Floor Statements

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 Service Pin regulations effective September 22, 2004.

Based on the committee's review of the 1987 regulations which authorize the issuance of a staff service pin when a Senate staff member has served 12 years in the Senate, the Committee has concluded that service pins should be awarded to staff members who have served 20 years in the Senate and to those staff members who have served for 30 years.

Regulations adopted by the Committee on Rules and Administration on September 22, 2004, to replace similar regulations approved by the Committee on September 23, 1987, pursuant to S. Res. 21, agreed to September 10, 1965, relative to the awarding of service pins to Members, officers, and employees of the Senate:

1. Service pins of the material and design suggested by the

Secretary of the Senate and approved by the leadership of the

Senate and the Committee on Rules and Administration,

together with appropriate Certificates of service signed by

the Secretary of the Senate, shall be procured and awarded by

the Secretary of the Senate.

2. Each Member of the Senate and each elected officer of

the Senate shall receive his/her pin and certificate upon

taking office.

3. Each employee of the Senate shall receive a pin and

certificate after the completion of 12, 20, and 30 years on

the Senate payroll.

4. Senate service shall be limited to all service--whether

continuous or not--performed while on the Senate payroll.

5. Former employees of the Senate are not covered unless

they were on the Senate payroll on or after September 22,

2004, and were otherwise qualified.

6. After the initial award of pins and certificates, the

Secretary of the Senate shall arrange for presentation of

subsequent awards to those who qualify pursuant to the

pertinent provisions of this regulation.

7. Each individual who qualifies will receive a pin and

certificate and no additional pins will be subsequently

awarded to such individuals for more than 30 years of Senate

service, except that appropriate date plates and/or seals may

be presented by the Secretary of the Senate at termination of

service.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended by 5 minutes on each side.

Mr. President, as we look at the situation in America and in the world today, we face serious challenges. Obviously, the war on terrorism is one of the most serious challenges we have had in many decades, one that is different because there are no specific battles that are won or lost. There may not be a moment when we say it is over. Because we are dealing with a moving, shadowy element that uses the most dastardly types of attacks on individuals, innocent men, women, and children.

We have seen the situation in Florida, where the people there have been hit repeatedly by hurricanes and disasters. I guess you could say in many respects these are times that try men and women's souls.

We are under attack in a lot of ways. But, also, these are the times that require a certain trumpet. We cannot have uncertainty in terms of leadership. We cannot have an uncertain trumpet. We have to have direction, strong leadership, and courage to take a stand and follow it through. That is why I am very much worried about what I see in Senator Kerry and the positions he has taken, first on one side and then the other.

I was greatly distressed last week when we had the Prime Minister of Iraq here. He is a man who is showing strength, leadership, and great courage because his life is on the line every day with repeated assassination attempts directed at him. He came here. He said: Thank you, America. He said: We are going to have elections. We are going to have peace and freedom and democracy. We chose justice and the rule of law rather than chaos and anarchy. He did a magnificent job. I was inspired by what he is doing and by his speech.

Yet Senator Kerry attacked his speech before he even left town. Where are the basic courtesies that we have in the past extended to leaders of other countries?

President Bush, on the other hand, has shown strength, leadership, and courage. He is dealing with the issues of security. People see in him and hear in his voice a determination, a commitment, that will get us through this. But Senator Kerry has been flip-flopping back and forth on Iraq for not just the campaign but actually for years, going back to 2002 where he took one position and where now, in 2003 and 2004, he has taken a different position.

On September 20, 2004, he said that our most important task is to win the war on terrorism. On March 6, 2004, he balked at calling the war on terror an actual ``war.''

On September 20 he said Iraq was a ``diversion from'' the war on terror. Yet back in December of 2003 he said that Iraq is ``critical'' to the success of the war on terror.

In September of 2004 he said the evil of Saddam was enough to justify the war. Yet before that he agreed with the administration's goal of regime change. He also said that Saddam's ``breach of international values'' was a sufficient cause of war.

In 2004 he said Saddam's ``downfall . . . has left America less secure.'' Yet in December of 2003 he questioned the judgment of those claiming Saddam's capture doesn't help American security.

The list goes on and on. I ask unanimous consent this list be printed in the Record.

But it goes beyond just the war on Iraq. What worries me is there is a pattern here, across the board, not only in that area that threatens our very security and our lives, the war on terrorism, but in area after area, issue after issue.

For instance, in 1991 Senator Kerry supported most-favored trade status for China and now he criticizes the Bush administration for trading with China.

Which is it? You cannot be for it and against it when you talk about international trade. Trade is good. America can compete. We do need to enlarge the pie. We need to make sure we have fair trade. But you cannot vote one way on trade and then be critical of it on the other side.

In October 2003, Senator Kerry called the fence that is being built in Israel for security purposes a ``barrier to peace.'' He was critical of it. Yet in February of 2004, he calls the fence a ``legitimate act of self-defense.'' You can't get into a very dangerous and sensitive situation like this and say one thing and then the other. What is it? Which is it? An uncertain trumpet takes lives.

Even in the case of eliminating the marriage penalty for the middle class, Senator Kerry said he will fight to keep the tax relief for married couples. He said Democrats fought to end the marriage penalty tax. Yet in 1998, he voted against eliminating the marriage penalty relief for married taxpayers with a combined income of less than $50,000 a year. Last week when we actually extended the elimination of that marriage penalty tax, of course, he didn't vote.

He even flip-flopped on the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act is a favorite punching bag now.

I was here when the death debate occurred. I remember the broad unanimous support involved in passing that legislation. We needed to do some things to give our law enforcement people the ability to deal with these terrorists. If you look at what has transpired since then, this great fear of having your library card checked or a ``knock in the night'' is not occurring. So he voted for it, and now he attacks the PATRIOT Act. He said:

We are a nation of laws, and liberties, not of a knock in

the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft.

I think that is an unfair shot at our former colleague, the Attorney General of the United States. Again, Senator Kerry was for the Patriot Act and now he is against it.

On the gay marriage amendment, in 2002, Senator Kerry signed a letter urging the Massachusetts legislature to reject a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Yet now in 2004 he won't rule out supporting a similar amendment. Which is it? Is it one thing in Massachusetts and another here in Washington?

Also, I think when you get into other issues like the death penalty for terrorists, these are relevant issues we can't take the wrong position on. Yet, in 1996, he attacked Governor Weld of Massachusetts for supporting the death penalty for terrorists. But now he said he might support the death penalty for terrorists.

On the No Child Left Behind Act, he voted for it, and now he attacks it as a ``mockery.'' He trashed it as an ``unfunded mandate'' with ``laudable goals.''

Let me tell you that I am a son of a schoolteacher. I was in public education all my life. I didn't go to some elite school. I went to public education. I stay in touch with teachers and administrators. And they tell me it is making a difference. We have goals and challenges. Teachers are doing better, students are doing better, and the money has been going up every year.

On issue after issue, he has flip-flopped.

I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of this lengthy list be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Texas for her determination in this area. It is one of the places where there was a gap in our aviation security. It is one that she has been working on, thinking about, going back to the last Congress. I think one of the last things we did in the last Congress was the Senate let this issue go through, but we didn't get it completed. She has continued to work on it. There were some concerns. Those concerns have been worked on and developed and straightened out, and this is a good piece of legislation. It passed the full Commerce Committee overwhelmingly last week. It is supported by the industry. I want the record to show that it would not be happening if it were not for her determination and her leadership. It is good legislation.

The title of this bill is National Intelligence Reform Act. I want us to concentrate on the intelligence area and the reforms that are necessary to give the national intelligence director the real strength he or she may need to make sure our intelligence community does its job. It talks about the national counterintelligence center. This was done at the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission for intelligence and security reforms. So while I don't want this to just become a debate about various

security areas, I would like us to focus on intelligence. This is an area where there clearly was a gap. This is an area where thoughtful legislation was available. I believe it is appropriate to be added.

I hope we will support the chairman of the committee and the ranking member who have worked hard to get this legislation through in a reasonable time. We will have some good debates, and we will have some disagreements. We will have some votes. But at the end of the day, we need to get this done because the Commission has made it clear where there are gaps and where there are problems, both in the executive branch and in the legislative branch. We also have to have the follow- on congressional reforms that will allow us to do a better job on oversight because we are part of the problem.

For those who have questions or have concerns or have amendments, my argument is, come forth. Let's have the amendments. Let's debate them in the light of day. Let's have a full debate and let's vote. But let's get this done because this is about real issues. A lot of times we debate, we vote on things that won't affect our lives immediately or affect people's ability to do the job under national security. But this legislation is about lives. It is about what happened on 9/11. It is about what will happen again if we don't step up to this important issue and make sure that our executive branch is set up in such a way as to do the job, that they have the right chain of command and that somebody is in charge, somebody who reports only to the President, somebody who can make a decision about the placement of satellites, somebody who will give us the information we need to know, not only about how much money is spent but where it is spent.

That has been one of our problems. The Congress has not been putting money in many instances where it should have gone so that our intelligence community would have had what they needed to do the job. Just this very day, we understand the FBI does not have the linguists they need to translate intercepts. Now it has become so voluminous it is uncontrollable. That is scary. But it is a real problem. We are not going to solve it just with this bill or just in this week. If we don't begin now, it will make the day even more inevitable or closer that we are going to have another disaster on our hands.

I am here today to tell the committee members I support their effort. They have done a good job. We can make it stronger, I believe. But I am going to be supporting getting this work completed.

I thank the chairman of the committee and I thank the sponsor of this amendment for the work she has done on this cargo security issue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. President, I believe the chairman of the committee had indicated a desire to yield 5 minutes, or what time the Senator may consume, to Senator Allard of Colorado. It would be my intent to follow Senator Allard.

I yield to the chairman.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman. I also commend the chairman and the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee for the very difficult job they have been performing, leading the Intelligence Committee. It has to be one of the toughest jobs that I have witnessed in the Senate. It takes time, it takes experience, and it takes intellect to be able to deal with the issues that come before this committee.

I also commend them for the way they have handled this particular nomination. They were patient. They gave every Senator ample time to make their points and ask questions, and they have been commended by Members of both sides of the aisle for the way they handled the nomination. That is why I think the nomination was approved by the Intelligence Committee, and why I believe this nomination will be confirmed by a wide margin.

Before I get into a little more discussion about why I support Porter Goss to be head of the CIA and director of intelligence, I will talk about my overall concerns regarding the intelligence area.

As a member of the leadership over the years, I was able to have briefings and meet with Director Tenet. There are specific requirements in the law that certain Members have to be notified when particular actions are taken. I always took those matters very seriously and spent the time that was necessary to get those briefings. For the last year and a half, I have been on the Intelligence Committee. I must confess that when I went on the committee, I thought I would be a big defender and big supporter of our intelligence community, because I think that what they do is so important. I do support the men and women who work in that community.

But I must say, over the last year and a half, I have developed many concerns about how that job is being done, how the Congress does its job. I didn't appreciate how important oversight is regarding intelligence matters, how important it is that a Senator develop expertise to be able to ask the right questions, do the oversight, and understand what is going on.

I have come to the conclusion that our intelligence community is not set up properly and we are not doing our job in the Congress. We can point fingers and blame somebody else, but a lot of the problem resides here in this body and in the Congress--not because we don't try to do our job, but we are not organized properly to do it. We have this multifaceted process of so many committees claiming jurisdiction, and with good reason. Armed Services needs to be aware of what's going on, as do Foreign Relations, Appropriations, and Governmental Affairs. Is there anybody who doesn't have their finger in this intelligence pie a little bit? Basically, nobody is doing the oversight job properly, because the members of the Intelligence Committee are not there permanently; they come and go and are on the Committee maybe 2 years, 4 years, or 8 years. Once you get to where you know what to ask and what is going on, you leave the Committee.

Frankly, I think the CIA and the intelligence community's attitude is: Don't give them anything; give them a little bit of a courtesy, a brush-off, and we will get what we want from the appropriators in the end.

I think we have real problems in the intelligence community and in the Congress, and we need to fix them. I don't have a magic design. I want to hear what the experts have to say and see what legislation is proposed. I know this: Something has to be done in the way the intelligence community operates. You cannot operate under a construct where you have 15 different agencies and 80 percent of the money going to the Defense Department, with the director of intelligence having little or no control over the money or many of those intelligence agencies.

We need major changes, and we need them now. I am concerned about concerns that were raised yesterday that if we do not do this right, if we rush to reorganize the intelligence community, we could do damage because the job of gathering intelligence has to go on every day. Men and women are putting their lives on the line to gather intelligence. We need to be careful, but we need to press forward with change.

I know this body is loath to change anything. Any kind of reform is looked at suspiciously: Oh, we can't do that; it has always been done this way. I have taken the time over the years to look at a lot of these issues, and it has not always been done this way. A lot of what we do and say around here, which some say is sacrosanct and cannot be changed, is relatively new. It evolved over the years.

At some point, you have to say there is a higher priority, that there is something more important than turf or jurisdiction or the way it was or is being done.

What is most important is how we are going to do the best job for the men and women in uniform, men and women in intelligence, and for the American people. So I think we need to make necessary changes.

The important point is that we have to have somebody in charge. We have good people in the CIA doing the job. We have an Acting Director who is a good man doing a good job. But we do not need an Acting Director forever. We need a man or woman in charge making decisions, making changes that need to be carried out even without legislation that overhauls the whole operation, and we need it now.

This is a dangerous time we are in. We need to not only confirm this nominee right away, but we need to do it overwhelmingly. We need to show him, we need to show the agencies, and we need to show the departments that he has the confidence of the American people through their representatives in the Senate. We are dealing with very important issues, and it is so important that we have leadership at the top. We need to do it right away.

We have a good man who has been nominated. A lot of thought went into his selection. I know the President sought out the counsel, advice, and the thinking of a number of Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, in the House and Senate, before he went forward with this nomination. He has nominated a man who is uniquely qualified to be the Director of Intelligence.

Porter Goss is the right age. He is in his mid-sixties, still young enough to do the job, and old enough to know what needs to be done. He has a background of military experience, where he was in Army intelligence for 2 years. He worked in the Directorate of Operations of the CIA for many years. Most of this is in the Record, but I think it is worth repeating so that my statement will make sense, hopefully, in its entirety.

When he left the CIA, he continued to be involved in trying to serve his fellow man and his community. He was a leader in his hometown in Florida. He served on the city council, was mayor, was a member of the board of commissioners, and has served in Congress since 1988, which is a pretty good period of time. He eventually became chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence where I know he did a good job.

I have watched him. I have watched him deal with difficult issues. I have watched him take a leadership role, and I have watched him work with the ranking member of that committee and with Democrats, and I have been impressed with the job he has done on the Intelligence Committee in the House.

So he knows the CIA. He knows it from having been in Army intelligence, he knows it from having been in the CIA, and he knows it from the position he held as chairman of the Intelligence Committee. He knows where the problems are because he was there, and he knows how to strengthen the intelligence community and make it better. He is no stranger to the difficulty and the complexity of foreign intelligence.

When I look back on some of the former heads of the CIA, frankly, some of them did not have much of a background in that area. But here is a man who is uniquely qualified. He has been in the intelligence community. I know that some people say that if you are in the institution, you are part of the problem. But, my experience leads me to ask, how can you solve a problem if you do not really understand an institution? There are some in Washington that say, if you know the subject, whether it is transportation or oil or intelligence, you should not be in government because you have been coopted.

I think absolutely the opposite is the case. Practical experience is invaluable. You have to understand the culture, you have to understand the people, and anybody who has paid close attention to the intelligence community in recent months and years knows what changes should be made and have to be made.

Porter Goss, a Member of Congress, has been critical of the intelligence community. He does not sugar-coat it. He has called the human intelligence program dysfunctional. He has spoken the truth about the way we have funded the CIA, which he says has not been adequate, it has not been done in the right way, and we have not put enough emphasis on human intelligence. In fact, Congress stopped this nation from having the human intelligence we needed, if we go back and look at the results of the Church Commission some 30 years ago. Once again, we are part of the problem.

He knows we need to do more in linguistic training, and he has raised these questions as chairman of the committee and in his communications with the DCI.

His confirmation would bring stability and experience to the intelligence community. One thing that worries me, as I have talked to some of our intelligence personnel, is a certain concern about whether they are really appreciated, and are the old experienced hands going to stay, or are they going to leave. I have noticed some of the intelligence people I see are getting younger, younger, and younger. They need a firm and experienced leader. They need a person who has been there with them, understands their needs, and appreciates the job they do, and Porter Goss would do that.

He does support what Congress is about to do. We are going to create a national intelligence director position, and we are going to pass legislation that is going to reorganize the intelligence community at some point, maybe sooner than later.

Again, he has the right attitude and supports the position I believe that Congress is going to be taking.

There are those who have questioned his independence. Is he a partisan? Is he a politician? Whatever happened to congressional courtesy? Over the years, I have supported Members of the other party from this body and the other body, even though they have sometimes been very partisan politicians, very aggressive in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate, but I knew them to be good men and women, and I knew when they took on a different role. When you are in Congress, when you are in politics, you are a politician. That is not a damnation. That is somebody involved in the art of government. When you are a member of a party, sometimes members of the other party get under your skin, and you speak out.

I noticed over the years, Porter Goss has not been one of those rabid partisans. He has been very calm and very stable. Sometimes he gets a little upset. Maybe he thought perhaps the Senate was getting carried away with some of our hearings recently. On occasion, I have thought we did a little grandstanding in the Senate, and I said so even though it was sometimes directed at my own party.

I know he is an independent thinker, and I know he will put his job as head of the CIA, uppermost. He will put his political past and his partisanship behind him. He also will be a man, I believe, who can go in and meet with the President at those early morning meetings and say: Mr. President, this is what we know, this is the truth about the situation, and if you go this way, you are going to have certain problems.

He has that stature, he has that credibility, and he will have the independence to do that.

I think having served so many years, having been on the Intelligence Committee, and having the record he built at the Intelligence Committee, is proof that he will be independent to do that job for the American people. I believe he will be more candid with the Congress.

Quite often when we had testimony before the Intelligence Committee, I felt as if I did not get a complete story. Frequently, testimony was less than fully satisfactory or sufficient. Porter Goss is going to be able to speak to us on a level basis, not from the perspective of a former staff member. He was one of us, and he will not try to fool us. I think he will tell us the truth.

By the way, I think we will be very comfortable telling him: Mr. Director, we don't believe that. We will be able to be very candid with him. I believe he will show flexibility as we move from where we are to where we need to be.

He has been questioned about the positions he has taken, but he satisfied the members of the Intelligence Committee by a vote of 12 to 4 with several Democrats voting for his confirmation. They asked him the tough questions. They had their reservations, and those reservations have been satisfied.

I cite one point of how he dealt with the former Director. On September of 2003, he wrote a letter to DCI Tenet pointing out concerns he had with intelligence. He joined with the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee in the House, Congresswoman Harman, and indicated there were significant deficiencies with respect to the intelligence community's collection activities concerning Iraq's WMD programs and ties to al-Qaida prior to the commencement of hostilities there.

So he did not wait until after the fact; he raised concerns when they needed to be raised. If my colleagues have taken a look at that letter, it certainly shows independence and it was the kind of thing that the DCI needed to hear at that particular time.

So I can attest from experience, from observation, and from a written record that this Congressman will be an independent, thoughtful, strong voice at the CIA.

I urge my colleagues, let us have our discussion but let us have a vote and let us make it overwhelming. Let us do it now because we need strong leadership and we have the right man to do this job. Porter Goss will provide leadership for the intelligence community. He will be able to work with Congress and he will help give the intelligence community the ability to do an even better job.

I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Hugh Langdon Elsbree, who served as the Director of the Library of Congress' Legislative Reference Service, LRS, from 1958 to 1966. The LRS was the forerunner of the Congressional Research Service, CRS. Dr. Elsbree, a resident of the Washington area for more than 50 years, died on August 30, 2004. He was 100 years old.

Dr. Elsbree joined the Legislative Reference Service as a research counsel in 1945 and served as senior specialist in American Government and Public Administration from 1946 to 1954. After he was promoted to Deputy Director in 1955, he became Director in 1958 and served in that position until he retired in 1966.

Dr. Elsbree was born in Preston Hollow, N.Y., on Feb. 24, 1904. He graduated from Phillips Andover Academy in 1921 and received three degrees from Harvard University: a Bachelors in 1925, Masters in 1927, and Doctorate in 1930. He was also elected a member of Phi Beta Kappa.

Dr. Elsbree taught in Harvard's Government Department from 1928 to 1933 and then at Dartmouth University from 1933 to 1943. Dr. Elsbree was a political science professor from 1937 to 1943 and chairman of Dartmouth's Political Science Department from 1937 to 1941.

His Government service began with a short stint as a research specialist for the Federal Power Commission in 1934 and continued during World War II. He moved to Washington and worked for the Office of Price Administration as principal business economist from 1943 to 45 and for the Bureau of Budget as an administrative analyst from 1945 to 46.

During the period of his library service, he was given a special assignment as deputy director of research for the Commission on Intergovernmental Relations from 1954 to 1955, and from March 1957 to September 1958 he served as chairman of the Political Science Department at Wayne State University.

A longtime member of the American Political Science Association, Dr. Elsbree was the managing editor of the American Political Science Review--1952-56. After he retired from the LRS, Dr. Elsbree and his LRS predecessor, Ernest S. Griffith, edited a series of 35 volumes on U.S. Government departments and agencies.

When Dr. Elsbree retired in 1966, the Senator Robert Byrd paid tribute to Dr. Elsbree's accomplishments in the Congressional Record. Senator Byrd said in part: A political scientist of wide repute and a dedicated public official, Dr. Elsbree has earned the respect and the confidence of the Congress through his skillful and competent leadership of the Legislative Reference Service in a period when Congress has experienced its greatest need for research assistance.

To Dr. Elsbree's brother, Willard, his son, Hugh L. Elsbree, Jr. and his family, friends, and former colleagues, I extend the Senate's deepest sympathies.

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

Madam President, I would like to inquire about the time remaining and how it is divided.

Madam President, I do not want to use all that time if others have a need to come and make comments, but I do have a couple issues I would like to speak on briefly this morning.

Madam President, I rise to pay tribute this morning to Susan Wooten Wells, a native of Jackson, MS, who today is marking her 30th year on my staff.

Many of you knew Susan when she worked with me in the leader's office. She started off as a scheduler but over the years worked up to be executive assistant and then was administrative assistant in the majority leader's office. Today she serves as the majority staff director of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, and she has overseen a lot of the moves and renovations and has worked with Senators and their staffs on a number of issues over the past year and a half, and has done a wonderful job.

I first met her in 1974, when she was starting out, teaching eighth grade English in my hometown of Pascagoula, MS.

Despite the fact she is an alumnus of the other university in my State, Mississippi State University, and I am a graduate of the University of Mississippi--she is very proud of that institution, and she points out that comedian Jerry Clower and thriller author John Grisham and Washington Redskin Fred Smoot are also graduates of that university, so over the years we have had fun picking at each other about our alma maters--she came to Washington and worked with me for what was supposed to be 1 year, helping me out in a crunch to get my staff filled and to do the scheduling.

Well, here she is 30 years later. She has had a tremendous influence on my office operations, on my life, and I believe on this institution. I am very proud of the fact she went from being an English teacher--and helping me with my English along the way--to being a real leader on my staff for these many years.

In fact, I refer to her as my Mikey, from the old television commercial. I used to call Paul Coverdell, the great Senator from Georgia, Mikey because if we had a task nobody else wanted or would not do, Mikey would do it. Well, that has been Susan on my staff. If there needed to be something done and we wanted it done right, Susan would handle the job.

When I decided years ago to bring 150 Mississippians to annual events here in the city for a day-long seminar, she made it happen. When I decided to bring in entire communities from Hancock County to cook gumbo for the congressional community once a year, she got the assignment, and she made it happen. It turned out to be a tremendous event. A lot of people enjoyed it and everybody benefited from it. In the process, she did go from being one of

the staff members to being a real leader in the majority leader's office.

She helped expedite the construction of the Capitol Visitor Center. I believe history will look back on it, when it is completed, as one of the wisest things we have done in maybe 100 years in terms of this Capitol and the security of our constituents, their convenience and safety and education as they see this building and all it stands for. She oversaw a lot of the Capitol restoration, including changes in this Chamber. She helped me with the Leader's Lecture Series which turned out to be an acclaimed program of oral history lectures by former Senate leaders and Vice Presidents.

Parts of our public and private lives over this time obviously have been intertwined. We have shared three decades of America's triumphs and three decades of accomplishments for our beloved State of Mississippi. Together we have also endured tragedies that have befallen our country and our families. In fact, last month the love of her life, Milton Wells, passed away, and I shared her grief at that moment and continue to work with her as she comes through this difficult period.

Throughout this time she has been loyal, she has been respectful. She has been very helpful to many people. I could not let this day pass without making a public record of my appreciation for Susan Wooten Wells and her service to this institution.

So many times we forget to say thank you to the people who are on our staffs, who work day in and day out for us, the people in this Chamber, the people who make this place function, who serve us and help us in so many ways. We should not forget to say a small word of thanks.

Madam President, I was pleased to see the majority leader say yesterday he was still holding out hope we could get a highway bill completed before we go out for the election. To me this should not be about the election, but it should be a major focus of what we are doing. Another week is about to go by without any real apparent movement on the highway bill. Why? Why isn't the conference getting this job done? It would mean jobs instantly from Alaska to Mississippi and from Maryland to California, because the projects are ready to go, but the money and the new authorizations and new formulas are not in place.

Some suggestion was made yesterday, perhaps we could get together with the House and Senate, the President, and do a 1-year extension. Why? Why would we want to extend the current program? It needs to be bigger and better. It needs to be updated. We haven't done this now in 4 or 5 years. It is time to have a highway bill.

It is not only about highways. It is about highways and bridges and abutments and public transportation and innovative programs that take advantage of modern technology. We need to upgrade this law.

One other thing. Every day that passes, every week that passes, people are being killed on highways because they are not modern and are not safe. That is what drives me the most. I know too many cases of people who have died on narrow, hilly, inadequate roads in my State and I am sure all over the country.

I am not going to let up on this. As long as we are in session, I am going to keep asking the question: Why aren't we doing a highway bill? There is plenty of blame to go around. But there is no need to get into that. I want to give credit. I want to praise the chairman of the committee and the ranking member, Senate and House, and the leadership for getting the job done. But I don't think that is happening. I don't quite understand why.

Is there some decision that has been made, some silent conspiracy to extend it, do it another day? Maybe we could get more money next year. Maybe we could raise taxes next year and get it even bigger.

Of all of those, if that is the thought, that is wrong. We need to get a bill that is at a level we can defend as being one that is going to be paid for by gasoline taxes, how we use the trust fund, maybe some changes in how that is handled, but we need to find a way to get it done now. We should find a bill the House can pass, the Senate can pass, and the President can sign. Let's do it and let's do it now.

We could complete this bill within a week. Why don't we do it?

Mr. President, my apologies; what is the time divide?

Mr. President, I would like to comment on the agenda we are going to be dealing with in September. But before I do that, I want to say I was very proud of the job that was done by the people of New York City, the leadership of New York City, and all who were involved in the Republican National Convention in New York.

I must confess, I dreaded going to New York City for our convention. I was worried about the heat at the end of August. I was worried about the traffic and congestion. I was worried about the ability to secure the place from potential terrorist threats. I was concerned about what the protesters might do. I had a lot of concerns.

I also had some concerns about how the convention itself would be perceived. But I must say, I was pleased with the way the city handled the convention. It was not as hot as I expected. The traffic was not as bad as I expected. The protesters were there, but they stayed within reasonable bounds. They were able to express themselves. Some of them went too far, and they wound up being arrested. The police in New York City did a very effective job. They were friendly. They were helpful. The city officials, Mayor Bloomberg, the State officials, Governor Pataki and his administration, all who were involved in the security and transportation aspects of the convention deserve to be commended because it turned out to be very good.

The convention itself, the events surrounding the convention, the experience, exceeded my greatest expectations. There were good speakers every night. I won't dare to name them now because if I name one, I might not name another who did a wonderful job. I was inspired by it all. But not wanting to make this a partisan speech, my real purpose is to extend my congratulations to the city of New York. They did a great job. I feel as many people said when New York City was attacked on that infamous day of 9/11, we all became New Yorkers, and from that we all became Americans again. We did a lot of things in a bipartisan, nonpartisan way for the future of the people in that city and for the security of the American people. That was a good experience which came out of that terrible event.

So I want the record to show I found the whole event most enjoyable and a productive product for the political process.

Mr. President, looking at the agenda for September--others set the agenda and I understand that and I will support that--there are certain things we must do. We need to confirm Congressman Porter Goss to be head of the CIA. We need to look at the 9/11 Commission recommendations and see how much of those can be done in a responsible way.

I know there will be some who will resist and will defend the status quo or worry about committee turf. But we have a problem. Our intelligence operation is not set up properly. We had failures as we went into Iraq. We should not try to deny that. We should acknowledge it. I commend our men and women in the intelligence community who do a great job. They are on the line this day in Afghanistan, Iraq, and even here in America. We should recognize that talent. We should be careful not to undermine the morale of those organizations. We have learned there is a problem with chain of command and how the analytical material is checked and double-checked. We know the Intelligence Committees in the Congress have not been set up in a way to do proper oversight. I can say that from experience, having looked at it from a leadership position, but also as a member of the Intelligence Committee for the last year and a half. It is not set up properly. Membership should be permanent, so that members not only can attend hearings, but understand what they are hearing, the dialog, acronyms and people, and burrow in and ask the right questions. This is not so that we will go native and become captive to the community, but so we will be able to ask the right questions. Even the staffing arrangement has to be changed.

We have a limited period of time and, obviously, this requires taking up some of that time. I want us to act in this intelligence area, as far as how it is set up, in the executive and legislative branches. We may not be able to do it all in September, but let's do all we can and then we can continue to work on it, provided, of course, we don't let the forces of the status quo rise up and prevent the necessary changes that I believe are called for. I am a strong advocate of reform across the board when it comes to our intelligence community.

Of course, we have to deal with the appropriations bills in some way. I am pleased the leadership decided to call up the Homeland Security Appropriations bill. Certainly, other than defense, nothing is more important to fund as soon as we can and in the best way we can than homeland security. I hope we can get through that process in a reasonable period of time, knowing there will be some amendments to be offered. We should get that appropriations bill done.

Beyond that, I am not sure whether we are going to have an omnibus appropriations bill or a continuing resolution or for how long funding will be continued. That will be left in the hands of others in the leadership and even the Appropriations Committee. But I want to talk about some other issues that don't always pop up when people are talking about what we should do in September.

Yes, we should deal with the intelligence issue. We should do some confirmations--confirm Porter Goss. We should do some judges and appropriations. But there are an awful lot of other things that have not been done yet that we should complete before we go out. It is going to be very unattractive and, in fact, an admission of failure to do our job if we don't complete work on some of the bills that are in conference--for instance, the highway bill. I hear some talk now that we should extend the current highway authorization into next year. Why? We need those highway jobs this year.

There are very few things we can do, if anything, that would create more jobs quicker than to pass a highway bill. There are highway projects, bridge projects and public transportation projects all across this country that

can begin immediately and will put thousands of people to work. By the way, it would make our roads safer and would help with economic development. We are in conference. There have been a lot of discussions, but I don't know that we are going to be able to get it completed if we don't pick up the pace. If we don't, then I think that all involved should feel badly because the American people will not be well served if we don't do the highway bill and we put it off until after the election or even next year.

I urge the leadership on that conference committee in the House and Senate, Democrat and Republican, to pay attention to this highway bill and get it done. It would be a huge achievement for the American people if we pass that bill before we go out. I am not incriminating any individuals, but I am going to feel very critical of the Senate and the Congress if we don't get that highway bill done before we go home again.

I realize maybe it is futile now, but when are we going to get serious about energy? For 3 years we have been striving mightily to produce an energy bill. We get tangled up on one issue or another, such as over whether we should drill in Alaska. Now it is over an additive, MTBE. Meanwhile, we don't have a national energy policy. When the price of a barrel of oil went to $48 and more, as it did, I began to ask why, and what are we going to do about it? I know that if we pass an energy bill in the morning, it would not immediately affect the price of a barrel of oil that much, but it would help our long-term energy security. I think this is an issue that is staring us in the eye and we are continuing to blink.

Sooner or later we are going to pay an economic or a national security price if we don't stop our dependence on foreign energy, and oil specifically. I am very unnerved to think we depend on over 50 percent of our oil coming from Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Venezuela, and elsewhere. What if they cut us off for whatever reason? What would happen and how soon? I am tired of hearing excuses about why we didn't do it. I want to know how we are going to get it done. This bill came through committee, passed the Senate and the House, came out of conference and was passed by the House and came to the Senate, and with 57 votes we stalled out.

Here we sit with no clear path to getting an energy bill. A pox on all our houses if we don't do something about that. Some people say stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I agree. We should not fill the SPR when the price of oil is as high as it is. That is a small part of what should be done. We need the whole package. And I want to say this: We need more exploration, more oil drilling, more natural gas wells, more coal, more hydroelectric power, and we need to perfect clean coal technology. We should have incentives for conservation and alternative fuels, the whole package, but here again the Congress is failing in doing its job by not passing an energy bill. We should do it before we go home for the election.

Another bill I think is urgent that we pass is the so-called Jumpstart Our Business Strength, or JOBS, bill. It is a bill that is required because the World Trade Organization held that some of our tax policies were an unfair subsidization of our manufacturing. The World Trade Organization ruled that way. By the way, as a result of that, each month the tariff put on American goods by the European Union continues to go up 1 percent--it is now 11 percent, headed for 17 percent--because we supposedly had an export subsidy. That subsidy should be eliminated and that money should be moved over into the manufacturing area in a way that would help keep American industry in America and create jobs.

How can we not do this? Some people throw up their hands and say we cannot get it done in the next month; that the House and Senate bills are too big; that the Senate bill has too much in it, and they are too different; how will we ever merge them? I don't care. Throw them both out the door and come up with a different, smaller bill, one that gets the job done in conference, and do it now. The chairmen of the committees in the House and the Senate and the ranking members need to get this done. I don't see how in the world we can leave this session of Congress and not pass that JOBS bill and allow American products to be hit with an ever-increasing tariff of 1 percent increase every month, going up to 17 percent, and say we will see you later and we will get to it next year. I urge my colleagues, especially the leadership and chairmen of the committees and the ranking members, to find a way to get this bill done.

Lastly--and I will yield the floor--some people are whispering that ugly phrase ``lame duck.'' I have been here 32 years. I have been through lame ducks and they are all ugly--to come back after the election, when Congress is filled with people who have retired and have been defeated, and may have a different vested interest, perhaps.

Now I admit that on occasion, even though they were ugly, they were usually brief and we did something good. We did it during the Clinton administration. We did a very important trade bill and, I think, once in the late nineties, maybe we came back and did the omnibus appropriations bill and then left. But I am worried about the large amount of work being considered for a lame duck session this year and whether that would be in the best interest of the American people.

Whatever we cannot get done in terms of appropriations, let's either do it in an omnibus bill for the entire fiscal year or do it through a continuing resolution until February. But the idea that we are going to come back in December and work right up until Christmas and fix what needs to be fixed in that period of time to me is a very dubious and, frankly, unwise suggestion.

How can it be stopped? I had somebody in the leadership ask me that: Oh my goodness, we have other things we have to do; how can we avoid a lame duck session? Real simple, Mr. President. The two leaders in the House and the two leaders in the Senate say we are not coming back for a lame duck session. It is not in the best interest of the American people. Tell the appropriators to do what they have to do, but we are not coming back for a lame duck session. If we do not do that and we come back here, I dread to see it.

I welcome my colleagues back. I hope everybody had a nice, restful August. I hope we get a lot done in September. I do not expect very much because there are a few distractions underway, but we are poised on the brink of being able to do some good things. If we could get a highway bill, an energy bill, the JOBS bill, we could all go out and take credit for it.

I remind my colleagues of the same thing I said many times over the years to leaders, to my good friend from South Dakota--when you produce a product, everybody wins. When you don't call up a bill or you don't finish a bill, the American people lose, and that is where we are poised to go. Which will it be?

I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Reserving the right to object.

Can I inquire under my reservation?

So, Mr. President, the request is that next would be Senator Nelson, and then if Senator Frist comes at that point he would be recognized?

I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. President, are we still operating under the 3-hour time agreement with regard to the tax bill and the tobacco issue?

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am not sure whether I could be considered pro or in opposition to in this particular case, but I do want to be heard on the broader issue and also on the tobacco provisions.

I begin by congratulating and expressing my appreciation to leaders on both sides of the aisle for finally coming to an agreement on a process that will get us into conference on this important legislation. It is unfortunate that it has been delayed for weeks. We should have been in conference a month ago or more. Some of the demands about how we would go to conference or what would happen in that conference have been very inappropriate. One can't preordain what will come out of a conference. They can't say that any one person will determine whether a conference is reported, whether it is a leader or anybody else. But this issue is so important that we need to go into conference. It is about some important tax provisions that will help manufacturing, service, and our high-technology businesses and workers.

It is a way to deal with a problem we have caused by a ruling by the World Trade Organization saying that our tax provisions, our alleged subsidies, were not in compliance with WTO, and we are being penalized in an increasing amount each month on a lot of American products because we have not dealt with this issue. We should have dealt with it a year or two ago, but at least now we will have an opportunity.

Without rewriting the history, I think we need to get this bill into conference. We need to deal with this problem caused by the World Trade Organization's ruling, and we need to deal with the funds that are available because of that in a way that will help job growth and the economy.

This is all well-intentioned. I have been pushing to go to conference. I must say, I am very worried about what is going to come out of conference. This bill and the one from the House have acquired a lot of barnacles. If you allow enough barnacles to be attached to the hull of a ship, it will sink. This one is in real jeopardy of sinking.

First of all, as has become our pattern in the Congress, we are greedy. A bill that should be revenue neutral or should be somewhere around $50 billion has become--I don't know how much--$150 billion. How far is it going to go? The distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee tells me it is $170 billion. We do have a little deficit. Anybody notice that?

Here we have taken a good opportunity to do something good that would be responsible in dealing with trade practices and protecting our own producers and creating jobs, and we are going to distort it way out of proportion. It has become a pretzel. I went along with adding the energy tax provisions to the bill. I didn't think that was the way to do it; I said so at the time. But it was at least the tax provisions, and it gave us some way to maybe deal with the energy needs of the country. But that was the first of the barnacles that was added.

And then in the House, I saw on the media this week where all these provisions have been added that will benefit General Electric, that would give them additional tax breaks and will contribute probably to more jobs going overseas. How did that happen? Did somebody miss that? Did it get in there without anybody being aware of it?

Then the House added about $10 billion for a tobacco allotment buyout. I assumed that was just an aberration in the House and that Democrats and Republicans would say they are not going to do that and we would get back to the basics of this bill. Now the Senate is going to join the stampede. We are going to regulate tobacco with the FDA, and we are going to have a buyout even bigger. I guess this alternative would be paid for by the industry. What in the world is tobacco policy, whether it is the amount of the allotment or the FDA, doing in this bill?

I am very worried that this bill is going to--and we are adding to the confusion--sink under its own weight in conference, and our companies and producers in America will be hit with an ever-increasing import fee every month.

Here is what we ought to do. We need to get a grip, cut out all of this unrelated stuff in this bill. Some of it I would have to sacrifice, too. I want an energy bill. This may be the only vehicle leaving town. I would like to put the entire energy bill, with some modifications that may be necessary, in this bill. But this bill, on its own, needs to be done. It needs to be done clean. It needs to be cut by probably two-thirds. And we need to get all the undergrowth that has been added to it off of it.

If we could do that and still find a way to get an energy bill, a highway bill, and a jobs growth bill done without all of the adds that are costing billions of dollars, we could go out of this session with our heads held high. But we are setting up a box that we may not be able to get out of.

I oppose this proposal on tobacco. I am very much concerned about how we are going to get through conference and get this bill down into the $50 billion range where it should be instead of $170 billion. We have all contributed to the problem. I plead guilty. We all have. But now is the time where generally, when you go to conference, you get over your temporary political fantasies and you do the right thing. You produce a bill that can pass and will help the economy.

Will we do it this time? I am sure that the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, who enters the Chamber smiling, can work miracles in this conference. I am expecting it and looking forward to supporting him in that effort.

With that, I yield the floor.

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