Foreign Relations Committee have asked. I want to make it clear publicly that I expect more candor from this administration during the next 4 years, particularly with members on the Foreign Relations Committee, so we can maintain a bipartisan foreign policy. We have some good people on the Foreign Relations Committee. There are some Democrats who have been very supportive of the President during the last several years, and some of them, I think, are frustrated that they do not feel they are getting the kind of answers they should be getting. I think that is something Dr. Rice has to understand if we are going to have this bipartisan foreign policy that is so essential to us moving forward to do what the President would like to accomplish.

That being said, I agree with the Plain Dealer which also said in that editorial:

Condoleezza Rice ought to make an accomplished secretary of

state for reasons that go well beyond having the president's

ear.

She has the skills, interest and drive to reinvigorate U.S.

Diplomacy and repair severely frayed international relations.

Her communication abilities, personal warmth--

Boy, she is a wonderful person. You feel good when you are around her.

[Her] work ethic and knowledge, combined with the fervor of

her beliefs, could make her--

Listen to this--

a national treasure at a fateful moment when the Iraq war has

tarnished American standing in the world.

I am continuing to read from the editorial:

Her stated and obviously heartfelt commitment to foreign

engagement, public diplomacy and more U.S. efforts to foster

foreign-language study could inject needed fire and focus to

the diplomatic arts, as practiced by America.

I think that is one wonderful editorial in support of her nomination from Ohio's largest newspaper, the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Dr. Rice has the experience, intellect, and ability to serve our country well as Secretary of State. She is absolutely qualified to have this job. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting her nomination.

I would hope that many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who may have some questions will look beyond some of the things we have heard from the other side of the aisle and support her nomination so we send a signal to the rest of the world that we have a Secretary of State who has the overwhelming support of the Senate. It is so important, I think, to her success as our Secretary of State.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend and colleague from California, Senator Dianne Feinstein, in introducing very important legislation that I believe will encourage young teachers to go into early childhood education, improve the qualifications of current early educators, and lead to a better education for our Nation's youngest children.

Study after study on human development has found that there is no more important time in a child's life than their earliest years. In fact, the learning opportunities in these years have a critical and decisive impact on the development of the brain and on the nature and extent of their adult capacities.

To maximize their potential, we must begin to teach our children the necessary learning skills they will utilize throughout their lives as early as possible; well before they reach kindergarten.

I know of few other programs that have the same potential to meet this goal as Head Start.

When I was Governor of Ohio, we invested heavily in Head Start, increasing funding from $18 million in 1990, to $180 million in 1998.

By the time I left office, there was a space available for every eligible child in Ohio whose parents wanted them in a Head Start or pre-school program, and because of our efforts, Ohio led the Nation in terms of children served by Head Start.

Now that I am in the Senate, I continue to believe that it is absolutely critical that we do more to help our young people prepare to begin school ``ready to learn.''

The results of a survey undertaken by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 1999 and 2000 has shown a significant correlation between the quality of education a child receives and the amount of education that child's teacher possesses.

Unfortunately, nationwide, just 30 percent of Head Start teachers have earned a baccalaureate or advanced degree.

Under Ohio law, by 2007, all Head Start teachers must have at least an associate's degree. It is hoped that this requirement will encourage Head Start educators to pursue a bachelor's or even an advanced degree. After all, the more education our teachers have, the better off our children will be.

Unfortunately, as we all know, education can be expensive.

The bill we are introducing is designed to encourage currently enrolled and incoming college students working on a bachelor's or a master's degree to pursue a career as a Head Start teacher. It is also intended to assist current Head Start teachers, who wish to pursue a degree, to remain in the field.

In exchange for a 5-year teaching commitment in a qualified Head Start program, a college graduate with a minimum of a bachelor's degree could receive up to $5,000 in forgiveness for their Federal student loan. Current law already permits elementary and secondary educators to receive this type of loan forgiveness. It is time to give Head Start teachers this same opportunity.

Recruiting and retaining Head Start and early childhood teachers continues to be a challenge for Ohio and other States. This is not surprising. On average, Head Start teachers earn about half of the average salary of kindergarten teachers. For Head Start providers, this financial difference combined with the growing cost of a college education and student debt makes it difficult to recruit quality teachers.

This bill will help communities, schools and other funded Head Start providers to meet the challenge of recruiting and retaining high quality teachers. It is one of the best ways that I know of where we can make a real difference in the lives of our most precious resource, our children.

One of the best uses of our Federal education resources is to target them toward our youngest citizens where they can have the most impact.

I am pleased to have been able to work with my colleague Senator Feinstein on this legislation, and I ask for my colleagues' support.

Mr. President, I rise today as a Member of the body who recently was sworn in for his second term. In my first 6 years as a Senator of the United States in this institution, I faced challenges unprecedented in this country's history.

While we have made tremendous progress making our Nation more secure, increasing America's competitiveness in the global marketplace, and upholding the Federal Government's promise to seniors by enacting a prescription drug benefit through Medicare, we still have serious problems confronting our Nation.

On November 2, voters across this Nation chose their Government that will face these forthcoming challenges. The voters of Ohio and our Nation chose President George W. Bush. Even with a recount in Ohio, President Bush won my State by over 118,000 votes. As a Republican from Cleveland who has been reelected as a Republican from Cleveland, elected to Federal, State, county, and municipal offices, I am living proof Ohioans know how to count ballots and, more importantly, we count fairly.

(Disturbance in the Visitors Gallery.)

It is clear that those who persist in beating a dead horse are attempting to create uncertainty where none exists. That is why I am so disappointed that this body is squandering its time playing Monday-morning quarterback when the result of Ohio's Presidential election is clear. President George W. Bush won my home State and its 20 electoral votes.

Frankly, I am proud of how the election went in Ohio. Hundreds of thousands of new voters took part in their democracy this past November, increasing Ohio's voter participation rate to 72 percent, up from 64 percent in 2000. Unfortunately, prior to November 2, unsubstantiated allegations were being made about the electoral process in Ohio. But, at the end, on election day, and at the end of the recount, Ohio's Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell and the bipartisan election boards across the State did a tremendous job to ensure that the election was fair and the results were without question. I want to publicly applaud the good work of those dedicated public officials.

It is time to put this election to rest. Editorial boards from Ohio newspapers, many of which endorsed Senator Kerry, agree as well. The so-called recount effort is a circus that needs to pack up and leave town, is what one of them said.

The Akron Beacon Journal, a newspaper that endorsed Senator Kerry, stated on December 24:

The allegations being thrown around are of the flimsiest

nature. . . . Not one shred of evidence has been presented to

show that Ohio's strictly bipartisan system of running

elections was manipulated. There isn't any.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer, on December 15:

Ohio's bipartisan elections system makes the kind of GOP

conspiracy that some allege all but impossible to execute.

Every county board of elections consists of two Democrats and

two Republicans. So, when (Jesse) Jackson and other national

Democrats question Ohio's outcome, they demean their own

allies.

William Anthony Jr., the African American who chairs both the Franklin County Democratic Party and its election board, has been personally stung by Jackson's slander. ``Why would I sit there,'' Mr. Anthony said, ``and disenfranchise my own community?''

The Columbus Dispatch on December 12, 2004, states:

[John] Kerry understands that Bush legitimately won the

election, which was why he conceded on November 3rd. Those

who claim that Ohio's vote was rigged have produced nothing

that approaches credible evidence.

An editorial that appeared on Tuesday, January 4, just this week, in my hometown newspaper, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, said:

The 176 Democrats who sit on Ohio's county election boards

pondered their jurisdictions' results, accepted their

subordinates' good work, and are turning their energies

toward the future.

Across the country, people are moving forward after nearly 2 years of a continuous political campaign for the Presidency.

This country deserves to be able to put this undisputed election to rest. We need to stop wasting time and move on to the serious issues facing our Nation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to support the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. I first must recognize and congratulate the extraordinary hard work and leadership of Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman and their respective staffs. It is only because of their determination and tireless efforts that we are able to consider this legislation today. I would also thank and recognize Representatives Hoekstra and Harman and their staffs for their hard work. On balance, this legislation is an important step in improving our national security.

This legislation establishes a Director of National Intelligence with greater budget authority than the current Director of Central Intelligence to provide leadership and direction to the 15 agencies of the Intelligence Community.

It also establishes a National Counterterrorism Center to conduct analysis of terrorism-related intelligence and conduct strategic planning for the War on Terror.

To ensure that the civil liberties of Americans are protected during this time of justifiably increased government powers, the legislation also establishes a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board within the Executive Office of the President.

All of these provisions were key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and I am pleased that they are included in this legislation.

I am also pleased that the legislation we are considering includes three provisions that I have sponsored.

The bill reforms the broken process of granting security clearances. The extended length of time it has taken to conduct and subsequently adjudicate a security clearance prevents qualified Federal employees and their private sector partners from doing important work to enhance our national security. In addition, a lack of reciprocity among agencies for already granted clearances delays and mobility of Federal employees within the government and places an unnecessary administrative burden on agencies as they duplicate the clearance process.

The reforms in this legislation are an important step in expediting the process, while preserving national security interests. The President designates a single entity to oversee the security clearance process and develop uniform standards and policies for access to classified information. The President also designates a single entity to conduct clearance investigations. Additional investigative agencies could be designated if appropriate for national security and efficiency purpose. Reciprocity among clearances at the same level is required.

The bill also includes a provision I added in Committee to improve the intelligence capabilities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Specifically, the FBI Director may work with the Office of Personnel Management to develop new classification standards and pay rates for intelligence analysts. This will facilitate the development of a robust national security workforce at the FBI and falls squarely within the spirit of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. It is my sincere hope that the FBI will utilize these flexibilitie4s to build an elite cadre of intelligence analysts that will help win the War on Terror.

Finally, this legislation attempts to reform the Presidential appointments process, which has been broken for decades. An amendment I offered on the Senate floor would require the Office of Government Ethics to submit a report to Congress evaluating the financial disclosure process for executive branch employees within 90 days of the date of enactment. It would require the Office of Personnel Management to submit a list of presidentially appointed positions to each major party candidate after his or her nomination. It would require the Office of Government Ethics, in consultation with the Attorney General, to report to Congress on the conflict of interest laws relating to Federal employment. The provision would also require each agency to submit a plan to the President and Congress that includes recommendations on reducing the number of positions requiring Senate confirmation. I hope that we are able to take definitive action to reform the appointments process in the 109th Congress and finally reform a process that has been examined by no less than 15 commissions, including the 9/11 panel.

I would like to offer an observation regarding the Office and Director of National Intelligence which this bill establishes. The director only will be successful if an individual is chosen who can develop a strong working relationship with the President. In other words, the DNI can be successful with the powers provided by Congress if this individual has the confidence and trust of the President. If not, then no amount of authority granted to that individual by Congress will make a difference.

Similarly, the Office of the Director will have to be staffed by the best and brightest minds in the Intelligence Community if it is going to be successful in managing and improving U.S. intelligence efforts. I hope that our Intelligence Community agencies will work closely with the DNI, his staff, and the new intelligence centers to ensure their effectiveness and enhance the security of the United States.

The passage of this legislation also places a new burden on Congress. Every Member of the Senate, but especially the members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, will need to be involved in ensuring that this legislation is implemented effectively. Robust congressional oversight of intelligence is vital, and we here in this chamber are not off the hook just because we have passed this bill.

Finally, I want to inform my colleagues that while we have demonstrated our willingness to reform the

structures and processes of the executive branch to better protect our Nation, we have been less willing to reform our own structures and procedures. The 9/11 Commission recognized that changing congressional committee jurisdiction is exceptionally difficult but also noted reforms of the executive branch ``will not work if congressional oversight does not change too.'' They recommended that the Senate and House each establish a single authorizing committee for the Department of Homeland Security.

I remain deeply disappointed that the Senate did not do this in October. Rather, Senate Resolution 445 maintains authorizing jurisdiction over significant elements of DHS with at least three different committees. The inappropriately renamed Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will have jurisdiction over less than 10 percent of the DHS workforce and less than 40 percent of its budget. Let me repeat that. We didn't even give the proposed Homeland Security Committee the jurisdiction over either the majority of the budget or the personnel of the department.

It is disappointing that the Senate was unable to put aside turf considerations and adopt meaningful reform of its committee structure. Shame on us for not doing better. I intend to raise this issue again when Congress reconvenes in January and hope that my colleagues will join me in that effort.

Once again, I would like to thank Senators Collins and Lieberman and their staff for all their hard work on this legislation. I hope they are proud of their efforts.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on Wednesday of this week, by unanimous consent, the Senate adopted S. Con. Res. 146, which made slight modifications to S. 150, the Internet Tax Non-Discrimination Act.

I am pleased that the House passed S. 150 with the Senate changes, thereby clearing the legislation for President Bush's signature. It is long overdue.

This action ensures that Internet access will remain free from taxation, a policy that has existed since 1998, when, as Governor of Ohio and president of the National Governors Association, I helped negotiate the first moratorium.

I rise to commend my colleagues in the House and the Senate for resolving this issue in a bipartisan manner. Just over a year ago, the Senate became engaged in a spirited debate over the future of the Internet tax moratorium.

The sponsors of S. 150 argued that an expanded and permanent Internet tax moratorium was necessary to facilitate the growth of broadband Internet technologies.

On the surface, this sounded like a very reasonable position. In fact, after studying this issue, I realized that not all Internet technologies were being treated equally. For instance, some States treated digital subscriber line, DSL, service, which uses phone lines to provide high-speed Internet access, as a ``telecommunications service'' and therefore taxed it. Other States treated DSL Internet access as an ``information service'' exempt from taxation. The inconsistent treatment of DSL service created a competitive disadvantage for some Internet service providers, and I was willing to help level the playing field. However, several of my colleagues and I, including Senators Alexander, Carper, Feinstein, and Bob Graham of Florida, had more serious concerns with S. 150.

Specifically, the CBO stated that the new and expanded definition of ``Internet access'' in S. 150 was an unfunded mandate. Therefore, it was believed that S. 150 would cause significant revenue losses for our State and local governments at a time when they were facing their worst economic crisis in a generation.

In fact, the State of Ohio projected revenue losses of up to $350 million per year if the Commerce Committee's version of S. 150 passed the Senate. As a former mayor and Governor, I knew my State could not afford to lose $350 million per year.

Fortunately, the debate on S. 150 was taken off the floor, where Members and staff could try to close the chasm that separated the two sides. From November 2003 to April 2004, Members and staff worked feverishly to find common ground. Both sides listened and worked in good faith. Although it took a few months, I was pleased with the end result.

The final bill, which passed the Senate on April 29, 2004, by a vote of 93 to 3, created a level playing field for Internet service providers sought by the bill's sponsors, while at the same time protected State and local governments from any immediate financial harm.

I was pleased that the original grandfather clause was extended for the length of the moratorium because it provided protections to States, including Ohio, from losing further revenue.

Finally, the negotiated 4-year term of this legislation provides Congress with the necessary time to examine and understand how the new and expanded definition of ``Internet access'' affects both the growth of broadband Internet service and the revenue base of State and local governments. There has to be some balance.

Senator Stevens assures me that the Commerce Committee will closely reexamine these issues next Congress. In fact, we just talked about it 10 minutes ago, about the fact he wants to move forward very expeditiously to tackle this very complicated subject.

I commend the Presiding Officer, Senator Allen, and Senator Wyden for their leadership and commitment to this issue. Certainly, no two Members of the Senate have spent more time on it. I also thank Senator McCain for his patience and perseverance and willingness to offer a reasonable compromise upon which both sides could agree.

Additionally, I offer my thanks to Senators Alexander and Carper. Their vision and steadfast determination to protect State and local governments is commendable, and I was proud to work so closely with my colleagues and former Governors on this issue.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not thank the staff of the Presiding Officer and the staff of other Senators for their hard work and dedication. They really rolled up their sleeves and went to work. They spent hours, countless hours, negotiating subtle yet important nuances in the legislative language in order to reach a compromise. Some of those nuances I had a very difficult time understanding, but they understood them, thank God. The debate and end result of the Internet tax moratorium proves we can work through difficult and highly technical issues in a bipartisan manner.

As the 108th Congress comes to a close, it is my sincere hope that the same type of bipartisan spirit can be extended into the 109th Congress. It is vital that Members of this body work together to find common ground on issues that are important to our citizens, our States, our country, and, in some instances, the world.

I, for one, am looking forward to the challenges we face and am confident we can solve the difficult issues for our day and leave a lasting legacy for our children, grandchildren, and future generations.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of

a quorum.

Mr. President, earlier this week, I returned from travel to England, Serbia and Montenegro, and Italy, where I joined Senator Gordon Smith, Senator Mike DeWine, Senator Chuck Grassley and Senator Mike Enzi as members of the Senate delegation to the fall session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

We first spent time in London to discuss our bilateral relationship and issues impacting transatlantic relations. We met with Prime Minister Tony Blair and his Chief of Staff, Jonathan Powell. We also visited with Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Jack Straw, as well as Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Michael Ancram and Shadow Secretary for International Development Alan Duncan.

I was glad to have the opportunity to meet with the Atlantic Partnership. The Atlantic Partnership is a network of experts from both Europe and the United States who are willing to use their influence to further European-American relations. The Atlantic Partnership's role is to argue for setting major policy decisions in the context of their impact on transatlantic relations, within the context of strengthening the transatlantic relationship.

Fresh off the heels of the elections in the United States, British officials and representatives of nongovernmental organizations were interested in discussing the election results and the President's relationship with the United Kingdom and the European Union. Some expressed concern about the state of these relationships, and they also discussed some of the unhappiness in Great Britain with the war in Iraq. They stressed the need to work in greater cooperation, and indicated that the United States and Europe should look for areas where we share a common cause to tackle issues of concern, such as the promotion of democracy and peace in the Middle East, consolidating gains in Afghanistan, and peace and security and a viable self- government in Iraq.

With the rapidly declining health of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, we also spent a great deal of time discussing the Middle East peace process and prospects for moving forward with a settlement between Israelis and Palestinians. There was general consensus that it is important to make progress in the Middle East in order to help stabilize the region. In my view, success in Iraq is critical to this process.

Our time in London underscored the critical work that our diplomatic corps is doing as we move forward with efforts to promote stability and security in Iraq and Afghanistan, and as we continue to fight the global war on terror. We must continue to place a great deal of emphasis on efforts to strengthen our transatlantic relationships. Several British officials made it clear that the country must extend the olive branch and put a new face on diplomacy.

Great Britain is, and will continue to be, a vital ally in the war against terror, and the United States must continue to maintain strong relations with the country. An important aspect of this relationship is a strong representative of the United States Government in London. I am hopeful that the President will soon appoint a new U.S. ambassador to the United Kingdom, who will be a strong advocate for U.S. policy and help convey to the British people the important work that their country is doing as a key ally in Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts of the world.

I now have a better understanding of the United States' perception in the world and our need to continue to engage with our European allies in our diplomatic process. As the Scottish poet Robert Burns wrote, ``Oh, that God would give us the very smallest of gifts, to be able to see ourselves as others see us.''

Following our time in London, we traveled to Kosovo and Serbia and Montenegro. We stopped in Pristina, where we were greeted by Phil Goldberg, who is Chief of Mission of the U.S. Office in Pristina. We were also welcomed by Brigadier General Tod Carmony of Ohio, who serves as the Commander of Task Force Falcon, the American contingent of one of four brigades in the NATO Kosovo mission. I was glad to have the chance to spend time at Camp Bondsteel visiting with the nearly 1,000 members of the Ohio National Guard who are serving as part of KFOR under General Carmony's command. Their work is critical to the security in the region. As former Governor of the State of Ohio, I am pleased that the Department of Defense has so much faith in the Ohio National Guard that they have put them in charge of the U.S. contingent of the KFOR mission.

This was my fourth visit to Kosovo since the end of the military campaign in 1999. I was particularly anxious to assess the situation on the ground following the violence that erupted on March 17, 2004, which claimed 20 lives, displaced more than 4,000 people, including Kosovo Serbs, Ashkalia and others, and resulted in the destruction of more than 900 homes and 30 churches and monasteries belonging to the Serbian Orthodox Church--adding to the more than 100 churches that had already been destroyed during the previous five years.

After the violence broke out, I was on the phone with the State Department, particularly Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman, demanding that the United States step up its efforts to stabilize the region. During the last several years, I have continued to call on U.S. officials and members of the international community to enhance efforts in Kosovo. As the events in mid-March demonstrated, significant challenges remain. The death and destruction that took place was a tragic and urgent reminder of the work that remains to be done.

Following the violence in March, I urged the United States and members of the international community to redouble efforts to provide a stable and secure environment for all people in Kosovo, and I called for the resignation of the head of the U.N. Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, UNMIK,

Harri Holkeri. We now have a new team in place. Soren Jessen-Petersen replaced Mr. Holkeri as the Head of UNMIK and the Special Representative of the U.N. Secretary General, SRSG, and U.S. Ambassador Larry Rossin serves as his deputy.

It has been my conclusion that things have not gone well in Kosovo because members of the international community, including the United States, the United Nations, the European Union, and others, have not made it a high priority to stabilize the long-term situation. This has influenced the performance of UNMIK and KFOR.

As the events in March demonstrated, we must do a better job ensuring that KFOR has troops with the necessary training, equipment and authority to carry out its mission. For instance, at present, only 33 of the 55 units in Kosovo are trained to provide crowd and riot control, the most likely type of violence to occur. Of those 33 units, only 22 have the necessary equipment to use their crowd and riot control capabilities. This must be fixed.

It is also important that NATO work to remove national caveats or restrictions, which determine how soldiers from certain countries are able to respond in times of crisis. Brigadier General Carmony assured me that efforts are being made to remove these caveats. I have requested information on this matter, which I will continue to follow- up on in my capacity as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Later in the week, after we arrived in Venice for the NATO Parliamentary Assembly meeting, I also raised the removal of caveats with Ambassador Nick Burns, who serves as our Permanent Representative at NATO headquarters in Brussels, and with NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Schaeffer. It is my understanding that this is not only a problem in Kosovo, but also in Afghanistan and Iraq. If NATO is serious, restrictions must be removed and troops given the equipment they need to provide the needed security.

In addition to making changes within KFOR, I believe it is essential that UNMIK work with Kosovo's political leaders to ensure that the necessary steps are taken to secure an environment where respect for human rights and the rule of law are protected. When I met with UNMIK representatives, I made it clear that things must improve with regard to the enforcement of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1244. Unless we do a better job, minorities will continue to leave Kosovo, and the international community will be a witness as Kosovo moves further away from becoming the free, multi-ethnic and democratic society that we hope will become a reality.

This is not an easy process, but we must take a close look at how we can more effectively move forward in Kosovo. Following the March violence, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan asked Norwegian Ambasador Kai Eide to conduct a comprehensive review of the policies and practices of all actors in Kosovo and prepare recommendations to move forward. Ambassador Eide prepared this report, which includes several points of consideration for UNMIK and members of the international community.

In his report, Ambassador Eide recommends prosecuting those responsible for the atrocities in March and completing reconstruction of homes and churches. He also suggests streamlining the standards process, and transferring more authority to Kosovars. Further, Ambassador Eide recommends granting greater control over local areas to the Serbian minority, and he suggests restructuring UNMIK to ensure concentration on key priorities. Ambassador Eide also calls on the European Union to develop an economic development strategy, and he suggests that the international community open a more comprehensive dialogue with Belgrade. Finally, Ambassador Eide recommends that NATO maintain the KFOR presence to ensure a safe and secure environment.

In our meetings, I asked UNMIK officials and Kosovo's political leaders for their reaction to the Eide report. Generally, the responses that I received were positive. As we consider ways to move ahead, U.S. officials and members of the international community should take a close look at the report prepared by Ambassador Eide and consider implementing a number of his recommendations.

While in Pristina, we met with leaders from both the Kosovo Albanian and Kosovo Serb communities. We visited with President Ibrahim Rugova and Bajram Rexhepi, who served as prime minister until parliamentary elections were held in late October. It seems increasingly likely Mr. Rexhepi will lose this position as a new government is formed.

I have met with Mr. Rugova and Mr. Rexhepi on several other occasions, including a visit to Kosovo in May 2002. At that time, I reiterated a plea that I made in February 2000, urging Kosovo's leaders to start a new paradigm of peace and stability for all people in Kosovo. I continue to believe it is essential that minorities in Kosovo, including Serbs, Roma, Egyptians, Bosniaks, Croats, Turks, Ashkalia and others, are able to move about as they wish and live lives free from fear. As such, though it has been more than five years since the end of the NATO military campaign, I was very disappointed that President Rugova did not decry the destruction that took place on March 17th of this year. Until Kosovo's minorities are protected, there cannot be consideration of final status for Kosovo.

We also had the opportunity to visit with Kosovo Serb leader Oliver Ivanovic. Part of our conversation focused on the results of the October parliamentary elections, in which less than one percent of Kosovo Serbs chose to cast ballots. Mr. Ivanovic attributed the poor turnout in part to mixed messages from Belgrade, as well as calls for a boycott from the Serbian Orthodox Church. Many Kosovo Serbs chose to boycott the elections because they feel their lives have not improved by participating in the political process. However, I believe it is crucial that they re-engage, and I encouraged them to get back into the government, take the two seats promised in cabinet, and work to improve the situation for Kosovo's minorities.

I also encouraged Kosovo Serbs to work with Kosovo Albanian leaders and members of the international community to move forward with the reconstruction of churches and monasteries damaged or destroyed in March. The Provisional Institutions of Self-Government have committed 4.2 million for this purpose. However, the Serbian Orthodox Church has withdrawn from the commission charged with the reconstruction of religious sites.

I believe it is important that the Serbian Orthodox Church work with political leaders in Kosovo to find a way forward that is acceptable to all parties to repair and rebuild cultural and religious sites. If this does not happen, it will seriously undermine efforts to move toward a lasting, sustainable peace in Kosovo.

In summary, from all of our discussions in Kosovo, as well as our conversations in Belgrade, it was clear that the question of Kosovo's final status is on everyone's mind. Kosovo Albanian leaders call for immediate independence, while Kosovo Serb leaders argue that this is impossible given the current situation for minorities in the province. Political leaders in Belgrade maintain that Kosovo remains a part of Serbia and Montenegro, while varied opinions exist among members of the international community. Despite different points of view, it is evident that there is a long road ahead as we look to guarantee security and stability for all people in Kosovo. Until minorities are protected, I believe it is very difficult to answer questions about Kosovo's final status.

Following our time in Kosovo, we traveled to Belgrade, where we met with U.S. Ambassador Michael Polt, Serbian President Boris Tadic, Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica, President of Serbia and Montenegro Svetozar Marovic, Foreign Minister of Serbia and Montenegro Vuk Draskovic, Serbia and Montenegro's Minister of Defense Prvoslav Davinic, and Serbia and Montenegro's Minister for Human and Minority Rights Rasim Ljajic.

We had good conversations regarding positive developments in Serbia and Montenegro that have taken place during the more than four years since Serbian voters went to the polls and removed Slobodan Milosevic from power in October 2000. Since that time, there has been considerable progress. We have worked with the Paris Club to negotiate favorable terms on debt relief

for Serbia and Montenegro. The United States has extended normal trade relations (NTR), and we have continued to cultivate relations between Washington and Belgrade.

Additionally, along with my colleagues, I was thrilled to see Boris Tadic's clear victory on June 27, 2004 to serve as the next President of Serbia. The significance of this development cannot be overstated. Voters in Serbia embraced democratic reform and European integration and rejected nationalism that has for too long marred the past. It remains my sincere hope that this is a sign of things to come in Serbia and Montenegro.

However, it is clear that challenges remain. Perhaps highest among them is cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). We made clear to Prime Minister Kostunica that he must take a leadership role to ensure that indicted war criminal Ratko Mladic and others are behind bars at The Hague. This is essential if Serbia and Montenegro hopes to move toward Europe's democratic institutions, including the European Union. It is also critical if Serbia and Montenegro chooses to join NATO's Partnership for Peace.

I have been urging Vojislav Kostunica to further cooperation with the War Crimes Tribunal since he became President of Serbia in October 2000, and I continue to call on him to take action on this matter in his capacity as Serbia's Prime Minister. Thankfully, there are those in Serbia, including President Tadic, Foreign Minister Draskovic and others, who understand the importance of ICTY cooperation and are trying to make the case to the Serbian people. I am hopeful that they will prevail in the end, and Serbia and Montenegro will move toward European integration.

On a more positive note, I was glad to hear that economy is slowly improving. This was underscored by the President of the American Chamber of Commerce of Serbia and Montenegro. This is important to the Serbian people, and it will also help to further democratic reforms in the country.

I was also inspired by the good work of nongovernmental organizations, such as the German Marshall Fund's Balkan Trust for Democracy, as well as the charitable work that is being done by Crown Prince Alexander and Crown Princess Katherine.

During my time in Belgrade, I continued to be encouraged by the forward thinking of President Boris Tadic and his advisors, who ran on a platform of democratic reform and European integration. This is the type of agenda that will help to ensure a stable, secure and prosperous future for the people of Serbia and Montenegro.

We concluded our travel in Venice, Italy for the fall session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. In my view, this is an important forum where legislators and parliamentarians from NATO member and partner countries gather to discuss transatlantic issues. I have regularly attended these meetings, and I serve as Vice Chairman of the Assembly's Political Committee.

Our participation in the session was limited to the first two days, as we had to return to Washington for work in the Senate for the conclusion of the 108th Congress. However, we had two solid days of work, including meetings with our Permanent Representative to NATO, Ambassador Nick Burns, and NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Schaeffer. We discussed a number of issues impacting the NATO Alliance, including NATO's role in Afghanistan and Iraq, the capabilities and contributions of NATO allies, and the NATO Response Force, among other things.

In celebration of its 50th anniversary, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly convened a special plenary session with the North Atlantic Council. NATO Secretary General de Hoop Schaeffer delivered an impressive speech, in which he challenged delegates to the meeting to encourage their respective constituencies to enhance participation in NATO as the Alliance looks to meet new challenges in Afghanistan, Iraq and the war against terrorism.

As our meeting demonstrated, the NATO Alliance remains strong. NATO is playing a critical role in efforts to promote stability and security in Afghanistan. Many soldiers from our NATO allies are standing alongside American forces in Iraq, and other NATO members are providing training for Iraqi security forces. Moreover, NATO remains integral to peacekeeping missions in the Balkans.

That being said, it is clear that challenges remain as the Alliance reviews its role in Afghanistan and Iraq and the broader war against terrorism, and it is important that we remain engaged and active to help meet these challenges.

Madam President, later on today we will be discussing an amendment submitted by Senator Nickles. The amendment's alleged purpose is to clarify the shared jurisdiction of the congressional budget process between Governmental Affairs and the budget situation that grew out of the Budget Committee and the modern budget process of 1974.

Senate committees rarely share jurisdiction, and joint referral of legislation is accomplished by unanimous consent. Today, anything that deals with the budget either coming out of the Governmental Affairs Committee or coming out of Budget has to be referred to the Governmental Affairs Committee and within 30 days some action has to be taken so there is a joint referral.

This amendment would eliminate that and say that all of the budgetary process is within the jurisdiction only of the Budget Committee and would also require that instead of the nominations for the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the deputy director being the sole jurisdiction of the Governmental Affairs Committee, that would be a joint jurisdiction. In other words, the Presidential appointee to Director of Budget and Management, Deputy Director, and other people, would have to come to the Governmental Affairs Committee and also go to the Budget Committee for their approval.

I think one of the things we are trying to do here is to streamline that whole process, that we have too many people who are being, frankly, nominated, and too much advice and consent.

One of the things in an amendment to the Homeland Security Act that we were able to get done was the provision that says we are going to ask the administration to come back with recommendations on how they can reduce the number of people who are sent to the Senate for advice and consent to streamline the process.

This amendment would make this Presidential appointment process in regard to the Director of Budget and Management and the Deputy Director much more complicated than it is today. I would also argue--with due respect to the expertise that is on the Budget Committee--that this process has not been looked at since 1974.

As a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee and the oversight of Government management in the Federal workforce, I have been concerned that we have not looked at that process since 1974--that we have discussed the feasibility of going to a 2-year budget. There are many things, in my opinion, that this body should be doing, and if it were solely within the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee, it might not get done. The Governmental Affairs Committee looks at the big picture.

I would also argue that too often in the Office of Budget and Management, there is no ``M'' in OMB. I am pleased to say that this administration has undertaken some very aggressive management responsibilities. I, quite frankly, think they would not have undertaken those management responsibilities had it not been for the fact that they had to be confirmed by the Governmental Affairs Committee of the U.S. Senate.

I know the relationships that I have built personally with the Director of the Office of Budget and Management; Sean O'Keefe, who was the Deputy Director, and now Director Josh Bolten, have really accrued to the benefit of our country in terms of improving the management of Government.

So what I am trying to say is the budget process is important not only to the Budget Committee but the budget process is important to the entire country and to the operation of Government because it has such a large impact on the whole operation of Government.

I respect the chairman of the Budget Committee, but as one who has been concerned about modernizing our procedures, I believe this would not promote what is in the best interest of the Senate or, for that matter, our country.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the human capital changes that have occurred since 1999 that have come out of the Governmental Affairs Committee.

I would like to emphasize for my colleagues how important it is that this jurisdiction in terms of the Director of Budget and Management and the Deputy Director remains in the Governmental Affairs Committee.

I would like to make one other point; that point is, the jurisdiction of our committee has been stripped out for the last couple of days. So I just urge my colleagues--I am going to ask for a vote. I think it is important to the management of our country.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak and yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

The question I would like to ask is, Has the procedure that we now have in terms of the appointment--and this has been for 30 years--diminished the effectiveness of the Budget Committee, because of the fact that they have not participated in the nomination of the Budget Director?

Mr. President, I would just like to emphasize again that the current situation is one that is working. Unless one can show that it is not working in terms of the authority or the jurisdiction of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I would argue, why change it.

Secondly, this amendment would then subject the appointees of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Deputy Director, and other people to jurisdictions in two committees, which would make the appointment process longer than it is today in an area that is particularly important to the President. What he wants to do immediately is to get his director of budget on board.

Secondly, I think we need to point out that the budget process is not just the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee. Under this amendment, if I want to put a bill in, for example, to reform the budget process to 2-year budgets, to require that the budget include a presentation on the accrued liabilities of the United States and, for that matter, go back and look at the Budget Act of 1974, which should be updated, that bill would have to go to the Budget Committee. If the members of that committee were unhappy with that, if they like the process of 1-year budgets because of the fact that they like to take a bite out of the apple each year, that bill would be dead.

Under the current situation, if someone has an idea of improving the budget process that impacts not only the budget but the entire operation of Government, they can bring it to the Governmental Affairs Committee. We could handle that legislation, and then that legislation would have to be referred to the Budget Committee for their consideration. The fact is, this is too large a responsibility just to put it within the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee. I argue that it makes a lot of sense to leave the situation as it is unless somebody can tell me that it is not working.

I will say one other thing: Our Government's biggest problem today is management. Having jurisdiction of the Office of Management and Budget in Governmental Affairs has given this Senator a lot of leverage to get this administration to do some things that are important for the country.

I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. President, I rise to express my sadness with the actions of the Senate these last 2 days and express why I will oppose the resolution to reorganize the Senate. I will vote against the resolution because it was supposed to improve the manner in which this Chamber overseas the intelligence and homeland security issues. As of now, it will do no such thing. In fact, it is a step backward because we have claimed to have taken action when in reality little has changed.

Make no mistake, the status quo rules the day and underscores the observation that the Senate has failed to change the way it conducts oversight of intelligence and homeland security issues as recommended by the 9/11 Commission.

First, the 9/11 Commission recommended we establish a single committee, each House of Congress, combining authorizing and appropriating authorities. However, the Senate overwhelmingly rejected the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona, which I supported, that would have given the Select Committee on Intelligence appropriating power that would substantially reform the manner in which this body conducts oversight of intelligence. The actions of the Senate fly in the face of the 9/11 Commission recommendations.

Without this power, I anticipate that the problems that have been described by Senator McCain and Senator Roberts during this debate will continue. In many instances, the executive branch agencies will pay their authorizing committees lip service and go behind their backs to the Appropriations Committee to get what they want. All you have to do is talk to members of the Intelligence Committee and you will understand why it is so important that they have the appropriations power.

If we are going to be asking people to serve on a Select Intelligence Committee and we don't give them the appropriations, then why serve on the committee, because it will be more of the same that we have had around here for the last several years?

I have seen it time and again in my first term. We do a poor job of oversight because authorizing committees lack the power of the purse. The defeat of the McCain amendment will only continue to make oversight of intelligence more difficult than necessary.

Second, the Senate took up this resolution to fulfill the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission that there should be a single authorizing committee in each House of Congress for the Department of Homeland Security, just as we have for the Department of Defense, Department of State, and Department of Justice.

Again, what we did flies in the face of the recommendation. We have seen amendment after amendment offered and accepted by this body, which guts the authorizing jurisdiction of the committee on homeland security and governmental affairs. Instead of having a single authorizing committee, the Department of Homeland Security will have at least four. Many of my colleagues took the floor and insisted the exceptions they were carving out of the jurisdiction of the homeland security committee had nothing to do with turf. Baloney. It had everything to do with turf.

At a time when our national security is in jeopardy, the American people should be upset and concerned with what we have seen on the floor of the Senate when we should be concerned about our homeland security. All of us in the Senate understand that we are in jeopardy from what we are doing in our respective offices to make sure our people are being taken care of here.

As a result of the turn of events, it is a farce to rename the Committee on Governmental Affairs the committee on homeland security and governmental affairs. It is no such thing. It has jurisdiction over a small percentage of the employees of the Department and less than 40 percent of the budget.

Let me repeat that we didn't even give the proposed homeland security committee the jurisdiction over either the majority of the budget or the personnel of the Department.

When we return in November--maybe in January--I will seek to offer an amendment to restore the name of the Committee on Governmental Affairs. If we are not going to create a homeland security committee, let's not pretend that we are. Let's not pretend. Things have not really changed at all, in my opinion. I hope that what the Senate has done is reported across America, so that our constituents can see what we have done and tell us what a lousy job we did. Then maybe we can come back during the lameduck session in November and pass a reorganizing resolution that actually makes a difference and is guided solely by what is in the best interest of our country and not the best interest of each individual Senator.

A few years ago, the Committee on Governmental Affairs held a hearing at which the Comptroller General testified on the preparedness of the executive branch to meet the 21st century challenges facing America. I am reminded of that hearing and I ask, Is the Senate prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st century? Are we capable of making the changes necessary to meet both the great dangers and wonderful opportunities we have before us? These last few days would indicate that we are not.

Shame on the Senate, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator from Vermont and recognize that his State is facing similar problems and I pledge to work with him and the Environment and Public Works Committee to advance authorization for a Lake Champlain Canal dispersal barrier through both the Water Resources Development Act and the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act in the next Congress.

Mr. President, revitalizing our urban areas has been an issue I have been passionate about for many years. As former Mayor of Cleveland, I experienced firsthand the difficulties that cities face in redeveloping these sites for reuse.

The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Coleman, the Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2004, will provide incentives to clean up abandoned industrial sites--or brownfields--across the country and put them back into productive use and preserve our green spaces. I am pleased to be working on this important legislation with my colleague from Ohio, Congressman Mike Turner.

I have been working on brownfields issues at the national level since I became Governor of Ohio in 1990 and through my involvement with the National Governors' Association and the Republican Governors' Association. For almost 15 years, I have worked closely with congressional leaders to develop legislation that would encourage cleanup and redevelopment of these sites nationwide.

In 2001, I was closely involved in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's work on the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act which, in part, provided grants to local governments to remediate and redevelop brownfields sites. Grants such as these are important because they provide incentives to clean up existing sites, which will provide better protection for the health and safety of our citizens and the environment. I believe the tax incentives in the bill I'm introducing today will work hand in hand with the grants that are already authorized to encourage private remediation and redevelopment efforts.

To enhance and encourage cleanup efforts, my State of Ohio has implemented a private sector-based program to clean up brownfields sites. When I was Governor, Ohio EPA, Republicans and Democrats in the Ohio General Assembly and I worked hard to implement a program that we believe works for Ohio. Our program is already successful in improving Ohio's environment and economy. In fact, 141 sites have been cleaned up under Ohio's voluntary cleanup program in 8 years. And many more cleanups are underway.

The legislation I am introducing today will build upon the success of State programs such as Ohio's by providing even more incentives to clean up brownfield sites in order to provide better protection for the health and safety of our citizens and the environment.

This legislation will provide additional tools to recycle our urban wastelands, prevent urban sprawl and preserve our farmland and greenspaces. We will be able to clean up industrial eyesores in our cities and make them more desirable places to live. Because they are putting abandoned sites back into productive use, they are a key element to providing economic rebirth to many urban areas, and good- paying jobs to local residents.

This bill makes sense for our environment and it makes sense for our economy. It is supported by the mayors of Ohio's major cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the International Council of Shopping Centers, Empower America, American Council of Engineering Companies, and the National Association of Home Builders.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, revitalizing our urban areas has been an issue I have been passionate about for many years. As former Mayor of Cleveland, I experienced firsthand the difficulties that cities face in redeveloping these sites for reuse.

The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Coleman, the Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2004, will provide incentives to clean up abandoned industrial sites--or brownfields--across the country and put them back into productive use and preserve our green spaces. I am pleased to be working on this important legislation with my colleague from Ohio, Congressman Mike Turner.

I have been working on brownfields issues at the national level since I became Governor of Ohio in 1990 and through my involvement with the National Governors' Association and the Republican Governors' Association. For almost 15 years, I have worked closely with congressional leaders to develop legislation that would encourage cleanup and redevelopment of these sites nationwide.

In 2001, I was closely involved in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's work on the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act which, in part, provided grants to local governments to remediate and redevelop brownfields sites. Grants such as these are important because they provide incentives to clean up existing sites, which will provide better protection for the health and safety of our citizens and the environment. I believe the tax incentives in the bill I'm introducing today will work hand in hand with the grants that are already authorized to encourage private remediation and redevelopment efforts.

To enhance and encourage cleanup efforts, my State of Ohio has implemented a private sector-based program to clean up brownfields sites. When I was Governor, Ohio EPA, Republicans and Democrats in the Ohio General Assembly and I worked hard to implement a program that we believe works for Ohio. Our program is already successful in improving Ohio's environment and economy. In fact, 141 sites have been cleaned up under Ohio's voluntary cleanup program in 8 years. And many more cleanups are underway.

The legislation I am introducing today will build upon the success of State programs such as Ohio's by providing even more incentives to clean up brownfield sites in order to provide better protection for the health and safety of our citizens and the environment.

This legislation will provide additional tools to recycle our urban wastelands, prevent urban sprawl and preserve our farmland and greenspaces. We will be able to clean up industrial eyesores in our cities and make them more desirable places to live. Because they are putting abandoned sites back into productive use, they are a key element to providing economic rebirth to many urban areas, and good- paying jobs to local residents.

This bill makes sense for our environment and it makes sense for our economy. It is supported by the mayors of Ohio's major cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the International Council of Shopping Centers, Empower America, American Council of Engineering Companies, and the National Association of Home Builders.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Mr. George F. Dixon III for his exceptional service and leadership to our Nation.

Mr. Dixon is nearing the end of his term as chair of the American Public Transportation Association, the association that represents the North American public transportation industry.

During his chairmanship, Mr. Dixon has been dedicated to supporting the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the development of a 5-year strategic plan for APTA, and the oversight of APTA's Public Transportation Partnership for Tomorrow outreach and education program. Mr. Dixon also represented APTA on a trade mission to Russia.

Mr. Dixon, a Cleveland, OH native, has a distinguished history of public service in Northeast Ohio. For example, over the past 10 years, he has brought great improvements to the public transportation system in Cleveland as the President of the Board of the Greater Cleveland Regional Transportation Authority. Mr. Dixon has also served the Cleveland community as a member of the Cleveland School Board for 5 years and as a leader in numerous local organizations including the Greater Cleveland Growth Association, Build up Greater Cleveland, Civic Vision, MidTown Cleveland, and the Convention and Visitors Bureau of Greater Cleveland.

Mr. Dixon is a accomplished leader and someone who, day in and day out, goes above and beyond the call of duty to help people in his community. On behalf of the people of Ohio, I am pleased to commend George F. Dixon, III for his extraordinary efforts to improve the quality of life in Ohio and our Nation, and I congratulate him on a successful term as Chair of the American Public Transportation Association.

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

Mr. President, I rise to address the critical issue that is before the Senate--reform of our intelligence community and restructuring of the Federal Government to enhance our ability to wage the global war on terror and protect our Nation from other threats.

I commend Senators Collins and Lieberman and their staffs for their hard work and leadership on this issue, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation.

I also thank the Senate leadership for making this a priority. There is no issue more important for us to address. In fact, I believe this legislation is the most important I have worked on since coming to the Senate in 1999.

The war on terror is unlike any conflict we have fought--covert holy warriors seeking to infiltrate our society and those of our allies to do us grievous harm. Against this radical enemy, intelligence is of the greatest importance. We must do everything we can to strengthen our intelligence capabilities. If you think of what we need to do about terrorism, we need to attack, we need to prevent, and we need to prepare. Intelligence is the greatest weapon we have in all three of those categories.

Before I comment on this legislation before us, however, I would like to first offer some principles and thoughts that have guided my deliberations.

First, we must do no harm. Great progress has been made since September 11, 2001, to improve the operations of our intelligence community and make our country more secure. There is no greater evidence of that than when I travel in Ohio to various large urban areas. I am so impressed with the cooperation that now exists as contrasted to what was there before 9/11. Because we are making progress, we must be sure that we do not inadvertently set back our current efforts. We must implement additional improvements.

Second, we must not restructure the intelligence community to deal solely with the threat of terrorism caused by Islamic extremists, as pressing a concern as that is. There are many other threats that require close scrutiny by the intelligence community. Reform must address the threats that will confront America 10 and 20 years in the future in addition to those faced today.

For example, the United States must continue to monitor regional conflicts which have the potential to undermine stability in various parts of the world such as India, Pakistan, China, and Taiwan. Regional conflicts, such as between India and Pakistan, are motivated by political, social, and historical reasons unique to their own countries. In the event that regional conflicts should escalate to such proportions that chemical, biological, or even nuclear weapons would be used, as would be possible in the event of a conflict between India and Pakistan, U.S. interests certainly would be threatened. The intelligence community must remain keenly aware of what is happening in other areas of the world so that the U.S. is not only prepared and able to respond but so that we can do everything in our power to prevent such a crisis from happening.

The United States must also monitor threats presented by rogue nations such as North Korea, rogue states that have the ability to foster regional instability and harm U.S. interests. They, too, must be closely monitored as dictators such as Kim Chong-il look to enhance their power and position. If not, the U.S. risks strategic surprise which would be devastating to our national security interests.

Additionally, the United States must address the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These weapons have the ability to cause grave harm to Americans and life as we know it if found in the wrong hands. They could be used by terrorists against cities in the United States, they could be used in regional conflict, or they could be used by a rogue state to enhance its power.

Third, we should make it clear to the American people that the different perspectives presented on the Senate floor are legitimate. A review of the hearings held by various congressional committees during August and September demonstrated that many former Government officials who have had distinguished careers in senior national security posts hold contradictory opinions on the 9/11 Commission recommendations and related national security issues.

Fourth, reforming the Federal Government to address the challenges of global terrorism is going to take several years to accomplish. It is not going to happen that fast. It is my hope that during the next Congress we will address the critical challenges confronting the Federal law enforcement community, for example. For example, rationalizing responsibility and missions and personnel systems is vital to ensure that Federal law enforcement is best equipped to confront foreign terrorists operating in the United States.

I am pleased that we have addressed some of the needs of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the legislation we are considering today. But much more remains to be done, and it is important for our national security to finish this job.

As my colleagues may know, I sponsored legislation that became law that requires the Office of Personnel Management to study Federal law enforcement personnel systems and recommend improvements. I was concerned that we were going forward with personnel changes and getting some coordination between those law enforcement agencies and the homeland security, but we were failing to do the same thing with law enforcement agencies that were outside of the Department of Homeland Security. The Office of Personnel Management has implemented that legislation. They have made some significant recommendations on how we can improve the relationships, classifications, and so forth, with those outside of Homeland Security. It would be my hope that we implement those recommendations.

Regarding the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, I strongly support creating a robust national intelligence director, but I have been wrestling with exactly how much authority we should give the new national intelligence director. I appreciate the balance that Senators Collins and Lieberman were trying to achieve in their legislation. It is clear to me that these authorities should not be diminished.

In fact, in committee I offered an amendment that would give the national intelligence director reorganization authority over the national intelligence program so that the director could identify efficiencies and eliminate unnecessary duplication of effort. It is unfortunate that my amendment was weakened in committee, and I am still considering amendments to strengthen the management authority of the national intelligence director.

The intelligence community budget process is extremely complex. Indeed, the manner in which these agencies interact with each other is probably the most complicated interagency process in the Federal Government. The budgets of the 15 intelligence community agencies, including all those of the Armed Forces, are intertwined in the National Foreign Intelligence Program, the Joint Military Intelligence Program, the tactical intelligence and related activities.

The Collins-Lieberman legislation seeks to bring clarity to the situation by defining a national intelligence program. However, we may be able to improve this budget definition, and I will weigh all amendments to do so carefully.

At the same time, we must be careful not to erode the budget authority of the national intelligence director. I understand that some of my colleagues may offer amendments to give the national intelligence director a fixed term in an attempt to immunize this individual from political pressure. I would note that a host of other provisions, including a strong inspector general for the intelligence community and an ombudsman to specifically guard against political concerns, have been created to do exactly that.

Quite the contrary, a fixed term is unnecessary and could diminish the effectiveness of the national intelligence director. A close and trusting working relationship with the President is going to be key to the success of the effectiveness of the national intelligence director. We should not weaken this relationship by mandating a fixed-term appointment.

The Governmental Affairs Committee heard testimony from three former Directors of Central Intelligence, and all agreed that the national intelligence director should serve at the pleasure of the President. An incoming President should not be stuck with a national intelligence director from a previous administration.

I know that the Presiding Officer, in his former capacity as Governor of the State of Tennessee and as a member of the Bush Cabinet, understands that if this individual doesn't have the confidence of the President of the United States, his or her effectiveness is going to be diminished a great deal. So much of what this person can accomplish will have a lot to do with that relationship with the President because there are going to be situations where there are going to be differences of opinion. Finally, the boss has to decide them. If you have somebody there that has the job and doesn't have the confidence of the boss, we are in trouble.

Mr. President, although this legislation deals primarily with improving structured roles and missions, the human capital challenges confronting our intelligence community must not be overlooked.

In March of 2001--it seems like a long time ago--my Government Management Subcommittee held a hearing entitled ``The National Security Implications of the Human Capital Crisis.'' The panel of distinguished witnesses that day included former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, a member of the U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st Century. Secretary Schlesinger concluded his testimony with these remarks:

As it enters the 21st century, the United States finds

itself on the brink of an unprecedented crisis of competence

in Government. The maintenance of American power in the world

depends on the quality of U.S. Government personnel, civil

and military, at all levels. We must take immediate action in

the personnel area to ensure that the United States can meet

future challenges. That fixing of the personnel problem is a

precondition for fixing virtually everything else that needs

repair in the institutional edifice of U.S. national security

policy.

He was so right. Secretary Schlesinger's insightful comments were reinforced by the 9/11 Commission on page 399 of the report. The Commission said ``significant changes in the organization of the Government.'' The Commission went on to say:

We know that the quality of people is more important than

the quality of the wiring diagrams. Some of the saddest

aspects of the 9/11 story are the outstanding efforts of so

many individuals straining, often without success, against

the boundaries of the possible. Good people can overcome bad

structures, but they should not have to.

I will never forget that after 9/11 the first thing that came to my mind was we didn't have the right people with the right knowledge and skills at the right place at the right time. If you go back and look at all of the report, it gets back to that situation and also the fact that they weren't communicating with each other.

I am pleased that the Collins-Lieberman legislation includes some important human capital provisions. I offered an amendment in committee, which was unanimously accepted, that provides enhanced classification and pay flexibilities for intelligence analysts at the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Specifically, my amendment enables the FBI to work with the OPM to develop new classification standards and pay rates for intelligence analysts. The amendment also allows the bureau to improve their performance management system for their intelligence analysts and establishes two congressional reporting requirements. The amendment was completely within the spirit of the 9/11 recommendations, which noted that the FBI should create a specialized and integrated national security workforce consisting of agents, analysts, linguists, and surveillance specialists who are recruited, trained, rewarded, and retained to ensure the development of an institutional culture with strong experience in intelligence and national security throughout the organization.

I thought the other incredible thing after 9/11 was the cry that went out: Can anybody speak Farsi? Can anybody speak Arabic? You would have thought that after the Persian Gulf war there would have been a very aggressive effort, because of the instability of the area, for us to bring in people who could speak Farsi and Arabic. If you looked at the State Department a couple years ago, you would have found we had all kinds of linguists who could speak fluent Russian. But the threat had changed. We didn't have the capacity to change with that threat. Hopefully, with this new national intelligence director, we are going to be able to have that flexibility.

It is my hope that this amendment will provide the Federal Bureau of Investigation with essential human capital flexibilities specifically targeted to building an elite cadre of intelligence analysts. In addition, Senator Lugar and I will offer another amendment to the bill to improve the Presidential appointment process, which has been broken for decades. Over the coming days, I want to work with Senators Collins and Lieberman on this amendment.

This amendment addresses a critical recommendation in the 9/11 Commission Report. It is a problem I have been examining for years. During my time in the Senate, I have found political appointees to be dedicated and diligent professionals who want to make a difference for our country. They often leave high-paying corporate jobs only to find their commitment to our Nation requires an increase in workload and a decrease in salary.

I talked to one individual who filled out the financial disclosure form and all that was required. He said that it cost him $200,000 to pay the professional people to do all the things that were required in this disclosure form that is now currently in effect with the Federal Government. I suspect that the President, when he appointed the Secretary of Education, had to go through all these forms, and so forth, and wondered to himself whether he ought to do it. Before they even begin to work for the Government, however, as I mentioned, they must first navigate the complex, turbulent, and outdated Presidential appointment process--an area where reviews and recommendations for improvement have gone unheeded far too long.

In 1937, a committee issued the first report on improving the Presidential appointment process. During the 67 years since this inaugural report, the appointment process has been formally examined 14 additional times. After such extensive reviews, it is disconcerting for this Senator that we have not been able to enact meaningful reform in this area.

To capture the essence of the problem, understand first that the number of politically appointed positions has grown from 286 to 3,361 over the past 4 decades. This increase is straining an already overburdened system. And the time it takes to complete an appointment has increased through the years from just over 2 months during the Kennedy administration to 8 months in the current administration. I think Secretary Rumsfeld said his team didn't go into place until 6 months after he had been appointed as Secretary of Defense.

Mr. President, 8 months is simply too long to fill an appointed position. I am afraid that if we do not update the current system for processing Presidential appointees, we run the risk of driving good people away from appointed Government service. Progress has been made on this issue during the last several years.

First, on February 15, the Hart-Rudman commission issued their report entitled ``The Roadmap for National Security Imperative for Change,'' which in part examined the Presidential appointment process. The Commission's final report observes: The ordeals to which outside nominees are subjected are so great, above and beyond whatever financial or career sacrifice is involved, so as to make it prohibitive for many individuals of talent and experience to accept public service.

Then on April 4 and 5, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs held 2 days of hearings on the state of the Presidential appointment process. During those hearings Paul Light from the Brookings Institution said:

Past and potential Presidential appointees alike view the

process of entering office with disdain, describing it as

embarrassing, confusing, and unfair. They see the process as

far more cumbersome and lengthy than it needs to be.

By the way, I held a hearing a couple weeks ago, and Paul Light was there,

and he reiterated that same statement he made in 2001.

On May 16, 2001, the Governmental Affairs Committee passed Senator Fred Thompson's bipartisan bill to streamline the Presidential appointments process that I cosponsored with Senators Akaka, Durbin, Lieberman, and Lugar. Although it passed the Governmental Affairs Committee in the 107th Congress, it did not pass the full Senate. When Senator Fred Thompson left the Senate, I promised him I would continue to push for appointments reform. Therefore, in April of last year, I reintroduced the Presidential Appointments Improvement Act, and today I urge my colleagues to pass this important proposal.

What happens is that after the President comes in and he goes through this line of getting people appointed, they get off on other things, and they forget about the problems they went through to get all their appointees. So it kind of goes to the bottom of the stack in terms of priorities. This 9/11 Commission implementation by the Senate gives us a wonderful opportunity to do something about this problem that has lingered for so many years.

I am certain all my colleagues have read the recommendations in the 9/11 Commission report. As you recall, one of the recommendations underscored the importance of improving the Presidential appointment process. Specifically on page 422, the report states:

Since a catastrophic attack could occur with little or no

notice, we should minimize as much as possible the disruption

of national security policymaking during the change of

administration by accelerating the process for national

security appointments. We think the process could be improved

significantly so transitions can work more effectively and

allow more new officials to assume their responsibilities as

quickly as possible.

The 9/11 Commission report also noted that in 2001, the new administration, like others before it, did not have its team on the job until at least 6 months after it took office. In fact, I commented to people that after the length it took for the President to finally know he was President, we lost that period of time once the President was elected and started building his team; they were just concentrating on who was going to be the President. Once that was done, then they started to concentrate on who the people were going to be in the administration.

They did a great job of taking care of the initial people, but, as you know, it took a long time for them to start filling in that organization.

My amendment offers realistic governmentwide solutions to the problems identified by the 9/11 Commission and the 14 other Commission studies and reports that have detailed the importance of streamlining the Presidential appointment process.

The four main provisions of the amendment include streamlining the financial disclosure forms for executive branch employees. Two, requiring agencies to examine the number of Presidential-appointed positions and recommending to Congress which positions could be eliminated. We are asking them to do it. Three, allowing Presidential candidates to obtain a list of appointee positions 15 days after they receive their party's nomination so they will have an idea of the kind of people they have to look for if they are elected President of the United States. And four, requiring the Office of Government Ethics to review the conflict-of-interest laws.

The principles behind this amendment are simple, and given the bipartisan nature in which the original bill passed the Governmental Affairs Committee last Congress, I ask my colleagues to adopt this amendment. Although it will not solve all the problems with the appointments process outlined in the 9/11 Commission report, the amendment is an important first step for updating an outdated system.

I urge the Senate to support its adoption. Senator Lugar and I will be working with Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman to try to obtain their support for this amendment and to also work out any of the problems they may have with it.

Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution congratulating the Croatian Fraternal Union of America on the occasion of its 110th anniversary.

This weekend, members of the Croatian Fraternal Union will gather in Pittsburgh, PA to celebrate this significant event. As the CFU prepares for this celebration, I would like to extend my best wishes to Mr. Bernard Luketich, who serves as President of the CFU, and whom I have had the pleasure of knowing and working with for many years.

The Croatian Fraternal Union in Ohio, particularly in the Cleveland area, has for decades promoted the understanding and preservation of the Croatian heritage. Through its many cultural festivals, dances and other events, the local lodges have worked to ensure that the Croatian culture has remained strong and vibrant in Ohio.

I am honored to be a member of the Zumberak Lodge 859, and I attend as many of the lodge's events as my schedule allows. I fondly remember taking my own granddaughters to see the CFU sponsored Tamburitzans perform, because I know it was important to expose the next generation to this wonderful art form and culture. This is the sort of important role that the Croatian Fraternal Union's lodges have filled for the past 110 years, which continues today.