Floor Statements

Mr. President, I, too, feel inspired and in fact moved to comment on the elections in Iraq and also some other things that I have witnessed during the last 2 days. I felt very emotional as I watched Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday morning, during one of several interviews on television.

Specifically, I am speaking of Chris Wallace's interview of our new Secretary of State. It was one of the most impressive interviews I believe I have ever seen in my life. This is obviously a highly talented, qualified, thoughtful, articulate person who has been sworn in to be Secretary of State. I have never seen a more moving interview in my many years in Washington, in fact over 36 years, than I witnessed during the interchange between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Chris Wallace.

Actually, I found myself to the point of tears as I listened to what she had to say, and how she said it. I was captivated by how she responded not only to the world given the very important position that she holds in answering those questions, but also on a personal basis by representing what is good in America. This is a lady who came from Birmingham, AL, an African-American, who grew up at a time when Birmingham was segregated and it was difficult for her to get the education, the experience, and the opportunities that she needed for life.

She persevered, as did her family, friends, and neighbors, and she has now risen to one of the most important positions in the world that anybody could have. She will be the face of America to the leaders of all of the rest of the world, and it is one that I believe they, as I, will be impressed with.

I will read one part of what she had to say in that interview. Interviewer Chris Wallace noted that he would play a clip from earlier this week at the White House when Condoleezza Rice was sworn in as Secretary of State and she referred to her relatives from Alabama who were there in the audience, and he asked his viewers to take a look. Secretary Rice said:

They represent generations of Rices and Rays who believed

that a day like this might somehow be possible.

And then Wallace continued:

You have gone from a little girl in the segregated South to

being the chief representative of this country to the world.

What does that say about the United States?

At that point I felt sure that tears would well up in her eyes and she would have difficulty responding, but she kept her composure while she said this:

It says that the United States is a place that is living up

to its principles, that has had a struggle to do that. I[t]

also said in that, Chris, it was Thomas Jefferson who said

that the God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same

time and, of course, didn't himself personally carry that out

perfectly. . . .

It just shows that democracy, if you have the right

principles in place, if you have the right institutions in

place, it may take a long time, but eventually the

aspirations for one society unified despite race and gender

and religion can start to come into being.

We still have a lot of work to do in America. I look out

and I see that work. But I do believe that in a world where

difference is a license to kill, to look across and to see

people like me or Al Gonzales or others says that America is

trying desperately and, in some sense, succeeding, in living

up to those principles.

I thought that was a magnificent testament to her life, what she experienced, what others are dealing with, but also what it means about our country and the hope for a lot of young boys and girls who see Condoleezza Rice in the position she is in and recognize that they can succeed, too, in the American dream.

I continued to watch television, many different networks, and I started seeing the results of the Iraqi elections. It appears that it was a good election with a good turnout. I don't know what the exact turnout percentages are. Reuters reported it as being perhaps as much as 72 percent, I believe. In some parts of the country it was more than that, I would presume, and in others much less than that, but still an incredible turnout. Maybe it will be 60 percent, maybe it will be 58, maybe it will be 62, but the people of Iraq, under the threat of intimidation or death or future abuse, went into those polling places in huge numbers, stuck their finger in that little bottle of dye, and came out and showed it off proudly.

By the way, they are going to have to come to live with their dyed finger the

next couple of days. There will not be any hiding. If you voted in Iraq today, your finger will be stained today and tomorrow, but your life will be changed henceforth.

Maybe we can learn from them. We didn't have a 60- or 70-percent turnout in our election. I don't know exactly what the turnout was, but I am sure it is much less than that in America where we don't vote if the weather is not good or the traffic is too bad. But in Iraq they walked to the polling places, they put their lives on the line, and they were thrilled to be able to be a part of a historic event, of democracy in action, and they came out and danced in the streets. They said: We are very happy. They also said: Thank you, America.

A lot of credit can be passed out. It begins with the people of Iraq for what they did yesterday, to the men and women who are trying to make Iraq safe, their own policemen and national guard, and their own military. But a lot of credit goes to our military men and women who have done a marvelous job on the ground in Iraq. Even yesterday, they were there. They helped provide as much security as they could, but they were not interfering with the voters. They backed away. They left it to the people of Iraq and to their military and police and others.

I cannot give enough credit to the young men and women who have been there and their officers and noncoms, all of them, soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and Coast Guard. Obviously, they have all been a part of this. When I have talked to the young troops we have there, they are proud of what they are doing. They feel patriotic about what they have helped to do there.

Then, yesterday, they saw this begin to bear fruit. It doesn't mean the Iraqi people are free from terrorism. It doesn't mean everything has been done perfectly. It doesn't mean it is going to be perfect from here on. We don't know yet who won their election. It was a very complicated process. They had to figure out who to vote for or what list of people to vote for, and what number to identify. They still have a long way to go in cultivating their democracy. But for me, it was an inspiration. I was thrilled by what I saw, what I witnessed through the media. Not just one network or one station, all the different ones that were there in the country, showing democracy at work.

But also I believe credit has to go to our own Congress and the American people for showing patience and forbearance and giving of their treasure and American blood for a distant place, for people you don't really know. Many wonder, I am sure, sometimes, is it worth it? Why are we there? How long are we going to be there? All those questions come forward. But what struck me again yesterday was how people react to freedom, how people react to democracy, being able to go and cast their vote. It is liberating.

The President was right when he talked about the power of freedom and democracy and how it is a flame that is igniting a fire all around the world over the last 20 years. We have gone from about 20 democracies in the world to 118 countries all over the world, in every continent, in places where you would not have thought it would be possible: Mongolia, elections in Ukraine, elections by the Palestinians. There is something very special going on here. I do believe it is contagious and that it will continue to grow, and not only the American people but the people of the world will benefit.

The odds of having an attack from people in a country where there is a democracy are much less than those who come from places where there is an oppressive government, dictatorship, or authoritarianism. Democracy is not perfect; it is evolutionary. We know that from what we experienced. But yesterday was a special moment. I hope the American people saw it, felt proud of what they were witnessing and the part we have played in making that day possible.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the U.S. Congress, Reverend Clergy, fellow Americans, welcome to the U.S. Capitol and the 55th Presidential Inauguration, where in a few moments President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney will reaffirm their solemn oath of obligation to support and defend the Constitution.

The inaugural ceremony is a seminal moment in our Nation's history. It is the culmination of a triumphant democratic process that for centuries has placed power in the will of the people, and a unique moment when our leaders stand before the Nation and take an oath to uphold a set of principles chosen by those people. It is a time when all Americans can unite in appreciation of our great Republic, while looking to the future with confidence and vision.

This ceremony, like the shining dome of the Capitol above us, is an enduring symbol of America's strength and stability in both challenging and prosperous times. As President Ronald Reagan said in his first inaugural address, ``Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available here than any other place on Earth.'' The price of this freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay that price.

Since we last met here, America has been challenged and it has responded to those great tests with strength and steadfast courage of conviction. We responded by continuing to be a beacon of hope that has led so many from the shadow of tyranny into the light of freedom.

Today, we honor America. Today, we celebrate the ever expanding opportunities of her people. And today we also honor the brave men and women of our Armed Forces who have sacrificed to guarantee our freedom.

(Applause.)

They are standing vigil today to spread peace and freedom throughout the world. Since 1789, Americans have gathered in peaceful, dignified ceremonies to reaffirm the authority of our chief executives. So it is in that tradition that we gather here again today looking out over the expanse of greatness that is America to celebrate our Nation, to commemorate its rich history of achievement, to advance the intrepid hopes that reside in the hearts of our citizens, and to give thanks to God for his blessings upon us all.

In that spirit, I call now on the Reverend Doctor Luis Leon, who will deliver the invocation. Dr. Leon.

Rev. LEON. Let us pray.

Most gracious and eternal God, we gather today as a grateful people to enjoy the many blessings You have bestowed on this Nation.

We are grateful for Your vision which inspired the Founders of our Nation to create this democratic experiment as one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

We are grateful to You that You have brought to these shores a multitude of peoples of many ethnic, religious, and language backgrounds, and yet have fashioned one nation out of so many cultures and traditions.

Even as we celebrate this great moment, we remember before You the members of our Armed Forces. We commend them to Your care. Give them courage to carry out their duties and courage to face the perils which beset them and grant them always a sense of Your presence in all that they do.

Finally, today, we are especially grateful for this inauguration which marks a new beginning in our journey as a people and a nation. We pray that You will shower the elected leaders of this land, and especially George, our President, and Richard, our Vice President, with Your lifegiving spirit. Fill them with the love of truth and righteousness that they may serve You and this Nation ably and be glad to do Your will. Endow their hearts with Your spirit of wisdom that they may lead us in reviewing the ties of mutual respect which form our civic life so that peace may prevail with righteousness and justice with order.

We pray that You will strengthen their resolve as they lead our Nation seeking to serve You in this world, and that this good and generous country may be a blessing to the nations of the world. And may they lead us to become, in the words of Martin Luther King, members of a beloved community, loving our neighbors as ourselves so that all of us may more closely come to fulfill the promise of our Founding Fathers: one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All this we ask in Your most holy name. Amen.

Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Honorable William H. Rehnquist.

(Applause.)

Ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to introduce one of today's most popularly acclaimed mezzo-sopranos, Ms. Susan Graham of Texas, to sing ``Bless This House.''

(Performance by Ms. Susan Graham.)

Thank you, Susan.

Ladies and gentlemen, please join me now in welcoming the senior Senator from Connecticut, the Honorable Christopher J. Dodd.

(Applause.)

Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome internationally acclaimed mezzo-soprano, Ms. Denyce Graves, to perform ``American Anthem.''

(Performance by Ms. Denyce Graves.)

That sets the tone for what we are about to do.

Ladies and gentlemen, it gives me great pleasure to introduce the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Honorable William H. Rehnquist, who will administer the Presidential oath of office. Justice Rehnquist.

At this time, I would like to present a unique performance combining the U.S. Marine Band, the Navy Sea Chanters, and the Army of Herald Trumpets, performing ``God of our Fathers.''

(Musical performance.)

Please stand as Pastor KirbyJon Caldwell will deliver the benediction, and then please remain standing for the national anthem, which will be led by TSgt Bradley Bennett from the U.S. Air Force Band. Following the national anthem, please remain in place while the official party departs the platform. Pastor Caldwell.

Rev. CALDWELL. Thank you, Senator Lott. Let us pray, please.

O Lord God Almighty, the supply and supplier of faith and freedom, how excellent is Your name in all the Earth. You are great and gratefully to be praised. O God, as we conclude this 55th inaugural ceremony, we conclude it with an attitude of thanksgiving. Thank You for protecting America's borders. After all, as the Psalmist reminds us, unless You, O God, guard the territory, our efforts will be in vain.

Thank You for our armed service personnel. And it is with unswerving thanksgiving that we pause to remember the persons who have made the ultimate sacrifice to help ensure America's safety. Thank You, O God, for surrounding our personnel, their families, their friends, and our allies with Your favor and Your faithfulness. Deploy Your host from Heaven so that Your will for America will be performed on Earth as it is already perfected in Heaven.

I confess that Your face will shine upon the United States of America, granting us social peace and economic prosperity, particularly for the weary and the poor.

I also confess, O God, that each American's latter days will be better than their former days. Let it be unto us according to Your words. Rally the Republicans, the Democrats, and the Independents around Your common good so that America will truly become one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, justice, and equal opportunity for all, including the least, the last, and the lost.

Bless every elected official right now. O God, I declare Your blessings to shower upon our President, George W. Bush. Bless him, his family, and his administration. I once again declare that

no weapon against them shall prosper. God, forgive us for becoming so ensnarled in petty partisan politics that we miss Your glory and forget our purpose. Deliver us from the evil one, from evil itself, and from the mere appearance of evil. Give us clean hearts so that we might have clean agendas, clean priorities and programs, and even clean financial statements.

And now unto You, O God, the one who always has been and always will be the one King of Kings and the true power broker, we glorify and honor You. Respecting persons of all faiths, I humbly submit this prayer in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Mr. President, realizing that I have the 5-minute allocation, I make a parliamentary inquiry about where we are. If there are no further speakers, is the Chair going to be prepared to put the question so that there would be a recorded vote?

Mr. President, I think the case has been made. I think this was an unfortunate procedure. This process which we have been through was an inauspicious and unfortunate beginning of our session. I hope it does not have a lasting negative impact. But the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, made her case, others have responded, and I don't think it merits any further response. I, therefore, think we should be prepared to vote.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am delighted that the Senate has approved Judge Keith Starrett's nomination today to be a U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi. I was pleased when the President nominated Judge Starrett to be a U.S. District Court Judge because he is one of the most experienced and respected trial court judges in the Mississippi State court system. I know that his lovely wife Barbara and his entire family are very proud of Judge Starrett as he marks this important milestone in his career and prepares to serve our state and nation in this new role.

Judge Starrett is a bright light in the Mississippi legal community. He holds an undergraduate degree from Mississippi State University and a J.D. degree from the University of Mississippi School of Law. Additionally, as a sitting trial court judge he has completed a number of courses at the National Judicial College which have added to the knowledge base which he will bring to the federal bench.

Judge Starrett engaged in the general practice of law for 17 years in Pike County and also served as an Assistant District Attorney, gaining broad experience in the law that such practice areas provide. He was appointed to a vacant State circuit court judgeship in 1992, and he was elected to continue in this position in 1994, 1998, and 2002. During his 12 years on the bench, Judge Starrett has earned a strong reputation as a fair and outstanding trial judge presiding over both civil and criminal cases.

One of Judge Starrett's most important accomplishments in his judicial career is the leadership he provided in establishing the first felony level drug court in Mississippi in his State judicial district. This court was used as a model for the creation of other drug courts in the State. Judge Starrett's expertise and involvement in this area has been a key driving force as Mississippi works to implement a drug court system for the entire State, and he has written and spoken extensively on this topic. These special courts are better able to address the issues of justice and rehabilitation for those charged with crimes involving drugs, and I commend Judge Starrett for the groundbreaking work he has done in this area.

Judge Starrett has also found time to serve his community and profession in many other ways. He helped to found

Mission Pike County, a racial and denominational reconciliation organization and Southwest Mississippi Child Protection, a child advocacy group in Lincoln and Pike Counties. He is a leader in his church and the legal community in Mississippi, and he has been recognized with awards such as the 2003 Judicial Excellence Award given by the Mississippi Bar Association.

It is no surprise that the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has unanimously found Judge Keith Starrett to be Well-Qualified to serve as a U.S. District Court Judge. The vacant seat which Judge Starrett has been confirmed to fill has been designated a judicial emergency, and I am pleased that the Senate has acted to prevent justice from being delayed any further for the parties whose cases are pending in the Southern District of Mississippi. I congratulate Judge Starrett on his confirmation, and I look forward to his serving as a federal judge for many years to come.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee for yielding me this time.

When we look back on the results of this year, the legislation that had the greatest impact, this will be the bill we will refer to and remember. This is the most important achievement of this session of Congress.

I give credit to the chairman of the Finance Committee, and the ranking Member, Senator Baucus of Montana. They were diligent and hung in there. They were determined we would get this result. Yes, we had to go a little overtime, but here we are. We will get it done today. They deserve an awful lot of credit.

Also we should give credit to Congressman Thomas, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in the House. This is very complicated legislation, but he worked with these two Senators and they produced a very important product.

I could not fathom the idea that we might leave here and not complete legislation that will stop the fees that were being put on American products as a result of the WTO ruling on our domestic tax provisions. That import fee was going up 1 percent a month. It was up to 12 percent and going to 13 percent. How in the world could we not complete legislation that would deal with this alleged subsidy and take that money that was saved by eliminating some provisions and move it into other areas in manufacturing and small business in a way to create jobs? It was important we complete this legislation. We got it done. We will comply with the WTO ruling, but we will take that money that was going into the questionable provisions and move it into areas that will create jobs for the American people. We will keep more jobs here. This is a very significant achievement.

At long last we repeal the 4.3-cent-per-gallon diesel fuel tax that railroads and barges have had to pay. This is not

about one railroad or just a barge company; all the other parts of the economy that have been paying that 4.3-cent-per-gallon tax had been released from having to pay it or send it to an infrastructure trust fund. This was a question of fairness. Once again, it is in an area where we can create more jobs. The railroad industry is saying in the next few months they will create thousands of new jobs. This is a critical provision.

I thank Senator Grassley particularly for working with me to make sure this provision to repeal that tax over a period of 3 years would be included in this bill. The bill also improves the tax treatment for shipbuilding. Unfortunately, shipbuilding companies have to pay the tax on the entire amount of a ship even though they do not get the money sometimes for 3 or 4 years down the road. Incremental funding is how you should pay your taxes.

There are important timber provisions in the legislation. We should encourage the planting of more trees as well as responsible harvesting of trees. There are three different provisions that will help the timber industry in this country.

It also includes income averaging for farmers and fishermen. Others have that opportunity; why shouldn't farmers and fishermen? This will be very helpful.

The tobacco buyout provision is included. This is a provision I opposed, and I do oppose it now, but the conferees, working with the Senators from the States that were affected, came up with the best possible of the solutions they could have reached; therefore, I was willing to support what they came up with because I thought it was as fair as you could get for all involved.

We have tax incentives for United States-flag shipping companies, short-line railroads, energy provisions that will produce more energy, critical improvements for small businesses, small subchapter S reform and expensing.

This is a big achievement. I commend those involved and tell the American people this will help the economy of our country.

Mr. President, I rise to announce that in accordance with Title V of the Rules of Procedure of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, the committee has updated the senate regulations on senatorial suite selection effective October 7, 2004.

Based on the committee's review of the 1992 regulations which allow members up to 24 hours to select a Senatorial office suite, the Committee on Rules and Administration has concluded that its regulations should be updated to facilitate the speedy and smooth transition of assigning Senatorial office space. This update includes changing the allowable time for suite selection from 24 hours to eight hours. The Committee on Rules and Administration has also streamlined the process for the submission of office layout plans to the Architect of the Capitol. The timeframe for submitting such layouts to the Architect of the Capitol has been amended from two weeks to one week.

The amended regulations, as adopted appear below:

Committee on Rules and Administration, United States Senate

regulations on senatorial suite selection

Adopted by the Committee on Rules and Administration, September 20,

1988, Amended June 17, 1992, Amended October 7, 2004

The following policy will be in effect for suite selection by Senators following the general elections in November:

1. As in the past, seniority will determine the order of selection of suites.

2. Suite selection will begin promptly after the election.

3. The only opportunity for suite selection by each Senator will occur when he or she is contacted by the Rules Committee.

4. Selection will consist of only those suites available at the time of contact by the Rules Committee.

5. Senators shall inform the Rules Committee of the decision on suite selection within 8 business hours (9 a.m.-6 p.m. Monday through Friday) after contact by the Rules Committee. Failure to respond within 8 business hours will be deemed a decision not to move, unless an extension beyond the 8 business hours is approved by the Chairman of the Rules Committee.

6. Senators shall submit an approved office layout to the Office of the Architect of the Capitol within one week after a suite is assigned. (This action is critical because reconfiguration of partitions, telephones, and computer terminals are dependent upon the office layout.)

7. Senators shall be expected to begin moving into the newly-assigned suite not later than two days after notification that the suite is ready for occupancy.

8. In considering whether to move, Senators should take into consideration the following requirements:

a. Modular furniture will not be moved. If a Senator with an office containing modular furniture selects a suite without modular furniture, traditional furniture will be assigned. In cases where modular furniture is in place, changes in suite configurations should be kept to a minimum.

b. A Senator's computer equipment will move to the new suite. The central processing unit will be initially installed in the location where the previous occupant's CPU was located.

c. If a Senator from a ``large'' state elects to move, the extra space due that state may not be contiguous. Committees will not be forced to relocate in order to provide contiguous space. The Rules Committee will seek to locate the extra space in a contiguous area, but it may not be possible with most suite choices. It should also be understood that the Rules Committee will not know where the extra space due a ``large'' state will be located until after all 100 Senators have selected a suite. Then and only then will it be possible for the extra space to be assigned.

9. Senators from California will be assigned the two largest suites in the Hart Building as they become available. The choice between the two suites is to be made by the California Senators. These offices will then be permanently removed from the pool of available suites for assignment.

10. Every effort will be made to expedite moves, including the employment of temporary staff. However, the reconfiguration of partitions, furniture, telephones, and computer terminals requires seven to ten days. It is also desirable to repaint while the suite is vacant.

11. Each Senator (returning and newly-elected) will be informed of this policy immediately after the general election in November.

Mr. President, since September 11, 2001, outstanding members of our Senate family have stepped forward to deal with the many challenges this institution has faced. One such leader is Harry Green, who I appointed to be the Senate Postmaster in January 1997.

I have known Harry Green all my life.

I rise today to wish Harry the very best as he plans to retire yet again at the end of October and return to our native State of Mississippi.

Harry began his career in 1961 with the United States Postal Service in Pascagoula, MS. After only 10 years, he was promoted into a supervisory role which led to his becoming the postmaster in Pascagoula. In 1985 he was transferred to Lafayette, LA, where he served as postmaster there until his retirement in 1992.

After I became majority leader, I coaxed Harry out of retirement in 1997 to become the postmaster of the United States Senate.

During his tenure with the Senate Post Office, he has been faced with two significant biological/chemical challenges, anthrax in October 2001 and ricin in February 2004. Because of Harry's experience and demeanor, both attacks on the Senate were met with calm leadership and competent direction and stability.

After the 2001 anthrax incident, Harry led the Senate Post Office team in a collaborative effort with U.S. Postal Service representatives to ensure the delivery of mail in a safe and timely manner. He and his team have received accolades for their performance and responsiveness in combating these threats to the Senate mail service.

Harry also has proven himself an outstanding steward of appropriated funds. By utilizing existing resources and without compromising customer service, he has improved the quality of the Senate Post Office's service, in normal times as well as during crises, while still managing to spend about 58 percent less than other similar government agencies.

I wish Harry well as he plans his retirement as postmaster of the Senate and leaves the Washington, DC area to be closer to his family. Harry has a lovely bride, Ilone, of 42 years, four children and five grandchildren. His post-retirement plans are to return to Pascagoula and its picturesque view of the Gulf of Mexico where he can enjoy full- time his hobbies of boating and watching SEC football and NASCAR racing.

We will all miss Harry's excellent leadership, gentle nature and good humor here in the U.S. Senate. Harry, I will see you, riding our bicycles on the beach.

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

Mr. President, under the time agreement, is this the time that I will have to speak on the amendment?

Mr. President, first I want to speak on the broader subject, and with only 5 minutes, I don't have much time. But I am really worried that what we are doing here is not enough. I understand that the whips, who have been designated to carry out this task by our leaders, Senator McConnell and Senator Reid, have worked very hard to try to accommodate everybody's interests and concerns, but there is something bigger here than just individual interests and concerns or turf or jurisdiction, and I feel a lot of that is still at play.

If we do not do anything more to this resolution than what is already in it, it is worth having. I do not want to complain about that. At least we are making the Intelligence Committee permanent.

There are a number of things that are in this resolution that are worth having, but I am worried it is not enough. I don't like going against my friends and colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, Senator Cochran. I have faith in both of them. But I don't have faith in the way the system is set up now. The way things are spread out all over this institution, both on intelligence and homeland security, it is a prescription not to be able to do our job. That really does bother me. I didn't feel this way until I went on the Intelligence Committee.

But I say to my colleagues, after a year and a half on the Intelligence Committee, I am really scared. I am worried that our intelligence community has not done its job and that it is not organized properly. We are trying to do something about that with the legislation we passed yesterday. I don't think we did enough. I still think there are a lot of people trying to protect the status quo. The Pentagon doesn't want to give up 80 percent of the budget. They want to make sure that everything is done the way it has been being done. The Pentagon wants to make sure the Secretary of Defense still controls certain nominations. Again, too many people are worried about trying to keep what they have now when what we ought to be worrying about is how do we do a better job of getting better intelligence, not only for the men and women in the military but across the board in intelligence.

And this is the thing that really bothers me: part of it is our fault. We have not been doing our job. What is the proof? Look at 9/11. Look at the other things that we have found that the intelligence community did not know were about to happen or gave us information that was not accurate. If they failed, we failed.

When these two pieces of legislation are finished, both the intelligence reform in the administration and the congressional reform, are we going to be better off? Are we going to have somebody we can hold accountable? Are we going to be able to make sure the Pentagon is doing its job, the CIA is doing its job? I don't believe so. The intelligence authorization committee is not set up to do the job. Even with this arrangement we are working on now, it is all going to be controlled by appropriations and the black budget.

I want to emphasize, I trust Senator Stevens, and I know he wants the security of this country to be looked after. But if we are not going to have an Intelligence Committee with the authority to do the job and without the knowledge of what is happening on appropriations, I would recommend we all get off because we are going to be held responsible and we are not going to be able to do the oversight that is necessary.

We are working at it. That is good. I commend everybody. On the homeland security, I debated on this particular point. I am on the Commerce Committee. I want all the jurisdiction we can possibly get. I am very concerned about the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard should be more than port security. The Coast Guard is about search and rescue. The Coast Guard should be about drug interdiction, which it is. It has a big agenda. I think you can make a strong case that it ought to stay in the Commerce Committee, and under the amendment, as I understand it, it would. That is a critical point.

But if we are going to have a separate homeland security committee, or if we are going to put that issue under the Governmental Affairs Committee, we ought to do it in a way where we do cut down this duplication. I, again, am worried that we are talking about doing more than we are really doing.

I have debated about whether we need a separate homeland security committee. But I think if we are going to do it, to only put 38 percent of the homeland security matters before the committee is not accomplishing the job, just like I am worried that on intelligence authorization, we still have not solved the problem with sequential referral to the Armed Services Committee. We still have not solved the problem about how do the authorizers know what the appropriators are doing, and how do the appropriators know what the authorizers are doing. We are not doing enough.

I urge my colleagues, as we to go conference on the other bill, more work needs to be done. As we work toward completion on this legislation, I hope we will strengthen the hand of those who have negotiated on it and those who are going to be held responsible for what is the end result.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that in accordance with Title V of the Rules of Procedure of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, the Committee has updated the Senate Public Transportation Subsidy regulations effective October 1, 2004.

Based on the Committee's review of the 1992 regulations which authorize the issuance of tax free ``de minimis fringe benefit'': transit fare media, and a review of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-78), the Committee has concluded that its regulations should be updated to reflect statutory changes in the dollar amount allowed to be issued as a ``de minimis fringe benefit.'' In addition, the Committee has streamlined the process for office participation in this program.

Public Transportation Subsidy Regulations

Sec. 1. Policy

It is the policy of the Senate to encourage employees to

use public mass transportation in commuting to and from

Senate offices.

Sec. 2. Authority

The Tax Reform Act of 1986, as amended by the

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-78)

allows employers to give employees as a tax free ``de minimis

fringe benefit'' transit fare media of a value not exceeding

$100 per month. The Fiscal Year 1991 Treasury-Postal

Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 101-509) allows Federal agencies

to participate in state or local government transit programs

that encourage employees to use public transportation.

Sec. 3. Definitions

(a) Public Mass Transportation--A transportation system

operated by a State or local government, e.g. bus or rail

transit system.

(b) Fare Media--A ticket, pass, or other device, other than

cash, used to pay for transportation on a public mass transit

system.

(c) Office--Refers to a Senate employee's appointing

authority, that is, the Senator, committee chairman, elected

officer, or an official of the Senate who appointed the

employee. For purposes of these regulations, an employee in

the Office of the President pro tempore, Deputy President pro

tempore, Majority Leader, Minority Leader, Majority Whip,

Minority Whip, Secretary of the Conference of the Majority,

or Secretary of the Conference of the Minority shall be

considered to be an employee, whose appointing authority is

the Senator holding such position.

(d) Qualified Employee--An individual employed in a Senate

office whose salary is disbursed by the Secretary of the

Senate, whose salary is within the limit set by his or her

appointing authority for participation in a transit program

under these regulations, and who is not a member of a car

pool or the holder of any Senate parking privilege.

(e) Qualified program refers to the program of a public

mass transportation system that encourages employees to use

public transportation in accordance with the requirements of

Pub. L. 101-509 whose participation in the Senate program in

accordance with these regulations has been approved by the

Committee on Rules and Administration.

Sec. 4. Program requirements

(a) Each office within the Senate is authorized to provide

to qualified employees under its supervision a de minimis

fringe employment benefit of transit fare media of a value

not to exceed the amount authorized by statute currently not

to exceed $100 per month.

(b) Each appointing authority may establish a salary limit

for participation in this program by his or her employees. If

such salary limit is established, all staff paid at or below

that limit, and who meet the other criteria established in

these regulations, must be permitted to participate in this

program.

(c) For purposes of these regulations, an individual

employed for a partial month in an office shall be considered

employed for the full month in that office.

(d) The fare media purchased by participating offices under

this program shall only be used by qualified employees for

travel to and from their official duty station.

(e) Any fare media purchased under this program may not be

sold or exchanged although exchanges of Metro Card Media for

transportation on the Virginia Railway Express (VRE) or the

Maryland Transit Administration's MARC trains are

permissible.

(f) In addition to any criminal liability, any person

misusing, selling, exchanging or obtaining or using a fare

media in violation of these regulations shall be required to

reimburse the office for the full amount of the fare media

involved and may be disqualified from further participation

in this program.

Sec. 5. Office administration of program

Each office electing to participate in this program shall

be responsible for its administration in accordance with

these regulations, shall designate an individual to manage

its program, and may adopt rules for its participation

consistent with these regulations.

An employee who wishes to participate in this program shall

make application with his or her office on a form which shall

include a

certification that such person is not a member of a motor

pool, does not have any Senate parking privilege (or has

relinquished same as a condition of participation), will

use the fare media personally for traveling to and from

his or her duty station, and will not exchange or sell the

fare media provided under this program. The application

shall include the following statement:

This certification concerns a matter within the

jurisdiction of an agency of the United States and making a

false, fictitious, or fraudulent certification may render the

maker subject to criminal prosecution under 18

U.S.C.Sec. 1001.

Safekeeping and distribution of fare media purchased for an

office is the responsibility of the program manager in that

office. Participating offices may not refund or replace any

damaged, misplaced, lost, or stolen fare media.

Sec. 6. Senate stationery room responsibilities

The only program currently available in the Washington, DC

metropolitan area at this time is ``Metro Pool,'' a program

established through Metro by the District of Columbia.

Transit benefits will be provided through Metro Pool for

participating offices in the Washington, D. C. area. The

Committee on Rules and Administration shall enter into an

agreement with Metro Pool for purchase of fare media by the

Senate Stationery Room as required by participating offices

on a monthly basis.

A participating office shall purchase the fare media with

its authorized appropriated funds from the Senate Stationery

Room through its stationery account pursuant to 2

U.S.C.Sec. 119.

Each office shall present to the Senate Stationery Room

[two copies of] the certification referred to in section 7 of

these regulations. A new certification shall be submitted

when an employer is added to or deleted from the program. The

Stationery Room shall make available to the Senate Rules

Committee Audit Section a monthly summary of office

participation in this program. In addition, the Stationery

Room may not refund or replace any damaged, misplaced, lost,

or stolen fare media that has been purchased through the

office's stationery account.

Sec. 7. Certification

The certification required by section 6 shall be approved

by the appointing authority and shall include the name, and

social security number of each participating employee within

that office, and the following statements:

(a) Each person included on the list is currently a

qualified employee as defined in Section 3.

(b) No person included on the list has any current Senate

parking privilege and that no parking privileges will be

restored to any person on the list during the period for

which the fare media is purchased.

(c) That each month's fare media for each participating

employee does not exceed the maximum dollar amount specified

in statute (currently $100).

Sec. 8. Other participating programs

Section 6 provides for procedures for participation by

Washington offices in the Metro Pool program established

through Metro by the District of Columbia. Additional

programs in the Washington, D. C. metropolitan area, or

programs offered in other locations where Members have

offices that meet the requirements of the law and these

regulations, may be used for qualified employees, subject

to the following requirements:

(A) Authorization--The public transit system shall submit

information to the Committee on Rules and Administration that

it participates in an established state or local government

program to encourage the use of public transportation for

employees in accordance with the provisions of Pub. L. 101-

509 and these regulations. If the program meets the

requirements of the statute and these regulations and is

approved by the Committee on Rules and Administration, any

Senate office served by such transit system may provide

benefits to its employees pursuant to these regulations.

(B) Procedures--

(1) A qualified program operating in the Washington, D.C.

metropolitan area that permits purchase arrangements similar

to those provided by the Metro Pool program shall participate

in the Senate program in accordance with the procedures set

forth in Section 6.

(2) A qualified program operating in the Washington, D. C.

metropolitan area that does not have purchase arrangements

similar to Metro Pool, or a qualified program located outside

that metropolitan area, that permits purchases directly by an

office, may make arrangements for purchase of media directly

with a participating office. Such an office may provide for

direct payment to that system and shall submit the

certification in accordance with Section 7.

(3) In the case of a qualified program that does not permit

purchase arrangements as provided in paragraphs (1) or (2)

above, an office may provide for reimbursement to a qualified

employee and shall submit a certification in accordance with

Section 7.

(C) Documentation--The following documentation must

accompany a voucher submitted under paragraph 8(B)(2) or (3):

(1) A copy of the Rules Committee approval, in accordance

with section 8(A), with the first voucher submitted for that

transit program, provided subsequent vouchers identify the

transit program.

(2) The certification.

(3) Proof of purchase of the fare media.

(D) Voucher Guidance--In the case of a Senator's state

office, reimbursement for payment to either a qualified

transit system, or a qualified employee shall be from the

Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Account (SOP&

OEA) as a home state office expense on a seven part voucher.

In the Washington, DC metropolitan area, reimbursement for

payment to either a qualified transit system, or a qualified

employee shall be as follows:

(1) in the case of a Senator's office from the SOP & OEA as

an ``other official expense'' (discretionary expense).

(2) in the case of a Senate committee or administrative

office as an ``Other'' expense.

Sec. 9. Special circumstances

Any circumstances not covered under these regulations shall

be considered on application to the Committee on Rules and

Administration.

Sec. 10. Effective date

These regulations shall take effect on the first day of the

month following date of approval.

Mr. President, may I inquire about the time remaining in the morning business period?

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, many Americans watched the debate between the President and Senator Kerry last week. It was a huge audience, and I think that is encouraging because this is a very important election. Very important decisions will have to be made by the American voters. As always, the issues they were debating are very critical--foreign policy issues, the war on terrorism, the situation in Iraq.

My thoughts now, as I have thought all year, are that this is a time for America to have a sure and steady hand at the tiller. There are a lot of difficult situations around the world. There are a lot of important decisions that must be made and commitments have been made that must be honored. Of course, one of the greatest commitments of all is the commitment we made to the men and women in uniform--men and women serving all over the world, including Afghanistan and Iraq. We don't need an uncertain trumpet at a time such as this. We don't need to be undermining or questioning the job they are doing.

Let me emphasize that I don't question anybody's integrity on that, and I know everybody supports our troops. But what we say has consequences. We need to be particularly careful when it comes to foreign policy.

There were a few times last week when I wanted the President to jump in and make a challenge or a strong statement. But I know he didn't because the President of the United States has to think about what it would mean if he was critical in a debate like that about the United Nations or of a particular country such as, say, France. He withheld the criticism.

But we do need consistency and credibility as we go forward with the war on terrorism, as we deal with the situation in Afghanistan, and as we move toward elections in Iraq. I believe we are doing the right thing now by going in and taking out some of the insurgents and strongholds in Samarra, and I presume we are going to take some similar actions in other parts of Iraq so the people of Iraq can exercise that great right of freedom, the right to vote.

But the areas where I thought more should have been said are three. First, with regard to North Korea and other parts of the world, Senator Kerry says we need to have the broadest possible coalition; that we should have a summit; we should have done more at the United Nations; we should have done that, this, or the other. But when it comes to North Korea, we should have bilateral negotiations between the United States and North Korea. That was tried in the last administration. I thought they deserved credit for making a valiant effort. I met with former Secretary of Defense Perry, who negotiated with the North Koreans a couple of times. He talked about what they were trying to do. But the fact is, it didn't work; they were cheating.

Now, the President has been saying let us exercise patience. Let us bring in the Chinese, the South Koreans, the Russians, the Japanese, a coalition, a discussion group of six. That makes sense to me.

Why a broad coalition in other parts of the world, but when it comes to North Korea and a very dangerous situation, we want it to be just between the United States and North Korea, bilateral? Why don't we take advantage of the interests of our friends and neighbors in that region and the Chinese, who certainly have a vested interest in what happens in North Korea? Nobody wants North Korea to have nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them--certainly not the Chinese, the Japanese, or the South Koreans. They are right there.

I think the President is pursuing the right course when it comes to North Korea.

Another area I have taken an interest in--and I know the Senator in the Chair, the Senator from Nebraska, has looked at this and worked on it and worried about it--and that is this question of nuclear proliferation and what we do about the nuclear weapons and the nuclear materiels the Russians have.

There is a program called Nunn-Lugar that is working to try to deal with that problem. Senator Kerry says we are not doing it fast enough; that what we are doing would take 13 years, and he could condense it to 4 years. Well, that may be easy to hope for or to say, but you have to make it happen. There is another party in this deal, and they are called the Russians. They have something to say about proliferation.

Would I like to see us do it faster? Should we perhaps put more money in this area? Yes. But the administration has been working in this area. The funding has gone up, and I think it is very important that we do it in such a way that we can make sure the money is going for what it is supposed to; that the money is not siphoned off into corporations that do not do the job and enrich themselves.

You can only do so much credibly in a specified period of time. You need to think about that. You need to work with the Russians.

That is why a delegation of us went to Russia earlier this year. That is why we have a delegation coming from Russia early next year continuing the dialog between the Senate and the Russian Federation Council.

One of the areas we talked about most with the Russians is this particular area. I know Senator Lugar has worked hard on this issue. Senator Lugar goes to the sites. He doesn't just talk to the officials; he looks at the sites to see what has happened.

Again, I think there was a problem with what Senator Kerry was saying that was not sufficiently challenged. I am sure it will be challenged over a period of time. But the area that really stood out the most to me was this question of globalization of the war on terrorism. The President raised the question: What does that mean? Are you talking about the United Nations? Are you talking about an organization that for 12 years and 13 resolutions talked tough and didn't do anything? Are you talking about an organization that was supposed to be watching over the Oil for Food Program for the Iraqis that wound up enriching people all over the place and some of our so-called allies being involved, or corporations in those countries being involved in that program in a fraudulent way?

Is that what he was talking about? Or was he talking about the Germans and French?

That is where the President exercised discretion in his comments. But I have to be more specific. Remember the French? They were the ones who had their Foreign Minister aggressively fighting what we were trying to do at the United Nations by flying all over the world, including to Africa, to specifically try to get people, or nations on the Security Council at the United Nations, not to be supportive of the broadest possible coalition.

So when he talked about a broader coalition, again, you need to ask yourself who is he talking about? Is he talking about just the Germans and the French?

I also believe there was a problem with diminishing the coalition which has been helpful--the Brits, the Italians, and the Spanish--until there was a change in administrations--and the Australians. How could you leave out the Australians and the Dutch? And the list goes on and on.

They may not have hundreds of thousands, but they do have hundreds and in some cases thousands. They are doing the job, they are part of the coalition, and we should not diminish the sacrifice they are making with their presence but, more importantly, with their men and women. So I think when we talk about globalization, we need to be very careful.

The President's primary responsibility has to be to the American people. Can we work with other nations? Can we work to have the broadest possible coalition? Can we work with all the international organizations? Yes. The President cannot ever cede the responsibility for making the decisions and making decisions for the American people to some other entity or to some other country.

I think the debate last week was telling. It was of concern to me because of some of the approaches that were suggested by Senator Kerry.

I hope the American people will look at this very carefully. This is a time for a sure and steady hand, a time for consistency and credibility. President Bush has exhibited all of those traits.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, Oct. 5, 2004, to conduct a special meeting of the Committee to consider a resolution related to recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

For further information concerning this meeting, please contact Susan Wells at 202-224-6352.

committee on indian affairs

Mr. President, since September 11, there has been an on- going debate about the quality of our Nation's intelligence capabilities. In recent months, this debate has intensified as questions have arisen about pre-war intelligence concerning Iraq's program for developing weapons of mass destruction. In this period, when the United States is engaged in a global war against terrorism, it is imperative that our intelligence resources are used to the utmost of their capability.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is charged with the responsibility of overseeing our Nation's intelligence capabilities. As a member of that committee, I can attest to the quality of the work performed by members and staff who serve on the committee. But there is a huge learning curve to fully comprehend how our Nation's intelligence capabilities are being deployed. There are very complex technological issues associated with international intelligence and Senators often do not have the time to develop expertise in understanding all of these systems. And that makes it difficult for all committee members to engage in effective oversight.

I believe the current structure of the Intelligence Committee handicaps the committee's ability to perform truly meaningful oversight. Unlike any other committee in the Senate, there are severe restrictions placed on how long a member can serve on the Intelligence Committee. A Senator can only serve on the committee for eight continuous years. And one-third of the members of the committee are required to cycle off the committee every 2 years.

I think the Senate can no longer afford the luxury of cycling members on and off the committee. We need an Intelligence Committee whose members have years of experience in understanding the entire spectrum of global intelligence just as we have a Finance Committee whose members have spent years learning the nuances and intricacies of the tax laws and Medicare. For that reason, I am today submitting a resolution eliminating both the 8-year term limit and the mandate to replace one-third of the committee every 2 years. I would note that the 9/11 Commission recommended that term limits on the committee be eliminated.

S. Res. 445

Resolved, That section 2 of Senate Resolution 400, 94th

Congress, agreed to May 19, 1976, is amended by striking

subsection (b) and by redesignating subsection (c) as

subsection (b).

Mr. President, I presume we are about ready to perhaps dispose of this amendment.

Mr. President, while the amendment is being sent to the desk, let me say I appreciate the way these two Senators and all involved have worked this out. I think this is a suitable arrangement. The spectrum issue and its availability to first responders is very important. But this loophole was an opportunity for the spectrum issue to be avoided, perhaps in perpetuity.

I think the language we have here is reasonable language. I commend my colleagues for being willing to work through it where we will not have an extended debate through the afternoon, which is the right thing to do.

I yield the floor.