Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, this morning following morning business, the Senate resumes consideration of S. 1072, the highway bill. As the majority leader announced last night, it is hoped we will be able to work through those amendments early in the day so we can proceed to additional amendments. Senators should expect votes today as the Senate continues to make progress on the highway bill. Senators will be notified as votes are scheduled.

Mr. President, Senator Graham and I have conferred. He has a scheduling conflict. So I ask unanimous consent that he be recognized first. I think that is his intent.

Mr. President, if I could have the attention of the Senator from Florida, I thank him for his presentation. Essentially, I think what the Senator suggested was the Intelligence Committee, which is the appropriate committee of jurisdiction, have hearings and take a look at the recommendations he just outlined as a result of the investigation by the House and Senate on the 9/11 tragedy. As I have indicated to the Senator before--and he has written me a letter--both Senator Rockefeller and I think that is most appropriate, and we intend to hold hearings just as soon as we can get our current inquiry on the prewar intelligence in Iraq out in a situation where we can present it to the public. I think the Senator has provided a valuable service.

One of the important aspects when discussing intelligence is not only to find out the accuracy and timeliness of the prewar intelligence but also to really get into the recommendations on how we fix things. The Senator has done us a good service. We will have hearings on these recommendations.

Mr. President, I rise today in order to update my colleagues in this body on the recent activities of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence with respect to Iraq. This is a subject that has been in the headlines consistently for many different reasons. But my purpose in rising today is to report to the Senate, for it is an important day in that the Intelligence Committee members, as of this afternoon, will be presented the working draft of what the staff has been working on for better than 7 months.

In June of last year, nearly 8 months ago, the Intelligence Committee began a formal review of U.S. intelligence into the existence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, Iraq's ties to terrorist groups, Saddam Hussein's threat to regional stability and security in the Persian Gulf, and his violation--obvious violation--of human rights.

This review was initiated as part of the committee's continuing oversight of the U.S. intelligence community's activities and programs, which is always continuing. Our committee staff had, for the previous several months, already been examining the intelligence activities regarding Iraq, including the intelligence community's support to the United Nations weapons inspections in Iraq and the community's analysis and collection of reporting related to the alleged Niger-Iraq uranium deal.

On June 20, 2003, however, Vice Chairman Rockefeller and I issued a press statement. We announced a joint commitment to continue the committee's thorough review of prewar U.S. intelligence. In that press statement, Senator Rockefeller and I agreed to examine the following: the quantity and quality of U.S. intelligence on the Iraqi regime's weapons of mass destruction programs, its ties to terrorist groups, the regime's threat to stability and security in the region, and its repression of its own people.

We also agreed to look at the objectivity and the reasonableness, independence, and accuracy of the judgments reached by the Intelligence Community; whether those judgments were properly disseminated to policymakers in the executive branch and the Congress; whether--and this is very important--any influence was brought to bear on anyone to shape their analysis to support policy objectives; finally, other issues we might mutually identify in the course of the committee's review.

I laid out three phases of the committee's overall Iraq review. First, to evaluate the quantity and quality of the intelligence underlying prewar assessments concerning Iraq; second, to determine whether the analytical judgments contained in those assessments were objective, independent, and reasonable; third, to evaluate the accuracy of those assessments by comparing them with the results of the ongoing investigative efforts in Iraq.

This afternoon, as I have stated, our committee members will begin reading and reviewing the staff's draft report, which does contain the committee's efforts to complete the first and second phases of the review. The third and final phase will be completed when the Iraq survey group completes its work in Iraq.

I am delighted to yield.

Mr. President, I fully agree with the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and I am very proud to serve on that committee, as well as privileged being the chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

We discussed this at great length. All members of these committees discussed it at great length. We have a responsibility to the American people to

fully investigate this and to publicly, when we can, when we are not dealing with any classified information, tell the American people what they should know and have a right to know. We are proceeding in that fashion. We are taking this very seriously, which is why I am trying to summarize now for the Senate and for all those who may be interested in this issue precisely what we have done to date in regard to the Intelligence Committee.

The Senator is exactly right, he has taken the lead in the Armed Services Committee with the appropriate people within the military, and I thank him for his contribution.

Mr. President, our review in the Intelligence Committee began in earnest in early June of last year when the intelligence community did provide our committee with 19 volumes--19 volumes, floor to ceiling--and they contained approximately 15,000 pages of intelligence assessments and sources and source reporting underlying the assessments of the Hussein regime's WMD programs. They also pertained to ties to terrorist groups, the threat to stability and security in the region, as I have said before, and the repression of his own people.

Our committee staff began immediately to read and analyze every report provided to determine how intelligence analysts reached their conclusions and whether any assessments were not supported by the intelligence provided to the committee.

Our committee staff endeavored to the greatest extent possible to disregard--to disregard--postwar revelations concerning Iraq in order to replicate the same analytical environment enjoyed by the intelligence community analysts prior to the war.

In late August and early September of 2003, our committee staff did request additional intelligence to substantiate the intelligence community's assessments which staff judged were not sufficiently supported by the intelligence that had been previously provided. Not only did we ask for the original information, but when we were not satisfied, we asked for more; we demanded more.

Our committee staff began to receive this additional supporting intelligence in October of 2003. In late October, the staff requested any intelligence which had not already been provided that contradicted the intelligence community's prewar analysis in regard to Iraq.

For example, the committee staff requested intelligence that showed Iraq had not reconstituted its nuclear program, had not renewed the production of chemical agents, and had abandoned an offensive biological weapons program. In early November of 2003, the intelligence community wrote to the committee that it was working to provide the contradictory intelligence we requested.

In the same letter, the community stated it had uncovered an additional six volumes of intelligence material that supported its assessments on Iraq's WMD programs, and the community did provide the contradictory intelligence information in late November.

I want my colleagues to realize that this has been an extremely thorough undertaking. During the 8 months of the committee's review, our committee staff submitted almost 100 requests for supplemental intelligence information, received over 30,000 pages of documents in response to those requests, and reviewed and analyzed each document that was provided.

Additionally, our committee staff have interviewed more than 200 individuals, including intelligence analysts, senior officials within the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Department of State, National Ground Intelligence Center, the Air Force, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

They have also questioned former intelligence analysts, national intelligence officers, operations officers, collection managers, signals intelligence collectors, imagery analysts, nuclear experts with the International Atomic Energy Agency, ambassadors, former United Nations inspectors, Department of Defense weapons experts, State Department officials, and staff members of the National Security Council.

Additionally, the committee has held three hearings on aspects of United States intelligence on Iraq, a hearing on the Iraq-Niger connection, a briefing by the CIA and State Department inspectors general on their review of the Iraq-Niger issue, and a hearing on the history and the continuity of weapons of mass destruction assessments that pertain to Iraq.

These efforts have enabled our committee staff to develop a full understanding of the quantity and quality of intelligence reporting supporting the intelligence community's prewar assessments.

Our committee staff have also gained an understanding of how intelligence analysts throughout the community used that intelligence to develop their assessments on these issues and how those assessments were actually disseminated to policymakers, and whether those assessments were reasonable, objective, independent, or if there was any political consideration and, again, whether any influence was brought to bear to shape their analysis to support any policy objective.

The professional bipartisan staff of the Intelligence Committee I think has done an outstanding job. It is a very complete job. For the next 3 weeks, however, it will be the members of the committee, our turn to do our work by reading and reviewing and suggesting any changes to the report.

I only hope that members will not prejudge the report. Let me repeat that. I only hope that members will not prejudge the report--there has been activity in the past indicating plans to do just that; I hope that does not happen--and that they will take the time to actually read the information in order to make informed critiques of the material.

This report can have a profound impact--it will have a profound impact--on the future of our intelligence community as we face the threats of a new century. However, this can only be done if colleagues on both sides of the aisle put aside election year politics and review the facts in an objective and unbiased manner.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, I wish to read a statement by Winston Churchill which I think has application to the inquiry we are conducting in the Intelligence Committee and the whole issue in regard to the credibility and the timeliness of intelligence prior to the war in Iraq. Sir Winston Churchill said this upon hearing about the attack on Pearl Harbor:

Silly people, that was the description many gave in

discounting the force of the United States. Some said they

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

Let me repeat that.

That they would never be united, that they would never come

to grips. They would never stand bloodletting. Their system

of government and democracy would paralyze their war effort.

Let me repeat that.

Their system of government and democracy would paralyze

their war effort.

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

wealthy and talkative people.

Referring to Americans.

But, I have studied the American Civil War fought out to

the last desperate inch. American blood flowed in my veins. I

thought of a remark made to me 30 years before: The United

States is like a gigantic boiler. Once the fire is lighted

under it, there is no limit to the power it can generate. It

is a matter of resolve.

I am concerned in what appears to be almost a blast furnace of politics at a very early time, in an even-numbered year--and I understand that. I know politics is not bean bagged, and I know that my colleagues have very serious differences of opinion, as we will on the committee, but I hope what Sir Winston said: ``Some said they were soft, others that they would never be united . . . their system of government and democracy would paralyze their war effort,'' is not true in regard to the global war on terrorism. I have some concerns about that.

I indicated at the first, when I knew it was our responsibility and obligation, in working with the distinguished vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, that we would do our job and that we would do it just as bipartisan as we possibly could, that it would be

thorough. It is my view that this draft report, and then what the Members will agree to, will be the most thorough review of the intelligence community in the last decade. I also said that we will make every effort to hold public hearings, because the American people have a right to know, and we will let any political chips fall any way they want to fall.

I yield the floor.

I yield the floor. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

I ask unanimous consent that that time be yielded to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi.

Will the Senator yield?

I think the original order has it that the majority leader or his designee will be recognized for the next 24 minutes. In discussing this with Senator Feinstein, I know she has waited patiently and she has 22 minutes reserved.

I ask unanimous consent that after the remarks of Senator Lott Senator Feinstein be recognized for her remarks and we would reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the pending business before the Senate is the Intelligence conference report; is that correct?

Mr. President, I rise today to urge Senate passage of the conference report for the Fiscal Year 2004 Intelligence Authorization Act.

On November 20 the conference report was approved by the House of Representatives. In order to quickly provide the Intelligence Community the authorities it requires in order to pay, house, and equip its personnel for our most sensitive and critical national security work, this legislation should be sent to the President without delay. The horrible terrorist attacks in Turkey underscore the urgency of our task.

This conference report is good legislation with important management and budget authorities. I will review just a few of them for you.

In the conference report, the Senate receded to a number of significant House provisions of interest. The most significant of these is a provision that will consolidate and organize existing intelligence-related functions in the Department of the Treasury by creating a new Office of Intelligence and Analysis. This administration-supported provision also creates a new Assistant Secretary position.

Senate managers also accepted a House provision intended to foster better information-sharing among Federal, State and local government officials. The bombings in Turkey illustrate that terrorists remain capable of striking at the heart of peaceful societies. We must be prepared to meet this continuing threat.

The conference report retains a Senate provision on Central Intelligence Agency Compensation Reform, with a House amendment to ensure that Congress will have an opportunity to assess the impact of such reform before it becomes permanent.

The conference report provides important new personal services contracting authority to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations. This authority is intended to permit the Director to exercise greater hiring flexibility as was recommended post-9/11 in order to bring aboard certain categories of critically-needed skills more quickly.

Turning to the budget, when we began to review the President's fiscal year 2004 request I became very concerned at the recent growth in intelligence funding. I am still concerned.

There is clearly not enough money in future years to fully fund the intelligence programs in this year's budget request. That is the sad reality of this budget. The intelligence community is stretched thin, with far more requirements than available funds. Too many projects and activities have been started that cannot be accommodated in the top line. It does not matter what caused this problem. The problem exists. Unless the President directs a dramatic and sustained increase to the intelligence budget next year, we will have to make the hard choices ourselves.

A significant issue that must be addressed by the executive branch is the manner in which cost estimates for the procurement of major intelligence community systems are conducted. The magnitude and consistency in the cost growth on recent acquisitions indicates a systemic intelligence community bias to underestimate the cost of major systems.

This ``perceived affordability'' creates difficulties in the out years as the National Foreign Intelligence Program becomes burdened with content that is

more costly than the budgeted funding. This underestimation of future costs has resulted in significant re-shuffling of NFIP funds to meet emerging shortfalls.

In an attempt to correct this problem, the conference report contains a provision which would mandate a fundamentally more sound approach to cost estimates for major systems. The business-as-usual approach must end.

There is another area I wish to mention in general terms concerning the analytical capabilities of the intelligence community. All recent after-action reports or studies of intelligence failures point to the inability of analysts to process ever-growing quantities of information. In an effort to correct this problem, the conferees agreed to move funds to programs at the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the CIA to improve the community's analytic capabilities.

My key objectives in formulating the conference report were to ensure our Nation's continuing effort to prosecute the war on terrorism and to ensure that the ``longer view'' about intelligence community requirements is taken into account. I believe that this conference report meets both objectives.

We met those objectives because we had bipartisan cooperation when and where it counted. I wish to thank the distinguished vice chairman, Senator Rockefeller, as well as the distinguished House chairman, Representative Goss, and his ranking member, Representative Harman, for their assistance in making the conference report possible. The staff of both intelligence Committees must also be commended for their diligent work on this important legislation.

There is no opposition on our side of the aisle. We have worked very hard with the House to come up with a good compromise. This bill is vitally needed on behalf of national security. A similar bill passed the Senate several weeks ago by unanimous consent.

I yield to my distinguished colleague, the vice chairman, Senator Rockefeller.

Mr. President, I ask that the Chair put the question to the body.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I thank my distinguished friend and colleague for yielding. This is one of those times where perhaps everything has been said but not everyone has said it. I am not sure what I can add to this debate, but I will give it a try.

Our citizens of Kansas have watched the Senate's action, or rather inaction, on the President's nominees. I would like to quote from the Wichita Eagle, one of our fine newspapers in Kansas which simply editorialized:

The party that does not control the White House is trying

to control the ideological makeup of the federal courts, by

misusing the Senate's advice-and-consent function to stall

votes on the president's judicial nominees.

The Topeka Capital Journal also observed:

The federal judiciary is heading to a train wreck.

I suspect by the time we get to the end of this and these kind of delay tactics, people will crawl out of train wrecks faster than we get this solved. I hope that is not the case.

It is not just the local newspapers that are expressing their views on these issues. Many constituents have written and called my office. They are expressing their frustration on the Senate's treatment of this process. This is a time that the process of the Senate, normally not a very high profile issue, has become a high profile issue.

Kansans are pragmatic and understanding people. They understand that some Senators oppose the President's nominees on ideological grounds. They also understand that those Senators are entitled to that position and answer to their own constituents for their actions. However, they do not appreciate the abuse of the Senate's procedural tools to allow the minority to dominate the majority. They want us to give these nominees a simple up-or-down vote. That is the whole issue. They want these nominations decided on the merits, not blocked by some procedural maneuver.

That is what this all comes down to. All of the rhetoric and support of these delaying tactics would have you believe the four nominees are ``out of touch,'' or ``out of the mainstream.'' Those opposing the nominees would have us believe they have not had a sufficient opportunity to question the nominees or have not received enough information to form an opinion. The facts are that through hearings that have been held, and in one case over 2 years have passed and the nomination simply remained blocked.

Additionally, if my colleagues truly believe they do not have enough information despite these hearings and despite the answers that are provided by the nominees, the answer is simple. They do not have to vote for the nominee. They can simply vote no, if we could just have a vote. So despite all of these protestations to the contrary, this comes down to ideological obstructionism.

Now, intuitively the logic that a judicial selection should be based or influenced by a nominee's ideology leads one to believe that judges should or will rely on their own personal beliefs rather than on the law when rendering their decisions. I find this remarkable and completely off the mark. I am certain that if each of these nominees receive an up-or-down vote, each would be approved by a majority vote and they would vote according to the law. They said that over and over again.

My question is, How is justice served when justice is delayed? If you deliver solid and qualified judges to our court system, that is more important than litmus test politics. We are just simply not doing our job.

Let me talk about trust. This continued delay does not foster the public's trust in our government's process to simply get the job done.

Let me talk about cost. Taxpayers spend $5.1 billion for the Federal judiciary every year. The American people are paying for fully staffed courts and are getting obstructionism and vacant benches. Reckless behavior such as this is irresponsible and a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Let's talk about delay. Let's really talk about delay. Court delays are becoming the norm. We all know that. We read about something egregious in the newspaper and wonder why you cannot get a court decision or at least some justice out of the situation. All of the court circuits facing these judicial emergencies are averaging 4- to 5- month--4- to 5-month--delays. And these delays are on top of a process that, from the original filing in district court to the final decision on appeal, takes 24 to 28 months--over 2 years.

OK, let us talk about results. What does an overtaxed judiciary really mean to Americans? It means that cases take longer to resolve, lives are disrupted and inconvenienced further, and real people must wait indefinitely in limbo as justice in their cases remains undetermined.

In over two centuries of Senate history, why, judicial nominations have been both approved or refused. No filibuster was necessary to defeat a nomination. The reliance by those who oppose these nominations of this procedural tool to handicap the process is simply unprecedented. The use of the filibuster essentially grants the minority veto power, hence controlling which nominees will even be given the chance--just the chance--for an up-or-down vote, much less confirmed.

Now the Constitution explicitly states seven circumstances in which a supermajority vote is warranted by one or both Chambers of Congress. The advice and consent of Presidential nominations by the Senate is not one of these special circumstances. In fact, Alexander Hamilton states in Federalist 76 that the Senate's role is to refuse nominations only for ``special and strong reasons'' having to do with unfit characters. At some point, after

the issues and merits of the nominee have been debated, we have an obligation to render a decision, whether it is yea or nay, and not let the matter hang in the balance unresolved and unfinished.

These competent, well-qualified judicial nominees deserve an up-or- down vote. The people of Kansas and the United States deserve a full--a full--judicial bench.

I thank my colleague for yielding the time.

Will the distinguished Senator yield for a question?

I thank the distinguished Senator. While sitting in my capacity as the acting Presiding Officer, going back to chapter four of your book, I got a little confused as to how the city of Searchlight actually was named Searchlight. I got mixed up between Lloyd Searchlight and the kitchen matches. I was wondering if you, with your intimate knowledge of who is a chef and who is a cook and poor Bill who has died--obviously you don't have any fish fries anymore, but I am interested in the goulash--but with your intimate knowledge of Searchlight, do you have a theory, a pet theory as to how Searchlight actually got its name, of the three hypotheses that you mentioned?

If the distinguished Senator would yield one more time--

Those were kitchen matches, not the modern?

Yes.

Mr. President, if I could just ask one more additional question of the Senator?

Did you ever solve the problem with the rabbits with regard to the cactus they would eat or wouldn't eat? And I was wondering if you thought about just basically desert rocks? They have some beautiful rocks out there and I doubt seriously if the rabbits would have eaten the rocks.

Rubber tires, perhaps?

Mr. President, if I could just ask one more question and I will desist.

I thought perhaps with your cousin, again, you could replace those cactus with rocks and I know the rabbits wouldn't eat the rocks. But in any case I think the operative thought would be to simply ``rock on.''

Mr. President, I rise to reinforce the very serious concerns just raised by the distinguished leader and my colleagues, and I thank them for that. The Senator from Tennessee is an ex officio member of the Intelligence Committee. He has also been a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. He thoroughly understands the complex and important foreign policy issues which depend on reliable intelligence for their proper resolution.

I associate myself completely with his comments and agree with him that neither the Intelligence Committee nor the Senate, let alone the American people, are well served in the current atmosphere of raw partisanship that was created by a minority attack strategy that was revealed this week.

I have come before the Senate many times to report on the progress and good work that has been done by the committee staff in a bipartisan way on the Iraq intelligence review. That has been under review since the spring of this year. Two days ago, I expressed an interest in getting back to work in the Intelligence Committee. Some Senators across the aisle have taken this sentiment as an expression of readiness to simply close the book on this episode and pretend like it never happened. They are mistaken.

What has occurred in the Intelligence Committee was not a simple misunderstanding over policy or a mild disagreement about philosophy or oversight responsibilities. Far from it. What occurred was a direct assault on the heart of what makes the Intelligence Committee a unique and credible and respected entity in behalf of our national security. It was a direct assault on our concept of oversight that is the product of some of our country's most trying days. It has functioned well, although imperfectly, for nearly 30 years. And now we find ourselves at a crossroads, and, boy, is this a road we didn't have to take.

Unless and until this reprehensible attack plan and strategy to derail the committee's important work is properly addressed, I am afraid it will be impossible to return to business as usual in the committee.

I remain absolutely stunned that just one Member of the minority of the Senate has disavowed this destructive strategy and said we are on the wrong trail, said it would lead to a box canyon. That courageous Member saw it for what it is: ``A highly partisan and perhaps treasonous memo.'' Those are his words, Mr. President.

What really disturbs me the most is that most Democratic Members just haven't remained silent about this outrage; some of them have openly embraced it. They have actually tried to make a silk purse out of this sow's ear by dressing up their planned attack on the Intelligence Committee as some kind of frustrated cry for help from their committee staff. That is not going to wash.

Democratic reaction to the attack memorandum is as destructive as the strategy itself. We face mounting intelligence challenges in places such as North Korea, Iran, and, of course, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Members across the aisle should carefully reflect and decide whether their caucus should repudiate or disavow--pick any word you want--this plan and embrace our Nation's security instead of self-interest. Critically important work lies ahead for the Senate Intelligence Committee, and an atmosphere of mutual trust and professionalism must be restored.

According to Senator Bob Kerrey, a former Senator and a former vice chairman of the committee said:

Rank partisanship like this destroys the comity needed for

compromise.

There is a way to restore that comity quickly and completely. It seems to me that Democratic Senators must clearly repudiate or disavow the blatantly partisan strategy laid out in the attack memo. If they refuse, it seems to me, then, that the Democratic caucus must be prepared to accept responsibility for destroying the Intelligence Committee's 25-year, almost 30-year tradition of effective nonpartisanship when the country needed it most.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to provide a few brief comments on the Agriculture appropriations bill and to also make a few comments regarding my friend and colleague, the distinguished new chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from Utah.

The chairman has done an outstanding job putting this bill together under a difficult budget allocation, and I congratulate him for his work.

I also want to make a few comments regarding several programs in this bill that are of particular interest to me in my role as the chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

I urge the chairman and the members of the subcommittee who will sit on the conference to support as much funding as possible for USDA's homeland security funding request and the Dole-McGovern International School Lunch Program.

Both of these programs are vital to our ongoing war against terrorism.

The USDA homeland security funds will support the rapid response animal and plant health diagnostics networks established last year by

Mr. President, as the Acting President pro tempore has indicated, there will be 60 minutes of morning business. Following that, the Senate will begin the consideration of H.R. 2673, the Agriculture appropriations bill. It is the majority leader's intention to complete action on that measure during today's session. The Senate will begin working through amendments to the bill this morning. Senators who have amendments are asked to contact the bill managers as soon as possible.N O T I C E

Effective January 1, 2004, the subscription price of the Congressional Record will be $503 per year or $252 for six months. Individual issues may be purchased at the following costs: Less than 200 pages, $10.50; Between 200 and 400 pages, $21.00; Greater than 400 pages, $31.50. Subscriptions in microfiche format will be $146 per year with single copies priced at $3.00. This price increase is necessary based upon the cost of printing and distribution.

I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Georgia.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Missouri, Senator Bond.

Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Arizona.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi.

How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, as members of the Senate Intelligence Committee are well aware, we have spent almost 6 months pouring over thousands of documents that are related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and its ties to terrorism. We have interviewed over 100 people. This is probably the most thorough and complete review of intelligence that has ever been conducted, and the committee's process is completely open and transparent to Members on both sides of the aisle.

All staff involved certainly participate on an equal basis. I have worked to ensure the minority's voice has been heard at all times. There should be no legitimate question as to our approach or our dedication to following the information no matter where it leads. I have said that over and over. We have asked the hard questions.

When the inquiry is complete, I believe strongly the facts will speak for themselves. Yet despite all efforts to handle this review in the most professional and bipartisan way, we have learned of an effort to develop a plan to discredit the committee's work, undermine its conclusions, no matter what those conclusions may be.

Our goal is to discover the facts, not to target any individuals or to serve any agenda. We want to know that the assessments reached by the intelligence community were based on sound intelligence and that the policymakers, including the President and the Congress, got the best information possible.

I have been asked, Where do we go from here? The answer is simple: We go back to work. We build a bridge and go back to work. We have a number of documents yet to review. We have a handful of interviews yet to conduct. Then we will begin the process of drafting a committee report and preparing for public hearings. It is critical that all of this take place in an atmosphere of good faith and mutual trust. Secret plans to undermine the committee's work are examples of neither. I urge my friends across the aisle, those members of the committee, to disavow--and

if that word is too strong, just to say not to go down this path of a strategy of attack, and join us to work together to complete the business of the committee. The American people, and particularly those currently serving in uniform overseas, deserve nothing less.

I know Senator Rockefeller. He is a good friend. He is a good colleague. We have had a good private discussion. It is time to put this in the past, build a bridge to the future, and let the Intelligence Committee, unique among the committees in the Congress, do our work, our congressional oversight on behalf of national security.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Yes.

I say to my friend and colleague, we are in the process of conducting an inquiry. That inquiry I would say is about 85 percent complete. We have had full cooperation--not full cooperation but a spirit of cooperation from the White House, State Department, Department of Defense, and the CIA. Once our inquiry is complete, I think I can answer the question the Senator has posed.

We are on the right track. We want to get at the timeliness and the credibility of the intelligence that was provided. We had four goals to do that, agreed upon by Senator Rockefeller. We will do that job. At that particular time, why, the Senator's question would be pertinent.

I yield.

Mr. President, I would like to engage my good friend and colleague Senator Bennett, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, in a colloquy regarding funding for an alkaline digester for Kansas State University. This digester will be used to conduct important animal disease research to protect the United States from an agroterrorist attack.

The published committee report for this legislation indicates that $225,000 has been provided for the digester. However, I understand this is typographical error and the Committee has actually provided $1 million. Is that correct?

I thank the Chairman for his support.

Mr. President, currently, USDA does not distinguish between white (food grade) sorghum and yellow feed grade sorghum in our food aid programs. Unfortunately, sorghum that is used to make animal and pet food, or used to make ethanol, is being sent to African countries where people have been eating sorghum for generations. In fact, sorghum originated in Africa. They are keenly aware of the difference between the food grade sorghum that they eat and the feed grade sorghum that is fed to cattle. It is my view that USDA should provide recipient countries with sorghum that has the food qualities and characteristics with which the people receiving the aid are familiar.

By all appearances, the demand for sorghum in our food aid will be growing in the near future. USAID has doubled the amount of sorghum programmed in food aid over the past three years. My sorghum farmers are appreciative of this fact. I think both of us want USAID and USDA to provide food aid recipients with the commodity that they want, whenever the commodity is available in the market place.

I thank the chairman for his support.

eliminating avian influenza in rhode island