Floor Statements

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, first, I wish to sincerely thank my distinguished colleague and my dear friend from Nevada--Searchlight, NV, by the way--Senator Reid, for his very kind comments.

It has been a team effort in behalf of Senator Reid and myself as we have tried to serve--some people would say sentenced to--the Ethics Committee. But we have been very conscientious in fulfilling this duty, and I think we have done so with Senator Reid's unique ability to not only come up with what is right, according to the ethics manual, but what is basically common sense. As a matter of fact, Senator Reid has this notion that continually is expressed: Gee, Pat, we ought to sit down and really see if we can rewrite the ethics manual to make it actually understood by Members of the Senate and reform it, make it adhere to a criterion--a yardstick, if you will--of common sense.

I always tried to dissuade him from that. No. 1, I did not want to undertake that mountain to climb, and it would be a big mountain to climb, because just as soon as you start that, why, other Members add other mountains.

At any rate, Senator Reid has been a joy to work with. I admire his leadership. He is soft spoken and, as I have indicated, has brought a lot of common sense and has tried to make the Ethics Committee proactive and very helpful to Members. As a matter of fact, with every new class of Senators that comes in, we have a briefing, and Harry always points out: Ask; ask first before there is any problem. And that is certainly good advice.

I thank Senator Reid for his very kind remarks. I do not know about the decades of public service that I have accrued. Gosh, decades sounds like a long time. I may be fossilized here before we are through with these remarks. I am an old piece of furniture around here, I guess, in the House and Senate.

With that experience comes at least some expertise and some real appreciation in behalf of certain staff. We are only as good as our staff, I do not care whether you are an individual Member's staff, committee staff, select committee staff, whatever. It is a real honor for me to offer a few brief remarks for our outgoing Senate Ethics staff director, Mr. Victor Baird.

He has 16 years of service, and he now leaves this to enter retirement and, doubtlessly, what will be a new phase of life. His retirement is certainly well deserved, but his absence will be a great loss to the Senate.

Sometimes the most important positions are the ones that go unacknowledged. This is certainly true with the staff director of the Ethics Committee. It is one of the few positions where accolades do not really accrue. Only when a storm or controversy presents does the spotlight focus on the staff director. When this occurs, the director faces intense challenges from all angles, including media scrutiny, public outcry, and, yes, even partisan bickering. Yet he endures all this for one supreme objective, and this is what Victor did--to preserve the integrity of this institution we call the United States Senate.

For almost a decade and a half, why, Victor Baird has assumed this thankless but important job. It is a job requiring keen attention to detail, mastery of the rules, and a precise level of foresight on how ethics rulings affect the Senate, not only in the present but for future generations. Just as the Sergeant at Arms and Capitol Police guard the physical structure of the Senate, Victor Baird guarded the reputation of these halls. He accomplished this by insistence that Members adhere and remain accountable to high ethical standards.

During his tenure, he guided the Senate through some very tumultuous times that often really threatened the reputation of the Senate. As we all know, a compromised reputation will diminish credibility, and diminished credibility threatens a mandate to govern. It is that important. With this loss, our whole system of checks and balances would suffer which is vital to the strength of our democracy. All of us, regardless of what side of the aisle we sit on, should understand this.

Thankfully, Victor handled all ethics proceedings, and particularly those with intense media focus, judiciously, without staining the dignity of the Senate. He safeguarded us. This is not an easy task, and all of us should be very grateful.

The Senate is unlike any other governing body in the world. Deliberative by design, it exists to make sure we thoroughly consider our actions. In a town fueled by hotly charged emotions that often makes decisions for the moment, thankfully Victor was always available for advice and counsel.

My friend and colleague, Senator Reid, and I often sought his well- reasoned, objective legal opinions. We respected his vast institutional knowledge and understanding of how this body should conduct itself. When dealing with ethics issues, it is important Members rise above partisan politics, which is hard to do sometimes, and examine each issue on a case-by-case basis. This is what our Founding Fathers intended. Maintaining the Senate's distinguished legacy is a task all of us must assume, regardless of politics. Victor knows this; Victor knew this, and always kept this premise at the forefront of his responsibilities.

His most important contribution was understanding that the committee's ultimate goal was proactive and preventive in nature. He made sure that all Members and their staff knew the rules of acceptable conduct at the outset. In public office, innocent mistakes can quickly break a career. This is why the Ethics Committee, and in particular the staff director, is so important. He is the gatekeeper. He is the adviser. He is the counselor to us all. Victor Baird certainly filled each of these roles with the utmost professionalism and integrity.

On behalf of the entire Senate, we thank you for your service and your dedication, Victor. Your influence has preserved the reputation of this governing body for the past 16 years, and we salute you.

In the U.S. Marine Corps, we always conclude by saying: Semper Fi. That means always faithful.

You have been always faithful, Victor. Semper Fi.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, I am pleased and honored to join with my colleagues to introduce two pieces of legislation to help meet the child care challenges facing families around the Nation. These bills entitled the ``Caring for Children Act'' and ``A Boost for Child Care Act'', or the ABC's Act.

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

The ``Caring for Children Act'' and `A Boost for Child Care Act'' take the first steps in addressing this challenge through a responsible approach. This legislation expands child care opportunities without increased government costs or intrusion in our lives. This legislation builds into the existing network adding more government intervention or mandates. This legislation will help families that have two working parents and families that have a stay-at-home parent. This legislation will help to increase the supply of quality child care.

First, in order to provide additional tax relief and increased affordability of child care, the ABC's Act expends the Dependent Care Tax Credit by raising the income level to $30,000 at which families become eligible for the maximum tax credit. This legislation also raises the maximum percentage of child care expenses that parents can deduct to 50 percent. These changes make the Dependent Care Tax Credit more realistic for families that face increasing child care costs. Additionally, the ABC's Act accelerates and makes permanent the child tax credit at $1,000 for qualifying taxpayers in order to further ease the financial burden on families.

Increasing the income level and the percentage of child care expenses that are deductible will help families where both parents work. But, we must also recognize that families who choose to have one parent remain at home have child care expenses as well. Therefore, this legislation extends eligibility for the Dependent Care Tax Credit to families with a stay-at-home parent. This provides greater options to more families and leaves child care choices where they should be--with the family. In order to target this credit to parents who need it the most and meet our fiscal responsibilities, the credit is phased out for higher income wage earners.

The ``Caring for Children Act'' recognizes that small businesses play a critical role in providing child care options to millions of working parents. Unfortunately, small businesses generally do not have the resources required to start up and support a child care center. This legislation includes a short-term flexible grant program to encourage small businesses to work together to provide child care services for employees. This program is more of a demonstration project that will sunset at the end of three years. In the meantime, small businesses will be eligible for grants up to $100,000 for start-up costs, training scholarships, or other related activities. Business must continue to meet state quality and health standards. Businesses will be required to match Federal funds to encourage self-sustaining facilities well into the future.

Parental access to child care information and technical assistance to child care providers both play a strong role in increasing the supply of quality child care. The Caring for Children Act includes a grant program to allow entities to develop and operate technology-based child care training infrastructures to enable child care providers to receive the training, education and support they need to improve the quality of child care. The legislation also provides funds for the Department of Health and Human Services to collect and disseminate state of the art information on topics related to child care health and safety, as well as early childhood development. This information could be distributed through brochures, the internet, a toll-free information hotline, or resource and referral organizations.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the ``Caring for Children Act'' and ``A Boost for Child Care Act'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased and honored to join with my colleagues to introduce two pieces of legislation to help meet the child care challenges facing families around the Nation. These bills entitled the ``Caring for Children Act'' and ``A Boost for Child Care Act'', or the ABC's Act.

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

The ``Caring for Children Act'' and `A Boost for Child Care Act'' take the first steps in addressing this challenge through a responsible approach. This legislation expands child care opportunities without increased government costs or intrusion in our lives. This legislation builds into the existing network adding more government intervention or mandates. This legislation will help families that have two working parents and families that have a stay-at-home parent. This legislation will help to increase the supply of quality child care.

First, in order to provide additional tax relief and increased affordability of child care, the ABC's Act expends the Dependent Care Tax Credit by raising the income level to $30,000 at which families become eligible for the maximum tax credit. This legislation also raises the maximum percentage of child care expenses that parents can deduct to 50 percent. These changes make the Dependent Care Tax Credit more realistic for families that face increasing child care costs. Additionally, the ABC's Act accelerates and makes permanent the child tax credit at $1,000 for qualifying taxpayers in order to further ease the financial burden on families.

Increasing the income level and the percentage of child care expenses that are deductible will help families where both parents work. But, we must also recognize that families who choose to have one parent remain at home have child care expenses as well. Therefore, this legislation extends eligibility for the Dependent Care Tax Credit to families with a stay-at-home parent. This provides greater options to more families and leaves child care choices where they should be--with the family. In order to target this credit to parents who need it the most and meet our fiscal responsibilities, the credit is phased out for higher income wage earners.

The ``Caring for Children Act'' recognizes that small businesses play a critical role in providing child care options to millions of working parents. Unfortunately, small businesses generally do not have the resources required to start up and support a child care center. This legislation includes a short-term flexible grant program to encourage small businesses to work together to provide child care services for employees. This program is more of a demonstration project that will sunset at the end of three years. In the meantime, small businesses will be eligible for grants up to $100,000 for start-up costs, training scholarships, or other related activities. Business must continue to meet state quality and health standards. Businesses will be required to match Federal funds to encourage self-sustaining facilities well into the future.

Parental access to child care information and technical assistance to child care providers both play a strong role in increasing the supply of quality child care. The Caring for Children Act includes a grant program to allow entities to develop and operate technology-based child care training infrastructures to enable child care providers to receive the training, education and support they need to improve the quality of child care. The legislation also provides funds for the Department of Health and Human Services to collect and disseminate state of the art information on topics related to child care health and safety, as well as early childhood development. This information could be distributed through brochures, the internet, a toll-free information hotline, or resource and referral organizations.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the ``Caring for Children Act'' and ``A Boost for Child Care Act'' be printed in the Record.

I thank the distinguished chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee for yielding time to me.

Everyone understands, on a bipartisan basis, I say to the distinguished Senator from Montana, that we are not in very good shape with regard to farm country. It does not matter if you have been hit by hurricane, flood, or record-breaking drought.

Last spring, I warned this is exactly what would happen because the current farm bill was structured to provide assistance to producers when they had a crop, but left them dangling in the Kansas, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Montana wind when there was no crop to harvest, not to mention other parts of the country suffering these kind of weather disasters.

It seems to me, and maybe I took it a little personal, we will not get into partisanship because we have to accomplish some degree of relief, but I was criticized on the floor of the Senate last spring. They said I didn't know anything about agriculture because producers with high prices are just fine and need no Government assistance.

Well, as everyone here knows, with the wheat, sorghum, corn, and soybean prices have experienced the highest levels in the last few years, but like most of the producers in Kansas or throughout the Great Plains or in other sections of the country, it does not do much good if all the producer had to harvest was a dust cloud. Prices are high because the drought cut production and supply.

What are we going to do about this? We heard that we have one approach that is $6 billion. I question that, really. Not in regard to the intent of the distinguished Senators who brought it forward, but if my second-degree amendment to the $6 billion bill as of last year was $2.9 billion, an amendment that was not allowed because of some parliamentary maneuvers, now costs $4.03 billion, I have to assume that the $6 billion is probably closer to $7 billion or $8 billion.

But that is not really the issue. The issue is the chairman of the Agriculture Committee really brought forth this amendment and worked with many of us to ensure that we are directing the bulk of assistance to those areas that have actually experienced the crop losses in recent years.

This past year in Kansas, we have really gone through a very difficult time. Kansas State University estimates the crop losses in the State at over $1 billion. Thankfully, these have been partially offset by $406 million in crop insurance indemnity payments. That is the other half of the equation, and yes we had to improve the crop insurance program in 2000 but thank goodness for that.

But the losses are very substantial. Livestock losses total over $300 million in Kansas; 26 percent of pasture conditions are rated poor to very poor. We have seen a winter, in many parts, the driest on record. And net farm income is forecast to be approximately $10,000. When all is figured in for 2002, this is estimated to represent a shortfall of about $35,000 in simply meeting family living expenses.

On top of all this, the total government payments on the 2002 crop were estimated to be 60 percent less than received in 2001.

That is right. Under this farm bill described by the other side as the best farm bill ever--the greatest farm bill ever, pardon me--our Kansas producers have seen a drop of 60 percent in government assistance because it is a price support program. We have high prices but no income support. That is why we are back again, despite the predictions that we would not have another disaster bill.

I heard from many bankers who say there will be no next year for many of our producers unless we grant relief. You know, you can't take issues and promises to the bank. That is what we have. Issues do not pay bills. Promises do not pay bills. Debate will not pay bills. We need to give them hope and an assistance package that can actually pass.

Everyone here knows that the House of Representatives will not pass the proposal that has been put forth by my good friends on the other side of the aisle. It will not pass the House. There are many reasons for that: Budget reasons, any other reason you can come up with. Some sections of agriculture who do not want to open up the farm bill. It will not pass the House. It will not be signed into law by the President of the United States. That is a given.

We can argue the merits of that and the politics of that. We did all last year. But now is not the time to keep arguing about that. Put politics aside. It is not the best bill that I could possibly write or that the distinguished Senator from Mississippi could write, but it is a bill that will be passed by the House and signed into law by the President.

As I said, the amendment is not perfect, but it does give them hope. It targets assistance to those areas which were actually declared a disaster area. It provides vital livestock assistance that will aid producers throughout the country. It provides assistance for specialty crops. And it does replenish some of the section 22 account so these funds can be used for nutrition programs and purchase programs for specialty crops and the meat sector.

It doesn't bust the budget; it is paid for. It doesn't take any money out of the agriculture baseline.

The back of the envelop math is $190 million for Kansas. I don't know what it is for the other States that are represented here on the floor. But it is substantial. Is it enough? We can argue that all day long. But this is a decision whether we have $190 million that goes to Kansas, hard-hit Kansas producers and livestock producers, or nothing. So that is the issue.

Coming pretty close to the truth is coming pretty close, but it is still not the truth, and that is the truth. We could have an issue or a bill. Our farmers are sick and tired of being sick and tired. It may well be that if it doesn't rain, we will be back here again later on this year to try to fix the farm bill, do some technical correction, or come with additional assistance. I don't know. But right now you had better pass this $3.1 billion package put together by the distinguished Senator from Mississippi and backed by some of us who want something as opposed to nothing. That is the way it is.

I yield the floor.

I am ready to proceed.

Mr. President, I rise today with some degree of reluctance, I might say, to discuss the apparent disagreement and the difference of opinion within the Select Committee on Intelligence with regard to staffing. This is the kind of disagreement that is obviously taking place in many of the committees in the Senate. We have heard a lot about this. We probably heard too much about it, to the point this whole business is now at the leadership level and is holding up the appointment of committee chairmen, not to mention the business of the Senate. This is not only regrettable but, as this drags on, I think this really represents the kind of sandbox silliness--that is my term-- that prompts folks outside the beltway to wonder if this body is the Senate or a partisan romper room.

Given the importance of our Select Committee on Intelligence and our obligations and our responsibilities during this time of vital national security threat--and I am talking about the war on terrorism, I am talking about Iraq, I am talking about North Korea, not to mention any number of other national security threats by state and nonstate terrorists--and given the committee's 26 years of history of bipartisanship--that means no majority, no minority, no Republican, no Democrat approach or viewpoint--we should not be having this dispute. The Select Committee on Intelligence is very different from any other committee in the Senate. In fact, it is a committee that serves the entire Senate; it is your committee, my colleagues, and the leadership, and given its importance at this particular time in our history this committee, above all others, should be spared this kind of public spat.

Senator Rockefeller, our very distinguished vice-chairman-to-be, myself, the incoming chairman--I hope, I hope we can get past this--our leadership and the entire Senate should not be party or bystanders to what has been going on in the Senate for the last week or so. It is untoward. That is the nice way of saying it. In Dodge City, KS, we would say we should not be part of this hell-for-leather ride down a partisan trail of obstructionism like a herd of cattle milling about in confusion and delay in a box canyon. That is about what it looks like in my hometown.

But here we are, and the leadership tells me the Intelligence Committee, the Senate's select committee, the committee that really belongs to us all, is at loggerheads. I don't know that because I have not been part of the negotiations. But the leadership tells me this is now a separate issue.

In saying this, I don't question the intent of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. I want to point out he is a good man. He is a good Senator. He is a personal friend. I look forward to working with Vice Chairman Rockefeller. We have already discussed mutual goals, possible long-term structural reform within the intelligence community, not to mention the regular business of the committee with regard to our oversight responsibilities--and they are pressing responsibilities. We should be meeting this week.

The truth of it is we simply have a different--an apparent difference of opinion on how the Intelligence Committee should be organized. So here I am on the floor of the Senate, making one of those ``I had not intended to make a speech'' speeches.

The larger issue is whether or not the duly elected majority will be able to run the Senate. We should not be laying down organizational demands, demands for more space--this space, that space; different rules on how this body will consider the confirmation of judges. The next thing you know, it is going to be majority and minority restrooms. That is about where we have come to.

But I believe the issue involving the organization of the Select Committee on Intelligence is important because of what is at stake, and what is at stake is our national security. The difference, as I understand it--and as I say again, this has been at the leadership level for about a week now, and I think it can be summarized quite easily. We should preserve the committee's 26-year history of bipartisanship. We should preserve our Intelligence Committee staff as a single unified staff that works for the committee as a whole under the supervision of the chairman and the vice chairman. Let me repeat that, the chairman and the vice chairman.

The minority--or I guess we should call them the temporary majority, I hope it is temporary--apparently wishes to divide the committee staff for the first time in history into a majority/minority or partisan camps. To the contrary, we should preserve the committee's 26-year history of nonpartisanship by keeping to a minimum

those staff who are designated as partisan. The minority apparently wishes to increase the ranks of partisan staff.

We should structure the committee staff in accordance with the committee's rules and custom and practice. We should not repeal the committee's rules and ignore our custom and practice of working together with one single staff.

As I said before, the Select Committee on Intelligence has been a unique institution in the Senate and was envisioned from the start to operate under different rules than any other committee. The Intelligence Committee was created by S. Res. 400 over 25 years ago. The resolution actually grew out of the intelligence abuses of the 1970s which were highlighted by the Church Committee.

There were a number of proposals for the creation of the Intelligence Committee--numerous hearings, lengthy debate and multiple amendments. In the end, the Senate agreed to create a bipartisan committee with--I underscore this--a permanent professional nonpartisan staff to serve the committee as a whole.

The intent was to limit sharply the number of designated partisan staff. In fact, our rules really contemplate only two positions to be wholly partisan. This is not well understood apparently by those who have a difference of opinion.

The only positions that are wholly partisan are the minority staff director and the minority counsel. The rest of the staff works for the ``committee as a whole.''

That is a quote from S. Res. 400--under the direct supervision and control of the staff director on behalf of the chairman and the vice chairman--both of us.

The Senate report accompanying S. Res. 400 emphasizes the bipartisan nature of the committee. I am quoting here:

The unique importance and nature of the matters [of] the

committee will make such bipartisanship essential. The

existence of trust and confidence between the executive

branch and the committee will enable the committee to

exercise more effective oversight. This trust and confidence

will only be achieved if the committee does act in a fully

bipartisan manner.

That comes from the Senate Report 94-675.

In order to ensure the committee would act in this fully bipartisan manner, committee rules provide for a single unified staff that works for the committee as a whole under the supervision of the chairman and the vice chairman. No other committee is advised by a nonpartisan and also integrated staff.

Committee rules also provide the minority extraordinary powers through the vice chairman. Our rules emphasize and confirm the unique authorities of the minority and the bipartisan nature of the Intelligence Committee and its distinction from the other committees of the Senate. Let me give you some examples.

Rule 2 of the committee's Rules of Procedure permits the vice chairman to preside over the committee.

Rule 2 also permits meetings to occur without the presence of a majority member of the committee.

Rule 6 actually permits the vice chairman to authorize a committee investigation.

Rule 7 actually permits the vice chairman to issue a subpoena.

Rule 8 actually permits the vice chairman to authorize witness interrogation by committee staff.

Rule 9 requires that both the chairman and the vice chairman agree to authorize disclosure of or access to committee information. That means both the majority and the minority are made aware of requests by any member of the Senate to review any committee document, and either can prevent it.

Rule 10 requires all staff work for the committee as a whole. Thus the chairman or the vice chairman may direct any professional staff action through the staff director.

Rule 10 requires all staff assist the minority in the writing of any minority or additional views.

I know. I have had them help me when we were in the minority; more especially in a report on the USS Cole.

Rule 11 requires staff members brief both majority and minority members, which means there are no secrets from the minority.

These authorities and privileges enjoyed by the vice chairman illustrate clearly the unique nature of this committee and the importance of these authorities in maintaining its nonpartisan nature.

Some have argued this structure has not worked in the past. And I would argue that it has worked--and it has worked well--when the chairman and the vice chairman want it to work. It requires cooperation, and one cannot foster a spirit of cooperation by proposing to fire all of our current professional staff, split the committee's staff in two, and rehire on a partisan basis. The unique bipartisan nature of this committee is its greatest strength and is essential to the ability of the committee to develop a consensus product and to avoid all of the politics of our Nation's intelligence activities. That would not serve our Nation well, and that could occur.

The legislative record reflects that the Senators who really created the Intelligence Committee believed--this is so important--that the less partisan nature of the committee would serve to make the intelligence community more willing to keep the Congress fully and currently informed of highly sensitive intelligence activity. For a quarter of a century, this has permitted the committee to fulfill its primary responsibility: Oversight of the intelligence activities of the United States Government. My 6 years on the committee tell me that is absolutely true.

I remember the years when Dick Shelby was chairman, Richard Bryan was vice chairman, and Bob Kerrey was vice chairman. We got along well. It isn't that we didn't have any differences of opinion, but we acted in a nonpartisan, bipartisan way in the interests of the United States.

The incoming vice chairman has argued that under our rules the vice chairman has access to only two staff, and the chairman, which would be myself, would control the rest. That is not true. That is absolutely incorrect. Under our rules, the entire staff works for the chairman and the vice chairman jointly.

I do not know how many times I have to say this. In fact, the vice chairman actually controls the committee's only truly partisan staff because everybody else works for the committee as a whole.

That is the concept that is hard, I guess, for some people to understand. He has two minority staff. Those are the only partisan staff. The rest of the entire committee works for the committee as a whole, including myself and the vice chairman.

It is about the eighth time I have had to repeat that. I hope it finally sinks in.

My advice to my good and excellent friend from West Virginia is you should never take to ``sawin' '' on the branch that is ``supportin' '' you unless you are going to be hung from it.

We are not hanging anybody. This is not Judge Bean. We have promised a bipartisan approach to all issues on the Intelligence Committee.

You have my word that will be the case. As chairman, I have no staff which works exclusively for me. I cannot understand how one can argue the minority is unsupported when the entire staff, excluding the designated minority staff, works for the vice chairman as well, and his designated staff works exclusively for him.

The proposal, as I understand it, is to split the staff into a majority-minority camp. That is contrary to the 26-year precedent for the operation of the committee, the bipartisan spirit of the committee's enabling legislation, S. Res. 400, the rules of the Intelligence Committee for the management of the staff, and the intent of the Senate.

Other than that, it is a heck of a good idea.

I believe the committee has worked well and effectively with the professional nonpartisan staff as originally intended and should continue to do so.

I have faith. I am an optimist. I have faith that the incoming vice chairman, Senator Rockefeller, and I can continue a long tradition of cooperation personally and that has been taking place on the committee between the chairman and vice chairman in this unique and valuable institution. Once we get past this tiff, this spat, these differences of opinion--what shouldn't be but is now a big piece in this hole, or whatever we are into here--I would call it obstructionism, and I think any proposal to split the committee or increase the numbers of strictly partisan

staff would represent a break with tradition. I think it would not be in the best interests of the committee, of the Senate, or of our national security.

I want to say one other thing not related to Senator Rockefeller and our difference of opinion but something that is of great concern. It is becoming apparent in statements from some of my colleagues across the aisle over the past several days and weeks that there is a growing campaign of criticism aimed at the President, the war against terrorism, and what may be a necessary military confrontation with Iraq and Saddam Hussein, not to mention now the entire business with North Korea. It would appear to me as an individual Senator on the Armed Services Committee and on the Intelligence Committee that any criticism on foreign policy does not stop at the water's edge. It also appears now that is true of national security as well.

In this regard, I don't question any Member's honest intent or difference of opinion relative to our national security, not to mention their patriotism. That is not what I am talking about. We need healthy debate. We have strong differences of opinion. That is our obligation as Senators.

But when we hear statements that this Nation is no better prepared, intelligence-wise, than we were prior to 9/11, that is not right. Nothing hurts the truth so much as stretching it. And, boy, that is a stretch. That is not only not true but it borders on the politics of opportunism.

Our job on the Intelligence Committee is to conduct serious, tough, proactive, and vigorous oversight, and to hold the intelligence community accountable, as well, I think, as being a champion for their mission and enabling the community to safeguard our Nation. That is why we should not allow the Intelligence Committee to split into partisan camps during these perilous times.

Finally, in regard to this whole business of holding up the chairmanships and transfer of power and the Senate's business, we all ran through partisan gauntlets of sorts to gain the privilege of being here--some more than others. Yet the special fabric that binds this institution in purpose and in achievement is bipartisan.

I am the first to admit that no political party has an exclusive patent on common sense or can lay claim to what is absolutely right. Personally, I try very hard to work with my good Democrat colleagues and friends. And, yes, they are my friends. Now, to be sure, we have our differences, but for the most part we work together, and we try on the other fellow's boots. Sometimes they pinch--sometimes they pinch really hard--but we get the foot to fit and we get something done.

I try to be the best Member I know how to be. That is tempered by over 30 years of public service as a staffer and a House and Senate Member. I am a piece of old furniture around here.

But to my friends now in the minority and acting as if you are in the majority, that is the rub. Part of what we are is what the other side allows us to be. And during these past 8 or 9 days, you have had us on short reins--in fact, no reins at all. And I know this: If this obstructionism keeps up--the space, the staffing, the ratios, the blue slips, the rules on judges, and Lord knows what is next--you will tear that special fabric that holds us together as the Senate of the United States.

If we do not end this business and get to the business of the Nation, and understand there is a majority and a minority and that the majority rules, we will open up a wound further that will not heal without significant price and scar, not to mention public ridicule for our institution.

The sad thing is, I say to my colleagues, we did not have to go down this road.

Mr. President, I always figure it is a good thing to be a little bit nicer than is called for. I do not think too many Members would call me too nice. But in trying to be a little bit nicer than is called for, you shouldn't take too much guff.

My colleagues across the aisle, it is time to end the guff.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator from Kentucky.