Floor Statements

Mr. President, this resolution declares Emporia, KS, to be the founding city of Veterans Day. In addition, the resolution recognizes the contributions of Alvin J. King and Representative Ed Rees from Emporia, KS, to the enactment into law of the observance of Veterans Day.

On October 8, 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, also a Kansan, signed

into law a bill changing Armistice Day to Veterans Day. President Eisenhower stated, ``On that day let us solemnly remember the sacrifices of all those who fought so valiantly, on the seas, in the air, and on foreign shores, to preserve our heritage of freedom, and let us reconsecrate ourselves to the task of promoting an enduring peace so that their efforts shall not have been in vain.''

With the soon-to-be return of our service men and women from the war in Iraq, Veterans Day takes on a new meaning. These men and women who serve in Iraq today, join the other millions that have come before them. I am proud that President Eisenhower, Representative Rees, and Alvin King, all from the great state of Kansas, took the idea for the celebration of Veterans Day from conception to fruition.

Emporia, KS, organized and celebrated Veterans Day in 1953, one year before the rest of the United States. Alvin J. King, the man behind the idea, was a shoe cobbler in Emporia. Mr. King befriended many veterans, thus realizing that we needed a national holiday to commemorate all veterans of all wars, not just those of World War I. With support from the community of Emporia, Mr. King took his idea to Washington. There, he found a close ally in Representative Ed Rees, who introduced a bill to change the holiday. Mr. Rees said, ``The United States has now been involved in many great military efforts, and each has produced its number of veterans. We all realize that it would not be feasible to establish a national holiday to commemorate the closing of each war. This legislation does not establish a new holiday. Rather it expands an existing holiday so that we may honor all veterans at the same time.''

On November 11 of each year, we pay tribute to our veterans. Americans, as in all wars have rallied behind the men and women who went off to defend the American way of life. And, as some of those soldiers returned, we embraced and thanked them for their sacrifice. And for those that did not come home we remembered them in somber ceremonies, silent prayers, and grieving moments. On November 11 we pay reverence to anyone that has wore the uniform. We should, also, recognizes the shoe cobbler from Emporia, who had a vision for a national holiday; a representative, who listened to his hometown; and a President, who a veteran himself, saw the completion of this idea.

I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Dorgan amendment. I do not think that rule XVI should be waived. The amendment is not germane.

More important, speaking as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I believe this amendment is unwise. I think it will damage our Nation's efforts in the ongoing war against terrorism.

I, for one, and members of the committee, have read the 28 pages from the Joint Inquiry Report and have been briefed by the FBI and the CIA. As a matter of fact, the distinguished Senator from Florida indicated that we have not even had hearings. That is not correct. We have had hearings. We had hearings in mid-September as to whether or not it would be in our national security interest to release the 28 pages.

I would also say to all Members, if they have a keen interest in this--and I am aware of the legislation, or I am aware of the letter that went to the President signed by a great many Senators asking for the 28 pages to be made public--as I said at the time, please come to the Intelligence Committee and we will provide you the information on the 28 pages. Some of the very people who are sponsoring amendments have not read the 28 pages.

I wish they would do so. It is my firm position--firm position--in order to protect our national security, specifically the methods and the sources and ongoing investigations, that this so-called redacted material should not be released to the public. I think it would endanger lives.

I am not in a position to discuss the specifics in regard to the urgent pleas and the warnings that were provided to us by the FBI during this hearing. But I think I can speak for a majority of the Intelligence Committee who thought this was not a good idea and certainly would be counterproductive to our national interest.

I might add that one of the statements I heard as I entered the floor was from the distinguished former chairman of the Intelligence Committee. He is somebody I admire, whose advice and counsel and friendship is very important to me. Senator Rockefeller, who is the distinguished vice chairman of the committee, and I have agreed that we will hold hearings in the next session of Congress on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Some I agree with, some I don't.

We were going to make this year the year of modernization and/or reform in regard to the intelligence community, but something interrupted that. It was called a war--the war against global terrorism. In addition, we were going to make an inquiry as to the credibility and the timeliness of the intelligence prior to going to war in Iraq. It is not that we have not wanted to do these things. It is that the schedule of the committee has been taken up almost exclusively by those two subjects, plus our weekly threat briefings of which I know the Senator from Florida is certainly aware.

So we will have hearings on the 9/11 Commission recommendations. We made that promise to the families of the victims. But if we disclose the information that compromises the close cooperation we have from our allies in the war on terrorism, and much better cooperation today than before then these same allies may choose not to support us in the future. That is another concern.

Again, from the standpoint of endangering sources, methods, ongoing investigations, and, yes, lives--and I think I am speaking for a majority of the Intelligence Committee that has had a hearing on this, has taken a hard look at it--I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 10 minutes. I know it is the minority's time.

Mr. President, it is a personal privilege for me to rise today to recognize the contributions and many accomplishments of Mr. Peter Dorn, a valued and long time professional staff member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Pete will be leaving our staff this month after 33 years of dedicated service to our Nation.

Pete Dorn is the epitome of the professional staffer and he has served the Senate and the Intelligence Committee in an outstanding exemplary manner since he joined the committee's staff in 1991. From advising, if not educating Members, as their professional liaison to drafting legislation or conducting special investigations and projects to implementing and improving the intelligence budget, he and his work will be sorely missed.

Pete Dorn's service to our country is quite a pedigree. In 1971, following his graduation from the State University of New York, Pete began serving his country as an officer in the U.S. Marine Corps. He spent 6 years in the infantry and special operations arena before transferring to Marine Corps Intelligence. It was a perfect military occupational and operational fit. For the rest of his Marine career, he honed his skills as an intelligence analyst and staff officer serving the Pacific Joint Intelligence Center, the Overseas Military Air Groups, the Commander of the Pacific Fleet, Headquarters, Marine Corps and the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Program staff.

He could not have been better prepared to continue his service in intelligence work and he did so as he continued his career in the White House as a budget and legislative analyst at the Office of National Drug Control Policy. He then served as program and budget analyst at the Director of Central Intelligence's Crime and Counter-narcotics Center.

In 1991, Pete's budgeting, intelligence and military experience made him a prime candidate for a professional staff position on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. He has served us as a budget monitor and as a staff liaison to Senator Richard Shelby and to myself and currently, Senator Saxby Chambliss. Pete also serves the committee as staff director for research and analysis.

As in the case of many staff members and for that matter, Senators and Members of Congress as well, the laundry list of positions and titles does not tell the real story. The real story regarding Pete Dorn is that he is truly a patriot, has made a real difference in intelligence work, budgeting and legislation and as a consequence helped make our country a safer Nation. After 9/11, it was Pete Dorn who helped me to realize that although the Intelligence Community possessed great collection assets, we had a long way to go in terms of our analytical capability. It is our analytical product that is then turned over to the decision makers that contained mixed and delayed reporting. It has been my goal as chairman to see that this is changed. In this regard Pete Dorn has been my adviser. Personally, he has made a difference in my life and how I look at public service. He believes the role of intelligence is absolutely crucial to our national security, and when he sees things that should be corrected or a miscarriage of justice or something awry in his family--i.e., the intelligence community--he will not stop until he does everything possible to set things right.

The case of our ``captured and whereabouts unknown'' gulf war Navy pilot, CAPT Scott Speicher, is a classic example. We will not rest until the fate of this pilot is known. The person who did not rest and who pressed for better intelligence and honest answers was Pete Dorn-- not only for Scott Speicher and his family but for every warfighter who wears the uniform.

We now have legislation that changes the way we handle our prisoners of war and those missing in action. The credit for that legislation goes to Pete Dorn.

There are many other examples I could outline, some classified and some not. Simply said, Pete Dorn's perseverance and commitment to our country and fellowman has been remarkable. Thank you, Pete, for putting up with and educating me, from a new member of the Senate Intelligence Committee to my current position as chairman. Thank you for your friendship and advice.

Vice Chairman Rockefeller and the members of the Intelligence Committee, both past and present, who have enjoyed and benefited from their association with Pete extend their personal thanks for his exceptional dedication, his loyalty, his integrity, and his distinguished service. We wish all the best to Pete and his wife Kathleen, and to the entire Dorn family.

So, thanks again, Pete. And, from one marine to another, well done, and Semper Fi.

I yield the remainder of my time, Madam President.

Mr. President, I rise to express my very strong opposition to the Corzine amendment, not in terms of intent but in terms of substance.

Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, a new Member of the Senate who has had a great deal of experience serving as a valued member of the House Intelligence Committee, Senator Chambliss.

Mr. President, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, another valued member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr. Lott.

Mr. President, may I inquire of the Senator from New Jersey if he would like to respond on his time or what his plans are? I have several speakers. I did not want to dominate the discussion.

I understand. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, a valued member of the Intelligence Committee, the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner.

Mr. President, Senator Rockefeller, our distinguished vice chairman, has been granted 5 minutes. I think from a parliamentary standpoint, however, it is my responsibility to yield to him at this particular time. If that is not correct, I stand to be corrected by the Presiding Officer.

I ask the Senator from West Virginia if he may want to make his remarks at this time.

May I ask how much time I have remaining?

If I might inquire of the Senator from New Jersey if he is ready to make a comment now or would he prefer to wait?

If the Senator will yield, I would like to make a parliamentary inquiry.

So the Senator is making a speech on my time?

I would like to reclaim my time.

How much time do I have?

I have two other requests for time: Senator Bond and Senator Stevens.

Let me simply say, when we first considered the Iraq commission proposal during debate on the Defense appropriations bill, the Senate voted it down. I urge my colleagues to oppose it again today.

My opposition to this amendment is simple. I disagree with its underlying principle that Congress somehow is incapable of thorough, independent, and nonpartisan analysis of the prewar intelligence on Iraq. As I address you today, the professional staff, 10 of them, of the Senate Intelligence Committee are diligently conducting the very review this amendment now seeks. Working together, as has been indicated by the distinguished vice chairman, Senator Rockefeller and I have broadly framed the mandate for the committee's review. Our efforts have focused on the following: The quantity and quality of U.S. intelligence concerning Iraqi WMD programs; Iraq's ties to terrorist groups; the regime's human rights violations; and the effect of Saddam Hussein on regional stability. Secondly, the objectivity, the reasonableness, the independence, and accuracy of the judgments of the intelligence community--whether those judgments were properly disseminated to policymakers; and finally, whether inappropriate pressure regarding politics was brought to bear on intelligence analysts.

I can report to you that after interviewing many analysts--and I will not get into specifics here--there has been no evidence of that as of today.

Those are the goals of the mission of the current inquiry of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and they mirror exactly the nine functions called for in the independent commission as proposed by the Senator from New Jersey. This review is well underway; in my opinion, it is probably 85 to 90 percent done. It is being conducted in the unique nonpartisan atmosphere of the select committee. The work our staff has done is worthy of the Senate's praise. Over 19 volumes of prewar intelligence, thousands of pages of text have been carefully reviewed.

As a matter of fact, I offer an opportunity to the distinguished Senator. I will play Bob Barker and say, come on down, come to room 219, and I will be happy to show you the national intelligence estimate, our committee work, and the staff work. I think the Senator would be very impressed with the work of our staff. Additional information has been sought and provided in a manner of cooperation by the executive branch. Numerous interviews of the intelligence community and officials from the administration have also been conducted. Status reports have been provided on several occasions to committee members.

In addition to these efforts, committee members have been able to question several in the intelligence community and officials from the administration at a series of closed hearings. The reason it is not public is simple. At the top of every document, and regarding every subject, it says ``top secret code word.'' That doesn't mean we will not have public hearings or a public report. I have promised that and so has the vice chairman.

I have also invited all Members of this body who are interested in prewar Iraq intelligence to seek answers to their questions from the committee. I renew that invitation to Senator Corzine. Come on down; take a look at our committee's work. Our staff can direct you to the information that will answer every question set forth in your amendment. I remind the Senator that ours is not the only review of the intelligence community's performance. The able members of the House Intelligence Committee have conducted their review. The President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board is examining the topic. The State Department and the CIA have carefully examined the Niger uranium issue. This list doesn't include the efforts of the 9/11 Commission, the joint inquiry of the congressional intelligence committees, and the efforts of the other congressional committees. All told, over 40 Members of Congress, numerous professional staff, and countless career and nonpolitical employees of the executive branch will have looked into this topic. We don't need another 12 members to duplicate that effort.

When we set out on this review, I promised to follow the facts wherever they might lead. I will do so. I remain committed to that promise. We will report our findings and, as necessary, we will recommend any needed improvements. Most important, we will continue our efforts to ensure the intelligence community does provide the policymakers with unbiased and actionable intelligence. As we approach completion of the committee's review, I ask Members not to prejudge our thorough, nonpartisan efforts.

At this time, would the Senator like to take his time?

How much time do I have?

Mr. President, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Alaska.

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

I thought there was granted--

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes so I may conclude my remarks and also yield to the distinguished Senator from Missouri for 2 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask for an additional 1 minute for the distinguished vice chairman of the committee.

I would like to recognize the distinguished vice chairman, the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Missouri, a valued member of the intelligence community.

Mr. President, I renew the invitation to my friend from New Jersey to take a look at our committee's work. Our staff is not understaffed. I know some people like to have more staff. They have been working very hard. I can direct you to the information that will answer every single one of the questions set forth in your amendment which reflects exactly the mission of our inquiry. All told, over 40 Members of Congress, numerous professional staff, and countless career nonpolitical employees in the executive branch have looked into this topic which you are suggesting we have another 12 Members do the same thing.

Washington has been overrun with independent blue ribbon commissions. The intelligence community has been a frequent target of these activities--Aspin, Brown, Hart, Rudman, and the Bremer Commission, the 9/11 Commission, and the list goes on and on.

We have to consider the unseen effects caused by the constant, unrelenting reviews of the intelligence community. I do not discount the importance of reexaminations of our past actions. We have had oversight responsibility. If we don't know the mistakes of the past, we are bound to repeat them.

But following September 11, we asked intelligence analysts to aggressively pursue all available leads: Please connect every possible dot, even when the connections may seem weak. We cannot continue to castigate these analysts when they make reasoned judgments based on the available information. This second-guessing erodes morale and it discourages the thoughtful analysis we need. These people have their lives on the line.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

How much time do I have?

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I am going to start off with a quote from Winston Churchill and people are going to say: Why on Earth would I be quoting Winston Churchill in this regard as to whether or not we will come to the assistance of the Iraqis with a loan or a grant? But I think it has application, and it refers back to what the distinguished Senator from Indiana said. I would like to repeat what the Senator from Oklahoma has stated. I have nothing but admiration for the work the Senator from Indiana and others who have spoken to this amendment have done on this issue. Senator Bayh is a very valued member of the Intelligence Committee.

Let me get back to my point, and that is, Churchill said on hearing about the attack on Pearl Harbor--if you stop and think about it, 9/11 is our modern-day Pearl Harbor, so I think it is an apt quote. He said:

Silly people, that was the description many gave in

discounting the force of the United States. Some said they

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

would never come to grips, they would never stand

bloodletting, that their system of government and democracy

would paralyze their war effort.

Let me repeat that:

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 very talkative people.

Then Churchill said:

But, I had 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 years before--the United

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

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

generate. It is a matter of resolve.

Let me repeat that:

It is a matter of resolve.

Why do I bring up the Churchill quote and the issue of resolve in regard to whether or not we apply a grant or a loan to the Iraqi people?

I think it is a question of resolve in the eyes of more especially those in the Arab world, more especially the Iraqis. In the last 2 days, I have had visits from three ambassadors. I am not going to go into their names or countries. It was a confidential discussion. Obviously, they were countries directly involved in this whole effort. They asked me quite frankly about American resolve. They asked me about the whole WMD issue, whether or not the American people still had the resolve to see this through.

Then they asked me about this loan situation and this grant situation. They were very mindful of the attitude the Senator from Indiana already spoke to that there will be those in the Arab world, our adversaries, if you will, who will interpret this as a grab that they originally described as to why the United States became involved in this conflict--a grab for the oil of Iraq.

On April 8, 2003, the President and the Prime Minister of Britain said in a joint statement regarding the future of Iraq:

We reaffirm our commitment to protect Iraqi's natural

resources, as the patrimony of the people of Iraq, which

should be used only for their benefit.

U.S. interests in Iraq lie solely with the development of a free and democratic nation. Congress should not now add a condition of our involvement that suggests the United States had an interest in Iraqi oil all along. Using the Iraq's oil as collateral for loans would play now into the hands of those who wrongly attributed an oil motive. That is in reference to a statement made by both the President and the Prime Minister of Britain.

Now, the distinguished Senator from Indiana said that is not true. I do not

think it is true either, but I think it is true in the minds of many Arab leaders. I do not know who is paying attention to this debate tonight. There are not many Members present. We are going to have a vote later, but most Americans are probably watching the playoffs in regard to the World Series, so I doubt if too many people are paying attention.

I tell my colleagues who will pay attention: Every intelligence community and every Arab leader in the world will go over every word of what we say tonight. I have had three ambassadors come to me wondering about the resolve of the United States and are we reneging in regard to our support for the war. Rightly or wrongly, I think that is a real problem.

I think we also have a real problem with the timing of this in regard to the loan, just as the President goes overseas, goes to the donors conference. People say, well, this will allow us a seat at the table. My colleagues, we are the table.

I request an additional 30 seconds, if that would be possible.

In summing up, I support the amendment that has been introduced by the Senator from Oklahoma and would say it is a matter of resolve in the eyes of the Arab world. It is much larger than Iraq and much larger than a $10 billion loan or $5 billion here or $5 billion there. In fact, it will be viewed in the Arab world, in the Arab community, as a test of America's resolve, and I do not want us to fail that test.

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

I ask to speak for 5 minutes under the morning business provision under which we are now operating.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Tennessee for his very eloquent speech in regard to the life and contributions of Johnny Cash. I suppose some might wonder why people in the Senate would stand up and choose basically to praise an individual who some might think was a simple country western star. Simple is right. But, perhaps, they would ignore the fact that this was a unique star in the horizon of stars that means a lot to Americans.

The Senator from Tennessee called him ``the poet for the working poor.'' I might call him the minstrel for the working poor.

I came across Johnny Cash when I was in Phoenix, AR trying to be the William Allen White of Arizona with a career in journalism. Up to that point, I had not been a country-and-western aficionado, if you will, or even a fan. Then, in a place called South Phoenix, which is certainly history now, the performers would perform in California, stop in Phoenix and go on their way to Texas. I am trying to think of the various performers who came in there, along with Johnny Cash. He was part of that show. I think it was before Waylon Jennings and Willie Nelson. I really can't think of other performers. It doesn't make much difference. But people wanted to come and see Johnny Cash. Other performers finished--and the South Phoenix ballroom was not exactly the Metropolitan Opera in terms of demeanor and what went on there. People used to see the shows and then stay and watch the fights.

But anyway, the lights went off and then the spotlight went on. And here was this tall man in black, who said, ``Hello. I am Johnny Cash.'' And the place erupted. He went through the repertoire of his famous hits at that particular time. He was magnetic in his appeal. He had a special appeal for the people who could really identify with what he was singing in terms of their daily life, their pocketbooks, and the challenges they went through.

The second time I had an opportunity to hear him was when he came to Washington at the Merriweather Post Pavilion. The place was packed. At that time, he was married to June Carter. I think that was probably the top act in show business, at least on the western and country side.

The thing I wanted to mention is we had the Bicentennial ceremonies here on The Mall in 1976. The Senator from New Mexico indicated The Mall is sacred ground--until we had our Bicentennial ceremonies. We went through quite a bit of activity in getting the Capitol spruced up. A lot of artwork was redone at that particular time.

Guess who the master of ceremonies was on The Mall celebrating our Nation's 200th anniversary. Johnny Cash. Guess who performed at a Joint Session of Congress with his rendition of Our Flag. I think I have that right. I may have it wrong. But there is a beautiful rendition--a historic rendition--of the Flag. He sang, I believe, a medley of patriotic songs before the Senate and the House.

I thought to myself: Here is someone who came from the Depression, who had a rough time in show business, and then was a great entertainer. And who else would be more appropriate to head up the Bicentennial ceremonies than Johnny Cash?

The third time I had an opportunity to meet him was at the Kennedy Center Honors where he was being honored along with great performers of our day. His health was none too good. But I stood in line with everybody else shaking his hand. I said to him, ``I wanted to see the man in black. I saw you in Phoenix way back in 1962. I was very proud of you in 1976 when you headed up the Bicentennial, and it is a real pleasure and a privilege to make your acquaintance as of today.''

He was a very down-home man, very humble, and said it was a privilege. He asked my name. We had a very nice conversation. I can't think of any other entertainer who represents American talent better than Johnny Cash.

I have, by the way, I tell the Presiding Officer, about eight albums--not CDs, albums. If we could just find a turntable, we could go back to Johnny Cash and the Tennessee Trio, and later we could ``Walk The Line'' together.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased to appear before my colleagues to support early Senate passage of the fiscal year 2004 intelligence authorization bill. This is a good bill, crafted within the unique bipartisan process used for over a quarter century by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

No bipartisan effort can be effective without good personal cooperation. I

have received such cooperation from my friend and colleague, the distinguished Vice Chairman, Senator Rockefeller. It is a privilege to be working with him on these important national security issues.

This bill will serve our Nation's security interests during a time of troubling international conflict. I would like to review a few of the bill's significant provisions and some of the difficult budget choices which the Intelligence Committee made.

The version of our bill which Senators are considering reflects changes which the Armed Services Committee made to the bill on sequential referral. The Intelligence Committee and Armed Services Committee reconciled differences in the bills amicably and professionally, with the equities of both committees in mind.

The unclassified fiscal year 2004 intelligence bill contains reasonable new management and national security authorities for the intelligence community.

For example, section 311 will give the intelligence community additional flexibility to act quickly to meet higher priority needs by eliminating the ``unforeseen requirements'' criterion for reprogrammings.

Section 312 of the bill accounts for increased construction costs by raising (but not eliminating) the thresholds for notification to Congress on certain intelligence community construction and renovation projects and by shortening or removing the waiting period for beginning urgent or emergency projects.

Section 315 would set up a program to cultivate and encourage college students to become intelligence analysts. Good analysts do not grow on trees. As the intelligence community fights the war on terrorism, good language and area specialists are more important than ever.

The bill also creates a series of ``one-time'' reporting requirements in critical areas. Many of these reports will form the basis for committee efforts to address the concerns outlined in the report of the joint inquiry into the attacks of September 11. For example, we require reports on the following topics: The threat that ``cleared insiders'' like Robert Hanssen pose to classified computer networks; the adequacy and future direction of U.S. Government security investigations and clearance procedures; the creation of a ``community of intelligence experts'' by transferring civilian intelligence personnel among all elements of the intelligence community; the modifications to law and policy necessary to facilitate intelligence sharing; the strategic planning by the Director of Central Intelligence and Secretary of Defense with respect to the intelligence community; and the growing dependence by the United States on computer hardware and software manufactured overseas.

Two of the reporting requirements deal with Iraq.

Section 337 requires a report to the Congress on Intelligence lessons learned in Iraq--similar to a provision in the current House intelligence bill. Section 338 of the bill requires a report on the conventional arms and ammunition acquired by Saddam Hussein in violation of U.N. sanctions. Given the subject matter, these reports will also be made available to the Senate Foreign Relations and House International Relations Committees.

Section 339 reduces burdens on the intelligence community and reconciles oversight priorities by repealing a number of recurring reporting requirements relating to intelligence activities. Reviewing reporting requirements and clearing out the cobwebs is a healty exercise for any committee.

In title IV of the bill, there are notable ``CIA-specific'' provisions.

Section 401 removes the ``prior notification'' requirement for a limited category of CIA ``quality of life'' benefits that have already been authorized by law for members of the Foreign Service. It does not disturb advance notification requirements for agency-unique benefits adopted under the CIA Act.

Section 402 affords tort immunity benefits to CIA security protective officers (SPOs) and protective detail personnel designated by the DCI to protect certain agency employees, defectors, their immediate families, and other persons in the U.S. under CIA auspices. The provision would afford to SPOs and protective details the same protection against liability for assault, battery, false arrest, negligence, and other common law torts that certain law enforcement and Diplomatic Security Service officers enjoy already.

Section 404 of our bill is a technical amendment to the recently passed Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) of 2002. The FISMA amendment permits inspector generals authorized by laws other than the Inspector General Act, such as the CIA inspector general, to perform security evaluations on information systems at their respective agencies.

Title V of the bill contains provisions related to intelligence community elements residing in DOD.

Section 501 of the bill would exempt certain National Security Agency operational files from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act and is identical to the provision recently approved by the Senate in the Defense Authorization bill.

Section 503 allows designated NSA security officers to carry firearms while on official duty to protect NSA employees and property in the U.S. This provision would provide virtually identical protections to those in Section 402 for CIA security protective officers.

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.

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.

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 hears 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 reshuffling of the NFIP to meet emerging shortfalls.

Unless there is a dramatic and sustained increase in the intelligence budget, we face some hard choices. My colleagues and I decided that there is no time like the present to make them. In the reported bill, we have made an effort to address some of the shortfalls that came to light as a result of the joint inquiry into the September 11 attacks. In this bill, the committee tries to emphasize programs which begin to correct those deficiencies.

We also sought to support the war on terrorism by supporting related intelligence community programs. We try, in this measure, to accelerate advanced technology programs to provide better intelligence in the future. In the managers' amendment, we would statutorily mandate a fundamentally more sound approach to cost estimates for major systems.

In short, the committee made some tough choices. It is our hope that some of the additional programs we were forced to cut can be funded through alternative means.

In closing, we have vetted and prepared a managers' amendment that reflects a number of additional items which Senator Rockefeller and I recommend for Senate passage in this bill. we have included some highly technical corrections to the bill and have worked to address concerns expressed by some Members regarding the committee's attempt to relieve the intelligence community from burdensome and dated reporting requirements.

We have also added several substantive provisions, based on supporting materials supplied by the administration and further investigation by the committee staff. Our amendments would: create a one-time report to examine the analytic arm of the Department of Homeland Security and the interaction between the Department and the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC); require the preparation and submission of independent

cost estimates to accompany budget requests for major systems acquisitions over $500,000,000, and require the preparation of budgets consistent with these estimates; help prevent money laundering by ensuring ex parte and in camera review by the presiding judge of classified information used to identify jurisdictions, institutions, transactions, and accounts that are of primary money laundering concern; and permit Central Intelligence Agency employees in the compensation reform pilot program to contribute bonus pay to their Thrift Savings Plan--an added incentive for exceptional performers.

The committee staff and I will provide any member additional information concerning any of the provisions or programs in the intelligence bill. Again, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. President, may I inquire as to how much time remains that was yielded by the Senator from Nevada to the Senator from Missouri.

I thank the Chair.

As his neighbor to the west, I share Senator Bond's concern for our health care providers and patients. But it seems that we have a ``tale of two cities'' between Kansas City, KS, and Kansas City, MO.

Just across the State line, we in Kansas have problems and challenges. But we don't have the same severe problems Missouri doctors and patients are facing. That is because, in the 1980s, Kansas enacted sweeping medical liability reform legislation that does create a hard cap of $250,000 on noneconomic damages.

By contrast, that same cap in Missouri is $557,000 and can go even higher under certain circumstances. As the Senator from Missouri said, you won't find it surprising that nonsurgical specialists in Missouri are now seeing very dramatic liability premium increases that have been, until now, limited to surgical specialties. One pulmonary practice's quote for traditional insurance went from $35,000 to $125,000 per year. Another pulmonary specialist quit practicing at North Kansas City Hospital because he couldn't afford the premium on his Missouri practice. Now, as the Senator knows, he practices in Kansas.

Here is another example.

We have learned that both neurosurgeons in Independence are moving out of Missouri this summer leaving eastern Jackson County with no neurosurgeon. There is no trauma care basically between the Kansas State line and Columbia, 2 hours to the east.

According to the Kansas Medical Society, the two largest companies in Kansas that provide medical liability insurance, Kansas Medical Mutual Insurance Company and Medical Protective, had increases that were not nearly as excessive as the increases in Missouri. Kansas Medical Mutual, the largest insurer in Kansas, took rate increases of 16.2 percent last year and 8.5 percent this year. Medical Protective took a 13-percent increase last year.

Premiums for the standard policy in Kansas that have been available for the last 15 to 20 years were actually lower in 2002 than they were in 1991.

As I have stated, premiums for the standard policy in Kansas are actually lower than they were in 1991. I simply want to make the point in the short time I have that we have a tale of two cities. We have a Kansas law in which we have 15 percent more doctors in Kansas than in the past. Their premiums are not excessive. People are leaving Kansas City, MO, to practice in Kansas. It is a tale of two cities. That is why I think we should support the bill that has been authored by the Senator from Nevada, S. 11.

A study by Weiss Ratings on medical malpractice caps was mentioned yesterday evening. The study found that States with caps experienced higher premium increases than those States without. I cannot speak for other States but I can speak for Kansas, and the reports conclusions were untrue.

First, as I have stated, premiums for the standard policy in Kansas are actually lower now than they were in 1991.

Secondly, the point needs to be made that all caps are not the same. The Weiss report lists the 19 States with caps, but only 5 States, including Kansas, have $250,000 caps on noneconomic damages. The rest are significantly higher, thus reducing the cap's impact on payouts and premiums.

There is no question that the cap on noneconomic damages has had an impact on premiums. It has created an unparalleled period of premium stability for Kansas physicians and hospitals. Yes, premiums are increasing in Kansas but at a much lower rate that other States.

Case in point: a family physician who delivers babies paid $13,790 in 1991 . . . . in 2001, that same physician paid $12,575--an 8.8 percent reduction. Similar reductions exist for virtually every specialty. In the aggregate, physicians paid $75.3 million in premiums in 1991 and $60 million in 2002.

Finally, I wish to point out that there are probably about 15 percent more physicians practicing in Kansas today than there were 12 years ago, and the total premium is still lower.

Senator Bond and I have shared with our colleagues what good medical liability reform can do.

Our Kansas City doctors have provided an outstanding example of how medical liability affects doctors and patients on different sides of the State line.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to take a closer look at the differences between our two States and the positive impact medical liability reforms have had in Kansas. I hope that the Senate will support S. 11 so that States like Missouri which are struggling to retain doctors and offer the best patient care are not left out in the cold.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004. I commend Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin for their skillful stewardship.

I believe the committee completed its mark-up in near record time, with one of the fastest subcommittee marks in history occurring at the panel I currently chair, the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.

Nonetheless, Senator Jack Reed and I were able to provide funding for a number of important programs. We focused not only on enhancing the capabilities of our men and women in uniform, but also on those initiatives that address threats we face right now here at home.

In fact, since Chairman Warner established the subcommittee in the Winter of 1999, most of the ``emerging threats'' have become current realities. I am talking in particular about the use and potential use by terrorists of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

I am certainly thankful for the leadership of President Bush as we try to navigate through this environment, one that includes apocalyptic terror groups acquiring and employing WMD.

Let us remember, day to day, it is the President of the United states who is responsible for preventing terrorism where we live and work. I am confident President Bush is doing all he can to protect us.

He may not be popular in European cafes, universities, or newspapers, but he gets results for us here at home. Foreign actors, be they governments, individuals, or groups, know our President will hold them accountable for terrorism against us. Perhaps more than any policy action or innovation, this posture contributes to success in achieving a secure environment in which we find ourselves right now.

Up against the most asymmetric, organized, determined, and merciless enemy the United States has ever faced, we have not had a major terror attack in the homeland since beginning the Global War on Terrorism shortly after 9/11. In this urgent threat warning atmosphere, knock on wood, Mr. President.

Indeed, there have been recent attacks in Saudi Arabia, Israel and North Africa. At the same time, however, the State Department reports that, globally, 2002 saw the lowest number of incidents of terrorism since 1969, a 44 percent drop from 2001. That is the lowest number of attacks since the birth of modern terrorism.

I recall these facts because the nature of recent comments from certain Members who suggest virtually every act of terrorism is somehow the fault of our Commander in Chief. That is not only inaccurate but counterproductive to the war against terrorism.

In closing, I would like to briefly summarize the funding authorizations achieved by the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats & Capabilities for fiscal year 2004 include the following:

$88.4 million to field an additional 12 Weapons of Mass Destruction- Civil Support Teams (WMD-CST), resulting in a total of 44 teams by the end of 2004.

$76,6 million to the Chemical Biological Installation/Force Protection Program, doubling the number of bases, from 15 to 30, that will be fully equipped with a highly effective suite of manual and automated chemical and biological detection equipment.

$147.0 million in innovative technologies to combat terrorism and defeat asymmetrical threats.

$135.0 million to rapidly accelerate the development and acquisition of unmanned systems such as UAVs.

$1.5 billion in university based research for transformational defense technologies.

$10.7 billion for the Defense Science and Technology program, including an additional $515.0 million for critical, high-payoff science and technology programs, including approximately $150.0 million for technologies to combat terrorism.

$6.7 billion for the Special Operations Command, including an additional $107.0 million for weapons systems, psychological operations capabilities, and enhanced intelligence.

$450.8 million for the Department of Defense's Cooperative threat Reduction (CTR) Program, as well as authorization for CTR projects and activities outside the states of the Former Soviet Union, and one year authority to waive the conditions that must be met before continuing the Russian chemical demilitarization program at Schuch'ye.

Again, I commend Senators Warner and Levin. I also thank Senator Reed for being an outstanding partner in completing the tasks given to our panel this year. We believe we are continuing the committee's investment in science and technology, cutting-edge systems, and efforts to prevent the proliferation of WMD.

I thank the Chair and I urge my colleagues to support the Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. President, as chairman and vice chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Rockefeller and I have submitted to the Senate the Report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence of its activities during the 107th Congress from January 3, 2001 to November 22, 2002. The Committee is charged by the Senate with the responsibility of carrying out oversight of the intelligence activities of the United States. Much of the work of the Committee is of necessity conducted in secrecy, yet the Committee believes that the Intelligence Community and this Committee should be as accountable as possible to the public. The public report to the Senate is intended to achieve that goal.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for admitting Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. As NATO's focus evolves to include transnational threats, it is important to have as many like-minded nations abroad as possible.

At the same time Congress and the President must ensure NATO as a military alliance can act efficiently and with precision in the post 9/ 11 world.

These days I hear some pundits talk about rebuilding the alliance as if it is in the same shape as post-war Iraq or post-war Afghanistan. NATO is in no such condition. The inability to achieve North Atlantic Council approval for assistance to Turkey was damaging but not catastrophic. NATO is in good shape.

Nonetheless, it would be productive for NATO to consider improvements that would streamline its decision-making process, increase operational planning for contingencies, and more appropriately respond to a member nation who refuses to uphold basic alliance mandates such as Article

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter dated May 7, 2003, be printed in the Record in regard to the NATO enlargement protocol.

Mr. President, today I am proud to cosponsor the Hagel

IDEA bill, S. 939, which will finally make Congress pay its promised share of special education funding. I have long been a supporter of fully funding IDEA and I am pleased today to support this important piece of legislation.

Nearly 30 years ago, Congress made a promise to our schools to share the cost of special education. The promise was simple--the Federal Government pays 40 percent of the excess cost of educating a special needs child. Sadly, we have yet to fulfill that promise and I believe it is well beyond time that Congress relieves our State and local governments of the financial burden they have been forced to shoulder. This bill will fully fund IDEA in 8 years by increasing funding by $2 billion annually for 7 years and $1.8 billion in 2011. This funding will have a tremendous impact in my home State of Kansas. The Kansas Department of Education estimates that this legislation will provide the State an increase of $19 million in overall funding for IDEA each year. Kansas schools may then spend these newly freed-up dollars in areas where they need it the most, such as professional development, title I programs, or technology.

In the State of Kansas, special education costs have skyrocketed to over $530 million for 2002. Unfortunately, the Federal Government only picks up about 16 percent of that figure, leaving 84 percent of the funding to State and local governments. In dollar amounts, the State of Kansas pays over $251 million in special education costs, while local schools must fork out an additional $200 million to cover the costs of special education. This is unacceptable. IDEA is the ``granddaddy'' of all unfunded mandates and I can assure my colleagues that funding IDEA at the promised level of 40 percent would not only relieve schools in my home State of Kansas, but would also relieve schools in each and every State in our great Nation. I stress to my colleagues that there is no better time than now to help our local schools by fully funding

Mr. President, I rise to day to discuss several issues related to agriculture funding in the budget resolution proposed by the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee.

While there are no specific reconciliation instructions for agriculture in this proposal, the summary documents issued by the committee indicate an assumed savings of $80 million from the crop insurance program.

I have been one of the strongest defenders of this program in the Congress, and I have fought hard to improve the program for producers throughout the country.

Simply put, cutting $80 million from this program is exactly the wrong thing to do at this time. As budgets continue to tighten, both the administration and Members of this congress have said that producers must do more to rely on crop insurance as their primary risk management tool and decrease reliance on emergency disaster assistance programs.

Last fall we also saw the collapse of the largest seller of crop insurance in the country. This was the result of several factors, but the significant drought we have suffered took its toll as indemnity payments to producers added up. And, several other companies are not in strong financial positions for the same reason.

Finally, the entire insurance industry has struggled with reinsurance since 9/11. This is also true in the crop insurance industry, and the difficulties of obtaining reinsurance have been compounded by the drought.

The bottom line is this: We have worked hard to make crop insurance the primary risk management tool for producers. But, crop insurance is struggling along with the entire insurance industry, and this cut many be something it can not recover from. It could put several of the smaller companies out of business and lead to further consolidation in the industry and concentration in agriculture.

I urge the chairman to omit this specific cut in any reconciliation instructions that may come out of the conference with the House.

Finally, I understand that an amendment was offered during committee discussion of the resolution that shifted funds from commodity programs to the conservation budget. I am not going to discuss the merits of the proposal that accomplished this shift. I think that is a discussion best conducted within the Agriculture Committee.

However, if we are going to shift funds to the conservation program, I believe they should go to our well-established programs that benefit producers throughout the United States. These include the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Conservation Reserve Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, and the Farmland Protection Program.

I do not think these funds should go to the Conservation Security Program--a program that will divert the largest potion of the funds to only a couple States that can undertake farming practices that simply do not work in regions of the country where the land is not on the river bottom and the rain comes down sideways with a 50-mile-per-hour wind.

Lets put the money where it will actually work and achieve real conservation benefits.

I thank my colleagues for listening to my views on these issues, and I hope they will continue to consider them as this process toward a final budget agreement progresses.

Mr. President, as a citizen, Senator, and former marine, my hopes and prayers are with the troops and their families. I returned just a few weeks ago from the Persian Gulf and will be going back as soon as possible. I went to the region to assess whether the war fighters in the field were armed with the best intelligence possible to fight and win a battle against Saddam Hussein. Take my word for it, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are ready. They will take care of business consistent with American values. They will take care of each other. When they return, they will receive the accolades of a greateful nation.

The operation in Iraq is a component of the war against terrorism. We depend on our men and women in uniform to keep the terror plotters and operators far off our shores, away from our families, communities, and our Nation. That is quite a responsibility. I can not imagine a more important mission.

I support the resolution under consideration, and I am pleased it mentions those who have yet to return home from the original conflict in 1991, most notably Navy Captain Scott Speicher. I am also pleased that colleagues have come to the chamber not to argue about Iraq, rather to proclaim support for our service personnel.

The debate ended last October while a 77-to-23 vote to permit a military option, should one be needed, in the case of the Baghdad regime. In passing H.J. Res. 114, Congress specifically authorized the President to ``use the Armed Forces of the United States in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Council resolutions regarding Iraq.'' This action was, of course, in addition to the Iraq Liberation Act, which Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law October 31, 1988. That act clearly states the United States should foster regime change in Iraq. The House passed that bill by a vote of 360 to 38, with 157 Democrats joining 202 Republicans. Lastly, on November 8, 2002, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1441 which gave Iraq one last opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.

A few months later, the Director of Central Intelligence declared ``Iraq has in place an active effort to deceive the UN inspectors and deny them access. This effort is directed by the highest levels of the Iraqi regime. Baghdad has given clear directions to its operational forces to hide banned materials in their possession.'' Let's be candid on the issue of compliance. The truth is that no amount of U-2 surveillance flights nor increase in the number of inspectors would have solved the problem of Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. Now I don't want war. Nobody wants war. The fact is, however, we are already at war. Over the last two decades, 5,700 Americans have lost their lives as a result of the kind of terrorist activity Saddam Hussein supports. I recall that the Marine Barracks in Lebanon, Pan Am 103, Khobar Towers, the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the USS Cole, and of course, September 11, 2001. Only after the latter tragedy, did we begin to fight back.

So I say to our troops and their families, thank you and I support you. You are freedom's best hope.