[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 126 (Thursday, October 7, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10620-S10630]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REORGANIZATION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. Res. 445, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 445) to eliminate certain 
     restrictions on service of a Senator on the Senate Select 
     Committee on Intelligence.

  Pending:

       McConnell/Reid/Frist/Daschle Amendment No. 3981, in the 
     nature of a substitute.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the reorganization resolution is now 
the pending business before the Senate. I want to report to our 
colleagues an agreement that Senator Reid and I have reached--he is on 
the floor as well to discuss the matter--as to how we are going to 
proceed.
  Point No. 1: any amendments will need to be offered. The issue we are 
dealing with, of course, is sensitive to a number of different 
committees in the Senate. It is the intention of Senator Reid and 
myself not to have a managers' package. If Members of the Senate feel 
strongly about a particular amendment, what we recommend to them is 
they come over to the Senate floor and offer the amendment so that 
everyone can understand fully what change in the underlying resolution 
is being proposed.
  Senator Reid and I have said repeatedly that the underlying 
resolution is certainly not like the Ten Commandments; it should not be 
adjusted. We cobbled it together as best we could through a series of 
bipartisan discussions and compromises. Now it is the pending business 
before the Senate. We expect amendments. We would like amendments. We 
received notice last night by hotlining that there could be as many as 
50 amendments Members may wish to offer. We are open for business, and 
we would like for Senators to come over and offer those amendments so 
we can move forward.
  I also remind our colleagues that Senator Frist and Senator Daschle 
and Senator Reid and myself did file a cloture motion last night, not 
to shut anyone out but because we are about to leave on Friday and so 
many amendments were indicated as possibilities that we felt we needed 
to nudge the process forward by creating the possibility of an end time 
tomorrow.
  Let me repeat before turning to my friend and colleague, Senator 
Reid, that if Senators have an amendment, please come and offer it, 
explain it to the rest of the Senate, lay it before the Senate, explain 
what it is about, and let's have votes and move the process forward as 
rapidly as we can.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, as difficult as this was for us to get to 
the point where we are now, it is not as if the Senator from Kentucky 
and the task force just made all this stuff up. Because of 9/11, we 
created a Department of Homeland Security. We now have a Cabinet-level 
Secretary of Homeland Security--a former Congressman and Governor--Tom 
Ridge. There is a Department of Homeland Security, I repeat, of Cabinet 
status, and because of legislation we passed previously, it has certain 
obligations within the executive branch of Government. So we had a 
guideline to follow because that is what Secretary Ridge has been doing 
in that Department of Homeland Security.
  One of the guidelines we had was to try to track that with what will 
be the organizational prerogatives of the Senate. I believe we have 
done a pretty good job doing that. As the Senator from Kentucky 
mentioned, if people think they want to improve upon what we have done, 
what they need to do is offer an amendment and the body will decide 
whether that is the right way to do it.
  Also, the two leaders have said we are going to finish our work 
before we leave for the recess prior to the election. That means we are 
not going to wait around here all day for someone who has a lunch or 
meeting in their office or a committee hearing. If we go for a period 
of a half hour, 45 minutes here--and that is an arbitrary number I 
throw out--and nobody shows up, we are going to move to third reading. 
We are not going to wait around with the recess, prior to the lameduck 
session, taking place tomorrow, supposedly. We are not going to wait 
around here all night for people to work out their schedules to come 
here. This is their schedule, the floor of the Senate. This is the 
primary obligation Senators have. Everyone should know--staffs 
listening, some Senators listening--if we are waiting around here with 
nothing to do in a quorum call, Senator McConnell and I are going to 
move to third reading, and we are going to wrap up this resolution.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, let me also take this opportunity to 
remind our colleagues what this is all about. The Secretary of Homeland 
Security and his principal assistants are being dragged around the 
Capitol continuously. Just this year, there have been 164 hearings, up 
from 148 last year. There are currently 88 committees or subcommittees 
in the House and Senate that have at least some part of the Homeland 
Security Department. Here in the Senate, which we are addressing in 
this underlying resolution, there are 25 Senate committees or 
subcommittees that have jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland 
Security. Secretary Tom Ridge called me on Monday pleading for relief. 
His job, as important as oversight is, is not to spend all of his time 
up here.
  What we are trying to do in the underlying resolution is to 
consolidate in one place the jurisdiction over the Department of 
Homeland Security to simplify oversight for us and to simplify the very 
necessary process of oversight for the Secretary and his principal 
assistants.
  The resolution is pending. As I said, we are open for business, and 
we hope to have amendments in the very near future.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Agricultural Disaster Assistance

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, at this moment there are several matters 
pending before the Congress before we recess and/or adjourn. One of 
them is something that is extremely critical to a lot of people in our 
country and that is disaster assistance. It is not only the hurricanes 
in Florida, but it is the droughts farmers and ranchers have faced 
throughout our country, obviously especially in rural parts of America, 
and in my State, Montana, quite severely.
  Montana has faced a drought, mostly around the southwestern part of 
our State. There are parts of Montana that are not droughted out. It is 
precarious. Because of the almost arbitrary patterns of nature, it is 
hard to know where it is going to rain or where it is

[[Page S10621]]

not going to rain, but the fact is, a lot of people are in very tough 
shape. They need disaster assistance just like the folks in Florida. 
Maybe Louisiana and Alabama need disaster assistance as well.
  It is important for us to remember that we are here, frankly, to help 
Americans. We are not 50 different nations. We are one country. We are 
one Congress with one Senate and one House. We have one President. It 
is true that we have 50 States, but we are one country and we have one 
Congress. The Constitution provides Congress will enact legislation and 
the executive branch will administer the legislation, but it is up to 
us to do what is right for our country, for America.
  Sometimes an argument is made, and I even heard this argument made on 
the floor, that hurricanes are sudden and when there is damage those 
folks deserve assistance, but droughts are over time; therefore, they 
don't deserve disaster assistance because it is not really a disaster. 
It is something that is an adverse consequence that happens over time.
  Responsible Senators are making that argument to me. Actually, I 
question whether they are responsible if they are making that argument. 
It is a totally fallacious argument. It is wrong for a Senator to say, 
even if it is in private: You folks don't need agricultural disaster 
assistance because that's over time; that's not a sudden, immediate 
occurrence.
  The problem, obviously, is that whenever there is a hurricane--and it 
is too bad, the damage it causes--our national networks focus on it 
because it is a sudden, at that time, at that one moment disaster, so 
the TV cameras are there, the correspondents are there. How many times 
did we see the shots of disaster in Florida? And well we should, 
because it is terrible what those people are going through. There were 
parts of Florida hit several times and we should help those people who 
need help. There is no doubt about that.
  But, as I said, we should help those people who need help, and there 
are some other people who need help on account of nature's disastrous 
occurrences and they are farmers and ranchers. It is true that droughts 
have occurred every 4 or 5 or 6 years. But that does not diminish the 
argument that they need help, too. It is nature that caused the 
problem. They didn't cause the problem. They deserve help just as 
everybody else deserves help. We are one country, one Congress, one 
Senate, and one House, and we should very quickly give that aid, not 
only to the folks in Florida but also to the folks across our country 
who suffered disaster because of drought.

  Many times on the floor Senators have shown photographs of drought in 
the country. It is real. I ask all Members--of course they don't have 
the time--to get out of Washington, DC. Get out of the cities. Go 
across America and see where the drought is. They are droughted out.
  There are also floods which have totally destroyed crops. There are 
floods in eastern North Dakota, for example, near the Mississippi 
River. Take North Dakota, it is flood at one end of the State and it is 
drought at the other end of the State--they are both disasters. That 
is, both phenomena have destroyed the crops.
  This is pretty simple stuff. It is very simple. It is basic. I don't 
know why we can't get together and help folks who suffered losses 
around the country, natural losses--we are talking about natural losses 
here--just as folks in the South, particularly Florida, suffered 
natural losses.
  Then there is the other argument: There is a farm bill. The farm bill 
takes care of farmers. There is a farm bill and it is a pretty big farm 
bill.
  Let's look at the facts. How much of that farm bill actually went to 
farmers? A very low percentage. Most of the farm bill, I might say, 
went to other programs--the Food Stamp Program. In fact, only about 18 
percent of the total farm bill is dollars allocated to farmers and 
ranchers, essentially support payments. Why? To fight other countries 
that have bigger support payments for their farmers which make our 
crops even less competitive, so we have to have a farm bill to make 
sure our farmers are competitive, too. Clearly, that is one reason for 
the next round of the WTO talks, the Doha Round; namely, for producing 
nations to begin working together to lower some of their price 
supports, particularly export subsidies. That is the most heinous form 
of subsidy. Get rid of those export subsidies, as the Europeans have 
agreed they will begin to do, and then we can address the problems of 
the farmers.
  But the main point is only 18 percent goes to farmers; the rest goes 
to other programs, mainly food stamp programs.
  Add to that, that 18 percent is irrelevant to the phenomenon we are 
talking about. It is irrelevant. Why is it irrelevant? It is irrelevant 
because that is a farm program which pays farmers essentially only when 
they produce crops. It is a support payment program. It depends upon 
the price of crops. But when farmers do not produce any crops because 
of a natural disaster, the farm program does not help them. It doesn't 
help them and that is why we have agricultural disaster assistance 
programs. We have had several--many in the past. That is the same kind 
of program we should have right here today.
  So I say to my colleagues who are now negotiating agricultural 
disaster assistance, the real question is, What do we do now? The House 
passed a $3 billion agricultural disaster assistance bill. It is folded 
into the hurricane assistance dollars. It is now over here in the 
Senate. The conferees are trying to decide whether that should be put 
in the Homeland Security appropriations, which is in conference.
  I don't care about the process. That is irrelevant to me. I only care 
about the result. The result should be that, while we give aid to folks 
who suffer damage on account of the hurricanes, we should also give aid 
to our farmers and ranchers across our country who have suffered an 
equally devastating natural disaster. Let's just do it and do it now.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are on S. Res. 445.


                Amendment No. 3989 to Amendment No. 3981

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have an amendment to the underlying bill 
which I send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for himself, and Mr. 
     Grassley, proposes an amendment numbered 3989 to amendment 
     No. 3981.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To clarify the provisions relating to the jurisdiction of the 
                    Department of Homeland Security)

       Strike section 101(b)(1) of the resolution and insert the 
     following:
       (b) Jurisdiction.--There shall be referred to the committee 
     all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and 
     other matters relating primarily to the following subjects:
       (1) Department of Homeland Security, except matters 
     relating to--
       (A) the Coast Guard, the Transportation Security 
     Administration, or the Federal Law Enforcement Training 
     Center; and
       (B) the following functions performed by any employee of 
     the Department of Homeland Security--
       (i) any customs revenue function including any function 
     provided for in section 415 of the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 (Public Law 107-296);
       (ii) any commercial function or commercial operation of the 
     Bureau of Customs and Border Protection or Bureau of 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement, including matters 
     relating to trade facilitation and trade regulation; or
       (iii) any other function related to clause (i) or (ii) that 
     was exercised by the United States Customs Service on the day 
     before the effective date of the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 (Public Law 107-296).

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I offer this technical clarifying 
amendment to the underlying resolution. It

[[Page S10622]]

delineates committee jurisdiction. Part of it is with respect to the 
Customs Service, which the Finance Committee has had jurisdiction over 
for 188 years. Now the Homeland Security agency appropriately should 
handle all national security matters in protecting American security. 
It is appropriate that those functions be transferred to that 
department which has that jurisdiction.
  It is also important that the Finance Committee maintain jurisdiction 
over not the national security aspects of Customs but the commerce 
aspects of Customs. This amendment clarifies that distinction. It is in 
no way intended to have jurisdiction over the security aspects of 
homeland security--only the commercial side, for which customarily the 
Finance Committee has the appropriate role.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, it is my understanding that both Senator 
Grassley and the ranking member are supportive of the amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3989 to Amendment No. 3981) was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in 
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Totally False

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, just when you think things have gotten 
about as bad as they can get with the situation in Iraq and what got us 
into Iraq, another shoe drops. This morning we open up our newspapers 
and we read that the Duelfer report came out yesterday. This is the 
person whom the Bush administration picked to investigate Iraq's 
weapons programs. And here is what the headline reads:

       U.S. ``Almost All Wrong'' on Weapons.

  It is not that we were just slightly wrong, 50 percent or 60 percent 
or 40 percent--99.9 percent of everything that President Bush, Vice 
President Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell 
said prior to the war in Iraq and right after it was wrong. Where did 
they come up with this stuff? Where did they come up with the sayings 
they had on Iraq?
  Here is Colin Powell:

       There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological 
     weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many 
     more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons 
     and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and 
     destruction.

  That was in a February 5, 2003 address to the U.N. Security Council. 
Where did he get that nonsense? Did he just pluck it out of thin air?
  Here is Condoleezza Rice:

       We have found, in Iraq, biological weapons laboratories 
     that look precisely like what Secretary Powell described in 
     his February 5th report to the United Nations.

  That was from May 28, 2003. She says: We found them.
  Where are they? Don't these people have any shame at all?
  Here is President Bush:

       Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons and is 
     rebuilding facilities used to make more of those weapons.

  Absolutely false.
  Donald Rumsfeld, March 11, 2003:

     . . . we know that he continues to hide biological or 
     chemical weapons, moving them to different locations as often 
     as every 12 to 24 hours, and placing them in residential 
     neighborhoods.

  Totally false.
  Here is President Bush before the United Nations, September 16:

       Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with 
     ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work 
     at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is 
     building more long-range missiles that can inflict mass death 
     throughout the region.

  President Bush, United Nations, September 16, 2002. Totally false. 
Totally false.
  Here is Vice President Cheney:

       Let's talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute . . . 
     We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire 
     nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, 
     reconstituted nuclear weapons.

  Vice President Cheney, March 16, 2003--every single one of them 
telling mistruths to the American people to get us sucked into the Iraq 
war. Now we have--I don't know what happened yesterday--1,061 dead, 
8,000 of our young people casualties, injured for life. How many 
countless innocent Iraqis, women, children? They didn't like Saddam 
Hussein either, but they are now injured, many of them killed. 
The country is in chaos. Iraq is a quagmire.

  The rest of the world is looking at this, and we are the 
laughingstock of the world. They are saying, what happened to you, 
America? What happened to you?
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HARKIN. I am delighted to yield.
  Mr. REID. I don't know if the Senator from Iowa heard today, but 
there was an announcement that 13,000 civilian Iraqis have been killed.
  Mr. HARKIN. I didn't hear that.
  Mr. REID. That is what I heard on public radio this morning.
  Mr. HARKIN. Thirteen thousand Iraqis have been killed?
  Mr. REID. Civilian Iraqis.
  Mr. HARKIN. Well, I don't know if that is right. We would have to 
look at that to see if that is right. Thirteen thousand Iraqi civilians 
killed? How many women, how many children? The rest of the world is 
asking, what has happened to you, America? America used to be the moral 
leader in the world. You were the ones we looked to for guidance and 
direction, to be honest and open, not secretive, not lying to the rest 
of the world. When we confronted Nikita Khruschev in 1962 when they put 
missiles in Cuba, we had the photographs. We had the positive proof. 
The world has looked upon us like that.
  And now? Now the rest of the world is looking at the United States 
and saying: You are just lying. You lied about this. You covered it up. 
And look at the mess you have created now.
  And still President Bush and Vice President Cheney, Colin Powell, 
Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, the whole crowd of them still 
continues to insist that everything they did was right. They still 
continue to insist that they would do the whole thing just as they did 
it.
  In any other country in this world, if the leadership of that country 
had done this, they would have to resign in disgrace.
  They certainly would not be seeking reelection. I am surprised this 
President and Vice President and their team are asking the American 
people to put them there again after this--1,061 Americans dead; 
several thousand, 8,000, severely injured for the rest of their lives. 
Now we have this report about 13,000 Iraqi civilians dead. It is a 
country in chaos.
  America is isolated in the world community when, after September 11, 
2001, the world was on our side. They were with us. They wanted to help 
us go after al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden and the terrorists because the 
rest of the world knew then, as they know now, they have a stake in 
going after terrorists. But they had no stake in going into a misguided 
war, a war that we were taken into with falsehoods--absolute, total 
falsehoods.
  I would be the first to say I don't have all the answers on how we 
get out of Iraq. It is just like dropping a ceramic bowl and it breaks 
and you have to put it together again. It is very tough. But I do know 
this: We will never solve our situation in Iraq, we will never get our 
troops out of Iraq with the leadership we have in the White House right 
now. This President has burned his bridges; he has poisoned the well 
with every country in the world. People know they misled us and 
continued to mislead us in Iraq. I mentioned the lives. How about the 
money--$200 billion and counting. Well,

[[Page S10623]]

they say $130 billion or $140 billion. Come on, it is going to be well 
over $200 billion, and we know that. Yet we cannot provide health care 
to our people. We cannot fund No Child Left Behind. We cannot pass a 
highway bill to rebuild our highways because we don't have enough 
money.
  No, I don't have all the answers in Iraq. I am the first to state 
that. I know one thing: We will never be able to get out of Iraq and 
solve that mess with the leadership that has so misled us and the world 
in the past. We need new leadership with fresh credibility to give them 
a chance to go to the rest of the world and say there is someone new 
here, and we are going to rebuild those coalitions and alliances. We 
are not going to continue to go down that road. There is one thing 
about being consistent; there is another thing about being stubborn and 
reckless.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent for 5 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection----
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I object. I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senator be yielded 5 minutes and that I be given 15 minutes after the 
Senator.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senator from New Hampshire be recognized for 15 
minutes in morning business after Senator Harkin gets his 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wanted to close up anyway. We hear a lot 
about consistency. I tell people this: Imagine you are a passenger in a 
car. You are on a steep mountain road, and you want to get to the 
bottom of the mountain. You look over, and your driver is President 
Bush. He has his hands gripped tightly on that wheel, and he is looking 
straight down that road. You see a bend in the road up ahead and you 
say: Mr. President, there is a bend in that road. But the President is 
hunched over that wheel, he is gripping it tightly, and he is looking 
straight ahead and squinting those eyes, and he says: I don't care. I 
started out straight, and that is the way I am going.

  Then he drives you over the cliff. You get to the bottom, but your 
car is wrecked and you are either dead or severely injured.
  Imagine yourself a passenger in a car on that same steep mountain 
road. You look over and your driver is John Kerry. You say: Look, Mr. 
Kerry, there is a bend in the road.
  He says: I see that bend, and I know how to take it. So he takes that 
bend and another couple bends, and he gets you safely to the bottom of 
the mountain. The car is secure and you are safe. That car represents 
our country, and you are the ``passenger''--the people of this country.
  I am sorry, Mr. President, it is not enough to be stubborn and 
reckless. That hurts our country. That hurts our people. It is better 
to be tough and smart. It is better to know that sometimes our enemies 
are going to shift their tactics. The terrorists are not always going 
to do one thing. We better be able to respond.
  Yet we are bogged down in one quagmire in Iraq, and that is where we 
are headed. That is dragging our country down. It is hurting our 
people. That is stubborn. That is reckless. That is not consistent. 
That is ignoring the fact that any military leader will tell you that 
when you go into battle, you have a plan.
  But if the enemy does something different, you have to be able to 
maneuver. George Bush cannot maneuver. He is stuck in the quicksands of 
Iraq, while al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden go about their business. 
Better to be tough and smart than to be reckless and stubborn.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New 
Hampshire is recognized.


                              War in Iraq

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I think it is worth a minute or two to 
respond to some of the comments by the Senator from Iowa. I find them 
to be so inconsistent with the facts as they exist on the ground that 
it is difficult not to respond to them.
  The Senator from Iowa is doing an excellent job of Monday morning 
quarterbacking. However, the information that the President made his 
decisions on, the information that our military made decisions on was 
the same information available to us in the Senate at the time. It was 
the exact same information that led the Senator from Massachusetts, the 
nominee of the Democratic Party, to conclude--I will paraphrase him, 
and I think it is fairly close--that Saddam Hussein must be removed 
from office, and anybody who doesn't understand that, he should be 
removed from office, is not qualified to be President of the United 
States. He said that in a debate in New Hampshire, or in one of the 
debates running up to the primary, during the primary process. He went 
on after that to say that he had seen the information and he presumed 
that the information was reasonably accurate as to the threat Saddam 
Hussein presented.
  Not only did the Senator from Massachusetts say that, but, of course, 
President Clinton's administration said exactly that relative to the 
weapons of mass destruction and relative to the threat of Saddam 
Hussein. In fact, not only did the Senator from Massachusetts say that, 
not only did the prior President, President Clinton, say that, but the 
United Nations, in 17 different resolutions, said exactly that to the 
people of Iraq. As part of the world community, they told Saddam 
Hussein to disarm, open up his nation, stop killing his people. But he, 
of course, did not.
  I now find it extraordinarily ironic, extremely inconsistent, and 
reflective, in my opinion, of poor judgment that we have a nominee for 
the national party whose positions are being parroted by the Senator 
from Iowa, who is essentially saying that a policy of appeasement and 
defeat toward Iraq is the appropriate policy for us to pursue.
  They have a nominee for their national party who has said he would 
rather have Saddam Hussein than the chaos that is there. That is in 
direct contradiction to what he said before, which was that Saddam 
Hussein represented a threat that should be removed, and anybody who 
didn't understand that should not be elected President.
  Of course, he has said such things as the war in Iraq is ``the wrong 
war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time.'' And we have ``taken our 
eye off of the ball.'' The problem with that philosophy, which he 
essentially says as a Monday morning quarterback that he is going to 
change positions from the original position relative to the war in 
Iraq, is that it not only undermines his credibility as a potential 
leader of this Nation, it undermines his ability to be able to 
communicate effectively with the other world leaders who are relying on 
our leadership.
  One thing we have found over time is that both troops in the field 
and world leaders like to know that the United States stands for 
something and that we do not change with the political winds or whoever 
our opponent happens to be as of that day.
  When you have a Presidential nominee of a national party, in the 
sense of the Senator from Massachusetts, who is essentially adjusting 
his message as the polling data comes in and adjusting his message as 
he confronts different opponents, whether it is Howard Dean in the 
primary when he becomes much more passive or, as he moves through the 
primary process, he becomes much more aggressive and then becomes much 
more passive again as the numbers come in, it is very hard to look to 
that person for the leadership you need if you are going to lead the 
world community. This President has done an aggressive job leading the 
world community.
  I think it is ironic that so many Members on the other side of the 
aisle so easily disregard the commitment and basically disrespect the 
commitment some of our allies have made, especially Britain which has 
committed thousands of troops and lost many people in this war on 
terrorism, both in Iraq and around the world, or Australia or Poland or 
Italy. These are countries which have stood by us.
  Granted, France is not there. France is not in Iraq. France is, 
however, in Afghanistan. France is working with us relative to Iran. 
France has chosen not to pursue the course we have pursued in Iraq, but 
I do not think we can let our national policy, our national defense, or 
our national security be determined by where France is and how

[[Page S10624]]

France stands on issues. We, obviously, encouraged them to join us, but 
they decided not to. When it comes to our national security, I do not 
think we can have our policy decided by the French.
  The reason why Iraq is so critical has to be restated. We have a 
tactical war we have been pursuing which is essentially this: The 
President, with an incredible amount of energy and expertise of the 
military and the intelligence community, has chased the terrorists 
around the globe, has kicked over the rocks under which they live and 
has tried to bring them to justice. That is called a tactical strategy, 
and that, unfortunately, is going to go on for a lot of years. We are 
going to have to continue to hunt these people down.
  On the fact which reflects the inconsistency of the position of the 
Senator from Iowa--and there has been considerable success in this area 
even though the Senator from Iowa may not be willing to acknowledge 
it--over 75 percent of the leadership of al-Qaida has been captured or 
killed, Afghanistan is free, there is no longer a Taliban government 
there, and they will hold elections this weekend with 10 million 
registered to vote, 40 percent of whom are women. Those women were not 
even allowed out of their house prior to action there. That is 
significant progress. But that is a tactical effort, chasing the 
terrorists around the globe.
  We are not going to succeed in this war unless we convince the 
Islamic world that Western values are not a threat to the Islamic 
values, unless we can prove to the Islamic community at large, 
especially in the Middle East, that being free, that having liberty, 
that having the right to vote, that having a market economy, that 
giving the women a right to participate in society is not a negative 
but is rather a positive. If we are successful in setting up a nation 
in Iraq which has liberty, which has individual rights, which has the 
rule of law, which has a form of democracy, which gives women the right 
to participate in society at a fairly high level of equality with men, 
we will have fundamentally undermined the capacity of Islamic 
fundamentalism to recruit throughout the world because we will prove to 
the mainstream Islamic community in this world that Western values, 
rather than being a threat, is a plus.

  I hope that rather than being sunshine supporters of our efforts in 
that part of the world, we would recognize that we are involved in what 
is a major strategic effort to try to win the war on terrorism. We are 
not in Iraq to benefit the Iraqis. We are in Iraq to keep America 
safer, and the way we keep America safer is by having Iraq turned into 
a successful free nation where people have liberty, people have 
freedom, women have rights, and there is a democracy where people can 
vote.
  They are going to hold elections in January. As Prime Minister Allawi 
said when he was here, Iraq has become the cutting edge in the area of 
the fight on terrorism. It is hope which is confronting the fear of the 
terrorists. We should be supporting people such as Prime Minister 
Allawi trying to protect their nation.
  It is noted that 13,000 Iraqis have died in Iraq. That is a huge 
number of people, and it is a sad commentary, but those individuals 
have died in a process to try to obtain freedom for their nation, in 
many instances. Certainly, that number compares rather dramatically 
with the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who were murdered under the 
Saddam Hussein regime.
  Our goal, of course, is to create an Iraq where death is the 
exception rather than the rule, where the rule of law is the rule, and 
where liberty exists and where, as a result, the freedoms that 
encourage people to flourish are allowed to flourish themselves. We 
will have, in that way, undermined the role of the terrorists, and the 
hope that Mr. Allawi is seeking will be realized. The accomplishment 
will significantly improve our safety and lead directly to America 
being safer.
  That is a quick response to the very long statement of the Senator 
from Iowa. I thought some comment should be made.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes remaining.


                       FSC/ETI Conference Report

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to speak to the recent conference 
which was completed on the FSC bill, which is the foreign tax bill, 
which is a fairly complicated piece of legislation, a major piece of 
legislation. Certainly, I congratulate the adeptness of the people who 
led that bill through both the House and the Senate, because passing a 
bill through the House and Senate of that size is a challenge, to say 
the least, and the success of their getting it through is very 
impressive, especially in light of the fact that so much of the bill 
that passed the Senate did not appear in the final product as it came 
out of the House, and vice versa.
  The bill was modified significantly. The reason I did not sign the 
conference report--and I thought I should come to the floor to explain 
this--is that I do not find the bill compelling on balance. Yes, the 
bill does something that has to be done, which is to correct the 
problems the WTO has assessed against us relative to the duty that the 
European Union assessed against us relative to the duties and our tax 
law and the fact that many of our manufacturers are now being assessed 
a fairly significant duty as a result of penalties assessed under that 
finding. That needed to be corrected.
  That, however, was a $50 billion exercise. It could have been done in 
a revenue-neutral way, and it should have been done. But the bill ended 
up being about a $140 billion bill, of which the majority, the balance 
of the tax reductions in this bill are targeted toward interest groups 
and initiatives which are at the margin, to say the least, relative to 
need and are significantly, in my opinion, questionable. I will just 
point to one, and that is the manner in which the ethanol subsidy is 
proposed in this bill.
  Remember, ethanol is alleged to be a renewable fuel which will give 
us some sort of energy independence, but most of the studies have 
concluded--at least a major study in this area has concluded--that you 
actually use as much energy to produce ethanol as you use ethanol and, 
therefore, it really is a wash relative to whether it is a true 
renewable that gives us some sort of energy independence. Maybe down 
the road it can be produced more efficiently, but certainly right now 
it cannot be produced that way.
  It also has huge environmental impacts. In fact, ironically, the 
recent study by the Oceans Commission, set up by this Congress, 
concluded that the most significant pollutant in the oceans today is 
the nitrates runoff from the Midwest which is creating a huge dead zone 
in the Gulf of Mexico, and that is having a major impact on pollution 
in the oceans. That is a function of agricultural practices which are 
basically encouraged, in many ways, by this ethanol subsidy.
  The way this ethanol subsidy is handled in this bill is a masterful 
piece of legislative activity. I do admit to that. It is masterful in 
that basically they take the ethanol subsidy, and today we pay 13 cents 
tax on ethanol, 18 cents on a gallon of gas, and they raise the tax to 
18 cents for everything.
  All ethanol products now are paying the full gasoline tax, so there 
is a 5 cent per gallon revenue increase to the Federal Government, 
theoretically--theoretically because it is purely theoretical but 
beautifully done.
  They take that 5 cents which was going into the general fund and they 
move it over to the highway fund where it is absolutely required to be 
spent because the highway fund spends under a formula. That 5 cents is 
actually spent on roads, and I guess one can argue that that is good 
policy.
  Then in a movement of undeniable brilliance when it comes to raiding 
the American coffers of the taxpayers, they take the 5 cents and they 
refund it to the ethanol producers through a tax credit. So having 
raised the tax, they guarantee it will be spent and then they guarantee 
that on top of spending it they will actually refund it to the 
producers.
  Who are the producers? Well, in this instance one company produces 
one-third of the ethanol in this country and so they are going to get 
about a $2 billion windfall out of this proposal.
  That may be good policy if one is from the Midwest, but it is not 
good policy from the standpoint of producing a renewable because as a 
practical matter ethanol is not defensible as a renewable right now 
because it costs as much in energy costs to

[[Page S10625]]

produce it as it does to use it. Its production costs equal its value. 
It is creating significant pollution concerns. As a result of this 
bill, we have created a huge new subsidy for the producers which was 
not there before.
  I have more to say on this topic. I appreciate the courtesy of the 
Senate in allowing me this time, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the McConnell 
substitute No. 3981.


                           Amendment No. 3994

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the substitute 
to the desk for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss], for himself and 
     Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 3994.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To clarify the jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs)

       At the end of section 101(b)(1) insert the following:
       ``except matters relating to the U.S Citizenship and 
     Immigration Service and the immigration functions of the U.S. 
     Customs and Border Protection and the U.S. Immigration and 
     Customs Enforcement, and the Directorate of Border and 
     Transportation Security.''.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, under the current resolution that is 
being considered, the Commerce Committee retains Coast Guard 
jurisdiction and Transportation Security Administration jurisdiction 
and the Finance Committee retains the revenue side of the Customs 
Department jurisdiction. This amendment simply allows the Judiciary 
Committee to receive parity with the other committees that are giving 
up part of their jurisdiction to the new Homeland Security committee.
  I will tell my colleagues specifically what this amendment does. It 
retains the Immigration and Naturalization functions at the Judiciary 
Committee, which are in line with Senate rule No. XXV. Specifically, it 
includes three agencies: Citizenship and Immigration Services, 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as well as Customs and Border 
Protection. In addition, Judiciary would retain the immigration 
functions at the border and transportation security directorate.
  These functions include the U.S. visit entry/exit program and the 
Visa Waiver Program. The amendment preserves the language that 
currently rests in S. Res. 445 that maintains certain customs in the 
Finance Committee.
  What does the new Governmental Affairs and Homeland Security 
Committee get as a transferee from the Judiciary Committee under this 
amendment?
  First, it receives the information, analysis, and infrastructure 
protection directorate. It receives the emergency preparedness and 
response directorate, including FEMA; third, the science and technology 
directorate; fourth, State and local coordination function; and five, 
jurisdiction over Secret Service.
  In addition, the following agencies would go to the new committee: 
The Office of Domestic Preparedness under BTS from Judiciary and also 
would receive domestic emergency support teams under EPR from 
Judiciary.
  This is a balanced approach. This amendment maintains parity with the 
Commerce Committee, the Finance Committee, and the Judiciary Committee 
relative to the particular jurisdiction we will maintain.
  As the chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee on the Judiciary 
Committee, daily we deal with various matters involving immigration. 
Some of that has had to do with terrorist issues. Those issues should 
rightly go to the new Department of Homeland Security, but the bulk of 
issues we deal with relative to immigration are dealt with at the State 
Department, not currently with the Department of Homeland Security.
  There will be overlap on every issue that every Federal agency deals 
with relative to terrorism and homeland security. We cannot cover every 
single issue and move it to this one particular committee to have sole 
jurisdiction over it just because it may deal with homeland security; 
we can not move every single subcommittee and all jurisdiction over 
every issue to the newly created committee.
  What this amendment does is retain in the Judiciary Committee the 
basic core immigration issues that are judiciary related, not terrorism 
related.
  The Judiciary Committee is made up of individuals who have a legal 
background, and for the most part there are legal issues involved in 
the immigration issues we are proposing be retained within the 
Judiciary Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I stepped off the floor briefly. Through the 
Chair to the distinguished Senator from Georgia, I ask: Is this 
amendment offered on behalf of the Senator from Georgia and Senator 
Kennedy?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I should have mentioned that. Senator Kennedy and I 
offered this amendment together.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we are hoping to get a vote on this 
amendment in the near future. Is Senator Bayh going to offer an 
amendment as well?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Is there anyone else in the Chamber to speak on the 
Chambliss-Kennedy amendment? If not, it might be a good idea to lay 
that aside and let Senator Bayh offer his amendment.
  Mr. REID. I say through the Chair to the manager of the bill, I think 
that is totally appropriate. He has something to do in a half hour or 
so, so it would be good to have his amendment taken care of at this 
time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that we temporarily lay aside 
the Chambliss amendment to give Senator Bayh an opportunity to send his 
amendment forward.
  I repeat that we are looking for a time agreement to vote on the 
Chambliss-Kennedy amendment, we hope in the next 30 to 45 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the 
amendment is set aside.
  The Senator from Indiana.


                           Amendment No. 3995

  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I have an amendment I send to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Bayh], for himself, Mr. 
     Roberts, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. McCain, and Ms. Snowe 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3995.

  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

              (Purpose: To eliminate sequential referral)

       Section 201 is amended by adding at the end the following:
       (i) Referral.--Section 3 of S. Res. 400 is amended by--
       (1) striking subsection (b); and
       (2) redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
     (b) and (c), respectively.

  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I begin my remarks by praising both Senators 
Reid and McConnell for the important work they have done on this 
underlying amendment. They have accomplished some very good things that 
will strengthen the intelligence system in this country and, in so 
doing, strengthen our Nation's security.
  I have had the honor of serving on the Intelligence Committee for the 
last 3 or 4 years. During that time, I have developed some grave 
concerns about the strength of that committee and our ability to exert 
the kind of oversight and leadership in the area of strengthening the 
Nation's intelligence that these difficult times demand.
  Senators Reid and McConnell have addressed some of those concerns 
very directly. Tenure on the panel is made permanent, which will allow 
those of us who serve there to develop the kind of expertise needed for 
the very intricate, sophisticated decisions that need to be made.
  It will also enable us to exert the kind of oversight necessary to 
make

[[Page S10626]]

sure the executive branch carries out its functions in the way they 
need to be carried out.
  They also provide resources to the committee to discharge our duties. 
Currently, the resources are not available and I am afraid that too 
often the Intelligence Committee gives the appearance of exerting 
oversight without effective oversight in fact. These things, and many 
others, are significant steps forward in addressing the concerns about 
what changes we need to make to have meaningful intelligence oversight 
and leadership in the intelligence area by the Congress.

  I would also like to praise my colleague from Virginia, Senator 
Warner. There is not a Member for whom I have more esteem and regard 
than the Senator from Virginia. It has been my privilege over the last 
year and a half to serve with him on the Armed Services Committee. In 
that capacity I have learned firsthand that there is no Member of this 
body who has a greater devotion to the national well-being and our 
Nation's security than the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia.
  With that by way of background, I would like to extend my remarks in 
the following way. I know the Senators who worked on this issue have 
worked hard. In some respects, Senators Reid and McConnell have been 
given by our leaders almost an impossible task. They are asking them to 
reorganize this Congress in ways that touch upon the prerogatives and 
institutional interests of the Members. This is a very sensitive topic 
which often has failed to achieve results in the past. I salute them 
for their efforts.
  It is said by some that this is the best we can do, and perhaps that 
is so. But I believe there are some ways in which we can do better, and 
we will not know if we can do better until we try. If we are unable to 
do better, it is not the fault of Senators Reid and McConnell but 
instead resides with the rest of us who have the privilege of serving 
in this institution.
  It is also occasionally said that we should not make the perfect the 
enemy of the good, and that is absolutely true. That is an aphorism I 
have subscribed to on many occasions. This needs to be a practical 
process, focused upon results. It is what distinguishes us from 
political scientists, editorial writers, and pundits. We have to get 
things done.
  But during these critical times, it is my heartfelt belief that we 
should push the envelope on what is possible and insist that we do 
everything we possibly can to strengthen this country and, along with 
it, Congress, and our ability to exert oversight and leadership in the 
area of intelligence. We should not settle for 75 percent or even 90 
percent without an effort to do everything humanly possible to 
safeguard this country. Lives hang in the balance. That is why I am 
offering the amendment I offer today.
  My amendment reflects the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. 
Today, former Governor Kean and Congressman Hamilton issued a statement 
supporting our efforts. I spoke with Congressman Hamilton yesterday, 
and he characterized our amendment as ``much better, much better, a 
definite step in the right direction.''
  Our amendment represents the sensible center. I know there may be 
other amendments that touch upon the topic of consolidating 
appropriations and authorizations in a single committee. Our amendment 
does not touch upon that sensitive topic. Instead, it gives full 
meaning to what Senators Reid and McConnell are attempting to do in 
their amendment, and that is to elevate the Intelligence Committee and 
the function it discharges to the priority it deserves and to create a 
process and structure to match that priority.
  Their proposal makes the Intelligence Committee what is called an A 
committee. It is important that we give that full meaning and no longer 
require that committee to defer to others through what is called ``on-
demand sequential referral.'' To the viewers at home, on C-SPAN, this 
sounds like Washington-speak, and essentially it is. What it 
essentially means is the Intelligence Committee must seek the approval 
of other committees for its other recommendations, unlike the other A 
committees that exist in this body. If we stick with this proposal, it 
will mean that the Intelligence Committee and the function it 
discharges will have less authority than the Agriculture Committee, 
less authority than the Banking Committee, less authority than the 
Commerce Committee, the Energy Committee, the Environmental Committee, 
the Governmental Affairs Committee, the Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions Committee, and the Judiciary Committee. Certainly these 
critical times require that the Intelligence Committee and the 
important national security function that it discharges be placed on a 
par with these other committees and that it be given a structure and 
authority to match.

  As a practical matter, the current structure means that the 
appropriations process takes precedence over the authorization of 
intelligence. As a practical matter, too often it means that the 
intelligence authorization function itself is subservient to other 
authorizing committees. This is not the structure these times demand. 
This is what my amendment addresses.
  Finally, this is an important moment for this institution and for 
each of us as individuals. This is a great institution, and I, among 
all our Members, have special reason to cherish its prerogatives and 
its rich tradition, having grown up in the shadow of the Senate.
  Everyone who serves in this body is a patriot. Everyone is devoted to 
the national security interests of this country. All of us seek to do 
not what is easy but what is right. Yet it is too often the case that 
we are afflicted by tunnel vision. Too often we get caught up in 
institutional concerns and prerogatives without stepping back to take 
the broader view of what is important for the country as a whole. That 
is what we are attempting to address in this debate today. It requires 
a sacrifice from us all. That is what this amendment would accomplish--
giving up a small amount of our individual power and prerogatives in 
the greater national interest. It is what the times demand. It is what 
this amendment would accomplish. It is why I speak strongly in favor of 
its consideration.
  Mr. President, I will yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I wish all of my colleagues could have 
been on the floor to hear the remarks from the distinguished Senator 
from Indiana, who is a very valued member of the Intelligence 
Committee. We have some very good members on both sides of the aisle.
  Senator Bayh always asks incisive questions. He gets to the bottom of 
the very comprehensive and complex issues we discuss. I thank him for 
being a valued member of the Intelligence Committee. I want to thank 
him for offering this amendment, which, outside the beltway and I 
suppose on the floor of the Senate and for anybody listening or 
watching, is pretty mundane, or arcane: What on Earth is he talking 
about, ``on-demand sequential referral of legislation, reporting from 
the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence''? Were it not for the fact 
that Senator Bayh is an excellent speaker and a highly appreciated 
Member of this body, probably nobody would be even understanding this, 
or paying any attention.
  I know this Senate wants to get this bill done. I know we want to go 
to conference on intelligence reform. I know we have the tax bill. I 
know we have the omnibus bill. I know people want to leave for the 
weekend. People are tired, and Lord knows we have been wrestling with 
this issue on how we reorganize the Intelligence Committee to make it 
more effective, in line with what the 9/11 Commission has recommended, 
what every commission has recommended down the years--the Bremer 
Commission, the Gilmore Commission, the Hart-Rudman Commission, the CIS 
Study, all these commissions, not to mention the 24 times we have tried 
reform of the Intelligence Committee since Dwight David Eisenhower and 
failed in each and every case. I know the fatigue factor, the high-
glaze factor has set in in this body, as evidenced by the membership, 
as evidenced by my dear colleagues and friends across the aisle now 
talking about something else, even though I could probably talk as loud 
as the Senator from Massachusetts. But, having said that, let me try to 
tell Members what this is about.
  His amendment would eliminate the current practice, again, of on-
demand

[[Page S10627]]

sequential referral of legislation reported from the Senate Select 
Committee on Intelligence. This very common sense measure--Mr. 
President, may I have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I know in normal times this amount of noise is about the 
best you can get, but I hope people will pay attention to what Senator 
Bayh is trying to accomplish and, as chairman of the Intelligence 
Committee, which I support very strongly. It is a commonsense measure.
  Speaking of the Intelligence Committee, the very committee that the 
9/11 Commission said should be enabled to do a better job instead of 
the way it is now when we are so fractionalized, it says we should be 
on the same level playing field as other standing committees in the 
Senate--just fair play, same level playing field in terms of sequential 
referral. A committee brings up a subject, they pass a bill, they make 
an inquiry, they publish it, and another committee says: You know, we 
are interested in that as well. We would like to have sequential 
referral.
  How do you do that? You do it by unanimous consent or you go to the 
leaders and you say: You know, we have a dog in this fight. We are 
interested in it. We have expertise, we have background, and we would 
like to take a look at it as well.
  Not on the Intelligence Committee. Virtually every other committee in 
the Congress now has on-demand--that means you finish a product, you 
finish your authorizing bill, and we will grab it by the throat and we 
will do whatever we want to with it.
  That is not right. That is not right with regard to what we are 
trying to do to empower--and by empower I don't mean to empower over 
and above other important committees--or enable us to do our job.
  Let me give you the classic example. We don't have, despite all of 
the rhetoric, all of the activity, all of the effort by Senator Collins 
and by Senator Lieberman and the intelligence reform bill, all of the 
effort by the Joint Inquiry Task Force on 9/11, all of the effort by 
the Intelligence Committee in regard to the WMD report--now the report 
by Mr. Duelfer and the Iraq Survey Group, and the group of intelligence 
not only of the United States globally and the importance that that has 
for the daily lives and pocketbooks not only of people in America but 
around the world, and all of this discussion about 9/11, we do not have 
the intelligence authorization bill passed.
  We had a vote yesterday 90 to 7 on my amendment--probably the first 
time I will ever do that--saying regardless of what happens in 
intelligence we ought to authorize first and then appropriate. There is 
a novel thought. But even at this late date, we don't have the 
intelligence authorization act passed. Why? It is because of this on-
demand referral that no other committee has as a millstone around its 
neck.
  Senator Bayh is one of the committee's most serious, capable members, 
and he and I agree. We worried about this, along with other members on 
the Intelligence Committee, mostly made up of senior Members who know 
their job and who have attended. Their attendance record is 
outstanding. I can't get into that because it takes a decision by the 
chairman and vice chairman, and also perhaps a vote in committee to get 
into attendance records. I am not going to do that, simply to say these 
people have many other duties. They come there and work hard. We have 
had over 125 hearings in the Intelligence Committee, 60 percent more 
than at any other time in history, with regard to the WMD report, 521 
pages long, which I think is the most thorough study any committee has 
ever done on the intelligence community.
  Senator Bayh's presence on this floor on the issue underlines its 
importance. It is bipartisan in nature and impacts on the committee's 
ability to do its work.
  What will the amendment of Senator Bayh do if it passes? It will mean 
that for the first time in history the legislative priorities of the 
Senate Intelligence Committee will reach the Senate floor without being 
automatically filtered through the lens of other Senate committees. I 
must admit that under resolution 400 we have the ability in the 
Intelligence Committee--if anybody mentions intelligence, there might 
be another committee which can ask for referral. We don't normally do 
that. I don't think we have to do that. As a matter of fact, I am 
trying to think of when we did that in the history of the committee. 
But certainly that is a lot different than on-demand sequential 
referral by every other committee.
  Interested committees under the Bayh amendment will still be able to 
request sequential referral to the Intelligence Committee legislation. 
But just as other authorizing legislation, those committees would have 
to do so through a unanimous consent agreement instead of a demand 
letter.
  All we want is to be treated as any other committee. My goodness. If 
we are the ones who are supposed to be empowered and stand up according 
to the 9/11 Commission and do a better job--and I think we have in the 
last few years--why on Earth would you force the Intelligence Committee 
to go through this on-demand sequential referral?

  An example of the problems associated with on-demand sequential 
referral of intelligence--I don't know what to call this. On-demand 
special referral sounds like a lot of gobbledygook outside the beltway, 
an arcane thing. It is sort of like cattle rustling; you sort of take 
that bill and rustle it away from that pasture on demand and the poor 
owner of that cowherd can't do a doggone thing about it. It is time to 
end it.
  At any rate, an example of problems associated with on-demand 
sequential referral, or the cattle rustling of Intelligence Committee 
legislation to the Armed Services Committee, is the fate of 
intelligence reforms proposed by former Intelligence Committee Chairman 
Senator Specter, who was on the floor a while back, and Vice Chairman 
Bob Kerrey, who did a splendid job as vice chairman--that was back in 
1997 during the Intelligence authorization bill, the Intelligence 
Committee proposal, what we have debated here for the last 2 weeks--
this was back in 1997--direct appropriations of intelligence community 
funding by the Director of Central Intelligence is something which 
George Tenet and every other DCI has wanted for a long time. That 
appropriations would have funded the Central Intelligence Agency, the 
National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office--what was 
then called the National Imagery and Mapping Agency. The Armed Services 
Committee obtained sequential referral of the 1997 intelligence 
authorization bill. After 30 days of the Armed Services Committee being 
innovative and forward looking, the Specter-Kerrey reform measure 
became a computer system to track intelligence expenditures. It didn't 
have any authority. It became a computer center to track intelligence 
expenditures.
  On-demand sequential referral has had a chilling effect on the 
introduction of legislative initiatives by the Intelligence Committee.
  I see the distinguished former chairman, the distinguished Senator 
from Pennsylvania, who had a reform measure back in 1997 which would 
have gone a long way toward intelligence reform that we have been 
considering on this floor for the last 3 days. I thank him for that 
effort. But he got sidetracked. His cattle got--well, they were sort of 
branded, sort of got into another pasture. I think that is unfortunate.
  A degree of self-policing occurs about what legislative provisions 
realistically can survive automatic referral through other committees. 
As a result, many provisions are dropped or diluted to make the bill as 
unobjectionable as possible.
  Senator Collins of Maine said we had a delicate balance. We had a 
discussion yesterday of the national intelligence director. The thought 
was that director should be able to move positions, but then we had a 
compromise. We could move positions and we couldn't move people. What 
the heck is that? I know that in compromise when you refer to other 
committees, you make it less objectionable, but sometimes you leave the 
cutting edge of reform with a very dull knife. This deterrent effect, I 
will tell you as chairman of the committee, begins prior to the 
committee markup. I know whatever we do in terms of authorization must 
go over to the distinguished chairman

[[Page S10628]]

of the Armed Services Committee. I serve on that committee. I have the 
utmost respect for the chairman of that committee. It is a privilege to 
serve on that committee. I am chairman of something called Emerging 
Threat and Capabilities. I have enjoyed my service on the Armed 
Services Committee.
  But we know even before markup that we are going to have to go to the 
Armed Services Committee, and we could on demand referral have the same 
thing happen on Foreign Relations, on Appropriations, on Armed 
Services, and Judiciary because those are the members who now serve on 
the committee to make sure there are two people on that committee so it 
is widely represented.
  But I know, and everybody on the committee knows, that before we even 
do the authorization, we have to go through this Byzantine kind of 
machination before we get our product on the floor even to pass it.
  Again, where is the intelligence authorization bill for this year? I 
don't know. We have tried to hotline it. We have had objections.

  After all this year of reform we cannot even pass an intelligence 
authorization bill? Do we want to continue that? This deterrent effect, 
as I said, begins right at the start. We have 22 professional staffers 
who have backgrounds, analysts with the DIA, CIA throughout the 
intelligence community. They are the people who put together the 521-
page report on the WMD. We let the chips fall where they may.
  Senator Rockefeller and I worked together, both sides, and we had a 
bipartisan vote, 17 to 0. It was tough. Can we do the job? You darn bet 
you, and we have 22 staffers who can do that job.
  I daresay none of the other committees that have on-demand sequential 
referral have this kind of staff. Yet we end up on the cutting-room 
floor. Sometimes we do not even get in the room where we end up on the 
cutting-room floor. I don't think that is right.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Could the Senator suspend for one moment?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I would be delighted. Maybe my blood pressure would come 
down. I would be delighted to suspend on behalf of the distinguished 
Senator from Kentucky, as a fan of the Louisville Cardinals.
  Mr. McCONNELL. We have a number of speakers in the Chamber now, and I 
want to try to get consent to establish some order.
  How much more time does the Senator from Kansas wish?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I haven't quite figured it out yet. I got wound up 
pretty good.
  I have one more page, and the Senator from Pennsylvania asked how 
long will that take? How about 2 minutes, 3 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Kansas be 
permitted an additional 3 minutes, to be followed by the Senator from 
Virginia for 12 minutes.
  Mr. ROBERTS. May I inquire of the distinguished Senator, are we 
getting time limits now? I wanted to have a good colloquy with my dear 
friend and esteemed chairman of the Armed Services Committee who has a 
willing offer to make because I am not quite sure in regard to this 
issue what it will be, and if we put in an artificial time limit--I 
don't know.
  Mr. McCONNELL. There is no time limit on any agreement, but we are 
seeking a time agreement on the Chambliss amendment. And Senator Cornyn 
would like to speak on that amendment, as well as Senator Specter and 
Senator Kennedy.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I see my colleague from Michigan.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Senator Levin also wishes to speak on the amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. Yes.
  Mr. WARNER. May I make a suggestion to the distinguished leader? 
Quietly, in the rooms off the Chamber, I think a resolution of this 
matter is about to be achieved. So, therefore, the purpose of my 
amendment would be to frame for colleagues the issue as I see it, which 
I think can be explained very simply and calmly.
  Then perhaps a few comments, and this amendment, I understand, will 
be laid aside, and we can proceed to the Chambliss amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am trying to accommodate the Senator on the other 
amendment, the Chambliss amendment. He must leave town around 1 
o'clock. We were hoping to get a vote on that amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am a cosponsor of the Chambliss amendment, so I would 
appreciate it if I could have maybe 6 or 7 minutes prior to the time we 
vote. I, too, want to cooperate with the managers, and particularly the 
chairman, to make sure he is able to work his program.
  If the leader could ensure that.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I make this suggestion: I ask unanimous consent 
Senator Roberts complete his remarks. He has asked for an additional 3 
minutes. I ask unanimous consent we then return to the Chambliss 
amendment, and in order, have Senator Kennedy for 6 minutes, Senator 
Cornyn for 6 minutes, Senator Specter for?
  Mr. SPECTER. If I may, I follow Senator Roberts for just 3 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. No objection.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am asking consent to accommodate a Member of the 
Senate who must leave in the not too distant future, to return to the 
Chambliss-Kennedy amendment, have the discussion on that because that 
is the amendment we are hoping to get a vote on in the not too distant 
future.
  Since discussions are underway on the Bayh amendment, it would be my 
hope those involved in that will continue their discussions off the 
floor, and we will resume that discussion on the floor after that.
  Let me ask unanimous consent that at the end of Senator Roberts's 
remarks, we take up the Chambliss, resume consideration of the 
Chambliss-Kennedy amendment, and Senator Kennedy be recognized for 6 
minutes, Senator Cornyn be recognized for 6 minutes, and Senator 
Specter?
  Mr. SPECTER. I won't be here.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Anyone else on the Chambliss?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to speak on the Chambliss-Kennedy 
amendment. So far as we were eviscerating the Judiciary Committee, I 
thought possibly I might say a word or two.
  Mr. McCONNELL. How much time? There is no time agreement.
  Mr. LEAHY. I would like to have 10 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. And 10 minutes for the chairman.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, at the conclusion I would like 3 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. And 3 minutes for Senator Specter.
  Mr. REID. If I could, reserving the right to object, is everyone 
speaking on the Chambliss-Kennedy amendment?
  Mr. McCONNELL. No.
  Mr. ROBERTS. No.
  Mr. REID. It has nothing to do with the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. McCONNELL. My consent agreement was related to the Chambliss-
Kennedy amendment, and the time for the Senators was related to 
discussion of that amendment.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. McCONNELL. To which we would return when Senator Roberts 
completes its discussion on the Bayh amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. I assure the Senator from Kentucky I wish to speak on the 
Chambliss-Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, could I ask the distinguished chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee whether his 12 minutes will defer to the 
Bayh amendment or the Chambliss-Kennedy amendment?
  Mr. WARNER. I was here early this morning with Senator Bayh, so that 
is the purpose of my presence, solely for that amendment.
  Mr. ROBERTS. It is probable that the chairman of the Select Committee 
on Intelligence, from time to time recognized by the Armed Services 
Committee, would like to at least have something to say about what the 
distinguished chairman will say about the Bayh amendment.
  I am not trying to set the record straight because that is not in the 
realm of possibility of the distinguished chairman, but I don't know 
how to accomplish that now if we go to the other--I guess we will have 
time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I might suggest to the Senator from Kansas, there is 
no time agreement on the Bayh amendment, and the unanimous consent

[[Page S10629]]

agreement I just propounded was entirely related to the Chambliss-
Kennedy amendment which we would like to resume consideration of. I am 
sure the Senator from Kansas will have more to say about the Bayh 
amendment later. There are no restrictions.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, this has set the tone in the 
future. We will not be setting amendments aside. We will dispose of 
amendments and move to something else. It is too confusing doing it 
this way.
  I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Kansas has the floor for 3 minutes.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I guess we started up a fuss by talking 
about this, which I can understand.
  Let me go back to sort of remind anyone that is listening that on-
demand sequential referral, as referred to in the Bayh amendment, has 
had a chilling effect on the introduction of legislative initiatives by 
the Intelligence Committee.
  Why is that important? It is because the joint inquiry task force 
investigating September 11, it is because the 511-page report on WMD, 
intelligence on whether there were WMD in Iraq, and the 9/11 
Commission's report had this unique idea, and the unique idea was that 
the Select Committee on Intelligence should be granted at least 
enabling power, be empowered to be the oversight committee that has 
independence and leadership and clout and that we do not today.

  One of the obstacles is this on-demand sequential referral. Every 
other committee in the Congress can ask for sequential referral, but 
they do it by unanimous consent or they ask the leadership. There is 
nothing wrong with that. But on-demand sequential referral from the 
very committees that we have two members on the Intelligence Committee 
representing--Judiciary, Appropriations, Armed Services, and Foreign 
Relations? They are represented. And as I have indicated, legislative 
initiatives that we have end up on the cutting-room floor. It is a very 
fractionalized process, both from the Armed Services Committee and the 
Appropriations Committee.
  I have nothing but admiration for the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia and the distinguished Senator from Michigan and the work they 
do on behalf of our military, and for the appropriators and the work 
they do on behalf of our military. It is just that it is a 
fractionalized process. Sometimes we are in the room, sometimes we are 
not. Sometimes we don't know what ends up on the cutting-room floor, 
sometimes we do. That does not speak well for the recommendations of 
the 9/11 Commission and the Intelligence Committee.
  This process, which the members of the Intelligence Committee believe 
is unique to the Intelligence Committee, does not permit the committee 
priorities to reach the Senate floor for full debate. We cannot fully 
debate it because it is classified. Everybody else who wants sequential 
referral changes a bill. They come to the floor, argue the points, and 
then win or lose. We cannot because it is classified.
  This provision is a significant obstacle to the full realization of 
the Intelligence Committee oversight and should be repealed. I support 
the amendment. I encourage my colleagues to do likewise. I hope we are 
able to reach some accommodation.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and my colleagues and yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 3994

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 6 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Chair be kind enough to notify me when 5\1/2\ 
minutes is up?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senators from 
Kentucky and Nevada for their help in bringing us to where we are today 
in terms of meeting our responsibilities under the 9/11 Commission. I 
again congratulate the Senators from Maine and Connecticut for their 
outstanding leadership on the floor of the Senate. America must be 
heartened by the results of their effort. I join in commending all of 
them for the job they have done.
  This amendment, which my friend, the chairman of the Immigration 
Subcommittee, and I offer is virtually identical in effect to the 
Grassley-Baucus amendment that was just accepted. That amendment keeps 
many of the Customs-related functions in the Finance Committee.
  The amendment that Senator Chambliss and I offer keeps the 
immigration-related functions in the Judiciary Committee. What we are 
seeking is much more modest than the major exemptions written into the 
base bill for the Coast Guard and the Transportation Security 
Administration.
  Our amendment does not preclude the new Homeland Security Committee 
from exercising jurisdiction over security issues, such as developing 
biometric identifiers to enhance national security, upgrading 
technology, including electronic interoperable data systems, compiling 
watch list information to screen out terrorists, and enhancing 
intelligence and law enforcement capabilities. That is appropriately 
reserved.
  But surely we can meet the serious terrorism dangers we are facing 
from terrorists without obstructing the entry of more than 500 million 
individuals who go across our borders every year and who legally enter 
the United States each year as visitors, as students, as temporary 
workers, crossing legally from Canada and Mexico, on a daily basis, to 
conduct business or to visit their families.
  These immigration issues are about reunifying families, protecting 
refugees and asylum seekers, welcoming foreign workers when we cannot 
find American workers to fill our jobs, opening our doors to immigrants 
who will be future U.S. citizens. These issues are about welcoming 
international students and visitors, scholars and researchers to our 
country, so that we can benefit from a climate of open exchange.
  Immigration law involves so much more than weeding out the few 
terrorists. The problem is, the terrorists are the danger, not just the 
issues of immigration. Transferring total jurisdiction to a new 
Homeland Security Committee would ignore all the other primary 
functions of our immigration laws and effectively send a message to the 
world that terrorists are winning and that our pride in our immigrant 
heritage and history has turned to fear.
  Immigration is a central part of our heritage and history. It is 
essential to who we are as Americans. Maintaining it is part of our 
national well-being, our identity as a nation, and our strength in 
today's world. In defending the Nation, we are also defending the 
fundamental constitutional principles that have made America strong in 
the past and will make us even stronger in the future.
  Mr. President, for all of these reasons, I believe the Judiciary 
Committee should retain jurisdiction over the immigration issues 
unrelated to terrorism. That is what the Chambliss amendment does. I 
hope it will be accepted by the membership.
  Mr. President, I withhold the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Texas is recognized for 6 minutes.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Chambliss and 
Senator Kennedy on this amendment which I think injects some needed 
rationality in this process. I certainly support the goal of improving 
the oversight of our intelligence community and homeland security 
efforts. But I think what has happened in our haste is that there has 
been some unintended consequences, and one is attempted to be remedied 
by this amendment.
  Simply stated, this amendment, as Senator Kennedy and Senator 
Chambliss have already addressed, would retain the immigration 
functions at the Border and Transportation Security Directorate in the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. President, I, as does the Presiding Officer, serve on the 
Judiciary Committee in large part because of my concern about 
immigration and border security issues as a Senator from Texas, with a 
1,200-mile border with Mexico, one of the more problematic borders of 
this country. I serve with Senators from California and Arizona. The 
only State not represented on the Southern border is the State of New 
Mexico.
  But as the Presiding Officer knows, immigration issues are 
exceedingly

[[Page S10630]]

contentious and complex. Frankly, there are a number of Senators on the 
Judiciary Committee who have invested an awful lot of time and effort 
to try to get up to speed. And indeed, there are others, like me, who 
have introduced immigration reform bills, which I am hopeful will be 
brought up when we return in January or shortly thereafter.
  What I am concerned about is if we make this change now, it will 
delay long-overdue immigration reform in this country as the new 
committee to which it is assigned is getting up to speed. It is no 
slight meant to them. They are very distinguished and competent 
Senators. But the truth is, the staff and Senators who have been 
involved in immigration issues on the Judiciary for a long time have 
learned a lot, developed a lot of the relationships and contacts with 
the various parties who are interested in this issue, the stakeholders.
  Just in terms of injecting some modest bit of rationality in this 
process, I am pleased to join Senator Chambliss, Senator Kennedy, and 
Senator Leahy, who I know will also speak to this matter, and others on 
the Senate Judiciary Committee in saying that if common sense and 
rationality prevail in this process, then this amendment will be 
accepted, either by agreement, by unanimous consent, or by a vote. And 
I certainly would urge all of my colleagues to support the amendment in 
the event a vote is required.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time is reserved for the Senator 
from Vermont?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 10 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the expressions of the 
Senator from Texas, the Senator from Georgia, and the Senator from 
Massachusetts. I am a strong supporter of the Chambliss-Kennedy 
amendment. It would retain the majority of immigration jurisdiction for 
the Judiciary Committee, not just because we like that but because that 
is where the experience is and that is where it ties in the best.
  As Senator Chambliss pointed out this morning, just as the Commerce 
Committee retained the Coast Guard because of the long tradition of the 
Coast Guard being there and the expertise for it, and EPW is retaining 
the Transportation Security Administration, by the same token, the 
Judiciary Committee should retain core immigration issues.
  We should not burden the Homeland Security Committee with immigration 
and citizen refugee matters. That is not the purpose of the new 
committee. There are some aspects of immigration law and policy that 
will raise homeland security issues--some--but we have to note that 
immigration is an extraordinarily broad area. It is an important 
economic issue and, as President after President has said, in one way 
or the other, it is often a moral issue. This is the country that has 
the Statue of Liberty beckoning us all. This is the country that 
brought my grandparents here not speaking any English but making a new 
life.
  The Judiciary Committee has decades of experience in business 
immigration issues, refugee policy, and naturalization. As written, the 
resolution before us would take those issues, which are not homeland 
security issues, and give them to the Governmental Affairs Committee.
  I ask: Does it make sense for the Governmental Affairs Committee to 
oversee and legislate on the H-1B visa program which employers use to 
bring in highly skilled foreign workers? That is not a homeland 
security issue. Does it make sense for that committee to be responsible 
for the refugee program? That is something Judiciary and Foreign 
Relations oversee and do a very good job of. I don't think it is in the 
interest of the Senate or, for that matter, of immigrants for sole 
jurisdiction over immigration matters to be transferred to a committee 
with a homeland security mandate.
  We should be conscious of the security aspects of immigration policy, 
of course, but we also need to retain our national commitment to legal 
immigration--the thing that brought my grandparents to this country. 
Immigrants like my grandfather and grandmother enrich our economy and 
our culture. It is important for us not to see immigration solely 
through the prism of national security.
  How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my remaining 
time be allocated equally to the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, 
and the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak 
briefly on the pending amendment offered by the Senator from Georgia. I 
initially ask unanimous consent that I be listed as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. When I said 3 minutes would be sufficient, I said that 
in the context of a collective noun, but I shall not take much more 
than that.
  I believe the jurisdiction of the immigration function as embodied in 
the Chambliss amendment ought to be maintained in the Judiciary 
Committee. There is very considerable expertise built up in the 
Judiciary Committee over the years on the very important subjects 
related to immigration. The President has stated a policy of dealing 
with the problem of 11 million people in the United States who do not 
have legalized status. The Subcommittee on Immigration of the Judiciary 
Committee has done extensive work on this matter. It is a pressing 
matter and I think will be one of the priority items to be considered 
by the Congress next year.
  The most important issues can best be handled by the current 
Subcommittee on Immigration of the Judiciary Committee.
  Briefly stated, those are the reasons why I support the pending 
amendment and ask that the traditional jurisdiction in the Judiciary 
Committee over immigration be maintained.
  I yield the floor.