Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the valor and great sacrifice of the citizens in Frankfort, KS. Frankfort is a small town in northeast Kansas. It is a thriving rural community of approximately 855 people. In the early 1940s, just as today, Frankfort was teeming with good Americans, Americans who answered the call of duty and fought so that their fellow Americans could live in freedom.

But that alone is not what makes Frankfort notable. Brave men and women from small towns, big cities, and everywhere in America have served our Nation in the Armed Forces. Many have made the ultimate sacrifice.

What makes this town, then home to approximately 1,800 people, notable is the solemn fact that 32 brave men from Frankfort and the surrounding farmland gave their lives in World War II. Based on records from local county newspapers of that time, it is concluded that the Frankfort community lost more men in World War II than any other town of similar size. This

fact imparts both a deep sense of pride for the bravery and commitment of these young Kansans and also sadness for the great loss of life that is inherent in times of war.

During my years in public service, I have experienced many opportunities to meet some amazing people and hear the incredible stories that truly define America. This is exactly how I have come to learn of this incredible contribution to our Nation's security. Frank Benteman, a World War II Army veteran, shared this story. Mr. Benteman, now 80 years old, is from Frankfort and was part of this ``greatest generation'' who served. It was Mr. Benteman who continues to honor those who went before by remembering their sacrifice and honoring their memory. I am pleased to work along with Frank Benteman to honor the heroes of Frankfort, KS, by entering their names into the Congressional Record in recognition of their ultimate sacrifice to a grateful nation.

The brave men from Frankfort, KS, who gave their lives in the great Second World War include Willard A. Backman, Fred Bentsen, Lloyd C. Blackney, Leland Cook, Melvin Cope, Elmer Crumpton, Kenneth DeWalt, Robert Emmingham, Victor Feldhausen, Peter Fiegener, William R. Gibson, Don Hockensmith, Jr., Dale C. Hooper, Milan E. Jester, Koester Johnston, Donald E. King, Vern F. Long, Weldon Maneval, Matt McKeon, Carl O. Nord, Aloysius Noud, Howard Olson, Paul A. Paden, Charles Poff, Charles L. Punteney, Theodore Rhodes, David L. Shyne, James Stoffel, Clifford Watson, Robert B. Welsh, Charles F. Zinn, and Munro Zoellner.

Semper fi.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter dated November 16, 2006.

Mr. President, today I congratulate a Kansan, and a friend, Earl McVicker, whose hard work, perseverance, and dedication has earned him recognition by those in his profession. Last month, Earl, who started his banking career at a bank in a town of 400, was elected chairman of the American Bankers Association. I join his friends, family, and colleagues in extending my congratulations and best wishes to him during the upcoming year.

Earl's career in the banking industry began shortly after his graduation from Kansas State University, home of the always optimistic and fighting Wildcats. Although Earl earned an engineering degree from K-State, he had taken a few business classes and a course on rural banking, which captured his interest. His first job was at the Bazine State Bank. Earl worked hard, learning the banking business from the ground up. His strong work ethic paid off, and he rose steadily in the banking industry, moving on to banks in Colorado and Kansas before becoming CEO of Central Bank and Trust, in Hutchinson, KS. By this time, Earl was looking for more than just another job at another bank. He was looking for the opportunity to make policy decisions, and he knew the only way to achieve that was to buy a bank.

Well, Earl succeeded in this goal, in part, by doing something we should all take a lesson from. When he became CEO at CB&T, he made the decision that he would continue to live off the amount of his previous salary and save and invest the difference in order to buy CB&T stock. This self-discipline, along with some help from his parents and a loan from another bank, allowed Earl to continue buying stock in CB&T, eventually gaining majority ownership. Further, the loan that he took out, that he hoped to pay off in 10 years? He paid it off in 5. Earl acknowledges that he risked everything on this one venture, but it is certainly a risk that has paid off.

Perhaps the quote that Earl has framed and hanging in his office best sums up what guides him. The quote, by President Calvin Coolidge, reads: ``Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan `press on' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.''

Earl's own hard work, persistence, and willingness to take risks gives him an understanding and an empathy for people who are looking to start and own their own business. His commitment to promoting entrepreneurship, his willingness to help individuals start a business, and his ability to recognize the potential of these individuals, even those who may not have business experience, makes him unique and reminds us all of the important role hometown

banks play in a community. They understand the needs of the customers, their community, and know that their role in helping individuals and businesses succeed is vital to economic health.

Now, I don't want to leave you with the impression that Earl is just another skilled businessman, although over the past 14 years, his private investment company, Central Financial Corp., has grown to include banks in a dozen States and has outperformed Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway, as well as the Dow and the S&P 500. In fact, Earl wears several hats, including a Stetson when he is out horseback riding with his wife Molly or helping out on his parent's farm near Ness City. And he's particularly fond of the motorcycle helmet that he wears when he takes his Harley for a ride up to Sturgis, SD. Maybe not what you expected from the incoming ABA chairman.

Earl has reached a milestone in his career, but in this success, he has also helped others succeed in starting and growing their businesses and has taken an active role in helping communities like Hutchinson thrive. I am proud to call Earl a friend. I know he will approach his year as chairman of the ABA by expanding his ``commitment to community'' philosophy throughout the country. It is this commitment, working as a partner with his community, that has made him a leader in the banking profession.

Mr. President, will the gentleman yield?

I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to this legislation.

Mr. President, the reason we know it would pass, I would say to the gentleman, and I thank him for introducing this--and I am a little out of breath because I didn't realize we were debating this, so I ran over here. But at any rate, I thank my colleague for introducing this bill.

The reason we know it would pass is it has already passed the Senate as part of the supplemental. It is about $4 billion. Everybody understood at that particular time we had an urgent need in farm country. Everybody understood at that particular time we had a lot of problems with disasters, but as others have pointed out, if you have a hurricane, you get in the headlines. If you have a forest fire, you are getting headlines. If you have those kinds of tragedies, like a flood or even a mudslide in a State where people build houses perhaps where they shouldn't build them--obviously it attracts attention

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be granted an additional 5 minutes. I know there are other Members waiting, but I would like to at least proceed with the Senator, my friend, for another 5 minutes, if that would be all right.

I wish to thank Senator Gregg for his generosity in regard to allowing me, with the gentleman yielding to me, to make some additional comments.

I was saying that all of these tragedies end up in the headlines. We know, and all of us who are privileged to represent rural areas, especially the Plains, that we have had a drought not 1, not 2, but in some cases 5 or 7 years in a row, and we know we don't have any subsoil moisture. We also know energy prices have gone up 113 percent since 2002. It isn't exactly that we were rolling in clover to begin with, but now there is no clover that will come up.

We also know, although people may not want to talk about it right now, that the current farm bill doesn't work in this circumstance. I voted against the current farm bill. It is not my intent to come down here and discuss the farm bill, however, there are some very real problems. First, it is the countercyclical program. It means when a farmer doesn't have a crop, he gets no payment. It also means he has no real crop insurance because the average production history on his crop insurance has gone down. So no crop insurance, no payment. High and dry. This is the only way we are going to provide assistance to farmers.

Now, I regret it is the 11th hour and 59th minute. I fully expect an objection. I hope that would not take place. But at any rate, we are building a case that if we have to come back here during what is called a lameduck session, something can be done. I credit the Senator for his leadership in this regard.

A drought is a drought is a drought, and it doesn't get much attention, but the people affected suffer just as much as people who suffer from other tragedies. I again credit the Senator for bringing this up. I am a cosponsor. Whatever we get done, I look forward to working with him. We have done it in the past. We did it with the supplemental. It was taken out in the House, by the way. We need this relief, and we need it now.

As I said before, I will vote for the bill, and I will speak for it, as I have done. And quite frankly, if this is headed for a Presidential veto, I will vote to override it.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who is an ex officio member of the Intelligence Committee and does extremely valuable work as we try to work in a commensurate fashion on national security.

I rise in opposition to the amendment being offered by my good friend from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, who is vice chairman of our committee. The amendment calls for yet another unnecessary and repetitious requirement of reporting.

Now, I do not take issue with some of the numerous questions the Senator from West Virginia seeks. Some of these questions should be answered in the context of our regular committee oversight.

The issue is not if reasonable questions are answered, but how and how often. I really question the need for a formal quarterly report-- four times a year--unreasonable in scope and length that will be a very unnecessary burden on the hard-working men and women at the CIA.

The simple fact is that the vice chairman and other members of the committee have been fully briefed in the past, present, and prospective future about CIA's detention and interrogation operations and will continue to be briefed. The vice chairman and other members of the Intelligence Committee can get answers to their questions and more through the course of the committee's normal oversight activities. They only need to ask.

I just mentioned the prospective future of the CIA's interrogation program. That is because without this legislation, there will be no CIA program. Let's be clear. If we adopt what I believe is an unnecessary amendment, contrary with the House, this bill will end up in conference with the House. If that happens, I fear the bill will languish throughout the fall while Members are out campaigning. Meanwhile, the CIA will be unable to interrogate captured unlawful alien combatants.

Forgive me, Mr. President, but I think the American people deserve better than to have this Nation's efforts against al-Qaida bog down because some in this body--and I don't question their intent--are insisting on an unnecessary symbolic and redundant series of reporting requirements that could and will be answered through the regular committee oversight. All we have to do is ask and then to listen and then to respond. Where are our priorities? Where should they be?

As I have listened to the debate on this bill in the relative safety and comfort of Capitol Hill, I cannot help but wonder whether some of us have lost our perspective. While we must do our duty as elected officials--and we will do that--we cannot forget that we are a nation at war. Consequently, our first and foremost duty should be to support our troops and intelligence officers at home and abroad, not to mandate four times a year reporting requirements that are unprecedented in scope and detail. The CIA will not be detecting and interdicting unlawful alien combatants; it will be writing one report after another.

I am on the side of our hard-working intelligence officers and against the terrorists. I think that is an obvious choice. I think most Members would think they would be in that position. But I do not believe in making their job more difficult by legislating additional reporting requirements which are needless and burdensome and which will likely delay enactment of this vital national security legislation.

If this were to pass, we can be reasonably certain that it will have a chilling effect on interrogation operations. We are sending a signal to our intelligence officers to be risk averse, the very thing we don't want to do. In fact, the very implication of this amendment is they are unable to carry out their duties with honor and respect for the law, and that, my colleagues, is just not true.

So let us do our duty, as we should, and get this bill done and to the President.

Mr. President, I oppose the amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if the chairman will yield.

Let me repeat what I said in my statement--and I share the distinguished Senator's views, more especially from his experience on both committees, the Intelligence Committee and the Armed Services Committee. We both face the same kind of responsibilities, our oversight responsibilities. We take them very seriously. We may have differences of opinion on the Intelligence Committee or on the Armed Services Committee, but we do our oversight.

The simple fact is that the vice chairman, myself, and other members of the committee--and let me stress now full membership of the committee; we worked very hard to get that access--have been fully briefed in the past and the present and also prospectively of the CIA's detention and interrogation operations.

The vice chairman and other members of the Intelligence Committee, if people have problems, if people have questions, if people need to get more briefs, if people want to basically get into some--I say ``some'' because I think some of the questions are not reasonable--say they have questions about this, all they have to do is ask. I can guarantee as chairman that those in charge of this particular program at the CIA will be there and have been there.

The inspector general of the CIA has briefed the committee--I am not going to get into the details of that briefing--both the vice chair and myself in regards to any question on what has happened, with what has gone wrong allegedly or otherwise with the interrogation and detention program, and we get an update as to where are those cases. If there was egregious behavior, what is happening to those people? Are they being prosecuted? And the answer to that is yes.

All we have to do is ask. As I look at this, I must say in scope, it is unprecedented. They ask questions that I think, quite frankly, if I were an interrogator working within the confines of the Central Intelligence Agency, would have a very chilling effect on me to know that four times a year I would be held responsible for all of these questions which I think those in charge at the Agency can certainly respond to any committee request in terms of a briefing. I would be a little nervous.

And that is not the case because, as I said in my remarks, the CIA will not be detecting and interdicting unlawful alien combatants; it will be writing one report after another, four times a year. If we look at the length, breadth, and depth, it is not whether we get this information, it is how we get the information. All we have to do is ask.

This is a tremendous burden. I must tell my colleagues that I don't know where we are going to get enough staff on the committee to respond to these four mandated reports. It is going to be a rather unique situation when we have a lot of work to do. We have briefings, as the Senator from Virginia indicated, every week. We have one this afternoon--it is terribly important--requested by members. Yet I think we are going to have to hire more people to do this if, in fact, we do this, and I think the CIA will as well.

I am not too sure, again, if I were an individual interrogator that I would want to stay in the business.

I am happy to respond to the distinguished chairman. What he has described is accurate. It may be the situation with General Hayden, the Inspector General, or anybody else we request to appear before the committee that they may be in a situation where there would be sensitive intelligence information that at that particular time would not be provided, but there certainly would be the promise that it will be provided if at all possible.

So I am not saying that it is a carte blanche kind of situation. That is to be expected. But the great preponderance of requests we make of the General and of the Inspector General have been very prompt and very full, and, again, all we have to do is ask.

It is just that--I don't want to call it a book report, but that is about where we are. It is on some very important matters. I know members of the committee feel very strongly about this. I can't recall a time when members on the committee have asked me for help to get information from the executive or from the CIA or from any of our intelligence agencies where I haven't worked overtime to get that job done.

I thank the chairman for his question.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the timely passage of this legislation. In my view it is essential to the successful prosecution of our war against the terrorists.

Ever since the Supreme Court announced its decision in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, I have made clear that my three primary goals for legislation authorizing military tribunals were: (1) Adjudicating the cases of detained terrorists in proceedings that are consistent with our values of justice, (2) protecting classified information, and (3) ensuring that our military and intelligence officers have clear standards for what is, and is not, permissible during detention and interrogation operations.

After discussing these issues with National Security Adviser Hadley and officials at the Department of Justice, I am comfortable in saying that this legislation accomplishes each of those goals.

First, the legislation authorizes the President to establish military commissions for the trial of unlawful enemy combatants. Enemy combatants tried under this legal system will have the benefit of a comprehensive process that assures them of legal representation, access to witnesses and evidence, the ability to present a defense, and the ability to appeal any judgment to the Court of Military Commission Review, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and, ultimately, to the Supreme Court.

I dare say that some who may be tried by these military commissions will receive more due process and legal protection than they were ever willing to grant to others.

Second, while ensuring a full and fair process, the legislation also recognizes the important role that classified information is likely to play in these trials. The legislation expressly provides the government with a privilege to protect classified information. At the same time, the bill provides a number of ways for the trial court to ensure that the defendant is sufficiently apprised of the evidence to be used against him. I think this bill strikes the right balance between providing a full and fair process, and protecting classified information.

Third, and most important to me as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the bill provides military and intelligence officers conducting detention and interrogation operations with clear standards.

Why is this so important? Because, there is a consensus in the intelligence community that terrorist interrogations are the single best source of actionable intelligence against the plots of a determined enemy.

Interrogation is a tool used by our brave men and women in the military and intelligence community to combat a continuing terrorist threat from those who are bent on attacking and killing Americans.

The majority of useable and actionable intelligence against al-Qaida comes from terrorist interrogations and debriefings. This tool is vital to keeping Americans safe--it is irreplaceable and it must be preserved.

Of particular note is the CIA's detention and interrogation program, which has been a supremely valuable source of information. This program has produced intelligence that has helped disrupt terrorist networks and prevent terrorist attacks. Furthermore, it has been carefully monitored to ensure that it complies with all our laws.

But, the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan applied the Geneva Convention's Common Article 3 to unlawful enemy combatants. This threatened to shut down the CIA's detention and interrogation operations.

The standard articulated in Common Article 3 is extremely vague. This standard leaves military and intelligence officers in the dark as to what is, and what is not, permitted in detaining and interrogating unlawful enemy combatants. Moreover, because under current law any violation of Common Article 3 is a criminal violation, our interrogators potentially could be subjected to criminal prosecution for otherwise lawful actions.

Consequently, Congress must act to ensure that our military personnel and intelligence officers are not forced to operate, or be subjected to prosecution, under such a vague standard. It is our responsibility to provide clear guidance to military personnel and intelligence officers as to what is, and is not, permitted in interrogations. The standard must be clear enough so that our intelligence officers, who are making judgment calls in the field, can continue to operate.

The legislation currently before the Senate provides that clarity. It expressly provides for what acts constitute grave breaches of Common Article 3 and what acts would be subject to prosecution. It further allows the President to promulgate regulations for lesser violations of treaty obligations.

As a result, in passing this legislation, we will give the dedicated and honorable Americans on the front lines in the war on terror the clarity they need to fulfill their mission.

To win this war and keep Americans safe, our troops in the field and our law enforcement personnel here at home need timely and actionable intelligence. We get that intelligence in many forms such as satellite imagery, intercepted communications, financial tracking and human intelligence, including interrogations. In the past months, many of these intelligence collection tools have been damaged by deliberate leaks of classified information.

We can ill afford to lose any of these intelligence collection tools if we are to succeed. I am grateful that this bill will allow our Nation to continue its highly valuable interrogation programs.

I support the bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, this summer the U.S. Capitol added a new portrait to its collection of Senate leaders. It is a face that is familiar to all of us since he once led this institution and spent 27 years here as a Senator. I refer to Bob Dole, former Senator from Kansas, chairman of the Finance Committee, majority leader, and Presidential candidate. His portrait was unveiled in the Old Senate Chamber on July 25 and now hangs in the Senate Chamber lobby, along with a painting of Senator George Mitchell, his Democratic counterpart. He looks very much at home there.

Bob Dole's story is familiar to almost everyone in this Nation: Born and raised in Russell, KS, he went off to serve in the U.S. Army during the Second World War. He was seriously injured in combat in Italy and underwent arduous physical rehabilitation for more than 3 years. He returned to Kansas, got his law degree, ran for the State legislature, and served as county attorney. He first ran for Congress in 1960 and served in the House of Representatives for 8 years. Then, like many of us, he migrated from the House to the Senate.

The Senate suited Bob Dole. He is a man who speaks his mind, candidly and forthrightly. Right away he impressed Senator Barry Goldwater, who hailed the new Senator from Kansas as ``the first fellow we've had around here in a long time who can grab 'em by the hair and haul 'em down the aisle.'' While that captures the combative side of the man, there was also Bob Dole the legislative tactician, a statesman who sought common ground among 100 Senators to craft legislation that would best serve the Nation. When President Ronald Reagan sought to shore up the finances of Social Security, it was Bob Dole, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, working with the ranking member of the minority, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who forged the bill that stabilized the system for another generation.

As floor leader of his party, in both the majority and the minority, Bob Dole stood front and center in the Chamber, shrewd, vigilant, and masterful. But you could also find him off the floor, sitting in the cloakroom, a legal pad on his lap, surrounded by a knot of Senators, drafting the language of an amendment to break a legislative impasse and get the Senate's business back on track.

He did this all with a ready quip and a limitless sense of humor that got him and the Senate through many difficult moments. Bob Dole possesses a sure sense of the ironies of government and the foibles of politicians. He has used this to great advantage in winning over his audiences, whether in small groups or vast arenas. He is smiling in his portrait, as if he had just delivered one of those lines that made his listeners laugh.

It is a handsome portrait of a man who well deserves the honor of being included among the artwork of the U.S. Capitol. Future Senators can gaze on it for inspiration, and it will remind visitors of his many contributions to our Nation's history. Bob Dole will most likely glance at it himself when he visits the Capitol and probably make a few wry remarks when he does. Today he is proudly a Senate spouse, married to the senior Senator from North Carolina, Elizabeth Hanford Dole, who carries on his legislative tradition.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the proceedings of the ceremony for unveiling the Bob Dole leadership portrait.

I object.

Mr. President, I rise in very strong opposition to Senator Reid's amendment. The amendment simply directs the release of three pages in the classified version of the committee's phase II report on the accuracy of prewar intelligence assessments. I just think this amendment is an irresponsible, very dangerous way to seek the release of classified information and would set a very dangerous precedent.

To my knowledge, this action is unprecedented--the full Senate considering a bill that has nothing to do with the subject matter that is now being discussed and for the Senate not to declassify the information but to simply release classified information. I can probably conjure up a lot of other different attempts to do this and put the full Senate in the position of trying to release classified information.

While we are at war, what the Democratic leader is proposing is that the Congress unilaterally release information that our intelligence professionals--not the administration--that our intelligence professionals have determined to be protected from disclosure. Again, to my knowledge, the Senate has never taken such a drastic step.

Now, the Democratic leader's amendment is not about port security. In fact, the amendment will do nothing to enhance our security. The Senate should not adopt a precedent that allows one Senator to release classified information for whatever purpose that he or she would deem fit or for their own purposes.

Before I proceed any further, however, I must take issue with the manner in which the committee action on the matter of declassification has been characterized. Senator Reid claims that a bipartisan majority of the Intelligence Committee voted to include in the report a statement that the committee disagreed with the administration's decision--I will repeat, the administration's decision--to classify certain portions of the report's findings and conclusions and said that classifying of this information is without justification.

In actuality it was the intelligence community, not the administration, that made the decision to protect the sensitive information contained in those three pages. That decision was based on the community's judgment--their judgment--I know Senators Rockefeller, Reid, and others may disagree with the community--concerning sources and methods.

More important, the committee actually classified the declassification this way, and I am quoting from our report:

The committee recognizes that classification decisions are

often difficult, requiring a careful balancing of our

responsibility to protect the national security sources and

methods with the need for the appropriate transparency of the

intelligence activities.

That says it, and it is a very difficult task that one faces when you are approaching that kind of a challenge. Overall, the declassification process on this report--and I am quoting again--``was a substantial improvement over past efforts.''

That is what the committee said. I know that doesn't include the three pages that the Democratic leader, Senator Rockefeller, and others would like to have released. It would still be classified, but it would be released in a bill that has nothing to do with intelligence matters. It is important to understand that this was a broad, bipartisan statement relating to a number of issues. Several Senators, many Senators, this Senator, had things they would have liked to have seen declassified. I worked overtime with the intelligence community in regard to the section on the Iraqi National Congress, to make sure that all of that report was in, all of the nuances and history would be declassified. Did I get everything I wanted? No, but I got a large portion of it.

The committee, however, made no specific reference to the issue that Senator Reid brought to the floor today. There was that generic statement that I just said earlier. I am very familiar with the material that the Senator seeks to publicly release. I agree with the Intelligence Community that this material does contain sensitive information that would damage our intelligence sources and methods. I believe it is properly classified. I supported the report's statement that there are certain portions of the report that I believe should have been declassified. This is not one of them.

The information the Democratic leader wants to release is very sensitive. Mr. President, it is CIA operational traffic between an undercover overseas field station and CIA headquarters. This type of correspondence exists to permit the rapid informal flow of information and operational guidance needed to execute the mission of the CIA. It is not formal intelligence reporting. It is not a finished intelligence assessment drafted and coordinated to support policymakers, as has been indicated, and it is not routinely available or needed by anyone outside of the CIA. It must be handled with care.

Now, the next question, obviously, is why? Because the release of unevaluated information and CIA operational traffic would potentially damage the relationships with foreign country security services that work closely with the CIA. These foreign services do so with the expectation that their words and their actions will remain confidential. Additionally, declassification and public release of such correspondence would certainly impinge upon the speed and frankness that marks this correspondence. CIA's effectiveness is reduced when this happens.

For these reasons, and others that cannot be discussed publicly, this information should not be released. In short, this amendment would damage our sensitive sources and methods by recklessly disclosing properly classified information--again, not by the administration but by the intelligence community.

There is another way to do this. It is the proper way. A number of Members on both sides of the aisle, including this Senator, have issues concerning the declassification of these reports. They have agreed to work with the National Archives Public Interest Declassification Board, which is the proper way to do it, to review and, hopefully, further declassify some of the remaining redacted portions. This review process will look at all of the information that remains classified, not just the information singled out in Senator Reid's amendment. I think this is a much more responsible approach.

I hope my colleagues will proceed in that manner. That is how we intend to proceed in the Intelligence Committee in regard to classification and declassification. I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

I have yielded the floor, but I will answer the Senator's question.

Mr. President, responding to the Senator from Illinois, that is a hypothetical. I did not watch ``Meet the Press.'' I have not studied the Vice President's comments other than what the Senator has said. My name is not Tony Snow.

I yield the floor.

Yes, I certainly yield to my friend and colleague.

It is my understanding that the operational cables and the INC reports are two separate reports.

Basically, the decision is made by General Hayden in a letter I would be delighted to read on the floor of the Senate, except that it is classified. He goes down specifically, exactly the comments I have made in a very generic way as to why he didn't declassify them. One report is INC and one is on the accuracy of the prewar assessments regarding weapons of mass destruction. I don't understand the point.

By the way, the general indicated that he will provide us a letter that is not classified outlining why the CIA Director feels very strongly that this should not be released.

Mr. President, let me say to my friend from West Virginia, however, if I might, and my friend from Illinois, I don't speak for the Vice President. I ask the Senator to address that question to the Vice President. It is the information in the cable which is classified, not the format. I think the distinguished vice chairman is talking about the format in another report as opposed to the report that Senator Reid quoted from, and it is that information-- the cable which is classified, again, by the intelligence community. The Senator knows how hard we have both worked to get both reports declassified, to the extent that the American people could at least know what is going on and let the chips fall where they may. That does not include, however, a decision when the DNI and the Director of Central Intelligence insist that basically the information in the cable is classified.

I suppose that in future debates on any bill--and it could be port security or the farm bill or any bill that really doesn't pertain to intelligence--somebody can say, you know, I think there is a portion of some intelligence report, or any intelligence, that ought to be released even though it is classified. If we start doing this, if we go down the slippery slope with regard to having this body in executive session or otherwise decide to release classified information, we may as well replace ``E pluribus unum'' up there with the New York Times. It is a dangerous precedent.

There is a way to do that. We have a committee set up to go to the review board to see if we can get the most declassification possible. I agree with the Senator that too much is classified. That is a given. In this particular case, I think you have to rely on--or you should rely on the CIA Director and the Director of National Intelligence who say we are going to lose allied support.

The Senator knows that every week we get a courtesy call from various people who come in and who are our counterparts representing other countries. The bottom line is: Why can't you Americans keep quiet? So, consequently, I think that has an aspect of this. That has entered into, I think, part of the DNI's involvement here and decisionmaking, as well as the CIA Director's involvement. It is a canard of the first order to say it was the administration. It is not. It is the people who work with this every day.

Mr. President, I would just simply say to my distinguished friend and colleague, and to let everybody know who is listening to this debate, it is an interesting debate; it is a unique debate. It sets a precedent that I don't agree with. But simply because we are having this discussion doesn't mean we are not friends and colleagues and trying our very best to do a job under very difficult circumstances. But we do defer--or at least I think we should defer--to the intelligence professionals here who work with this material. If they make a mistake, we are all over them.

So we are at war. Let's let the Public Interest Declassification Board take a look at these reports. That was the suggestion by Senator Wyden, picked up by Senator Bond, endorsed by myself and I think by the Senator from West Virginia. That is the proper way to go about it, not in this format, when we don't even have a bill that pertains to this and where we are setting a precedent where all of a sudden somebody can say: Oh, I think we should release even though it is classified.

Once we start down that road, I would say to my dear friend, we will never hear the end of it. We will have everything else declassified. We could conceivably, with all the furor in regards to the ABC documentary over the handling of 9/11, get into reports and get into Presidential findings and everything else. I just don't think that is appropriate. So there is a way to do it. Let's do it the proper way.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today in opposition to the amendment that is proposed by Senator Reid. The title of the act Senator Reid has proposed is called Real Security. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle actually believe this amendment is real security, I encourage every American to go home and simply lock their doors.

There are provisions in the amendment that I like. In particular, I support the passage of the Intelligence Authorization Act as it was reported by the Intelligence and the Armed Services Committees. I hope the Senate can act on that bill by unanimous consent without insisting on needless partisan debate on a bill that has bipartisan support.

But now, on the other hand, I oppose the sense-of-Congress language Senator Reid has inserted in that bill that suggests the terrorist surveillance program is unlawful. Talk about the sense of the Congress--that means the Congress would not have any sense.

Like most Americans, I believe the President should use all the authority provided by the Constitution and laws of the United States to prevent terrorists from killing innocent Americans. If terrorists outside the United States are placing calls to individuals in the United States, as many people have said over and over and over and over and over again, our intelligence agencies should know about it.

The terrorist surveillance program is lawful. It has been effective. I will oppose any legislation that does not support the continuation of that very valuable program. The bottom line on the terrorist surveillance program is this: The men and women of the NSA are working hard to protect our country day in and day out. We should let these patriotic Americans get back to doing their job.

Beyond that, I am convinced that my colleagues consulted perhaps a group of tenth grade English teachers in preparing this amendment. I haven't seen so many assigned reports since I was in high school.

Instead of providing flexible authorities to protect our Nation, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have proposed approximately 52--a deck of cards, 52--I say that again, 52 new and continuing reporting requirements. That is one new reporting requirement for every 9 pages of the amendment.

The U.S. Government should be focused on securing our borders, disrupting terrorists, and protecting our ports. This amendment does nothing but divert focus to reporting requirements.

My colleagues have also resorted to an old standby: If you don't have any ideas, throw money and people at a problem. There are about 29 sections that propose new or additional ways to spend our limited resources. We haven't had any committee hearings on these, but they are reported. There are three provisions that increase the size of our Government by adding more personnel.

As a substitute for congressional consideration of legislation to respond to the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision, my colleagues have proposed yet another national commission--yet another national commission. I am not going to go through the trouble of listing all of the commissions that we have had in the last 4 or 5 years. This one, however, is to focus on the detention and interrogation of terrorists captured in the war on terror. Let me give my colleagues the bottom line on the Government's detention and interrogation programs--and there will be legislation that already is reported from the Senate Judiciary Committee to take care of that--they have kept this Nation safe. I think we can forego another commission.

Finally, Senator Reid's amendment would authorize three new administrative subpoenas: one for the new commission, one for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, and one for a new Senate committee.

If Senator Reid and his colleagues want real security, they should strip out these provisions and simply give the FBI an administrative subpoena to track terrorists and spies. But that is the point of this bill; it is not about real security. This bill is about real Monday morning quarterbacking. It is about tying the hands of our homeland security and intelligence professionals as they attempt to protect this Nation.

The only way this amendment would make the Nation safer is if we made copies of all of the reports that it requires and carpet-bombed Osama bin Laden. I am certain he would suffocate.

I will not support this amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose it as well.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act.

S. 3711 takes a much needed and long overdue step forward in our Nation's energy policy. For too long we have looked to others to supply our growing demand for energy. Too many of our energy resources are imported from unfriendly and unstable places in the world like Nigeria and Venezuela. We can no longer afford to rely upon the Hugo Chavezes of the world to fill up our gas tanks, heat our homes, or provide fertilizer to grow our crops.

Today we have the opportunity to look in our own back yard for the resources necessary to sustain our economy's growth.

S. 3711 opens roughly 8.3 million acres to oil and gas exploration. An area with roughly 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 1.26 billion barrels of oil. One sector of our economy in desperate need of increased oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico is agriculture.

Mr. President, farm country is struggling to find our next generation of farmers. Agriculture's future depends on motivating young people to enter into a business with increasing input costs and stagnant product prices. Without a revitalized wave of young producers, our Nation's food suppliers will continue to face an uphill battle. Alleviating high natural gas prices is one way to help current producers and entice young farmers to return to the fields.

Agriculture depends on significant amounts of natural gas for irrigation, food processing, crop drying, heating homes and farm buildings, and producing fertilizers which are necessary for plant growth.

For agriculture, natural gas is not just an energy source, but it is also a feedstock in the production of nitrogen fertilizer. Natural gas accounts for roughly 90 percent of the cost to produce one ton of nitrogen fertilizer.

In 2005, natural gas prices rose to $15.00 per million BTU's. In the past 6 years, the U.S. has gone from spending $50 billion per year on natural gas to $200 billion per year. These high prices have hit the nitrogen fertilizer industry hard. Since 1999, 17 ammonia plants permanently closed due to the high cost of natural gas. The result is a fertilizer industry that recently received 85 percent of its feedstock from domestic sources to one that now relies on foreign imports to supply 50 percent of their natural gas needs.

Much attention in Congress has turned to alternative sources of energy to meet our demand. Ethanol used to be a word spoken only in farm country. Now ethanol is part of the daily jargon on the streets of New York and Los Angeles.

What some folks may not understand about ethanol produced primarily from corn is that farmers in many parts of the country use nitrogen fertilizer and irrigation systems to grow corn--two inputs heavily influenced by the price of natural gas.

You see, Mr. President, if we do not increase the amount of domestically produced natural gas, our renewable fuels industry will grow more and more dependant on imports from volatile parts of the world.

Now is the time to change our attitude about our energy supply. Domestic, environmentally safe production can and should take place on American soil and off our shores. S. 3711 moves our Nation's energy policy in the right direction. One that leads to greater energy independence and price stability. I encourage my colleagues to support our agricultural industry and vote for S. 3711.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment proposed by Senator Menendez.

While the Senator from New Jersey no doubt has the best of intentions in working to increase grant funding for high population areas, I do not believe that reducing funding for the majority of States in our great Nation is a viable way to protect against terrorism.

If we, as a country, are going to be adequately prepared for another terrorist attack, we must not forget that we are vulnerable on all fronts. The 36 States that would be negatively impacted by this proposal contain some of our Nation's most valuable assets.

In reducing funding to States such as Kansas, this amendment tosses aside the risks to agriculture that supports our Nation's food supply, the oil and petroleum facilities that provide invaluable energy in this time of need, and the many Federal buildings and places of national significance that are scattered throughout our great Nation.

We cannot let ourselves believe that if we only protect large cities and high population states, we will be safe from the devious and calculating minds of those who wish us harm. One need only to look to Oklahoma City in this regard. Rather, preparing for what we expect in densely populated areas is a surefire way to be shocked and horrified should the inexplicable and unthinkable happen again.

This legislation has been considered in this Senate before, and it was defeated soundly. To add it now as an

amendment disregards the hard work many have done to negotiate a funding formula that most benefits our entire country. We cannot afford to compromise the security of an entire Nation for the benefit of a few areas.

I thank the President and I thank the chairman. I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by Senator Levin. I would just tell the Senator from New Jersey that nobody gave me my billet points; I wrote this myself out of conviction, and I know he speaks from conviction as well.

There is nobody in the U.S. Congress, nobody in America that does not want stability in Iraq and to get our troops home as soon as possible. But there is a right way and a wrong way. Last week the Senate voted overwhelmingly against adopting a strategy focused on an arbitrary date for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. We are back again. Despite that lopsided vote of last week, we are again debating yet another withdrawal amendment. By the time we are done, no less than three withdrawal amendments, three messages to our troops, three messages to our adversaries, and three very damaging blows for I think the resolve of this country.

Senator Hagel brought this up. As a careful reading of the amendment clearly shows, I think we are setting a disturbing and counterproductive precedent. We, the U.S. Senate, are now getting into micromanaging the military and the military's plans and the military's strategy--not the President, not the commanders in the field, but the Senate. This is the same body, by the way, that has a little difficulty trying to decide when to adjourn.

While we may wish otherwise, the blunt truth of it is there is no exit from either Iraq or the global war on terrorism but through success. So in that regard, we did not ask for this war, but in fighting worldwide terrorism, a war that must be successful, we must be willing to use force if necessary and to protect our security and that of our allies or we invite more insurgency, more terrorist acts for the next President, the President after that, and on down the line. So regardless of future policy, current or future Presidents, our ultimate success against terrorism will only be won through resolve.

Let's talk about one thing that has been missing in this debate, and that is consequences. Calling for withdrawal is one thing; facing the consequences of that action and the responsibility for it is another. I fully understand the need and the value of full debate on this issue, but we should do so with the understanding that words do have consequences, and their effect not only influences the intended audience, the partisan base or otherwise, but they also affect the morale of our troops in the midst of war and the terrorists who question our resolve.

Make no mistake: if America leaves--all at once or in stages--our adversaries will rejoice--all at once or in stages.

Last year we received an intercepted letter that Osama bin Laden's deputy sent to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi which urged Zarqawi to prepare for what the terrorists clearly believe will be a U.S.

retreat from Iraq. Ironically, while the terrorists are preparing for what they hope will be a premature U.S. retreat, we are making real, tough, step-by-step progress, highlighted with the recent killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

But of all things, in a paradox of enormous consequence and irony, we stand here today debating this withdrawal commensurate with the predicted retreat by al-Zarqawi and his terrorist associates.

Now is not the time to abandon our momentum and retreat. Such a retreat would do more than encourage the bin Ladens of the world. Jihadist terrorist cells throughout the world, and in our own country, would be rethinking their attack plans with ominous repercussions.

Let us not ignore the very nature of our adversaries. Senator Allen spoke to that. They think of us as dust. We have no human value. And they are not giving up. They are planning attacks as we speak-- everybody knows that--within the U.S. Capitol. Imagine how such a withdrawal would be viewed in places like Iran, in the midst of aggressively building up its nuclear capacity; North Korea, with its existing capacity; China, with its continued military expansion, the greatest since World War II; and Russia, where we are now witnessing a return to totalitarianism round II, especially with Ukrainian democracy; and Venezuela, where Hugo Chavez has become the next Castro.

Imagine what doubts the lack of resolve would really create in the minds of our allies now working with us with unprecedented intelligence cooperation, and the impact on the progress we have made in Pakistan and Afghanistan, leading to a radical Islamic takeover of the Mushariff and Karzi governments and further leading to increased threats within the next terrorist nerve centers in Indonesia and Africa.

I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. President, this amendment has consequences to our allies, including Libya, Tunisia, Jordan, Egypt, even Saudi Arabia, and Israel. Basically, this amendment has consequences, introducing it on the floor of the Senate has consequences, debating it has consequences, and voting for it has consequences.

I am going to close by calling to mind a lesson of historical precedent. Upon learning of the attack on Pearl Harbor, Sir Winston Churchill said this:

Silly people; that was the description many gave in

discounting the force of the United States. Some said they

were soft, others that they would never be united, that they

would never come to grips. They would never stand for

bloodletting, that their system of government and democracy

would paralyze their effort.

Now we will see the weakness of this numerous but remote,

wealthy and talkative people. But, American blood flows in my

veins. I thought of a remark made to me years before--the

United States is like a gigantic boiler. Once the fire of

freedom is lighted under it, there is no limit to the power

it can generate. It is a matter of resolve.

I say to my colleagues that, if approved, this amendment could, in a matter of minutes, undo that resolve now, and for the next generation who will face new threats to our way of life. Setting an artificial timetable will send the wrong message to the Iraqi's, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done, and our troops, who must know that we are serious about the mission that they are risking their lives to achieve.

Mr. President, special thanks to my colleague and friend, Senator Gordon Smith, who represents the State of Oregon and our Nation with grace and civility, intelligence and accomplishment, for this special order paying tribute to our Kansas Senator Bob Dole.

It doesn't seem possible that it has been 10 years since Bob's tenure as our majority leader ended, a tenure that represents the longest serving Senate leader of our Republican Party since the founding of the Grand Old Party in

1854. During those 12 years of leadership, there were difficult and challenging times. But Bob Dole's legacy was and is legislative accomplishment, always in Bob Dole style, a unique mixture of principle and compromise when necessary, comity, his great gift of wit and humor and good old Kansas common sense.

In 1968, when Bob first ran for the Senate, his theme song was ``Let a Leader Lead the Way.'' He certainly did. It would be impossible to list all of Bob's legislative achievements, but the Dole Institute at the University of Kansas does provide some highlights. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

These accomplishments were of direct benefit to the daily lives and pocketbooks of Americans and represent many programs and reforms that we now take for granted. Bob is probably most proud of the fact he led the way for disabled Americans, for our Nation's School Lunch Program, not to mention the World Food Program where food and education combine as the most effective long-term answer in our current fight against terrorism.

I have special memories and a personal perspective of the Bob Dole days in the Senate when I was in the House. Having the privilege of representing Bob's former congressional district, the big first district of Kansas, knowing Bob Dole since his friendship with my father and later during my service as the administrative assistant both for Bob's predecessor in the Senate, Senator Frank Carlson, and his successor in the House, Congressman Keith Sebelius, many assumed that whatever I was for, Bob was for. I would always emphasize that Bob Dole was riding shotgun with me, whether he was or not. That was like having Wyatt Earp, Bat Masterson, Doc Holiday, and Matt Dillon all by your side during any kind of legislative shootout. Of course, if we won, I had to come over to the Senate and let him know. If we lost, I came over to ask for help. Either way, when the chips were down, it was a win-win with Bob on your side.

In Kansas, our State society named Dwight David Eisenhower the Kansan of the 20th century, and we are still proud of and still like Ike. Historians have ensconced our native son as one of our greatest Presidents. The fact is that the Eisenhower legacy lives on with Bob Dole. Ike was his hero, and by following his example, Bob has been accurately described as a towering figure and the most enduring Republican leader of the 20th century with a distinguished record of public service that has made a tremendous positive impact on our Nation.

Following his elected public service, Bob has continued to contribute, to lead, and to achieve. I daresay without Bob Dole, the World War II Memorial would not be the centerpiece of the Mall in our Nation's Capital. Most deserving of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, he has been and is an international emissary for peace and freedom and is involved in countless projects and causes. When I go back home to Kansas, Kansans always ask me: What do you hear from Bob? How is he doing? I tell them he is still on the go and doing what he has always done, that we still tow buckets together, and we don't spill very much.

Simply put, Bob Dole continues to be a leader who leads the way. We in Kansas are proud of Bob Dole.

My thanks again to Senator Smith for reserving this time honoring our native son.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Clinton, to talk about an issue that demands our attention and action: the potential for a pandemic flu outbreak and, more importantly, what we can do about it.

Behind me I have a picture of a crowded emergency hospital at Fort Riley, KS, during the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic. That flu eventually took the lives of more than 600,000 Americans and 50 million people worldwide. However, my colleagues may not be aware that the first human cases of the Spanish flu in the United States were discovered in my home State of Kansas at Camp Funston in Fort Riley, KS.

On the morning of March 11th, 1918, a company cook reported to the camp infirmary complaining about a bad cold. By noon, over 100 sick soldiers suffering the same bad cold also reported to the infirmary. These complaints of bad colds turned out to be the first cases of Spanish flu in America.

Within weeks, that influenza had spread to places as far away as Camps Hancock, Lewis, Sherman, and even to several hundred prisoners at San Quentin. By the summer, the flu reached around the globe, killing tens of thousands of people.

This flu was so severe and damaging that attack plans during World War I had to be altered or postponed because there were shortages of healthy men to battle. The Spanish flu continued to spread all throughout 1919. It reached its death toll of nearly 50 million people worldwide.

I yield to my distinguished colleague.

As Senator Clinton has highlighted, the need to be prepared for both seasonal flu and a potential avian flu pandemic is absolutely critical. Some believe the potential avian flu outbreak could be as lethal as the 1918 Spanish flu. One cannot watch or read the news without a report on the concern of flu reaching our shores.

In reality, human cases of avian flu have been discovered in 10 countries. Three years ago there were only three confirmed cases of avian flu in humans. Today these numbers have grown to over 224 human cases, 127 deaths.

In February, I took part in an avian flu exercise at the National Defense University. That exercise was called Global Tempest--aptly named. The exercise simulated a worst-case scenario flu pandemic, and participants from several Federal agencies, and Members of Congress, took part in the event. We all served as advisers to the President.

The exercise showed firsthand how quickly our public health system and real critical infrastructure services can be simply overwhelmed, how communication can easily break down and how panic can take hold amongst the public. We were forced with the difficult decision of having to determine where limited medical supplies and personnel should be targeted, how the Federal Government can sustain the private sector and try to mitigate the real economic effects of the pandemic, and if and when the Department of Defense should be called in to assist with the civilian efforts.

This Global Tempest exercise and experience, along with understanding the strength and the force of the Spanish flu in recent natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, have taught us a valuable lesson. We must be prepared at all levels to deal with the large-scale public health emergency such as the pandemic flu. This system must be able to respond in any type of crisis. But, more importantly, this system must be ready to respond before the crisis begins.

As chairman of the Senate Committee on Intelligence and a member of the Senate Agriculture and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committees, I take the threat of a flu pandemic seriously and view it not only as a public health concern but a concern in regard to our national security.

Senator Clinton is a fellow member of the HELP Committee. She shares these concerns. However, we do not want to stand before our colleagues and our constituents, those watching today, and cause panic or alarm. There have been no cases of the avian flu virus in the United States, nor has there been a human transmission of the disease in a form that could fuel a pandemic. Instead, we stand together before all of our colleagues hoping to motivate them to take the necessary steps to make sure we are adequately prepared, should avian flu take hold in

the United States. We believe there are some weaknesses in our system that we must strengthen so we can respond to a crisis.

Last week, I hosted a pandemic flu planning conference in Kansas with Senator Brownback and Governor Sebelius. The conference included other Federal, State, and local officials, the business community, university, health providers, hospitals, school administrators, many other stakeholders who came together to make sure that Kansas is prepared in the event of an influenza pandemic. We identified the steps that must be taken at the State and local level to plan for and respond to a flu pandemic.

At the Federal level, Senator Clinton and I took the lead last October and introduced legislation to help strengthen our Nation's flu vaccine system. The Influenza Vaccine Security Act takes a comprehensive approach and includes several provisions to improve our vaccine market and delivery system for the seasonal flu. It also provides the framework that is absolutely critical during a pandemic flu.

Senator Clinton and I also recognize the very critical need for domestic-based vaccine manufacturers and an increased production capacity in the event of a flu vaccine shortage or some kind of a public health emergency that would require a mass need for vaccines or any other countermeasure. That is why our bill improves the ability of the current manufacturers to remain in the U.S. market and encourages more companies to enter the market with domestic-based production facilities. We provide grants to manufacturers for technical assistance from the Food and Drug Administration and grants for capital improvements in technology or production capacity.

Our bill also addresses the need to quickly find the medical professionals in the event of an emergency. We require the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to work with our State and local health departments to develop a registry, if you will, of medical personnel who can provide services during a public health emergency. Such a system was required under the Bioterrorism Act passed by Congress 4 years ago. But there is still no working system in place. This is unacceptable. We must have a system that can easily identify doctors and other health professionals who can assist during a public health emergency--that is common sense--especially during an emergency that affects many areas across State lines. This will allow our Federal, State, and local officials to move quickly and efficiently to provide Medicare to those in need.

During Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath, I heard from many doctors and other health professionals across Kansas--I am sure the Senator from New York did as well--who wanted to volunteer their time in the gulf coast area. However, their desire to help those in need was hampered by the inability of Government officials to easily identify a doctor who was credentialed or other health providers from other States who could provide care. This is why Senator Clinton and I now stand before our colleagues to stress that we can no longer wait for the development of such a registry of medical personnel. We are working and will continue to work with the HELP Committee to make sure this is a priority in the bioterrorism reauthorization.

Over the last several months, the distinguished Senator from New York and myself have worked with our colleagues in the HELP Committee to include the provisions of the bill we discuss today in the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act-- the reauthorization of that bill--or the BioShield II bill to be considered by the committee and the full Senate.

I thank especially Senators Burr, Enzi, and Kennedy, and their staffs for their willingness to work with us. Senator Clinton and I strongly believe that the provisions of the bill we discuss today are absolutely relevant and critical to these discussions.

We hope--it is not hope; we are going to insist--that these provisions will be included in any legislation approved by the committee and Senate. As a matter of fact, were it parliamentarily correct, I would ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed now. We are thankful for all the attention and focus on planning for a pandemic flu, but we also believe a few more steps need to be taken to make sure we are ready. This is why we are urging our colleagues to consider our legislation, the Influenza Vaccine Security Act, and support our efforts on the bioterrorism and BioShield II bills.

I thank Senator Clinton for her hard work, dedication, and leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to think about this and to support this legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for allowing me to go first as chairman of the committee. Senator Wyden is a very valued member of the committee with very strong and independent views but has always contributed in a bipartisan way on behalf of our national security.

Good evening, Mr. President. The hour is a little late. Actually, the night is young, but I am not. Nevertheless, I am going to try to be pertinent on a matter that is of real importance, and that is, in fact, the nomination and hopefully what we expect to be the confirmation of GEN Michael V. Hayden to serve as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

As chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, I rise tonight and associate myself with the remarks made by Senator Hatch, who is another very valued member of the committee, in strong support of the nomination of General Hayden to be the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

He is eminently qualified for this position. He is a distinguished public servant, as has been noted, who has given more than 35 years of service to his country.

Senator Hatch referred to our hearings both open and closed that we held last week. It was my goal as chairman to ensure that every Senator had enough time to ask any question they wanted or to express any concern they had on their mind in regards to this nomination and the qualifications of this man. I think we accomplished that. We gave every Senator 20 minutes and then another 20 minutes, and then in a regular order, additional time.

I might add, Senator Wyden certainly took advantage of that. After over 8 hours, the general, the chairman, and other members of the committee finally concluded.

I think it was a good hearing. I think it was a good open hearing and a good closed hearing. General Hayden certainly distinguished himself, and he showed the committee that he will be an outstanding choice for CIA Director.

General Hayden entered active duty, in terms of background, with the U.S. Air Force in 1969 after earning both his bachelor's and master's degree from Duquesne University in his hometown of Pittsburgh.

He has had a lengthy and diverse career. He has served as Commander of the Air Intelligence Agency and as Director of the Joint Command and Control Warfare Center. He has been assigned to senior staff positions at the Pentagon, at the headquarters of the U.S. European Command, the National Security Council, and at the U.S. Embassy in the People's Republic of Bulgaria. General Hayden has also served as the Deputy Chief of Staff for the United Nations Command and U.S. Forces in Korea and, more importantly, he has served most recently at the highest levels of the intelligence community. From 1999 to 2005, General Hayden was Director of the National Security Agency.

Finally, in April of last year, following intelligence reform and a great deal of committee action in regards to the Intelligence Committee to determine the accuracy of our 2002 NIE, National Intelligence Estimate, and then we went through intelligence reform, we had the 9/11 Commission, we had the WMD Commission appointed by the President, he was unanimously confirmed by this body to serve in his current position as the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence. He had that kind of background, had that kind of expertise, had that kind of experience.

Given his experience at NSA and the Office of the Director of Intelligence, I don't think there is any question General Hayden is well known to the Intelligence Committee. He has briefed us many times. I don't know of anybody in any hearing or briefing who has done any better. It is because of his qualifications and my experience working with him that I support his nomination.

This nomination comes before the Senate at a very crucial time. We are a nation fighting a war in which the intelligence community is on the front lines. The CIA is an integral and very vital part of the intelligence community. We need strong leadership in order to protect our national security.

When General Hayden takes the helm at the Agency, he is going to find a number of issues that will demand his attention. These are the same issues that we touched on and asked the general to respond to during his confirmation hearings.

First, he must continue to improve the Agency's ability to provide public policymakers with high-quality analytic products.

The Senate Intelligence Committee's July 2004 report on intelligence related to Iraq's WMD programs did conclude that the agencies of the intelligence community did not explain to policymakers the uncertainties behind their Iraq WMD assessments.

Analysts must also observe what I refer to as the golden rule of intelligence analysis, and we asked this specifically of the general: Tell me what you know, tell me what you don't know, tell me what you think and, most importantly, make sure that we understand the difference.

It will be up to General Hayden to ensure that the CIA analysts adhere to this rule in the future.

Second, General Hayden must improve the CIA's ability to collect what we call humane intelligence. He can begin by ensuring that the Agency is more aggressive in its efforts to penetrate hard targets and in the use of very innovative collection platforms.

Third, General Hayden, it seems to me, must improve information access--not information sharing, information access. There is a big difference. We on the Intelligence Committee will look to the general to ensure that appropriately cleared analysts community-wide, with a need to know and the proper training have access to the CIA's intelligence information in its earliest form, while at the same time protecting sensitive sources and methods.

No doubt the general will face a number of significant tasks, but based on his record as a manager, his qualifications, and his demonstrated leadership, I believe he is the right choice to lead the CIA. The Senate should expeditiously confirm him and let him get to work over at Langley.

Mr. President, I strongly support the nominee, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.