Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to offer a second-degree amendment, along with the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Rockefeller, in regard to reporting language for certain intelligence activities.

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

Mr. President, the Senate did create the Select Committee on Intelligence as a unique means to provide oversight of our sensitive activities in regard to intelligence. I agree with Senator Kerry that more information will improve our ability to conduct the oversight we need to do on intelligence.

Senator Rockefeller and Senator Warner and myself, however, believe this intelligence oversight function should remain focused in the Select Committee on Intelligence, as intended by S. Res. 400, the legislation that actually created the Intelligence Committee back in 1976.

I can assure my colleagues that the membership of the Senate Intelligence Committee is designed to include significant crossover membership from the various national security committees. For example, I am one of the several Armed Services Committee members currently on the Intelligence Committee, including Senator Warner and Senator Levin. That construct was intentionally created by the Senate to address situations just like this.

Transparency is important and open government is critical, but in certain circumstances sensitive information must be handled in a proper way. That is exactly why we created the Committee on Intelligence. This amendment strikes the appropriate balance between the Senate's needs for transparency and the need to handle sensitive information appropriately.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Certainly.

Reclaiming my time, let me say to the Senator, he is welcome to the picnic any time he wants to come. I believe we have resolved this matter in response to the original amendment regarding this subject. Senator Kerry and Senator Rockefeller and Senator Warner and I have crafted a second-degree amendment that will be accepted by Senator Kerry. I recognize the unique concern in regard to the Senator from Delaware. I would hope we could dispense with this first and then enter into a discussion as to the merits of the Senator's concern.

This is a second-degree amendment, I inform my colleague.

I would simply say that my colleague would have ample opportunity to offer an amendment in its own standing, and this carefully crafted compromise should receive priority attention.

I yield to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.

As I have indicated or as has been indicated by the distinguished chairman, the subject matter before us now pertains to the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Committee. The amendment, as I understand it, of the Senator from Delaware does not. I would rather go ahead with the agreed-upon method, and then we could take a look at the amendment and handle that separately.

Five minutes.

Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague Chairman Craig, for offering this amendment to correct current law, which permits capital offenders to be buried in a national cemetery with full military funeral honors. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this amendment, which would deny capital offenders a hero's funeral.

I believe that the congressional intent was crystal clear on this issue when Congress passed two laws denying capital offenders eligibility for burial in a national cemetery and certain funeral benefits in 1997 and 2002. However, a loophole remains and is vulnerable to misapplication. It is unfortunate that it took the mistaken internment of double murderer Russell Wayne Wagner in Arlington National Cemetery earlier this summer to shed light on this egregious loophole.

I commend Chairman Craig's immediate response to this oversight by quickly convening a hearing to study how big this loophole really is. According to a study of the law conducted by the Congressional Research Service, CRS, because Wagner's double life sentences carried the possibility of parole, he was technically eligible for burial in a national cemetery. Upon further study, it was determined that this same parole loophole also would apply to Dennis Rader, the serial killer who terrorized Kansans for over three decades.

In Kansas, we take honoring those who made the ultimate sacrifice very seriously. Entire towns make their way in the funeral procession of the hometown hero to pay their respects and say a quiet prayer as he or she is laid to rest. This respect was recently demonstrated in South Haven, KS, as the community gathered en mass to honor Sgt. Evan Parker, who died of wounds from a bomb attack during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Neighbors and fellow members of the community poured out their front doors to silently watch the funeral procession and 150 members of the American Legion convened to erect a barrier to block protesters from interrupting the mourners. This is what small town America does to honor those who gave all.

It is unconscionable that Dennis Rader, BTK for short, as he referred to himself, who brutally bound, tortured, and killed 10 innocent victims would be granted a hero's funeral. A criminal who is facing 10 life sentences and no less than 175 years of prison could be honored among our Nation's heros under the law as it stands today because his sentence included the phrase ``with parole.'' The idea that the brave men and women of our Nation's military forces like SGT Evan Parker could be memorialized and laid to rest in the same sacred ground as the BTK Killer is outrageous and simply wrong.

If current law cannot prevent this brutal murderer from internment in a national cemetery or with military funeral honors, then the law needs to be fixed. This amendment closes the parole loophole by tying eligibility for

burial in a national cemetery and military funeral honors to the underlying action of the capital offender rather than to the sentence, which can vary from State to State.

I understand that Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin are including this amendment as a part of a broader manager's amendment. I appreciate the inclusion of this important legislation that ultimately protects the honor and memory of our Nation's heros and the hallowed ground in which they rest.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I think the best face I could put on this--after this unfortunate situation which was totally unexpected by myself, or my staff, or the Republican members on the committee, for that matter, the Republican leadership--is that we have agreed to do what we already agreed to do; that is, to complete as best we can phase II of the Intelligence Committee's review of prewar intelligence in reference to Iraq.

I think it is very important to point out that the Intelligence Committee has had an absolutely outstanding record working with Senator Rockefeller and my colleagues across the aisle to produce the original review in regard to the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate prior to the military activities into Iraq, and also as to whether Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his weapons of mass destruction. That was a 17-to-0 vote. We had some differences, but that report came out. It was a good report. It was a seminal report. As a matter of fact, I take pride in saying that it was a bipartisan effort that was agreed to by the 9/11 Commission, by the WMD Commission that was later formed, and made about 93 or 94 recommendations to the administration of which probably 93 to 94 out of 95 have already been implemented. So we worked in a bipartisan fashion to do that.

We also at the same time--and I am basically quoting from the statement the vice chairman and I made on February 12 of 2004--agreed we would go to something called phase II. There has been a lot of talk about phase II. What is phase II? Why is it that has been delayed, if in fact it has been delayed?

There was some talk on the floor that got a little personal, and I regret that. It seems to me it was rather convenient because it was only yesterday our staff was working with the staff of the minority indicating that not this week but next week we would spend as much time as possible, 5 or 6 days, to complete our work in regard to phase II. It isn't as though it has been delayed. As a matter of fact, it has been ongoing. As a matter of fact, we have been doing our work on phase II. It is difficult, as I will indicate in a minute, while I go through these provisions on what we agreed to do.

So it seems to be a little convenient all of a sudden to go into a closed session of the Senate and call for a full Senate investigation of phase II when the committee is already doing its work. I think that basically is an unfortunate stunt. I would call it something else, but I think probably I will simply leave it at that.

Let me tell you what phase II is all about. Again, let me point out that we took a look at whether Saddam Hussein did reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction. That took us a long time. It is a 511-page report. It is a seminal report. It is a good report, and it signifies what we can do in the committee when we at least let one another know what is going on and we work in a bipartisan fashion.

This is what phase II is all about. That is what we will begin as we have planned to do and what our staff has indicated to the other side's staff in regard to what we were going to do as of next week--that we will start next week, and we will hope to continue that effort. We will cancel all other hearings until we can reach some sort of an accommodation. Now, if we can do this on the WMD report, certainly we can do it in regard to phase II.

My good friends across the aisle are people of good faith. We had strong differences of opinion then. I suppose we will have it in regard to phase II as well. We have seen that happen time and time again. As a matter of fact, we brought up phase II on May 17 of this year.

The biggest issue is as follows. There are five things in phase II: Whether public statements and reports and testimony regarding Iraq by U.S. Government officials made between the gulf war period and the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom were substantiated by intelligence information. In other words, the public statements made in the administration and the public statements made by public officials, whether they be in Congress, whether they be in the administration, or whatever, Congress, because we voted for regime change and we voted to go to war. Obviously, the administration, because they looked at the intelligence and thought our national security was in danger, we went to war.

Were the public statements backed up by intelligence or were they backed up by flawed intelligence? We have that material. We were supplied about 300 to 400 names by my colleagues across the aisle from all sorts of statements made by people in the administration. We took a good look at what Members of Congress have said about the same intelligence. I must say, at this point, some of those statements are even more declarative and more aggressive than those made in the administration.

That is the big issue: the use of intelligence. Whether somebody in the administration or somebody in the Congress made a statement that they thought was based on intelligence that was later proved wrong and somehow we are suppose to get in their head and ask: Why did you make that statement? Is that credible?

On May 17, in the spring, we started down the list of statements. We took names off of the statements because I didn't want it to be a situation, in terms of naming who made the statement, because I thought it might perjure or affect how people would vote in the committee. We started down that road. We didn't get very far. We had requests on the total progress of phase II, other portions of phase II.

So we started again on the first statement. Does that first statement match up with the intelligence? We didn't get very far. We started phase II in May, and we went back to work to see what we could get done, where we would agree and come back to the ``use'' question, when that would be possible.

There are five issues to phase II. Let me read them. The postwar findings about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and their weapons programs and the links to terrorism and how they compare with prewar assessments. That was done by Charles Duelfer and David Kay. Those two paragraphs are already written. You can simply say that Charles Duelfer and David Kay did not find WMD. That was their conclusion. They made some statements

about it. It was commensurate, exactly, with what our WMD report said. There shouldn't be any problem with that. That should be adopted by the committee with hardly any dissent or any discussion.

The third issue is prewar intelligence about postwar Iraq. That is not necessarily true today. It is post-insurgency Iraq. That was my suggestion, saying if the intelligence community at least could figure out what we expected to find in Iraq postwar, post the military action. Where was the intelligence? That is ongoing. That is ongoing because we have what we think is a pretty good report, but we can make it more concise. I can say right off the bat that intelligence was as flawed as the intelligence in regard to the WMD report. We can agree with that. So there are two we can agree on.

Let me go to the next one. Any intelligence activities relating to Iraq conducted by the policy counterterrorism evaluation group and the Office of Special Plans within the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense. This involved a question as to whether Under Secretary Douglas Feith had a special intelligence group that had undue influence in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and whether or not that group and that intelligence had an undue influence on the administration's decision to go to war.

We had Under Secretary Feith before the committee. Then we were going to have him up again. And then my good friends across the aisle wanted more information. In the midst of that, there was a statement made by the vice chairman--I will not get into that because it tends to be personal, and I don't want any remarks of mine to be personal, especially after what happened on the Senate floor in regard to this issue. Basically, there was a statement made that what was going on in the Office of Special Plans could be illegal. When that happened, everyone down there at the Office of Special Plans got lawyered up or at least thought about seeking legal representation.

The cooperation between that particular department and our committee was not nearly as good as it was. We can clear that up because we have asked the Department of Defense inspector general to come back and tell us if there was anything wrong in regard to what the Office of Special Plans was doing. We will rely on that. We will put that in the report. We can believe the inspector general of the Department of Defense.

Finally, the use of the intelligence community of information provided by the Iraqi National Congress. Now, remember back when the Congress was talking to members of the Iraqi National Congress. Mr. Chalabi was the head of that group. I had Senator after Senator come to me and ask, Why don't you have Mr. Chalabi appear before the committee? The people supporting him wanted to vote and eventually did vote for regime change.

Then the pendulum swung the other way and people said, Wait a minute. We are not really sure about his position or, for that matter, what he has said in the past, what are you doing, and the question of the INC. The whole question again was, how much effect did the Iraqi National Congress and Mr. Chalabi have on the input to the administration as to whether or not they would go to war.

We have found, basically, as far as I am concerned, there is very little evidence, if any, that would take place.

I wouldn't think that would take too much time, as well.

So those are the five things we had to do in regard to phase II.

Let me repeat, again, yesterday our staff talked with my colleagues' staff across the aisle and their staff--not my colleagues across the aisle but their staff--and said the chairman wants to move on this next week. My conversation in regard to the distinguished vice chairman, I think it was last Wednesday, and let me say it was in the middle of a hearing and let me say it was not exactly clear in terms of any kind of a date, but I did talk to Senator Rockefeller and indicated we had to move, we had to get this done.

He will doubtlessly say they have written letters and they have tried to get me to move and this, that or the other, but we have been doing this all along. Staff has been working on this very diligently. Consequently, I think we are very close. I am very pleased to announce, on schedule, exactly what we planned to do, we will start next week. We will start on Tuesday, and I will announce the time in the morning. Members of the Intelligence Committee will know Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, how long it takes, working in good faith. We will look into phase II and see what we can do and finish that product.

I said a long time ago on the Intelligence Committee we had to work in a bipartisan fashion. I said a long time ago that whatever ended up on the fan, we were going to have to clean it up. I said a long time ago we will let the chips fall where they may, and that went for phase II as well as the WMD special inquiry.

I ought to say one other thing. There was a memo that was highly publicized back about a year and a half ago. That memo, which was not provided to Republicans--obviously, it was a Democratic memo--and paragraph four caused a big fuss. It caused us about a month to sort of walk gingerly around one another and smother each other with the milk of kindness and say, Well, let's see if we can't work things out. And we did. I credit a lot of that to Senator Rockefeller. He is not a partisan man.

Here is the paragraph:

Be prepared to launch an independent investigation when it

becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully

collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an

independent investigation any time, but we can only do so

once. The best time to do so will probably be next year.

Well, the trigger has been pulled today with an executive session of the Senate that is not needed, not necessary, and, in my personal opinion, was a stunt. I plead with my colleagues across the aisle and my colleagues, all Republicans on the committee, next week when we start this, on Tuesday--we will go through Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday--I have no illusions, we will have differences, but I plead with you, as we have done in the past, for the good of our national security, and to finish the inquiry on whether or not Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his weapons of mass destruction, we were able to do that, and it became the seminal study for intelligence reform and where we are now with the Director of National Intelligence.

If we can get back to that mode instead of this surprising stunt on the floor to go into executive session, we will be better off.

Phase II, yes, you bet, we have been on phase II, and we will do it exactly as we planned to do it as of next week. I see from the expression of the distinguished President's face my time has expired.

I thank the President.

Mr. President I have joined with my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, and 19 other Senators to introduce a bill to restore normal beef trade with Japan.

Prior to the discovery of BSE or mad cow disease in the United States in December 2003, Japan was the largest export market for American beef in the world. But since that fateful day 2 years ago, U.S. beef producers have been locked out of the Japanese market.

To say the loss of this market has been detrimental to the viability of the American beef industry is an understatement. This is an issue that effects every part of the U.S. beef industry from the cowboys in western Kansas to the folks standing in line at the grocery store shopping for hamburger patties in New York City.

And perhaps this is felt no where as strongly than in places like Dodge City, KS Dodge City is a town that has built it's economy on the beef industry since the days of the wild west. It is a place where the number of cattle far outnumbers the number of people that live within the county lines. And it is the place that I call home.

The beef industry is a major economic driver for Dodge, but it's one of the largest industries in Kansas--representing over $5 billion in annual revenue.

We are a state with 6.65 million head of cattle, compared to a human population of 2.6 million. In 2003, cattle represented 62 percent of the Kansas cultural cash receipts and the processing industry alone employs over 18,700 Kansans. And to boot, we rank in the top three of virtually every major beef statistic.

But, trade with Japan has an impact that extends well beyond the borders of Kansas--it's an issue that affects all of farm country. The cattle industry comprises one of the largest sectors in American agriculture--with business in every state. Japan is the largest export market for food and agricultural products from the United States and beef is one of the largest and most lucrative exports to Japan.

In short, for ranchers across farm country, including those in Kansas, there are few issues more important than the viability of the beef industry--and specifically how we handle BSE.

This week marks the year anniversary of the mutual agreement the U.S. and Japan signed to resume normal beef trade. Since then, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, has worked hard to implement substantive improvements in our ability to prevent, identify and respond to BSE. For instance, as a part of their enhanced animal surveillance effort, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS, has tested over 450,000 head of cattle for BSE.

Despite this increased testing, Japan refuses to reopen its market and has instead relied upon imports of beef from countries with little or no testing for BSE.

The increased U.S. testing, in coordination with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration implementation of safeguards that ensure the safety of our food supply, have bolstered our claim to having the safest and most abundant food supply in the world.

Regrettably, the Japanese has failed to match these standards with prudent efforts to change their policy of keeping American beef out of Japan.

The Japanese Food Safety Commission, the body with the delegated responsibility to review the process by which Japan would reopen its market, and others within the government have been unresponsive to extensive diplomatic efforts made by U.S. officials during the last year.

The office of the U.S. Trade Representative and USDA have worked in concert with President Bush, other

cabinet agencies and officials and U.S. Congress to restore regular beef trade.

Despite the efforts of even the highest office in our nation's government, Japan continues to keep American beef out of their country.

The Japanese Food Safety Commission and others within the government have repeatedly demanded excessive documentation and paperwork with little or no justification. None of these requests reflect the internationally accepted phytosanitary guidelines. Rather, they appear to be a dilatory tool to prevent any effort to resume the purchase of American beef.

There have been claims that American beef is unsafe. This is simply not true. The international science says our cattle under 30 months of age are safe and not at risk. Yet, we have agreed to not send meat from any animals under 20 months of age to Japan.

Furthermore, after 20 confirmed cases of BSE in Japan, the claim that U.S. beef is not as safe as Japanese beef is simply an insult to American producers. Still the market remains closed to the U.S.

In recent weeks, Japan has insisted upon an unwarranted and unjustified trade barrier by preventing the resumption of regular beef trade with the U.S. Japan has a complicated bureaucracy in place to deal with the issue of BSE. In 2003, the Japanese Parliament established the Food Safety Commission as a Cabinet Office tasked with ensuring food safety.

This week, the Japanese Food Safety Commission again failed to reach an agreement to remove the blockade to U.S. beef imports. And to insult to injury, four of the Commission's 12 members did not even show up to the meeting because of their alleged concern with the safety of U.S. beef.

I am troubled that our negotiations with Japan have deteriorated to this point. Japan has traditionally been a distinguished and important trading partner for the U.S. Furthermore, they have been a critical ally in the War on terrorism.

Despite, this long-standing relationship, I am here today to support legislation that requires the U.S. Department of Treasury to implement additional tariffs on goods grown, produced or manufactured in Japan unless the U.S. Trade Representative certifies that Japan has reopened its market to American beef by December 15, 2005.

I have long supported free trade. Our country has benefitted from trade agreements with Chile, Australia, Canada and Mexico, and now Central America. These trading relationships are a necessity to ensure the ability of American farmers, ranchers and businessmen alike to compete in the global marketplace.

But, these agreements hinge heavily upon the commitment of the participating countries to uphold the principles of free trade--and for agriculture trade that means abiding by the international science standards that set important standards for animal, plant and human safety.

Prior to the discovery of a case of native-born BSE in a cow that never entered the food supply, we enjoyed this kind of trading relationship with Japan. However, Japan has chosen to ignore internationally recognized science and has instead based their food safety on emotional, politically-driven arguments. And, this comes at a high price for the American beef industry.

Since December 2003, the U.S. beef industry has experienced roughly $6 billion in cumulative economic losses--in current annual economic trade terms, this is about $3.1 billion a year.

We've been patient, but with this kind of economic loss, the American beef industry cannot afford to wait any longer.

I will not stand idly by while politics and posturing drive our trade relationships.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to send a message in the strongest way possible, that free trade is a two-way street. More importantly, in the context of the pending negotiations in the Doha Round of the World Trade Organization, I urge my colleagues to support this bill because it sends the message to American producers that we will stand up for American agriculture in our trade negotiations.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing the Influenza Vaccine Security Act with Senator Clinton today because I believe this legislation is critical to strengthening our public health preparedness here in the U.S. The experiences of the flu vaccine shortage last year made us all aware that our system needs improvement. This legislation takes a comprehensive approach to addressing the root causes of seasonal flu vaccine shortages by creating stability in the U.S. vaccine market.

Our legislation requires the Department of Health and Human Services to set annual production targets for the flu vaccine, to stockpile up to 10 percent of the vaccine each year in the event of a shortage, and to create a vaccine buyback program to provide market guarantees for our vaccine manufacturers. This legislation also provides a much-needed framework for public health officials to track vaccines and provides increased education and outreach about getting an annual flu vaccine.

I now want to turn to some of the provisions in this legislation that deal with an issue I believe deserves our utmost attention: pandemic influenza. I think we can agree that we all learned a good lesson from Hurricane Katrina: government at all levels must be prepared to deal with a large-scale public health emergency. Unfortunately, our government is not currently not prepared to deal with pandemic influenza. Our legislation seeks to address this by strengthening the underlying public health infrastructure to heighten our ability to respond to both seasonal and pandemic flu.

As Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a member of both the Senate Agriculture Committee and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP), I take the threat of an influenza pandemic very seriously. I view it as not only a public health concern, but a national security concern. The timing for a large-scale worldwide influenza outbreak is ripe. Many experts believe the next flu pandemic will come in the form of avian flu.

Unlike the seasonal flu, humans have no natural immunity to avian flu. A routine flu shot for more common influenza viruses won't protect against the deadly avian flu. The Department of Health and Human Services is working with vaccine manufacturers to develop a vaccine, but it is unclear when and how many doses will be ready.

Other than a vaccine, the only defense against a new flu strain such as avian flu is an antiviral medication such as Tamiflu. Currently, the United States currently only has enough pills to treat less than one percent, or about 2.3 million people.

This is why experts believe the effects of avian flu in the U.S. and around the world could be devastating. Some have predicted the loss of life could reach as high as 160-200 million. A pandemic might infect a third of the U.S. population and cost more than $100 billion alone in medical treatments. A pandemic of this sort could also have catastrophic economic or social effects.

It is for these reasons I am pleased our legislation addresses some of the underlying public health infrastructure concerns that can help us effectively respond to pandemic flu. Our vaccine industry here in the U.S. is extremely fragile and our manufacturers need the necessary tools to effectively produce and deliver vaccines in the event of either seasonal or pandemic flu. First and foremost, our legislation ensures vaccine manufacturers and health care providers are not held liable in the event of a public health emergency involving pandemic influenza. Without this necessary liability protection, the ability to develop or deliver a vaccine during an outbreak could be significantly hampered.

Our legislation also encourages improved technologies for influenza vaccine development by providing additional funding for NIH research into alternative methods of vaccine development, such as cell-based cultures and a permanent flu vaccine. Currently, flu vaccine production is a strenuous process and takes several months, leaving us extremely vulnerable in the event of a large-scale outbreak and a subsequent need for a mass production of vaccines.

Our legislation encourages more companies to enter the U.S. market with domestic-based production facilities and to improve the ability of the current manufacturers to remain in the market. Manufacturers currently do not have the capacity to simultaneously produce enough flu vaccine for seasonal flu and an avian flu vaccine in the event of an outbreak. We must assist our manufacturers in increasing production capacity.

Aside from vaccines, our legislation also requires the government to purchase and store additional antiviral medications, such as Tamiflu, to protect against an influenza epidemic.

Finally, our legislation provides a framework to identify public health professionals that can provide services in the event of a public health emergency through the use of a medical personnel registry linked at the Federal, State and local levels.

I am pleased to introduce the Influenza Vaccine Security Act with Senator Clinton today. We need to fix our seasonal flu vaccine production and distribution problems not only to prevent future shortages, but also to strengthen our public health infrastructure in case of pandemic.

As Senator Clinton knows, the HELP Committee will soon be considering legislation to develop countermeasures to protect the U.S. from deliberate and natural public health threats. This legislation, known as Bioshield II, will present a great opportunity to build on the first steps we take in this legislation to protect against pandemic flu. I look forward to working with Senator Clinton and my other colleagues on the committee to deliver a comprehensive package to ensure we are prepared and can respond to all types of public health threats.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing the Influenza Vaccine Security Act with Senator Clinton today because I believe this legislation is critical to strengthening our public health preparedness here in the U.S. The experiences of the flu vaccine shortage last year made us all aware that our system needs improvement. This legislation takes a comprehensive approach to addressing the root causes of seasonal flu vaccine shortages by creating stability in the U.S. vaccine market.

Our legislation requires the Department of Health and Human Services to set annual production targets for the flu vaccine, to stockpile up to 10 percent of the vaccine each year in the event of a shortage, and to create a vaccine buyback program to provide market guarantees for our vaccine manufacturers. This legislation also provides a much-needed framework for public health officials to track vaccines and provides increased education and outreach about getting an annual flu vaccine.

I now want to turn to some of the provisions in this legislation that deal with an issue I believe deserves our utmost attention: pandemic influenza. I think we can agree that we all learned a good lesson from Hurricane Katrina: government at all levels must be prepared to deal with a large-scale public health emergency. Unfortunately, our government is not currently not prepared to deal with pandemic influenza. Our legislation seeks to address this by strengthening the underlying public health infrastructure to heighten our ability to respond to both seasonal and pandemic flu.

As Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a member of both the Senate Agriculture Committee and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP), I take the threat of an influenza pandemic very seriously. I view it as not only a public health concern, but a national security concern. The timing for a large-scale worldwide influenza outbreak is ripe. Many experts believe the next flu pandemic will come in the form of avian flu.

Unlike the seasonal flu, humans have no natural immunity to avian flu. A routine flu shot for more common influenza viruses won't protect against the deadly avian flu. The Department of Health and Human Services is working with vaccine manufacturers to develop a vaccine, but it is unclear when and how many doses will be ready.

Other than a vaccine, the only defense against a new flu strain such as avian flu is an antiviral medication such as Tamiflu. Currently, the United States currently only has enough pills to treat less than one percent, or about 2.3 million people.

This is why experts believe the effects of avian flu in the U.S. and around the world could be devastating. Some have predicted the loss of life could reach as high as 160-200 million. A pandemic might infect a third of the U.S. population and cost more than $100 billion alone in medical treatments. A pandemic of this sort could also have catastrophic economic or social effects.

It is for these reasons I am pleased our legislation addresses some of the underlying public health infrastructure concerns that can help us effectively respond to pandemic flu. Our vaccine industry here in the U.S. is extremely fragile and our manufacturers need the necessary tools to effectively produce and deliver vaccines in the event of either seasonal or pandemic flu. First and foremost, our legislation ensures vaccine manufacturers and health care providers are not held liable in the event of a public health emergency involving pandemic influenza. Without this necessary liability protection, the ability to develop or deliver a vaccine during an outbreak could be significantly hampered.

Our legislation also encourages improved technologies for influenza vaccine development by providing additional funding for NIH research into alternative methods of vaccine development, such as cell-based cultures and a permanent flu vaccine. Currently, flu vaccine production is a strenuous process and takes several months, leaving us extremely vulnerable in the event of a large-scale outbreak and a subsequent need for a mass production of vaccines.

Our legislation encourages more companies to enter the U.S. market with domestic-based production facilities and to improve the ability of the current manufacturers to remain in the market. Manufacturers currently do not have the capacity to simultaneously produce enough flu vaccine for seasonal flu and an avian flu vaccine in the event of an outbreak. We must assist our manufacturers in increasing production capacity.

Aside from vaccines, our legislation also requires the government to purchase and store additional antiviral medications, such as Tamiflu, to protect against an influenza epidemic.

Finally, our legislation provides a framework to identify public health professionals that can provide services in the event of a public health emergency through the use of a medical personnel registry linked at the Federal, State and local levels.

I am pleased to introduce the Influenza Vaccine Security Act with Senator Clinton today. We need to fix our seasonal flu vaccine production and distribution problems not only to prevent future shortages, but also to strengthen our public health infrastructure in case of pandemic.

As Senator Clinton knows, the HELP Committee will soon be considering legislation to develop countermeasures to protect the U.S. from deliberate and natural public health threats. This legislation, known as Bioshield II, will present a great opportunity to build on the first steps we take in this legislation to protect against pandemic flu. I look forward to working with Senator Clinton and my other colleagues on the committee to deliver a comprehensive package to ensure we are prepared and can respond to all types of public health threats.

Mr. President, I pay tribute to my colleague and friend, Senator Brownback, for his eloquent speech on behalf of those who are disadvantaged and deserve protection from the law. He made an outstanding speech.

I rise to express my support of Judge John Roberts in regard to his nomination as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I know what the committee has done, and I know what the majority of Senators will likely do, and that is to vote in favor of Judge Roberts. But I also believe that an openminded individual, applying Kansas common sense, would reach the same conclusion that I have come to hold.

It is no small event for a Senator to have the opportunity to participate in the confirmation of a candidate for the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Over the course of our Nation's history, the Senate has come together 155 times to vote on a Supreme Court Justice. This occasion marks the 17th time to confirm a Chief Justice. So I am humbled and honored to be part of this moment of history.

The consultation efforts on behalf of the administration with my fellow Senate colleagues in regard to this nomination have been extensive. That is probably an understatement. The President has made great efforts to open dialog and to invite input and to reach out to Members of the Senate. His nomination of Judge John Roberts is a solid choice and not one made in isolation.

Kansans understand that the words inscribed on our Founding Fathers' documents are not as delicate and fragile as the paper on which they are written. They know that the power behind these ideas is what serves as the foundation of our Nation's democratic government.

My sense from Judge Roberts is that he, too, rigorously believes in the power of the ideals set forth in the Constitution. As illustrated by his record as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, he adheres to the guidelines outlined in the Constitution. Simply put, he walks the talk.

After watching Judge Roberts endure--I guess that is the best word for it--over 20 hours of questioning during the nomination hearings, I find myself not only more familiar with his many qualifications, his impressive experiences, but deeply impressed with his character. Judge Roberts' respectful demeanor and his personal humility in the face of periodic abrasive questioning from some are exactly the type of qualities that a Chief Justice should

possess. During the question-and-answer portion of the nomination hearing, testimonies of his colleagues, former clients, and others who attested to his character, Judge Roberts has shown to be a man of high integrity, wisdom, and fairness. This assessment was echoed from those representing a broad range of ideologies.

Judge Roberts does possess a brilliant legal mind and a thorough understanding of the law. He performs his duties with a vigor and a meticulous attention to detail that has been noted by all who have spoken about him. As a judge, he approaches a case to understand the legal facts involved and the laws that are affected, while avoiding the temptation to fulfill a specific judicial philosophy. His decisions are based on the merits of the law. His record has earned him the highest rating from the American Bar Association, the ABA. It is worth mentioning that the ABA has often been referred to by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and those on this side as well as the ``gold standard'' for evaluating judges.

Most notably, in his opening statement before the Senate committee, Judge Roberts stated:

Judges and Justices are servants of the law, not the other

way around.

And concerning the rule of law, he went on to say:

It is what we mean when we say that we are a government of

laws and not of men. It is that rule of law that protects the

rights and the liberties of all Americans. It is the envy of

the world. Because without the rule of law, any rights are

really meaningless.

Clearly, Judge Roberts understands that the role of a judge is not to rule based on his personal judgments but to adhere to the laws as they are written.

The role of the third branch under our Constitution is paramount, as the Supreme Court is often referred to as the ``gatekeeper of democracy.'' The duty to ensure that legislation passed and executed is in line with the Constitution is an important check within our Government. The lifetime appointment provided for in the Constitution is an important protection for our Justices to guard against any pressure in regard to politics. The forward thinking by the authors of our Constitution actually provided for the preservation of our democracy by including these checks and balances between these three branches.

Some have expressed concern about Judge Roberts' relatively young age to be nominated to such a powerful position. On the contrary, I believe that age will allow for a term of growth and stability for the Court. In my view, his age is of less importance when compared to his style of judging. In his response to my colleague, Senator Hatch, he explains that his style is that of a modest judge. He went on to explain that:

It means an appreciation that the role of the judge is

limited, that a judge is to decide the cases before them,

they're not to legislate, they're not to execute the laws.

However, at the same time, we have witnessed judges acting beyond the scope of their duties in making decisions that in a representative democracy are legislative in their jurisdiction. We have seen that all across the country. This what I consider to be abuse of power is a source of tremendous contention, not only with folks from the great State of Kansas but with Americans nationwide on too many issues. In too many cases, we have seen decisions that are contrary to the will of the people. Americans have questioned the rulings on cases ranging from the Boy Scouts of America to the most publicized recent attack on private property rights. In Kansas, land is gold. And if land is gold, farmland is platinum. We have a healthy respect for property rights in middle America. Based on his comments, I believe Judge Roberts holds a similar opinion.

Finally, let us not forget that Judge Roberts is currently a judge. He has already experienced the confirmation process for his judgeship on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Let us also remember that the same accolades that led to Senate approval of his nomination by unanimous consent--no disagreement, every Senator--are certainly applicable as of today.

I am hopeful that through the course of debate on this nomination and the next Supreme Court nomination--the next Supreme Court nomination-- we can avoid the destructive partisanship that approached the brink of absolutism and ideology, a different criteria in regard to how we select judges. We have a duty to respectfully reflect the great traditions of this Chamber and rise above partisan bickering. We must raise the level of civility in our political discourse more so than ever in regard to considering the nomination of judges.

Our democracy is only as strong as our governmental institutions. Judge Roberts will provide a strong pillar of support in the third branch of our Government. That, and for the reasons I have just enumerated, is why I will vote in favor of Judge Roberts' nomination to be the 17th Chief Justice of the United States.

I yield back the remainder of my time. I thank the Chair.

Will the Senator yield?

I have an amendment. I would like to offer it.

Mr. President, I have an amendment pending at the desk numbered 1742. I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, this amendment is very straightforward. It has been cleared by both the chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, and I have also received word that the Risk Management Agency is supportive of this change.

Very simply, the amendment amends the section of the Federal Crop Insurance Act regarding the use of written agreements for commodities in counties where the crop has not yet been approved for crop insurance purposes.

The problem is that 3 years of cropping history is needed in order to issue a written agreement for coverage. However, producers cannot get a history of planting because the banker won't lend the money if they can't get insurance coverage. Thus, it is an endless cycle.

We have many counties where coverage exists for sunflowers, and we would like to use that data to expand coverage to canola. The Risk Management Agency has indicated that this would be an acceptable practice. However, the current law says that data must be used from the same commodity for which the policy is being issued. This amendment simply changes that language to allow data from agronomically similar crops to be used in providing written agreements.

The amendment has been given a score of zero by the CBO, and I urge my colleagues to accept it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to General Richard B. Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for his lifetime of service and unfaltering dedication to the United States Armed Forces and our country.

As both a soldier and a leader, spanning 40 years of military service, General Myers contributions to our peace and security, and that of our children and grandchildren, are a remarkable hallmark in military history. During trying times, under sometimes harsh scrutiny, and with high national security stakes at hand, General Myers has repeatedly shown his Kansas common sense, leading our military through two wars and a host of other challenges with a steady hand.

Dick Myers was well prepared for leadership. Born in Kansas City, MO, in 1942, General Myers graduated from Shawnee Mission North High School and attended Kansas State University, where he enrolled in the Air Force ROTC and was commissioned second lieutenant in 1965. After his commissioning, General Myers entered pilot training at Vance Air Force Base, Oklahoma. As a command pilot, he logged over 4,000 flying hours, including 600 combat hours over Vietnam and Laos. Serving in a wide variety of assignments over the next several decades, General Myers assumed the duties of Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in March 2000.

On October 1, 2001, just weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks, General Myers was named the 15th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As the first Vice Chairman to ascend to the office, General Myers served as the principal military advisor to the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Council, and played a critical role in the planning and execution of the Global War on Terrorism, including the important Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom.

During General Myers tenure as the chairman, he was constantly faced with unique challenges and responsibilities with both frustrating and emotional circumstances, from the worst terrorist attacks on the United States in our proud history to fighting overseas wars against terrorists and the enemies of freedom and democracy. Yet, despite all of the challenges, General Myers maintained a positive, forward looking determination and attitude, and never faltered in his responsibility to our men and women serving in the armed forces today.

General Myers' tenure and accomplishments were not limited to the Global War on Terrorism, including operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Under General Myers' leadership, the Joint Staff produced a far- reaching National Military Strategy, complemented by a National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism, to guide the Armed Forces for the challenges of the 21st Century. This strategy serves as a template for the Global War on Terrorism, and was and will be truly instrumental in bringing freedom to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

General Myers also oversaw the establishment of the United States Northern Command, or NORTHCOM, the first combatant command responsible for the homeland defense of the continental United States. As part of this effort, the chairman advocated joint war fighting among the services and called on the entire U.S. Government to expand the culture of jointness in the interagency and international communities. General Myers has truly shown great leadership in his efforts to transform and modernize the military.

General Myers should also be recognized for his humanitarian role--a mission many times missing from the headlines. In late 2004, in response to the horrific events surrounding the Indian Ocean Tsunami, General Myers oversaw ``Operation Unified Assistance'', the largest coordinated and executed military humanitarian relief effort since the Berlin Air Lift. Designed to enable more than 15,000 Department of Defense personnel, 130 aircraft, and 20 United States Navy warships to distribute more than 400,000 gallons of water, 2,000 tons of food, and almost 3,000 tons of other supplies to those in need, the mission was a success.

General Myers' impeccable service and brave leadership are also reflected in the awards and decorations he has received throughout his career. General Myers is the recipient of the Defense Distinguished Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters, Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Distinguish Flying Cross with oak leaf cluster, Meritorious Service Medal with three oak leaf clusters, Air Medal with eighteen oak leaf clusters, Air Force Commendation Medal, Joint Meritorious Unit Award with four oak leaf clusters, and Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with ``V'' device with three oak leaf clusters.

Mr. President, today I have mentioned but a few of General Richard Myers' numerous accomplishments. I not only consider General Myers a strong military leader, in times of both war and peace, and a critically important person in the defense of our great Nation, I am privileged to call him a friend and a colleague. I have often said that if I were in a gunfight on Front Street in Dodge City, KS, during our States' pioneer days, there is no person I would rather have by my side than Richard Myers. I know that a grateful Nation shares my appreciation for the general--a courageous and honorable man and a strong and steadfast military leader during a truly trying time, and I know my colleagues join me in paying tribute to him and his wife Mary Jo for the years they have dedicated to our country and to the betterment of the United States Armed Forces. General Myers, we wish you well.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding.

There is not another thing, basically, on any of these amendments that has not already been said or that will change anybody's vote. I don't intend

to hold the Senate up, but I want to take a moment to comment on where we are in the legislative schedule and to make a personal request of my colleagues. I don't question the right of any Senator to be heard on the Senate floor. But I must say I do not understand the need to continue debating and discussing all of these amendments on the Friday afternoon before the start of a long month's recess. I ask, could we please cut down on the rhetoric so that we might be able to get along with the people's business and cast our votes. I know the manager wants that. I would probably determine that the minority would like that as well.

I make this request not only as a Senator from Kansas but as the father of a young lady that I will be walking down the aisle tomorrow. Very early this week I informed our leaders in the Senate that I had every intention of being at her rehearsal, and that rehearsal and dinner starts at 5 o'clock. I will be there. So if we must continue on making these statements this afternoon and offering these amendments, I ask that the Record reflect that any votes I miss will be the result of me performing my duties as a dad and being with my daughter on the most important evening and day of her life.

Thus, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Record reflect that should I miss votes in the afternoon, it would have been my intention to vote as follows on the Transportation bill, amendments to the gun liability bill, and the gun liability bill itself:

``Yea'' on the Transportation bill; ``nay'' on the Reed amendment No. 1642; ``yea'' on the Frist-Craig first-degree amendment to the Kennedy amendment No. 1615. Should the first-degree amendment not be accepted, I would vote ``nay'' on the Kennedy amendment. I would vote ``yea'' on the Frist-Craig first-degree amendment to the Corzine amendment No. 1619. Should the first-degree amendment not be accepted, it would have been my intention to vote ``nay'' on the Corzine amendment. It would be my intention to vote ``yea'' on the Frist-Craig first-degree amendment to the Lautenberg amendment No. 1620. Should the first-degree amendment not be accepted, it would be my intention to vote ``nay'' on the Lautenberg amendment. Finally, it would be my intention to vote ``yea'' on final passage of the gun liability bill.

I respect and love you all. I admire you all. But while charm and looks and levity may woo us in the start, in the end it is brevity that will win my colleagues' hearts.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, I am still a little unclear in regard to the Reid amendment. I understand from three Senators--Senator Levin, Senator Durbin, Senator Reid--that this also applies to public employees, i.e., Senators. If that is the case, if Members are included, one of the things we have to determine is that `` . . . to a person not authorized to receive such information shall be permitted to hold a security clearance for access to such information''--well, we don't have security clearances.

By our election, we are deemed to be cleared for all security, and so we are not losing anything. If in fact somebody unintentionally came to the floor and in a public statement basically said or disclosed or has disclosed classified information including the identity of a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency, the answer to this is meaningless because we don't have a security clearance. They don't exist for Members. We are deemed to have a total clearance. And so I don't know what the remedy is.

Again, if you do it unintentionally, I can tell you that is a slippery slope. There have been Members basically inadvertently saying things in the Chamber and in the public that could match this amendment. I am not going to get into names, but I think that has happened in the past without question. I know it happened in the Intelligence Committee, probably the Armed Services Committee, probably many other committees.

This is just not very clear, and what we have here is a Special Prosecutor with a lot of leaks; we have a reporter in jail for a story she did not write; we have a steady stream of leaks about every aspect of this case; we have the Washington press corps in full attack mode; and, finally, before we have all the facts known, we have my colleagues across the aisle calling for Karl Rove's resignation, if not incarceration. So much for the presumption of innocence.

Don't get me wrong; we must protect the identities without any question, as my distinguished vice chairman of the committee, Senator Rockefeller, has said, but that obligation also extends to the Agency for which they work. I just think here we have a tempest, to characterize the newest revelations in the Valerie Plame case as a stunning turn of events demanding immediate action by the President, the special prosecutor, and now the Congress of the United States. I am not a big advocate of the ``shoot now, ask questions later'' approach. I certainly prefer to know the facts and then make a judgment.

My preference notwithstanding, the judgment of the current deluge of media coverage seems to be based on the premise that the White House-- i.e., Karl Rove--was trying to discredit Ambassador Wilson for his much-publicized opposition to the war. It is important to remember that there is already a record on this point, and I urge Members to really pay attention to the record.

More than a year ago, the Senate Intelligence Committee issued its unanimous report on prewar intelligence assessments on Iraq. We have a 511-page report explaining in detail how our intelligence agencies got it wrong.

Now to the subject at hand, this so-called tempest. Included in that report was a recitation of the facts that surround the now infamous travels of the former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who can best be described as a bit player in the Iraq story, notwithstanding his substantial efforts to embellish the significance of his role.

Mr. Wilson became quite a celebrity and questioned the President's veracity as he carefully crafted his public persona as a ``truthteller.'' He went on a media blitz, Mr. President. He appeared on more than 30 television shows including, ironically, ``The Daily Show,'' a fake news show. Time and time again, he told anybody who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, the Vice President had lied, and that he had debunked the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa.

However, the committee found not only did he not debunk the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe it may be true. In an interview with committee staff, the same committee staff that interviewed over 250 analysts to prove that we had systemic problems in the intelligence community, he was asked how he knew some of the things he was stating publicly with such confidence. On at least two occasions, he admitted that he had no direct knowledge to support some of his claims and he was drawing on either unrelated past experiences or no information at all. For example, when asked how he knew that the intelligence community had rejected the possibility of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal as he wrote in his book, he told committee staff that his assertion may have involved ``a little literary flair.''

I urge my colleagues to read the 511-page report that was voted out 17 to nothing.

The former Ambassador, either by design or through ignorance, gave the American people or, for that matter, the world, a version of events that was inaccurate, unsubstantiated, and misleading. What is more disturbing, he continues to do so today.

Now that the Washington press corps is in a full-attack mode over the recent revelations in the Valerie Plame case, Ambassador Wilson is back on the circuit. He is continuing his self-proclaimed quest to have Karl Rove, in his words, ``frog marched in handcuffs'' out of the White House. And basically that is what we are trying to do with this amendment, if you follow the partisan line of thinking as put forth by Ambassador Joe Wilson. And before all the facts are known, he has been joined by a chorus of colleagues and liberal action groups calling for Karl Rove's resignation and in some cases even incarceration. So much for the presumption of innocence.

Now, don't get me wrong. If someone willfully or knowingly outs an undercover intelligence officer, they should be punished. Senator Rockefeller is exactly right about that. Punishment should be reserved, however, for those who have actually committed a crime. The law requires knowledge. And if Mr. Rove didn't know and no one told him that Valerie Plame was undercover, then, pardon me, he did not break any laws. The mere fact that one works for the CIA is not in and of itself classified.

As important, the law presumes the Government is taking ``affirmative measures to conceal'' the officer's intelligence relationship to the United States. I am just not convinced that a serious effort to conceal an undercover officer's intelligence relationship includes driving to CIA headquarters every day for work.

The Intelligence Committee has examined with staff the issue of cover before and identified a number of serious problems, and we are currently examining the issue of cover once again because some of these problems do persist. While we should leave the criminal investigation to the Special Prosecutor, we will continue our work to ensure that those who are actually undercover get the protection they need and deserve.

Again, as for the former Ambassador, no one needed to discredit him. He took care of that himself.

Now, before I close, I would like to say something in response to the gray picture painted by the distinguished minority leader. Much has been said about the grave damage that was done to our Nation's security when Valerie Plame's name was revealed to the press. There has also been speculation that Ms. Plame, although nominally undercover, really wasn't undercover at all. So as part of the Intelligence Committee's ongoing oversight of the issue of cover, we will examine this case and see where the truth lies.

Basically, I think we are on the wrong track here, and again I urge my colleagues, if you put in law that if anybody reveals classified information unintentionally, including the Members of this Senate, that is a slippery road we will go down where current Members who I see sitting in the Chamber would fit into that category, and it is unwarranted, unneeded. It is not the way to do it according to the act that was cited by my distinguished colleague from Minnesota.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, for the record, my good friend, my colleague from California, does not have a security clearance. None of us do. We are deemed by the electorate to be cleared from the lowest to the highest. We do not have a security clearance to lose.

So that is not accurate. And I don't court the venal part of this.

In terms of the second-degree amendment, unless I was hearing something different and somebody raised the issue, as Congress included in this--the Senate--along with Federal employees who either intentionally or unintentionally reveal classified information, Senator Levin, Senator Durbin, Senator Reid said ``yes.'' So that is reflective of the second-degree amendment.

If that is not the case, we have a double standard for Members of Congress or other public officials as opposed to Federal employees. We ought to get that straight, which is why I think the suggestion from the Senator from----

No. I only have 2 minutes. But perhaps on down the road.

That is why I think the suggestion of the Senator from Minnesota is a good one, that we ought to go into a quorum call to try to figure out what this means.

Read the language in detail. Intentionally or unintentionally reveal classified information--I have news for you, we have people in the intelligence community who make mistakes, inadvertently make mistakes. This is going to end the career of many young people who will make mistakes down the road and lose their security clearance.

Security clearances are an administrative process, not a statutory process. The Reid amendment strips all distinction from employees in regard to their home agency and in regard to any discretion.

Mr. President, could I have one more minute?

So in your zeal to hang Karl Rove--and that is what this is about--you are going to put a stake in the careers of national security professionals from here on in.

During the administrative procedure by that home agency or that person's superior officer, they can be counseled, they can be admonished, but they do not lose their security clearances. They do make mistakes. I don't know how many that is going to be, but that is going to be a bunch.

That is going to send a chilling effect throughout our entire intelligence community. This is poorly written. We ought to go into a quorum call and work it together so we at least know what the outcome is going to be.

I don't have any time. It is his time.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, today I rise in support of the Central American and Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement called CAFTA. I also want to state a word of caution in regards to an issue that is commensurate with this vote; and that is the waning support for free trade in this country, more especially in farm country.

It was not long ago when the prospect of expanding our trading opportunities with our neighbors across the ocean--the 96 percent of the rest of the world in terms of trade--was met with great optimism and urgency. I do not know of anybody who made a farm speech who did not say: OK, point No. 2, point No. 3--in the laundry list of things they were trying to get done in Washington--without involving trade and expanding exports. Times have changed.

Today I think we are suffering from what I call ``trade fatigue.'' That is to say, many times we oversell and we overestimate what is going to happen in regard to the expectations of a particular trade agreement. We oversell it. I know that many more times we overcriticize them. As a result, in farm country, I think our producers of food and fiber are a little weary and a little wary of this animal we let out of the chute called free trade.

There have to be better examples, specific examples, in regard to how our producers basically benefit from free trade during very challenging times in farm country--a time when we see a lot of industry concentration going on and consolidation, not only in farm country but throughout our entire economy.

Well, I am privileged to represent the State of Kansas where farm exports support over 47,000 jobs, both on the farm and in food processing and transportation. Farm exports from the State of Kansas are estimated at $3 billion, compromising one-third of all farm income. Our State is the Nation's top exporter of wheat and the second largest beef exporter, both of which rely heavily on increased market access. In short, an opportunity such as CAFTA is going to be essential for Kansas.

But in my hometown of Dodge City, and in the rest of farm country, you hear the discussion of trade and exports, and there is some reservation, not expectation. I do not think it is isolationism. I do not think it is protectionism. Too many times farm organizations and commodity groups are looking out for their own commodity interest instead of the big picture, which involves opportunity for all American farmers and businesses.

Perhaps more importantly, this is an issue of national security and stability, just south of our border as well. Let me touch on that.

Our country has benefitted from trade agreements with Chile, Australia, Canada, and Mexico. Since NAFTA was signed--you do not get the specific instances of this in the press; you always get the instances of somebody who has suffered economically or seen their job outsourced or whatever--but basically, these Kansas exports to Canada and Mexico combined have increased by more than 120 percent. In the first year of the Chilean Free Trade Agreement, our Kansas exports to Chile actually grew by more than 9 percent.

CAFTA will build on this trend by securing 44 million new consumers. Under the agreement, half of the current U.S. farm exports to CAFTA countries will become duty free immediately. This includes high-quality cuts of beef and cotton and wheat and soybeans--major commodities.

Under the existing World Trade Organization commitments and tariff preferences, most exports under CAFTA countries already enter the U.S. duty free. However, U.S. exports could face potential tariffs of up to 250 percent in the case of beef. Despite these tariffs, why, our producers in Kansas exported to CAFTA countries a total of $23 million last year.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that our Nation's international trade deficit measured $57 billion. That was a $4 billion increase from previous reporting. As we face the growing competition in global agriculture, it is more important than ever to secure duty-free rates in these countries.

Now I want to touch on this business of security just south of our country. As chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I must stress this agreement is not only about expanding market access. We are talking about stability, stability within these countries, and our own national security. Specifically, I am talking about the big issues of immigration, drug trafficking, and energy.

If you put in Mexico and Venezuela, for instance, albeit they are adjacent to the CAFTA countries, we are talking about 23 percent of our energy supply. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that without this trade agreement we run the risk of these countries falling prey to others who have far less interest in democracy and stability than in manipulation and power within these countries. I do not want to go back to the days of the 1980s. I do not want to go back to the Nicaraguan situation and Danny Ortega. That is not in the best interests of these countries in the region, and it certainly is not in the best interests of our national security.

So given this reality, it is difficult to understand how the interests of one commodity--one commodity; and I am talking about sugar--has largely outweighed the potential for regional stability in CAFTA countries. In the past, whether in trade agreements or trade disputes, whether it be in farm bills or budget reconciliations, our commodity and producer groups sank or swam together. We either hung separately or we basically tried to hang together.

But today that is not the case. And, I am not trying to pick on the sugar industry or the sugar representatives or the hard-pressed sugar producers in the United States. It is just that I am terribly concerned that instead of ``one for all and all for one,'' we have ``all for one and one for one.'' And that is not right in regards to how we approach this from the standpoint of the agriculture interests in this country.

Sugar is already under one of the most protected U.S. agricultural programs. In fact, when compared to the rest of the world, our producers enjoy the highest world price for their product. I know about their cost inputs. I know about the difficulty, but my previous statement is correct. In recent years, we have journeyed down a dangerous road in our negotiations with the Australian Free Trade Agreement and now with CAFTA, by allowing the singular interests of one commodity to dictate the livelihood of a comprehensive and well- intended agreement. I do not think it is right for one commodity to dictate in regard to their self-interests to the detriment of other interests in agriculture.

I remember the whole-herd dairy buyout, which pretty well ruined the entire beef industry. I do not want to go down that road again. I think this is an example of that case.

Under CAFTA, during the first year of the agreement, allowable sugar imports will amount to only a little more than one day's U.S. production--one day. The Secretary of Agriculture pulls out of his pocket two sugar packets and says that is what every consumer will have in extra supply in regard to the CAFTA agreement. Despite the nominal projected effect on the U.S. sugar prices and production, our domestic sugar industry has demanded that they go unharmed by this and, plausibly, by any other trade agreement.

Despite efforts by the administration and others to try to reach some accommodation, many in this Congress support the sugar industry--and I have as well. As chairman of the House Agriculture Committee during 1996 and through six farm bills, I tried to be helpful to the sugar industry. Every time we have a reconciliation bill, every time we have an appropriations bill, every time we have any votes on a farm bill, we have tried to be of help to the sugar industry. Usually those votes are very close, by two votes, four votes, five votes in the House of Representatives, and the same happens in the Senate. So you stand up and say: OK, let's really try to stay together in regard to

the agricultural lobby and be fair to our producers nationwide, nobody singled out. I am saying to the sugar industry, you may win this battle, but you may also lose the war.

Sugar's insistence upon receiving special treatment makes it very likely that the rest of agriculture, which overwhelmingly supports CAFTA, may opt not to participate in sugar's defense the next time that program faces a WTO challenge, budget reconciliation measure, and the endless amendments to end sugar's support program during the next farm bill. Let that warning be heard.

Some of my colleagues have expressed their concern--we just heard Senator Wyden, the distinguished Senator from Oregon--in regard to labor and human rights standards in the CAFTA countries, arguing the agreement does not set strict enough standards in these areas. I am concerned about the environmental concerns in these countries and the labor concerns in regard to these countries and the human rights standards, but trade agreements are not the appropriate forum for addressing these issues. Basically the country will say: Thank you very much. We are a sovereign country. We are not going to trade with the United States. We will trade with somebody else. We will address these problems on our own. It is a little bit impervious in regard to that concern.

I don't think we can expect these countries to establish and value the same high labor standards we have overnight. Rather, we should encourage and facilitate the emergence of such standards.

Today the most important question is not what happens if we approve CAFTA but, rather, what would happen if we don't pass this agreement. Only an ocean away, China is aggressively pursuing opportunities to compete in both the high tech and production agricultural sectors. We have only gotten a glimpse of the economic capability and resources of this country. Furthermore, we face additional and continued threats and allegations from the WTO in regards to our international food aid and export programs. I am talking about our food aid and export programs. The recent cotton case brought by Brazil is one of the most serious agriculture trade disputes we have ever faced. And farm country has not awakened to this challenge. The Senate has not awakened to it. The ramifications of this decision in this case are far-reaching and could potentially affect every section of our farm export programs.

If we fail to approve CAFTA, we stand to lose credibility in these negotiations and, in turn, the ability to aptly protect the food aid programs and the development assistance that are essential in our war against terror and our efforts to prevent children in the Sudan from going hungry.

We have not come this far to take one step forward in the WTO and, with our other bilateral trade negotiations, to take two steps backward by failing to approve CAFTA. If we do not approve CAFTA, I don't know what we do with the Free Trade in Americas Act. I don't know what we do as we go into the WTO negotiations facing the Brazil challenge. I don't know what we do in the next farm bill in regard to how we structure the farm bill if we do not rely on trade and exports, at least to the realistic degree that we should. What do you do? Do you write the farm bill and say: Go back to your domestic production and then pay a higher subsidy for which we do not have the budget dollars? I don't think so.

I urge my colleagues to support this agreement. It is in the best interest of the United States, not only on behalf of agriculture and all the other business activities that will benefit from the agreement, but also from a security standpoint as well.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize Joan Piermarini, who is retiring after 20 years of service to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Joan has served the committee under seven chairmen--a testament to her dedication and loyalty. I thank Joan for her many tireless efforts and the significant contributions she has made to the committee. We congratulate her on a job well done and wish her many years of happiness with her family, especially her grandson Luke.