Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed as if in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today in an attempt once again to resolve an intelligence-related issue with regard to the nomination of Under Secretary John Bolton to be the U.S. Representative to the United Nations. As my colleagues are probably aware, for some time I have been engaged in an effort to assist my colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with some concerns they have with regard to Mr. Bolton and his request for U.S. person identities that are contained in certain intelligence reports.

The last time I came to the floor of the Senate, I spoke at length about Mr. Bolton's requests. After reviewing the actual reports and examining the process whereby he was provided the information that he sought, it was apparent to me that Mr. Bolton's requests were not only appropriate but very routine. As far as I was concerned, that was the end of the matter, and I so indicated in my response to the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, in a letter.

Based on statements by some of my colleagues, concerns about Mr. Bolton's requests for identities have apparently expanded to include whether the Under Secretary sought these identities to exert some form of retribution against certain Government officials. Although the Foreign Relations Committee's minority views and statements made by minority members seem to indicate that the universe of these officials, or their concerns about

these officials, is very small, it is now very clear that this universe is indeed expanding, if not exploding. In fact, in a response I received from the distinguished ranking member, Senator Biden, and Senator Dodd, we have gone from the innermost planets in our solar system of their concern to include the entire Milky Way. I have informed my colleagues that I could not support such a request because it appears to be more of an effort to preserve this issue, this stalemate, this what some people call a filibuster, than an effort to resolve it.

I also informed Senators Biden and Dodd, however, that I could recommend a more focused request that is consistent with their public statements in their minority views. I believe that such a request could be a basis for moving this process forward, a goal I hoped we all shared to get the process moving.

In the interest of moving forward, I urged my colleagues to reconsider the scope of their request. The response quite frankly was, no, thank you. That is probably the nicest way I can put it. I believe their bottom line is now: Give us all of the names we have now put in play or no deal.

As members of the legislative branch, we have all been in the position of requesting information from the executive branch and being told no. That is not pleasant. That is not what we would like to hear from the executive branch. But we do understand--I think, I hope--that there are limits to what we can demand and expect to receive. That is just a fact of life as we negotiate the separation of powers between the two branches of Government.

My colleagues know full well that an absolutist will inevitably lead to a stalemate, and that is what has happened. That is why we tried to work in good faith to address our concerns while recognizing each branch's responsibility and their prerogatives.

In my experience, a middle ground is usually achievable. It may take time, but usually we can achieve it. In this case, I believe the administration was willing to meet my colleagues halfway. In other words, if they would provide a reasonable list of names based on actual findings by the committee, perhaps they could be assured that those names were not contained in the reports and their concerns would be simply allayed, while at the same time it would permit the executive to preserve its prerogative to control the dissemination of very sensitive information.

Let me just say that signals intelligence and intercepts is in the highest compartmented criteria in regards to intelligence information. So this is very sensitive.

Once again, I think that the middle ground, unfortunately, proved very elusive. I am sympathetic to my colleagues' desire to see information they deem necessary to their consideration of Mr. Bolton's nomination. I do not believe, however, that they should be imposing their standard on the entire Senate. The last cloture vote clearly demonstrated that a clear majority believes that the Senate does possess the sufficient information to vote on Mr. Bolton's nomination, and vote we should.

With that said, I am prepared to go one step further, in one last good-faith effort, to try to alleviate the concerns expressed by my colleagues across the aisle. Because my colleagues would not share their list of names with me, I have taken what may be viewed as the somewhat unorthodox step of compiling a list of names that I believe do actually reflect the universe of individuals who fall within the parameters set by my colleagues' public statements and their minority views.

I am not doing this with temerity. I am trying to make a good-faith effort, and I hope people appreciate my intent in the doing of this. I want my colleagues to know that I have done this in a sincere effort to move this process forward. I do not in any way wish to substitute my judgment for my colleagues', but I do hope we can reach some sort of an accommodation. So I have submitted my list of names to the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, and he has assured me that none of them are among the names requested by Under Secretary Bolton.

The names I submitted included Carl Ford, Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research, his name is not in the intercepts; Christian Westermann of the INR, State Department intelligence branch, not in the intercepts; the individual known as Mr. Smith, not in the intercepts; Rexon Ryu, State Department official, not in the intercepts; Charles L. Pritchard, special envoy for negotiations with North Korea, not in the intercepts.

There were two other individuals referenced in the minority views whose names have not been made public, and I will not do so now. However, I did submit their names, and they were not in the intercepts. I am more than willing to share the two names with my colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee, but I will not discuss them publicly.

Finally, the Foreign Relations Committee's minority views also referenced two other unnamed individuals. I understand, however, that the committee itself is not aware of who these people are, and therefore it is highly unlikely that those names would be part of anybody's list. They were certainly not on mine.

I strongly believe this compromise represents the best middle ground and should more than satisfy the concerns of my colleagues. These are the names that were mentioned in the minority views. These are the names that were mentioned in regard to the people who were interviewed. These are the names that have been referred to in the press and the media over and over again. That is what this universe is about.

I am very hopeful that this should more than satisfy the concerns of my colleagues, unless, of course, they are not interested in being satisfied, and if that is the case, there is really nothing further anybody can do to move this process forward.

I believe it is high time that we vote on this nomination, up or down, whichever way the chips fall. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take the next step, whether they are in favor of Mr. Bolton's nomination or not, whether they are for him or they are opposed. We have made some strides recently, it seems to me, in moving nominations to a vote. It seems to me we should continue that trend with Mr. Bolton's nomination and get on with the business of the Senate.

I hope I have been helpful. I hope people do not take my actions in the wrong way. I am acting in good faith in the very best way I know how to reach a compromise to alleviate the concerns of my friends across the aisle. I hope that has been the case in regards to my remarks this evening.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to Major General Thomas J. Romig, The Judge Advocate General of the Army, for his many years of exceptionally meritorious service to our country. General Romig will retire from the Army on September 30, 2005, having completed a distinguished 34-year career. We owe him a debt of gratitude for his many contributions to his Nation and the legal profession, particularly during operations in support of the Global War on Terrorism.

As The Judge Advocate General since October 1, 2001, General Romig served as the legal advisor to the Chief of Staff of the Army and the Army Staff, as well as the military legal advisor to the Secretary of the Army and the Assistant Secretaries. As such, he has been at the forefront of the most pressing issues affecting our Nation and the military today.

General Romig's inventive and steady leadership is reflected every day in the superb legal services provided by each and every judge advocate, civilian attorney, legal administrator, paralegal, and legal specialist of The Judge Advocate General's Corps. His professional legal advice has demonstrated his abiding concern for the Army's mission and his sincere interest in the welfare of soldiers and their families. The Army and The Judge Advocate General's Corps have benefited immeasurably from his leadership.

General Romig was born in 1948 at Manhattan, KS. He graduated from Manhattan High School in 1966 and attended Kansas State University where he received a Bachelor of Science degree in 1970. He was commissioned through the ROTC program and entered active duty in October 1971. After graduating from the Infantry Officer Basic and Airborne Courses, he served almost 6 years as a Military Intelligence Officer at Fort Bragg, NC, and Fort Huachuca, AZ.

In 1977, General Romig was selected for the Funded Legal Education Program and attended the University of Santa Clara School of Law, Santa Clara, CA, where he graduated with honors in 1980. During his 25 years of distinguished service as a judge advocate, General Romig served in many positions of great responsibility, including service as a prosecutor with

the 2d Armored Division; an instructor at The Judge Advocate General's School; the Staff Judge Advocate of the 32d Army Air Defense Command; the Chief of the Personnel, Plans, and Training Office; the Staff Judge Advocate of V Corps; the Assistant Judge Advocate General for Civil Law and Litigation; and the Assistant Judge Advocate General for Military Law and Operations.

He reached the top of his profession when he was appointed the 36th Judge Advocate General of the Army. General Romig is now completing his remarkable military career.

I know all my colleagues join me in saluting Major General Thomas J. Romig and his wife Pamela for their many years of truly outstanding service to The Judge Advocate General's Corps, the U.S. Army, and our country.

I thank the Chair. I certainly thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia. This is sort of a quandary for me in that sitting in my office listening to the debate, I was having a hard time putting two and two together with my understanding of what the Intelligence Committee determined--not the committee but the vice chairman and myself. And in listening to the statements, they just didn't jibe. It is not my intent to perjure the intent of the distinguished vice chairman, but I sure have a different take on this. I think it is supported by facts.

I am rising in the hope of providing some clarification surrounding one of the issues related to the nomination of John Bolton to be U.S. ambassador to the U.N.

On April 28, the vice chairman and I, Vice Chairman Rockefeller, received a letter from the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar. In that letter, the chairman asked the Senate Intelligence Committee to look into all information surrounding the process by which Mr. Bolton, between the years 2001 and 2004, requested the names of U.S. persons that had been redacted from various intelligence products. The Intelligence Committee was asked to solicit all information regarding the process by which Mr. Bolton's requests were handled, the contents of the responses, and the process by which they were communicated, as well as any conclusions reached by the appropriate intelligence agencies or elements thereto as to any violations of procedures or directives or regulations or law by those with knowledge of Mr. Bolton's requests. That was a pretty clear letter. That sets out some pretty clear questions.

It is my understanding that the vice chairman of the committee, the distinguished vice chairman and a person whom I respect, Senator Rockefeller, sent his own letter to Senator Biden with a different interpretation of the issues than I have described. I also understand that Senator Biden read that letter on the floor this afternoon. I regret that a meeting in the Intelligence Committee did prevent me from responding at that particular time, but since the distinguished vice chairman has made his remarks and his interpretation, perhaps this timing is even better. But what I don't understand is why the distinguished Senator from Delaware read only one of the letters from the vice chairman when he had both in his possession.

Nevertheless, in his letter of April 28, Senator Lugar asked the Intelligence Committee to assist the Foreign Relations Committee in ascertaining the facts. This is what I attempted to do, and I think my letter certainly speaks for itself. Unfortunately, I believe that the vice chairman's account did omit some important facts which I believe give a much clearer picture of what actually took place.

This morning, I sent a letter back to Senator Lugar detailing my findings and conclusions. This letter, which was also provided to Senator Biden, provides the rest of the story. With your indulgence, I will read my letter into the Record, as addressed to the Honorable Richard G. Lugar, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations. It reads:

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I write in response to your April 28, 2005 letter asking

this committee to examine a number of intelligence-related

issues that have been raised during the Committee on Foreign

Relations' consideration of the nomination of Under Secretary

John Bolton to be the United States Representative to the

United Nations. My hope was to respond jointly with Vice

Chairman Rockefeller.

While we both agreed there was nothing within the contents

of the intelligence reports in question that caused us any

concern, we were unable to agree on a final text in response.

This was not for lack of trying. One day, 2 days, 3 days, a week, I think it was 10 days, trying to work out a joint letter. It just didn't happen. So we have two versions. I don't quite understand why, but especially since we both met with General Hayden, who is the Director of National Intelligence and who was the head of the NSA and, as such, is the head of intercepts and signals intelligence.

I might say right now that I really do not like this business of coming to the floor of the Senate and talking about signals intelligence and intercepts. That causes me great concern. It is of the highest classification.

I continued to Senator Lugar:

Nevertheless, I am going to convey to you my findings and

conclusions.

After completing an examination of these issues I have

found no evidence that there was anything improper about any

aspect of Mr. Bolton's requests for minimized identities of

U.S. persons. I further found no violations of procedures,

directives, regulations or law by Mr. Bolton. Moreover, I am

not aware that anyone involved in handling these requests had

any concerns regarding these requests at any point in the

process.

State Department records indicate that Under Secretary

Bolton's office did request the minimized identities of U.S.

persons that are contained in the National Security Agency

signals intelligence products on ten separate occasions.

Every request was processed by the State Department's Bureau

of Intelligence and Research.

The acronym for that is INR.

In each case, INR personnel followed standard procedure by

preparing a written request which included a justification

for the request.

INR sought the identities on behalf of Secretary Bolton's

office in each instance to better understand or assess the

foreign intelligence value of the information that was

contained in these documents. Senior INR officials were then

responsible for determining whether the requests were

reasonably related to Under Secretary Bolton's area of

responsibility.

Continuing my response to Senator Lugar:

In every instance, they were so determined and

electronically transmitted to the NSA for approval. The NSA

approved all ten of

Mr. Bolton's requests and transmitted its responses to [the

State Department and the] INR. INR officials then notified

Mr. Bolton's staff that they had received the responses and

made them available.

Committee staff interviewed INR analysts and NSA officials

responsible for processing the requests for the identities of

U.S. persons contained in signals intelligence products. None

of the individuals interviewed indicated that there was

anything improper or inappropriate about Mr. Bolton's

request.

We were also briefed by General Michael Hayden, former

Director of the NSA and current Principal Deputy Director of

National Intelligence--

He is a man who I think gives the best briefing of anybody in the intelligence community, and who was approved in regard to his nomination to that position by unanimous consent by this body.

He also stated that Under Secretary Bolton's requests were

not only appropriate, but routine. In fact, INR records

indicate that since May 2001, INR submitted 489 other

requests for minimized identities.

John Bolton requested 10.

Finally, the Vice Chairman and I reviewed all ten

documents--

We reviewed the intercepts. That is what we are supposed to do. That is the job of the Intelligence Committee. It is limited to only us two, and for darn good reason, because of the classified nature of the subject at hand.

--containing the references to U.S. persons that generated

Under Secretary Bolton's requests. The documents we received

did not contain the actual identities of the minimized U.S.

persons. After reviewing the content of each report, however,

it was apparent to us both--

This is my recollection of the meeting, and I cannot conceive of any other recollection that is accurate.

--that it was not necessary to know the actual names to

determine whether the requests were proper.

Ultimately, I found no basis to question the justification

for, or the appropriateness of, Mr. Bolton's requests for the

identities of U.S. persons contained therein.

I continue in my letter to Senator Lugar:

Further, General Hayden informed us that it is not uncommon

for senior government officials above the rank of Assistant

Secretary to make such requests. It is worth noting that Mr.

Bolton did not request the identity of every U.S. person

referenced in the documents which would have been his

prerogative.

I can remember the distinguished vice chairman's comments indicating they didn't even ask for all of them.

While I found that Mr. Bolton's conduct was entirely

appropriate and consistent with the protection of

intelligence sources and methods, I did find that there are

significant deficiencies in the process by which U.S. person

identities are provided to requesters of such information.

We have had a lot of discussion about questioners.

As your committee has now learned, a request for a U.S.

person identity is a routine occurrence in the intelligence

process. The incidental collection of U.S. person identities

is a fact of life in the signals intelligence business.

Because U.S. persons are not the targets of foreign

intelligence collection, their identities are, as a matter of

policy, redacted or minimized to protect their privacy. When

an intelligence analyst or policymaker determines that a U.S.

person identity is necessary to better understand and assess

the intelligence value of the information, they are permitted

to request that identity. The NSA evaluates that request and

either grants it or denies it. As already discussed, all of

Mr. Bolton's requests were reviewed by both the INR and NSA

and were granted.

In the course of our review, we found that the Assistant

Secretary for INR requested the identities so that they could

be passed to Under Secretary Bolton. The NSA provided the

U.S. person identities to the INR in the form of Information

Memoranda addressed to the Assistant Secretary for INR. We

were provided a copy of one of the memoranda, dated 20

February, 2003. This document included a paragraph which

stated:

``You may disseminate the information as requested,

provided it retains the classification as stated in paragraph

two above. Request no further action be taken on this

information without prior approval of NSA.''

Now, that is important--``request no further action be taken on this information without prior approval of NSA.''

The NSA confirmed that it uses standard dissemination

guidance language in response to customer requests for

release of identities. We were also told that Mr. Bolton was

not provided the 20 February 2003 Information Memorandum

containing this language.

Upon further inquiry, we learned INR does not provide the

NSA transmittal sheets containing the U.S. person

information, or the handling information contained therein,

to the requesters of the identities, nor does it specifically

instruct the requester on the handling of such information.

The INR passes U.S. person identities verbally, without any

further guidance. The NSA expects the INR to provide specific

handling instructions at the time INR provides the identity

to the requester.

Not only did INR not provide such instructions to Mr.

Bolton, it does not provide them to anyone. Also, it has

never established any formal procedures to train or educate

requesters Department-wide on the appropriate handling of

U.S. person identities.

This came as somewhat of a shock to me, and it is something we have to review in the Intelligence Committee.

In fact, in the case of the 20 February 2003 memorandum,

the INR did not pass the identity directly to Under Secretary

Bolton, but rather passed it to an individual within his

office, an action which violated the express dissemination

guidance contained in the Information Memorandum. The

Assistant Secretary at the time of this violation was Carl

Ford.

The NSA did not in this particular instance, and does not

as a matter of course, do anything to ensure that its

dissemination guidance is actually followed by the Assistant

Secretary for INR or any official in any other Department

government-wide.

The NSA depends upon the recipient to provide specific

handling instructions to the requester and to handle the

information appropriately and in accordance with

instructions. It appears that Assistant Secretary Carl Ford

did neither in this case. The INR's failure to instruct the

recipients of U.S. person identities on their proper handling

has left the State Department officials essentially to fend

for themselves.

During the course of this review, we learned that Mr.

Bolton, in the absence of any guidance from INR or the NSA,

discussed the U.S. person identity contained in the 20

February 2003 Information Memorandum with one other

individual.

This has been pointed out as a big deal by the vice chairman and my good friends across the aisle.

This particular individual was the person referenced in the

report.

This person worked directly for Under Secretary Bolton,

possessed the necessary security clearances, received and

read the same intelligence report in the course of his

duties, and understood that he was the U.S. person referred

to therein.

I don't see what the problem is in that regard. Is this the big problem here that somebody is alleging illegal activities? By the way, the first time I learned about that was reading about it in the New York Times, as opposed to reading the letter disseminated by Senator Rockefeller to the distinguished vice chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The NSA request that recipients of information about

specific identities of U.S. persons take ``no further

action'' with regard to the information provided is driven by

concerns about the privacy rights of named individuals. These

privacy concerns do derive from Attorney General-approved

minimization procedures which regulate the collection,

processing, retention, and dissemination of information to,

from, or about any U.S. persons. The request is also prompted

by concerns about protecting intelligence sources and

methods.

Not to mention the chilling effect it would have in regards to all intelligence analysts.

Mr. Bolton's actions in this instance would not implicate

any of these concerns. He discussed the identity with the

actual named person who was not only fully cleared to receive

the information, but already possessed the same information.

It is also important to note that the NSA's guidance is

formulated as a ``request,'' not a mandate. When asked why

the NSA ``requests'' rather than requires, that ``no further

action'' be taken with a U.S. person identifies without prior

approval, the NSA responded by stating that the language is

now ``currently under review.''

So it is a pretty nebulous standard we are referring to in terms of any alleged misconduct.

I intend to work closely with the Director of National

Intelligence to ensure that our intelligence agencies and

elements are doing everything they can to assist and educate

the requesters of U.S. person identities in the proper

handling and protection of this information. We must do

everything we can to not only protect the privacy of our

citizens, but to protect and preserve intelligence sources

and methods.

I do not think you will find any quarrel among anyone on the Intelligence Committee or the vice chairman or myself on that.

It is for this reason that I was a bit surprised and

dismayed when a member of your committee--

Again, this is the letter that I sent to Senator Lugar--

broached this issue in the course of your public confirmation

hearings. Normally, intelligence sources and methods are

discussed in closed session to protect our continuing ability

to collect the intelligence we all agree is so vital to our

Nation's security.

As is often the case, some individuals, who are not

familiar with intelligence issues, perceive that something is

unusual and concerning when, as in this instance, it is

actually very routine. That is why the U.S. Senate created

the Intelligence Committee to deal with these issues in an

informed, responsible, and secure manner. It is my hope, in

the future, intelligence issues will be discussed in

executive session so that we can protect what are vital

national security assets.

I appreciate your recognition of our unique ability to

assist with intelligence-related issues as you consider this

very important nomination. We take very seriously our

oversight responsibilities and our obligation to protect

highly sensitive intelligence information. Your consideration

of our duty to protect intelligence sources and methods is

greatly appreciated.

Sincerely Pat Roberts, Chairman.

With a copy showing to the Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

Mr. President, I said I beg your indulgence in the reading of that entire letter on the floor of the Senate. That is the text of the letter I did send back to Senator Lugar and obviously copied to Senator Biden as of this morning.

Why my colleagues chose to give you only part of the story is a question only they can answer. I have my thinking about that, but I am not going to go into that on the floor of the Senate.

I also would like to add a bit of texture to some of the statements that have been made here today in regards to Mr. Carl Ford of ``kiss up and kick down fame.'' That has been quoted a lot. Mr. Ford has made a number of other statements that I think are relevant to these issues raised by my friends in opposition to Bolton's nomination.

For example, on page 276 of the Senate Intelligence Committee's Iraq WMD report, Mr. Ford addressed the issue of whether it was appropriate for policymakers to view intelligence assessments with skepticism.

I will just tell you that every member of the Intelligence Committee now, after our WMD report, does not take anything at face value, and I think that has helped. We just had a hearing today in which we had a response that I think was certainly more candid: Tell me what you know; tell me what you don't know; tell me what you think. I think there has been a historic change in the intelligence community as a result of our report and the WMD Commission, appointed by the President and the 9/11 Commission, in the interest of all Senators.

Mr. Ford said if a policymaker ``believed everything that the intelligence community told him, including what INR tells him, he'd be a fool. You should know better than anybody that a lot of the stuff we turn out is''--well, I am going to change the name. I am not going to say what is here. I am going to say it is a lot of what we have in our Dodge City feedlots--``and that a policymaker who sticks to that intelligence, I don't even want to be in the same room with. They've got to know the stuff isn't that good. So the notion that they sometimes disagree with us I find fine.''

That is a little slightly different take on what we have been hearing so far. I guess what Mr. Ford meant to say--and he has been before the committee many times; he is a fine man--is that it is fine to disagree with intelligence analysts as long as you are not John Bolton. I only highlight some of the things to emphasize that there seems to be a double standard for this particular nominee.

With the indulgence of my colleagues, I would also like to address some additional misperceptions about the intelligence community that were published as minority views in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee report on Mr. Bolton's nomination. The minority claims that policymakers should be restricted from making public statements that ``defame U.S. intelligence agencies.'' I find this to be a rather absurd concept.

I do not know how one ``defames'' an entire Government agency, but I do know that criticism played a vital role in our collective effort to reform the intelligence community and demand change for failure. I am not aware of any special status that insulates members of the intelligence community from criticism, nor should there be. That should be a slam dunk.

I am also unaware of any special status that prevents intelligence analysts from having their views or actions challenged by policymakers. Intelligence analysis is not an exact science. Intelligence analysts are not infallible and their assessments are not unassailable. While the intelligence community has had many successes in the past few years for which it should, and can, be proud--there are many good things they have done in protecting the homeland and providing real-time intelligence to the warfighters--astounding failures, such as 9/11 and Iraq, should make it clear that the intelligence community does make mistakes.

I often lament that policymakers did not ask enough tough questions about Iraq's suspected WMD programs prior to the war. Let me just say that persistent questioning to an analyst is not viewed by the analysts, in the 250 analysts we interviewed, as being pressured. If anything, we should be asking more questions. If anything, several members of the Intelligence Committee, whom I admire and respect and am very proud to be their chairman, ask more repetitive questions of witnesses every time we have a hearing than people are complaining about in this particular case.

Perhaps, if we all had been more diligent, the intelligence community would have been more attuned to the gaps in its information and more accurate in its judgment. I, for one, now make it a point to repeatedly and persistently question analysts who come before our committee to ensure that I understand their judgments, understand the information upon which they base those judgments, and form my own opinions about gaps in their logic.

The vice chairman and I have agreed on that, to look at every capability we have in regard to national security threats. Do we have the intelligence capability? Do we have the collection? Do we have the analysis? Is there a consensus threat analysis that makes sense? Are there gaps?

We do not want to repeat past mistakes. I am not going to go down the laundry list, starting with Khobar Towers and ending up with 9/11 or the Madrid bombing or whatever it is we are talking about, or the USS Cole. We have to put that one in.

So basically I resent any suggestion that this performance of my duty is somehow improper. I do not think that is right. Intelligence is a serious business, dealing with life-and-death issues. In my experience, our intelligence analysts understand this. They know that defending their views is vital to the process and are fully capable of doing so. These are individuals who work every day to defeat terror and defend our national security. They are tough and they are good. They are not delicate, hothouse flowers unable to defend their views or take criticism. They are, however, humans involved in a fundamentally human process. Intelligence analysts can make mistakes and their judgments are not immune from their own biases.

Intelligence assessments should inform policy, not dictate it. Ultimately, as policymakers we need to understand that intelligence is merely a tool that at times can have great value as well as serious limitations.

If we are going to make an informed judgment of Mr. Bolton's fitness for this position, please, I implore my colleagues, let us do it based upon all the facts known to us, not just the facts we like or pick out.

In conclusion, I have looked at the intercept issue and allegations surrounding Mr. Bolton's management style. I have found nothing which would give me pause in voting for his confirmation. I support the Bolton nomination. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

Sure. Why not.

I thank the Senator for his comments.

I would never raise the question about my colleague and friend about acting inappropriately, especially in regard to intent. I am concerned about us talking about intercepts and all of this that I went through in the letter on the Senate floor. I am concerned about many things that have been talked about publicly, quite frankly, leaks that appeared in the press that I find out about later as chairman and have to address. I cannot speak to them because they are classified. It is the classic case of Catch-22, where something appears in the press or perhaps somebody says something on the floor inadvertently--if it is done on purpose, that is another matter. That can be referred to the Ethics Committee--and that certainly is not the case in terms of my distinguished colleague. Then comes sort of a feeding frenzy and we end up with things that should not be in the public discourse that are highly classified, highly compartmented. Signals intelligence is one of the highest compartmented topics we deal with.

It was only Senator Rockefeller and myself who were briefed by General Hayden, and that was a very good meeting. We went over virtually every intercept, as it should be. That was my point. That is what the Intelligence Committee does. It is accepted practice for the full committee, which many members of the full committee have trouble understanding, that only the vice chairman and the chairman have access to this kind of highly compartmented material. So when this kind of thing is bandied about on the floor in a generic way, it causes me great concern.

I am not referring to the Senator from Connecticut by name. OK?

Pardon me?

Reclaiming my time, I think I addressed the Senator's personal concern. The Senator knows me well enough to know that when I say I am not accusing him personally of anything that would be inappropriate, I have stated I am talking about open discussion of intelligence information, quite frankly, not only in this nomination process but in the Intelligence Authorization Act in regard to a whole series of other subjects I will not go into, that many people have spoken to on the floor, many people have talked to the press about, and I do not think it is appropriate.

I will say again, I am not accusing the Senator of anything inappropriate. I think from the whole standpoint of this body, subjects such as this should be done in executive session. I think that because of all the problems we have had in regard to leaks and in regard to information that is not helpful to our national security. That is about as far as I will go with it. I could go through quite a laundry list of concerns I have of things that have been made public and what has happened in regard to our adversaries, what has happened in regard to our intelligence capability, and I worry about it. So my concern was basically the continued open discussion of things of this nature, not the Senator from Connecticut.

I would be happy to yield.

I thank the Senator for his clarification.

I only wish all Senators would have the same caution. I thank the Senator for his personal comments in my regard.

I think he has made his point. As the farmer said as he crawled through the barbed-wire fence: One more point and we will be through.

I suspect that you are through, and since I yielded back my time about 10 minutes ago, I yield it back one more time.

Mr. President, our former Senate majority leader, Howard Baker, reportedly tells the story about his late father-in-law, Senator Everett Dirksen, who admonished him to occasionally allow himself the luxury of an unexpressed thought. After listening to the current debate on judicial nominations, there is a temptation to say, after all is said and done, pretty much all that can be said has been said.

I rise today because I do have something to say. What I want to talk about is of very crucial importance not only with regard to the judicial nominations but, perhaps more important, how we are meeting our obligations in the Senate--or better put, how we are not meeting them.

This weekend, an elderly gentleman spotted my Senator's car tag on my car in a parking lot. He wandered up to me and asked: Are you a Senator?

And I responded: Yes, sir, I am.

Well, he has some rather succinct advice for all of us who ask for and gain the public trust.

He said: You know, you fellows up there ought to get busy and quit talking past one another.

I think probably no matter the issue, most would agree he was right.

I am concerned, and so are a lot of other people--people who care, people who have given much to this country and whose advice we should be taking. One of those people is Dr. David Abshire who is president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency and whose credentials for public service are well-known and admired. Dr. Abshire recently authored a treatise, ``The Grace and Power of Civility'' and the necessity for renewed commitment and tolerance. He quoted John Witherspoon and Samuel Cooper during the days of our Founding Fathers and highlighted what they called ``the consonance of faith and reason,'' if we are to cross the bridge of united purpose.

We are not doing what our Founding Fathers did so well. As a matter of fact, we are in pretty sad shape with the shape we are in. Across the bridge? Well, today, the bridge is washed out. We can't swim. And the judges are simply on the other side.

I am going to paraphrase from Dr. Abshire. Today, as our Nation and the world confront new and great perils, there are paralyzing forces of incivility and intolerance that threaten our country. Divisions in Congress also reflect the divisions in the country. The so-called wedge issues seem and appear endless. These challenges, if allowed to divide the Nation, might well deny the next generation the prosperity and civic culture that we have inherited.

It was Benjamin Franklin who stated that Congress should be a mirror image of the American people. In the sense that there are divisions in the country, the sad fact is, as evidenced by this debate, we seemingly cannot transcend

these divisions. We keep talking past one another, saying the same things, but basically being in disagreement.

Dr. Abshire quoted the poet William Yeats, who said this, a dire prediction:

Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood--dimmed tide is loosed, and

Everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all convictions, while the worst are

full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand.

My colleagues, on this issue and so many others, we seem to be locked into an era of partisanship that echoes a mindset of absolutism that can close off dialogue and also mutual respect.

In that vein, let me take up the matter of judicial nominations, obviously, the issue at hand that currently has us tied up in partisan knots.

First, I understand the opposition on the part of my colleagues to many of the President's nominations. I understand some of my colleagues do not support certain nominees. Their opposition is well within their rights and their belief that they are reflecting the will of their constituents.

I have a very simple solution. If you believe that your constituency does not approve of certain nominees, then simply vote against them. I have done that, but I have never denied any Member of this body the right to an up-or-down vote, knowing full well that 214-year tradition of the Senate ensures that a majority vote would confirm or deny a confirmation. Contrary to the great majority of statements made by some of my friends across the aisle, the practice of filibustering judicial nominations is not steeped in Senate history or precedent.

This is a brandnew application, quite frankly, of an obstruction tool that the minority has suddenly seized, collapsed to their breast. We are seeing the reinterpretation of history and the claiming of precedent when there is none. Again, the minority is asking the American people to ignore the obvious tradition of a simple majority vote for judicial nominations that has been honored in the Senate for 214 years.

Serving in public office for over 25 years in both the House and Senate, I am familiar with the broader points of our Constitution. What I gather from all the lather from my friends across the aisle is that President Bush should just stop nominating these ``out of the mainstream judges,'' for approval.

In fact, the President should consult with the minority party to find a judicial nominee that is more appropriate and more mainstream or more in line with their thinking.

By this logic, the minority party--not the elected majority, the minority party--would have the determining role in choosing who is acceptable and who is not. Yet article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors and other Public Ministers and Counsels, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for and which shall be established by law.''

Here's the rub: The power to choose nominations is not vested in the Senate's advice and consent role. The Senate's constitutional responsibility is to ratify or to reject.

Let's talk about this new higher standard that was put into place only 2 years ago and advocated so eloquently today by my friends across the aisle. Since 2003, two short years ago, 60 votes have been the new minority criteria forced upon the Senate in order to confirm judicial nominations. The Framers of the Constitution identified seven circumstances in which a supermajority vote is warranted by one or both chambers of commerce. Here are some examples: Impeachment--we have done that; overriding a Presidential veto--haven't done that for a while; amending the Constitution--and there are quite a few bills in the hopper that would do that.

However, Senate approval of judicial nominations is not among the seven instances identified by the Constitution. Here is the heart of the matter. We do not propose to change anything. We propose to return to the tradition that governed the Senate for 214 years and an up-or- down majority vote on pending nominations.

Then there is the charge that somehow restoring Senate precedent is reactionary. I have heard a lot of people compare the Senate to the House. I served in both bodies. Intuitively then, blocking judicial nominations is, therefore, a hallowed and sacred tradition of the Senate Chamber. But history does not support that assumption. In fact, for over 200 years, judicial nominations required a simple majority vote. And again, a simple fact that I seldom read or hear within the national media, paragraph after paragraph after paragraph about the majority trying to change the rules, we are just trying to go back to the rules that were in evidence prior to the last 2 years.

This new 2003 standard through the unprecedented use of the judicial filibuster is the result of the minority not making the case against the nominees as demanded by special issue interest group ideology. Why? They are not able to convince the majority of Senators that these nominees are radical and wrong. It has been pointed out that during this debate, for 58 percent of the last 50 Congresses--well over half, almost 60 percent--the same party did control the Senate, the House, and the White House. Now, in all that time, the minority, whether it was the Democrat or the Republican Party, never, ever resorted to this systematic filibustering of judicial nominations.

So if the contention is that returning to a simple majority standard for judicial nominations would abridge minority rights, my question is, then why in the last 100 years has that bridge never been built until 2003?

Our official Senate majority leader, Bob Dole, summed it up when he said:

When I was the leader in the Senate, a judicial filibuster

was not part of my procedural playbook. Asking a Senator to

filibuster a judicial nomination was considered an abrogation

of some 200 years of Senate tradition.

And there is the related issue that has been talked about in the Senate. Unfortunately, the disease of obstruction infected other aspects of our work in the Senate last week. Obviously, the fever will not break until high noon tomorrow. Senate business and the committee hearings and the markup of legislation are in early morning slow- motion. In the afternoon, they come to a grinding halt.

For those not familiar with the Senate business, for business to be conducted off and on the Senate floor, it takes only one Senator, or in this case the minority leadership, to call a halt to the Senate conducting business off of the floor.

I am chairman of the Intelligence Committee. We get hotspot briefings every week, two or three times a week. We are marking up the PATRIOT Act. I asked why this practice was initiated so early; why last week, at a time when our Nation is fighting the global war on terror. I found that obstruction rather appalling. The answer was pretty simple: We wanted to send you a message. That message, as I interpreted it, was whoa, stop the Senate, let me get off until we get our way--something akin to a toddler throwing a temper tantrum in the middle of a grocery store with much of the same rhetoric and name calling.

What is the real problem? Let's fully understand where the real controversy lies. Too many in the Senate and too many pundits have been masking the real issue, in this Senator's opinion. It is not about preserving great Senate traditions such as minority rights. It is not about lengthy debate and cooling passions of the day. That is an oxymoron in regard to the Judiciary Committee. It is not about doing away with the filibuster. By the way, it is not about Jimmy Stewart and ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.'' That was a classic movie, but it is the wrong plot unless we are talking about other Jimmy Stewart movies. The movies ``Vertigo'' and the ``Supreme Court'' come to mind. Or perhaps the minority is hoping they can have the Glenn Miller Band play ``Pennsylvania 65000'' within Pennsylvania 1600 in 2008.

And it is not about unqualified or unacceptable judicial nominees. It is about a brandnew 2-year-old procedure that will deny--is denying--a majority of Senators their right and constitutional duty to vote on judicial nominees. In my view, we are riding into a box canyon here, where incivility and partisanship and absolutism and further division await. There is going to

be a lot of milling around. We do not have to go there. Let us restore the 214-year-old precedent of an up-or-down majority vote and see if we cannot reach accord and ride to a higher--a higher--common ground.

I yield back.

Mr. President, I thank you.

Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I rise today in strong support of the nomination of Ambassador John D. Negroponte to serve as our Nation's first Director of National Intelligence.

The committee held Ambassador Negroponte's confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 12, and voted favorably to report his nomination to the full Senate on Thursday, April 14.

Now, the speed with which the committee acted upon this nomination and the nomination of LTG, soon to be four-star general, Michael Hayden, to be the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, really underscores the importance the committee, and I believe the Senate, places on continuing and ensuring reform of our Nation's intelligence community and, as a result, our national security.

While our intelligence community has a great number of successes--let me emphasize that--of which intelligence professionals should be justifiably proud--and the problem here is that when we have successes in the intelligence community, many times either the community or those of us who serve on the committee or those who are familiar with those successes cannot say anything about them because it is classified--but the intelligence failures associated with the attacks of 9/11 and the intelligence community's flawed assessments of Iraq's WMD programs underscored the need for fundamental change across the intelligence community.

In my years on the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have met many of these hard-working men and women of the intelligence community who work day in and day out with one goal in mind; that is, to keep this Nation secure and our people safe.

They are held back, however, by a flawed system that does not permit them to work as a community to do their best work. So we need to honor their commitment and their sacrifices by giving them an intelligence community worthy of their efforts and capable of meeting their aspirations and our expectations of them.

So responding to that demonstrated need for reform, Congress really created the position of Director of National Intelligence with the intent of giving one person the responsibility and authority to provide the leadership that the Nation's intelligence apparatus has desperately needed and to exercise command and control across all the elements of the intelligence community.

In short, through legislation, we created the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence, to provide the intelligence community with a clear chain of command and the accountability that comes with that.

To facilitate that chain of command, and to foster accountability, the National Security Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 gave the DNI significant management authorities and tools, including expanded budget authority, acquisition, personnel, and tasking authorities.

These authorities, however, are limited in significant ways, and the legislation leaves certain ambiguities about the DNI's authorities.

As a result, there are questions about the DNI's ability to bring about the kind of change and true reform necessary to address the failures highlighted by the 9/11 attacks and the assessments of Iraq's WMD programs.

So the task of resolving these ambiguities and questions will fall to the first Director of National Intelligence. As the WMD Commission pointed out in its recent report, the DNI will have to be adept at managing more through resource allocation than through command.

Moreover, the first DNI will define the power and scope of future Directors of National Intelligence and will determine, in large measure, the success of our efforts to truly reform the intelligence community.

Bringing about that reform is not going to be easy. Numerous commissions--many commissions--have identified the same failings as those that resulted in the legislation that created the DNI. Yet previous reform efforts have proven largely fruitless.

So immune to reform is the intelligence community that the WMD Commission described it as a ``closed world'' with ``an almost perfect record of resisting external recommendations.''

Allow me to relay one example to demonstrate this point.

Over 3 years have passed since the September 11 attacks, and the elements of the community have not made the progress that we want in sharing intelligence data amongst the community. The distinguished vice chairman and I call that ``information access.''

Elements within the intelligence community, unfortunately, continue to act--some elements--as though they own the intelligence data they collect rather than treating that data as belonging to the U.S. Government.

As a result of the community's failure to repudiate outdated restrictions on information access, and its refusal to revisit legal interpretations and policy decisions that predate the threats now confronting the United States, impediments to information access are reemerging--reemerging, even today--in the very programs designed to address the problem.

Clearly, then, the Nation's first Director of National Intelligence will face tremendous challenges and will require unwavering support from both Congress and the White House.

I am pleased President Bush has made it very clear that the DNI will have strong authority in his administration. We in Congress must do our part, and we begin with the nomination of Ambassador Negroponte.

The President has made an excellent choice in choosing the Ambassador to serve as the first DNI. He has dedicated more than 40 years of service to our country. Over the course of his public service career, the Senate has confirmed him seven times, including five times for ambassadorial positions in Honduras, Mexico, the Philippines, the United Nations and, of course, most recently in Iraq. Ambassador Negroponte has also held a number of key positions within the executive branch, including serving as Deputy National Security Advisor.

In short, his career has been dedicated to intelligence and national security matters, and he has a great deal of experience to offer as the new Director of National Intelligence. He is well suited for this position. I look forward to working with him.

In my discussions with Ambassador Negroponte, I have made it clear that Congress and the American people expect him to make a difference in the intelligence community. I must say, on behalf of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and on behalf of my vice chairman and myself, we have promised to conduct aggressive, preemptive oversight in regard to helping the DNI answer the challenges he will face with regard to the capabilities we have or do not have with regard to the intelligence community.

We expect him to break down those barriers to information access I alluded to earlier. We expect him to improve the human intelligence capabilities we need. And ultimately, we expect him to provide leadership and accountability. In response to these questions, during his confirmation hearing, the Ambassador simply responded ``I will'' with conviction.

Clearly Ambassador Negroponte will face significant challenges. He is going to carry heavy burdens. I am convinced, however, he has the character, the expertise, and the leadership skills required to successfully meet these challenges and to shoulder these responsibilities.

I urge my colleagues to support this nomination, and I reserve the remainder of my time.

Will the vice chairman yield?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for a very comprehensive statement. I thank him for what I think is a very accurate statement, more especially with the history he has outlined of the intelligence community; more especially with the contributions of the men and women within the intelligence community who have successes that obviously you cannot talk about, but the obvious need for reform because of what we have gone through; especially for the Senator's comment in relationship to the new DNI in relation to the Department of Defense. That was right on target.

There has been a great deal of comment, as the vice chairman knows, that 80 percent of the funding of the intelligence budget goes to the military, and in terms of being the majority user of intelligence nobody would quarrel with that. I don't know of any Member of Congress who would say otherwise. I think we have made great progress between the intelligence and the military and the real-time analysis or real- time intelligence to the warfighter, even though our challenges in parts of the world are very great. But I point out--and I think the vice chairman agrees--that the principal user of intelligence--not majority but principal user of intelligence--is not the military, as important as they are; it is the President of the United States and the National Security Council and the Congress of the United States to determine policy.

I thank the Senator for bringing that out and I thank him for a very fine statement and also for being a fine vice chairman. We aggressively tried to provide insight and advice to the new DNI.

Mr. President, I could ask for unanimous consent to lock in the order, but I think I can just make a suggestion with the few Senators we have here. I am sure more will come. Senator Bond has a time conflict and would like to be recognized for 10 minutes. Senator Feinstein has been waiting, as has Senator Wyden. And then Senator Collins will come to the floor very quickly, one of the coauthors of the Intelligence Reform Act. If we can have an understanding that that would be the order, I think that would be appropriate.

Also, I ask unanimous consent that the time consumed by any quorum calls be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. President, I am more than happy to yield 10 minutes to a valued member of the committee, the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond.

Mr. President, I am delighted to yield 10 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee whose unflagging, untiring, persevering efforts, along with her coauthor, Senator Lieberman, led to passage of the Intelligence Reform Act that has returned us to this whole process where we have Ambassador Negroponte and General Hayden, an outstanding team, not only to reform but to lead the intelligence community.

I thank the Senator for her leadership and her efforts. She persevered, and she was successful.

Mr. President, I regret that I am compelled to speak on this subject. The topic of the day is the confirmation of Ambassador John Negroponte to be the new National Director of Intelligence, but it appears as if that topic has now changed, and I have no alternative but to respond in that basically the purpose and the responsibilities of the Intelligence Committee have been challenged by the vice chairman.

I understand that the vice chairman feels strongly about this issue. We have discussed this at length--not as much as I had hoped and that we had intended to--to seek common ground, but he feels so strongly that he offered an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill, which he has discussed.

I feel equally as strong, so much so that I filed a second-degree amendment in response. My second-degree amendment is in stark contrast to the amendment offered by my colleague and my friend. My amendment actually expresses support for our Armed Forces and intelligence officers, rather than calling into question their actions, while they are on the front lines in the war on terror. The amendment underscored the Intelligence Committee's continuing aggressive oversight of all aspects of the war on terror, including terrorist detention and interrogation.

The Rockefeller amendment is a sense of the Senate, as he indicated, calling for the Intelligence Committee to launch yet another formal investigation of the men and women who are prosecuting the war against the terrorists. The proposed Rockefeller investigation, as I read the parameters originally proposed and then refined, I think would be virtually boundless in its exploration of any matter even tangentially related to the use of rendition, detention, and interrogation of terrorists.

I want my colleagues to know that these are the very tools that are being used by our brave men and women in the military and intelligence agencies to combat a continuing terrorist threat against every American and our interests. They are also critical in our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they are saving lives as I speak.

I oppose the efforts of Senator Rockefeller to launch yet another wide-ranging investigation because I believe, despite what he believes--and reasonable men can certainly disagree--that it is currently unnecessary. I believe it would be impractical and damaging to the ongoing operations and morale of the people who are doing the job.

We are not sitting on the sidelines. We are not being passive, we are not rebuffing, we are not defaulting, and we sure as heck are not going to let the media drive the agenda within the Intelligence Committee with regard to classified information and our national security. The Senate Intelligence Committee, in the conduct of its normal but aggressive oversight responsibilities, is examining the broad issues of the effectiveness of interrogation operations, the humane treatment of detainees, the role of intelligence in tribunals and combatant status review boards, and, yes, rendition operations.

In conducting this oversight, just this past month committee staff-- both minority and majority--once again visited the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay for onsite inspections, briefings, and discussions. The committee is continuing its oversight through visits, interviews of relevant individuals and personnel, through requests of documents, reviews of prior investigations, and briefings from intelligence community element, using basically the same methodology we used during the WMD review and investigation.

In other words, we are doing our job. I believe we are fulfilling our oversight responsibilities. And there are still ongoing investigations, including the Navy inspector general's investigation into FBI allegations of abuse at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and the comprehensive efforts of the CIA inspector general of which we are fully informed to the degree that we have never been informed before.

Further, I believe the Rockefeller proposal is unnecessary because this issue has been thoroughly investigated over the past 3 years. We have investigated and investigated and investigated. In fact, we have investigated the investigations.

Let me give you an idea of how many times our own people have been investigated: in January 2002, the Custer report; January 2003, the DOD general counsel and DOD working group, with relation to the interrogation of detainees held in the global war on terrorism; September 2003, the Miller report; November 2003, the Ryder report; May 2004, the Navy inspector general review; June 2004, the Taguba report in regard to the tragedy that happened in Abu Ghraib; June 2004, the Jacoby report; July 2004, the Mikolashek report; August 2004, the Jones and Fay investigation; mid-August 2004, the Schlesinger Commission; August 2004, the Formica report; December 2004, the Army Reserve Command inspector general's assessment of military intelligence and military police training; March 2005, last month, the Church report.

This issue has been--and will continue to be--thoroughly investigated by inspectors general and criminal investigators from the DOD, all of the uniformed services, the CIA, and the Justice Department. It is hard to keep track, but I count at least 15 comprehensive national level investigations and well over 300 investigations of specific allegations of abuse. Between these investigations and our regular and aggressive oversight--I will emphasize, our regular, aggressive oversight--I am comfortable as chairman that the Intelligence Committee is meeting its responsibilities.

I want my colleagues to also think about something else. Last year, just as we have talked about, we enacted the most comprehensive reorganization of the intelligence community since its creation over 50 years ago. We created the position of the Director of National Intelligence and gave him new authorities and enormous responsibilities, further encumbered by our very high expectations. We have all spoken to that during this confirmation process.

If the Intelligence Committee embarks on an unnecessary and boundless what some would even call a fishing expedition that is surely to be tainted by politics, suggested by any leak that has appeared in the press, it will be the first thing that greets the new DNI when he takes office. As Ambassador Negroponte begins the difficult process of fixing what we and numerous commissions have said need fixing, he would be met with endless requests for documents, interviews, and hearings. So Ambassador Negroponte and General Hayden need to hit the ground running, and that would be exceedingly hard to do if they land right in the middle of an unnecessary congressional investigation.

I believe that would be a very serious mistake and contrary to the intent of Congress.

Finally, I oppose Senator Rockefeller's investigation because it will hinder ongoing intelligence collection, and I believe it would damage morale.

My colleagues should know there is a consensus in the intelligence community that terrorist interrogations are the single best source of actionable intelligence against the ongoing plans and plots of our enemy. Terrorist interrogations today are saving lives in Iraq-- American lives, Iraqi lives, Afghan lives--and are subverting plots against our own homeland.

The information gleaned from interrogating terrorists is doing exactly what I said in terms of the priority that we have and our responsibilities on the Intelligence Committee in reference to our national security. The majority of usable and actionable intelligence against al-Qaida comes from the terrorist interrogations and debriefings. We must preserve this irreplaceable source of information. Do it right, yes, but we must preserve it.

There is no doubt that this is a delicate intelligence oversight issue. The oversight of detention and interrogation does command a large portion of the Intelligence Committee staff and time and effort. We must continue to treat interrogation as a delicate oversight issue or we risk losing it.

I am concerned an unnecessary informal investigation would accomplish little beyond what we already do in the course of our normal and, yes, aggressive oversight efforts. As I have said on other occasions, it will likely cause risk aversion, the very thing we are trying to avoid.

The constant and repetitive investigations of our frontline personnel will have a chilling effect, a no-confidence vote, really, on the collection of intelligence through interrogations.

The Senate and the Intelligence Committee should be publicly supportive of our men and women of our Armed Forces and intelligence agencies because the overwhelming majority of these people are doing their best to protect us all. Where there have been allegations, they are reported and they are being investigated. And after they are investigated, they are turned over to the Justice Department, if warranted, and people are being charged.

Frankly, I am fast losing patience with what appears to me to be almost a pathological obsession with calling into question the actions of the men and women who are on the front line in the war on terror. Some of these very courageous individuals wear uniforms and some do not. They leave their spouses and children at home, after assuring them that everything will be all right, with the understanding that it may not be all right, and sometimes it is not all right. They travel to the other side of the world in the service of their country with a reasonable expectation that their country supports them. At times they make mistakes, and sometimes they make serious mistakes for which they must account, and rightfully so, and we are doing that.

But as we sit here in the relative safety and comfort of the Capitol complex, I cannot help but think that some of us have lost our perspective. We will and must do our duty as elected officials. As I have indicated, we will continue aggressive oversight on this issue, and we will reach out to our friends across the aisle to incorporate their concerns. But, Mr. President, I say to my friends, we are at war. Therefore, our first and foremost duty is to support our troops and intelligence officers at home and abroad. I, for one, will not advocate using the constitutional authorities vested in this great institution as a blunt instrument on the very people we depend on to keep us safe every day.

I am on their side. And make no mistake, if we sanction another needless investigation, it will be a very public vote of no confidence in our men and women on the front lines in the war on terror. I, for one, have not lost confidence in our people.

The Senator from West Virginia referred to the almost daily revelations regarding the alleged abuses. It is very clear to me what is happening. Facts already known to us and to investigators are now finding their way into the press through Freedom of Information Act requests and, quite frankly, leaks. In Washington, a leak is not a leak until somebody gets wet. I can tell you, on the Intelligence Committee, we are right about up to here, and the same thing is true in many other agencies.

I do not think I am being conspiratorial when I suggest this is a deliberate effort to give the public the impression that this is an ongoing and growing problem. It is not. I do not believe it is. Mistakes have been made by our military and our intelligence agencies, and the Justice Department has responded properly with investigations of abuse and misconduct. We will oversee that. We are being told that, and we are being kept fully informed. I will always meet our oversight duties using facts not press reports.

I urge my colleagues to consider this, as we have two options to take. Again, I offer the open door of suggestions just as we did with the WMD inquiry to incorporate concerns of the minority on the committee with responsibilities as I see them as chairman of the Intelligence Committee and do our due diligence.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I yield back all time on the pending nomination, other than the 5 minutes that will be reserved for Senator Stevens; provided further that the vote on the confirmation of the nomination occur at 3:45 today. I further ask that at 3:30 today the Senate resume consideration of the emergency supplemental bill for the final 15 minutes of debate and that the votes scheduled on the two amendments and final passage occur immediately following the vote on the Negroponte nomination. I ask that all votes in the sequence after the first be limited to 10 minutes in length and that there be 2 minutes for debate equally divided between the votes. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following this consent, the Senate proceed to a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, a unanimous consent has been agreed to by both sides for the Senate to immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on today's Executive Calendar: PN 421, LTG Michael V. Hayden, to be General, reported by the Armed Services Committee today; and No. 70, which is the confirmation of General Hayden to be the Deputy Director of National Intelligence.

I further ask unanimous consent the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 21, 2005, at 10 a.m., in open session to consider the following nominations: Mr. Kenneth J. Krieg to be Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics; and Lieutenant General Michael V. Hayden, USAF, for appointment to the grade of General and to be Deputy National Intelligence Director.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 21, 2005, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on ``Regulatory Reform on the Housing Government- Sponsored Enterprises.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 21, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing on ``HUD's Fiscal Year 2005 Budget.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Thursday, April 21, 2005, at 10 a.m., in 628 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to consider the nomination of Robert J. Portman to be United States Trade Representative.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 21, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on multilateral development banks.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 21, 2005 at 10 a.m. in SD-430

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on the judiciary

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, April 21, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen room 226.

I. Nominations

Terrence W. Boyle, II, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit; Priscilla R. Owen, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit; and Janice Rogers Brown, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit.

II. Bills

S. 378, Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports Act of 2005, Biden, Specter, Feinstein, Kyl, Cornyn; and S. 629, Railroad Carriers and Mass Transportation Act of 2005, Sessions, Kyl.

III. Matters

Asbestos, Senate Judiciary Committee Rules.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

joint committee on printing

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Committee on Printing be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 21, 2005 at 2 p.m. to conduct an organizational meeting.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

select committee on intelligence

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 21, 2005 at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 21st, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., for a hearing regarding ``An Assessment of the President's Management Agenda''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``The Patent System Today and Tomorrow'' on Thursday, April 21, 2005 at 2:30 p.m., in Dirksen 226.

Panel I: Jon W. Dudas, Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce, Arlington, VA.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 21, 2005 at 10:30 a.m. for a hearing entitled, ``Employing Federal Workforce Flexibilities: A Progress Report.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on Personnel be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 21, 2005, at 1:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on the Present and Future Costs of Department of Defense Health Care, and National health Care Trends in the Civilian Sector.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 21, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. on Amtrak Reauthorization.

Mr. President, pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I am submitting for publication in the Congressional Record changes to the Rules of Procedure for the Select Committee on Intelligence. I ask unanimous consent that the rules of the committee be printed, in the Record to reflect the amendments adopted by the committee.

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

Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to share with the Senate a story that I truly hope is the exception to the rule. It begins last year, when a member of one of Kansas's local fire departments was called to active duty in Iraq. Certainly, that is no unique happening where today in every State people are called to service, whether they be in the service or National Guard. This gentleman, Mr. Steven Welter, and his wife have worked hard to make a good life for themselves and their three children. They live in the small community of Osawatomie, KS--it is a very fine community--where they are surrounded by friends and family. They recently purchased their first home.

Well, knowing that with Mr. Welter called to active duty they might face some real challenges meeting their mortgage payment, they contacted their mortgage provider to make them aware of their situation and to seek relief under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

Now, Congress has long recognized the burden that military duty places on soldiers' lives when they are called to active duty. During the Civil War, Congress placed a moratorium on civil actions that were brought against servicemembers. Today, through the Service-members Civil Relief Act, Congress provides important rights and legal protections to lessen the burden on military servicemembers. A key component of that act, initially passed by Congress 40 years ago as the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act, is to provide the protection for servicemembers whose military service makes it difficult for them to meet financial obligations incurred prior to being called up for active duty. That seems pretty simple. It does not forgive debt. It does not relieve a servicemember of their obligation to meet their financial responsibilities.

Among other protections, the act shields a servicemember or their family from eviction or from losing their home. The Welters sought relief under the act, requesting that their mortgage company work with them to help them

meet their financial obligation. However, the mortgage company responded by sending notice to Mrs. Keira Welter that the company had initiated court proceedings to foreclose on her home. You can imagine this lady's distress. Not only is she worried about the safety of her husband in Iraq, she is now faced with losing her home, with three children, the very scenario the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act is designed to prevent.

Not knowing who to turn to--and she thought pretty hard about it and didn't know who to call--she contacted my office and requested our assistance. After numerous conversations with her mortgage lender, Wells Fargo, I believe we have resolved her situation. I remain concerned, however, that those responsible for complying with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act are not fully educated about their obligations, and that that problem is nationwide.

What is particularly appalling about this situation is that the mortgage company initially claimed they were unaware of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, a law that has been on the books for 40 years. They further claimed that ``they just can't be expected to keep up with everything that goes on in Washington.''

I can appreciate that last sentiment on a lot of different fronts. But ignorance is no excuse. Every financial institution has a compliance officer whose job it is is to ensure that financial institutions comply with laws and the regulations. Lord knows, I often hear from our financial institutions, banks, savings and loans, and others, about the regulatory burden our Government does place on them. Not only do they have to read all of the paperwork and the burdens and regulations; I think they have to weigh them. I appreciate those concerns, especially in the small banking community. I once spent an entire day in my hometown bank in Dodge City learning the ins and outs of what a compliance officer does. She described her job as being a ``bad news bear.'' She had to go to loan officers and say, whoops, here is another regulation you have to put up with. I know that is not an easy task.

However, today's example of egregious disregard for a 40-year-old law, and one we amended 2 years ago to provide additional protection to our military men and women, is simply unacceptable.

Let me be clear. I know our Nation's financial institutions do support our men and women in uniform. That is a given. I am also confident that they understand their obligation and responsibility to comply with this act, and that most do so. In Kansas, I know many financial service providers, and they all know that the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act is not only the law, but it is the morally right thing to do. They live in the same town. They attend the same church. They share the military family's concerns when somebody from their hometown is called to active duty, and they are so rightfully proud when they come home.

I also want to be clear it is not only financial institutions that are responsible for complying with this act. Landlords and other creditors also have certain obligations in this regard as well. I recognize that with many service members called to active duty, raising awareness of the requirements of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act is necessary. We need a lot more education. Congress should encourage anybody who is working with a service-member called to active duty, or that servicemember's family, to make sure they are aware of their obligation under this act.

Let me also take this opportunity to commend the efforts of many organizations who are working with the military families on base, veterans organizations, support organizations, and others, to ensure they receive the protections that are provided for under this act, and to provide other assistance to families of our servicemembers. That is a real win-win story all across this Nation.

I recently learned from a member of the VFW, who works with military families, who stressed that ``education about the protections that are provided under the act is key.'' Too many military families have experienced instances where a landlord, unaware of this act, sought to evict the family while the soldier was on active duty. That is egregious.

I am calling on the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the OCC. I hope they can see their way clear as to what they should be doing in this regard, and others who have responsibility for enforcing this act--by the way, the acronym is SCRA--to strengthen their enforcement in education of this important law. Any military family who has a mortgage with a national bank and who needs relief under this act can contact the OCC's consumer assistance group if they have difficulty with their bank. That number is 1-800-613-6743. Right off the bat, I can suggest that they need an easier number to remember. I feel as though I am on television trying to sell something here--and I am. It is education for our service members. Again, the number is 1-800-613- 6743.

I am also going to visit with my colleagues on the Veterans Committee, the Banking Committee, Armed Services Committee, upon which I serve, and all who have jurisdiction under this act, and ask them to review what Congress can do to ensure that this situation doesn't happen to other military families.

So today I share this story to reassure our military men and women in uniform that we will make certain the protections provided in the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act are enforced. This act is intended to ensure that when a wage earner is called to active duty, their family has financial security and other protections provided for in the act while they are deployed. It means a soldier fighting in Iraq can better focus on his or her mission, without the added stress of wondering if their family is financially secure at home. We owe nothing less to our men and women in uniform who answer the call to duty.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman for yielding.

I rise today in opposition to the joint resolution that has been brought forward by the distinguished Senator from North Dakota. This is a great ``while I'' speech. While I share the Senator's concern, while I share his sense of frustration, while I share his sense of making sure that our beef is safe from BSE, I cannot support the resolution.

I am from Dodge City, KS. This is a town that began during the cattle drives of the Wild West days and which still bases much of its economy on the beef industry. You cannot have anybody more interested, more vitally concerned about the beef industry than this Member. In fact, the number of cattle in Ford County, where Dodge City is located, far outnumbers the citizens of the county. I used to say they were in a lot happier mood.

Not only is the beef industry king in Ford County, Dodge City, southwest Kansas, and the State of Kansas, it is a huge industry representing over $5 billion in annual revenues. We are a State with 6.65 million head of cattle compared to a human population of 2.6 million. Cattle represented 62 percent of the 2003 Kansas agriculture cash receipts, and the processing industry alone employs over 18,700 Kansans. We rank in the top three of virtually every major beef statistic. There are few issues as important to the people of Kansas as the issue of how we handle actions that are related to BSE.

Prior to the discovery of BSE in the United States in December 2003, Kansas was one of the top exporters of beef to the Japanese market. Since that fateful day in December of 2003, Kansas and U.S. beef producers have been locked out of the Japanese market.

We should not still be locked out of that market by taking action like we may do as of today on this vote. The international science--I mean international science in every country concerned--says our cattle under 30 months of age are safe and not at risk for BSE. Yet we have agreed to not send meat from any animals under 20 months of age to Japan. Still that market remains closed to the United States.

The market is not closed because of scientific concerns. It remains closed because of internal Japanese politics, and that is a fact. But we are moving forward, and I am hopeful that by continued pressure from the administration--from the President, the Secretary of State, everybody who has been in contact with the Japanese Government, and this Congress, many Members of Congress--we can somehow reopen that market, we can expedite that process.

But today, be careful what you ask for. We will take a giant step backward in our efforts to reopen markets to Japan--or, for that matter, anywhere--if we vote to approve this resolution. The same international science and guidelines that say that U.S. beef and animals under 30 months of age are safe also say that the beef and animals in Canada under 30 months are safe as well. That is the international standard. That is the sound science standard.

If we vote today to approve this resolution, the United States will be taking the same actions as the Japanese. I am not going to say it is based on politics. I know all of the concerns of my colleagues who are up on the northern border and the long history of those disputes. But we are going to be basing our decision on those concerns instead of sound science. I fear it will have both short-term and long-term ramifications. In the near term, it will undoubtedly set us back in our efforts to reopen the Japanese export market.

How can we argue that they are not basing their decisions on sound science if we cast a vote that is not based on the same sound science? We have staffers today meeting, Agriculture Committee staffers, under the direction of the distinguished chairman, with ambassadors from Japan. If we vote on this today, why meet? What kind of progress could we possibly make? Long term, how can our negotiators in this Congress argue in the international arena that all agricultural issues--not just this issue--including biotech crops, beef hormones, food safety, and any number of other issues should be based on sound science if we ourselves vote on the concerns of individuals?

I have heard some Members talk about they are going to vote for this because they worry about the lumber that is coming in from Canada. Are we about to open a trade war? I am concerned about that. But this is not the way to approach it.

I understand the concerns of many of our producers and of my colleagues who support this resolution. Senator

Conrad--I affectionately call him the agriculture program policy chart man because he has, at last count, 4,153 charts he has brought to the floor since I have had the privilege of serving here--is really a champion explaining rudimentary agriculture program policy, not only to colleagues but to all who watch these proceedings.

So I understand his concern. I did oppose the entry of beef from animals over 30 months of age because it did not make any sense to allow that beef in the United States if we would not allow any cattle over 30 months due to safety concerns. That is a given.

The international science and guidelines are clear on this issue. Animals under 30 months and meat from those animals is safe. If we vote for this resolution today, we will turn our back on the longstanding U.S. position in all international trade negotiations. We are going to hurt our efforts to reopen the Japanese market. We will be setting a very dangerous precedent for future trade policy battles, and Lord knows we are going to have those with the WTO ruling brought by Brazil.

We have too much at risk to base this decision, no matter how difficult it may be, no matter how strong our feelings may be, on the politics and the passion of the moment. The long-term future of the U.S. beef industry may very well turn on this action we take today. I fear that this vote in favor of this resolution will send a negative message that will come back to haunt us on this issue and many other agriculture trade matters for years to come. I do not think we can allow that to happen. So I respectfully disagree with the Senator from North Dakota and I urge the defeat of this resolution.

I yield back whatever time I have remaining.

Mr. President, I am pleased and honored today to introduce the ``Caring for Children Act''--a bill designed to help meet the child care challenges facing families, child care providers and small businesses around the Nation.

Child care, in the home when possible and outside the home when both parents work, goes right to the heart of keeping families strong. Unfortunately, finding quality, affordable child care is one of the most pressing problems for families in Kansas and around the country. It is estimated that quality child care can cost as much or more than college tuition in some areas.

The ``Caring for Children Act'' takes the first steps in addressing this challenge through a responsible approach. This legislation expands child care opportunities without unnecessary government intervention or mandates. This legislation will help working families who want quality child care for their children, child care providers who aim to provide the highest quality of care, and small businesses who currently may not have the resources to provide child care for their employees.

The ``Caring for Children Act'' recognizes that small businesses play a critical role in providing child care options to millions of working parents. Unfortunately, small businesses generally do not have the resources required to start up and support a child care center. This legislation includes a short-term, flexible grant program to encourage small businesses to work together or with established local child care organizations to provide child care services for employees. This program is more of a demonstration project that will sunset at the end of five years. In the meantime, small businesses will be eligible for grants up to $250,000 for start-up costs, training, scholarships, or other related activities. Businesses, however, will be required to match Federal funds to encourage self-sustaining facilities well into the future. Business must continue to meet State quality and health standards. In essence, this grant program takes the necessary steps to ensuring small businesses and other local organizations are able to work together to provide child care for employees.

The ``Caring for Children Act'' also addresses another key component of quality child care: child care training. My bill creates a new grant program to allow organizations to develop and operate distance learning child care training infrastructures and to develop model technology- based training courses for child care providers. These infrastructures and courses will enable child care providers to receive the training, education and support they need to improve the quality of child care. The ``Caring for Children Act'' encourages grantees to work with secondary schools, institutions of higher education, state and local governments, and child care organizations to promote networking, information sharing, and resource sharing. These grants will be targeted to those areas with the fewest training opportunities for child care providers.

Child care is an issue that impacts each and every one of us. While parents continue to struggle to meet the constant demand of work and family, we must continue to do our part to expand child care options and protect our nation's most valuable resource, our children. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in this important effort.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased and honored today to introduce the ``Caring for Children Act''--a bill designed to help meet the child care challenges facing families, child care providers and small businesses around the Nation.

Child care, in the home when possible and outside the home when both parents work, goes right to the heart of keeping families strong. Unfortunately, finding quality, affordable child care is one of the most pressing problems for families in Kansas and around the country. It is estimated that quality child care can cost as much or more than college tuition in some areas.

The ``Caring for Children Act'' takes the first steps in addressing this challenge through a responsible approach. This legislation expands child care opportunities without unnecessary government intervention or mandates. This legislation will help working families who want quality child care for their children, child care providers who aim to provide the highest quality of care, and small businesses who currently may not have the resources to provide child care for their employees.

The ``Caring for Children Act'' recognizes that small businesses play a critical role in providing child care options to millions of working parents. Unfortunately, small businesses generally do not have the resources required to start up and support a child care center. This legislation includes a short-term, flexible grant program to encourage small businesses to work together or with established local child care organizations to provide child care services for employees. This program is more of a demonstration project that will sunset at the end of five years. In the meantime, small businesses will be eligible for grants up to $250,000 for start-up costs, training, scholarships, or other related activities. Businesses, however, will be required to match Federal funds to encourage self-sustaining facilities well into the future. Business must continue to meet State quality and health standards. In essence, this grant program takes the necessary steps to ensuring small businesses and other local organizations are able to work together to provide child care for employees.

The ``Caring for Children Act'' also addresses another key component of quality child care: child care training. My bill creates a new grant program to allow organizations to develop and operate distance learning child care training infrastructures and to develop model technology- based training courses for child care providers. These infrastructures and courses will enable child care providers to receive the training, education and support they need to improve the quality of child care. The ``Caring for Children Act'' encourages grantees to work with secondary schools, institutions of higher education, state and local governments, and child care organizations to promote networking, information sharing, and resource sharing. These grants will be targeted to those areas with the fewest training opportunities for child care providers.

Child care is an issue that impacts each and every one of us. While parents continue to struggle to meet the constant demand of work and family, we must continue to do our part to expand child care options and protect our nation's most valuable resource, our children. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in this important effort.

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

Mr. President, paragraph 2 of Senate rule XXVI requires that not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress, the rules of each Committee shall be published in the Record.

In compliance with this provision, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules of the Select Committee on Intelligence be printed in the Record.