[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 20689-20699]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE REFORM ACT OF 2004

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 2845, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2845) to reform the intelligence community and 
     intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the 
     United States Government, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Lautenberg Amendment No. 3767, to specify that the National 
     Intelligence Director shall serve for one or more terms of up 
     to 5 years each.
       Kyl Amendment No. 3801, to modify the privacy and civil 
     liberties oversight.
       Feinstein Amendment No. 3718, to improve the intelligence 
     functions of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
       Stevens Amendment No. 3839, to strike section 201, relating 
     to public disclosure of intelligence funding.
       Ensign Amendment No. 3819, to require the Secretary of 
     State to increase the number of consular officers, clarify 
     the responsibilities and functions of consular officers, and 
     require the Secretary of Homeland Security to increase the 
     number of border patrol agents and customs enforcement 
     investigators.
       Reid (for Schumer) Amendment No. 3887, to amend the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to cover individuals, 
     other than United States persons, who engage in international 
     terrorism without affiliation with an international terrorist 
     group.
       Reid (for Schumer) Amendment No. 3888, to establish the 
     United States Homeland Security Signal Corps to ensure proper 
     communications between law enforcement agencies.
       Reid (for Schumer) Amendment No. 3889, to establish a 
     National Commission on the United States-Saudi Arabia 
     Relationship.
       Reid (for Schumer) Amendment No. 3890, to improve the 
     security of hazardous materials transported by truck.
       Reid (for Schumer) Amendment No. 3891, to improve rail 
     security.
       Reid (for Schumer) Amendment No. 3892, to strengthen border 
     security.
       Reid (for Schumer) Amendment No. 3893, to require 
     inspection of cargo at ports in the United States.
       Reid (for Schumer) Amendment No. 3894, to amend the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 to enhance cybersecurity.
       Leahy/Grassley Amendment No. 3945, to require Congressional 
     oversight of translators employed and contracted for by the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation.
       Reed Amendment No. 3908, to authorize the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security to award grants to public transportation 
     agencies to improve security.
       Reid (for Corzine/Lautenberg) Amendment No. 3849, to 
     protect human health and the environment from the release of 
     hazardous substances by acts of terrorism.

[[Page 20690]]

       Reid (for Lautenberg) Amendment No. 3782, to require that 
     any Federal funds appropriated to the Department of Homeland 
     Security for grants or other assistance be allocated based 
     strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.
       Reid (for Lautenberg) Amendment No. 3905, to provide for 
     maritime transportation security.
       Reid (for Harkin) Amendment No. 3821, to modify the 
     functions of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.
       Roberts Amendment No. 3739, to ensure the sharing of 
     intelligence information in a manner that promotes all-
     sources analysis and to assign responsibility for competitive 
     analysis.
       Roberts Amendment No. 3750, to clarify the responsibilities 
     of the Directorate of Intelligence of the National 
     Counterterrorism Center for information-sharing and 
     intelligence analysis.
       Roberts Amendment No. 3747, to provide the National 
     Intelligence Director with flexible administrative authority 
     with respect to the National Intelligence Authority.
       Roberts Amendment No. 3742, to clarify the continuing 
     applicability of section 504 of the National Security Act of 
     1947 to the obligation and expenditure of funds appropriated 
     for the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of 
     the United States.
       Kyl Amendment No. 3926, to amend the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act to ensure that nonimmigrant visas are not 
     issued to individuals with connections to terrorism or who 
     intend to carry out terrorist activities in the United 
     States.
       Kyl Amendment No. 3881, to protect crime victims' rights.
       Kyl Amendment No. 3724, to strengthen anti-terrorism 
     investigative tools, promote information sharing, punish 
     terrorist offenses.
       Stevens Amendment No. 3827, to strike section 206, relating 
     to information sharing.
       Stevens Amendment No. 3840, to strike the fiscal and 
     acquisition authorities of the National Intelligence 
     Authority.
       Stevens Amendment No. 3882, to propose an alternative 
     section 141, relating to the Inspector General of the 
     National Intelligence Authority.
       Collins (for Inhofe) Amendment No. 3946 (to Amendment No. 
     3849), in the nature of a substitute.
       Sessions Amendment No. 3928, to require aliens to make an 
     oath prior to receiving a nonimmigrant visa.
       Sessions Amendment No. 3873, to protect railroad carriers 
     and mass transportation from terrorism.
       Sessions Amendment No. 3871, to provide for enhanced 
     Federal, State, and local enforcement of the immigration 
     laws.
       Sessions Amendment No. 3870, to make information sharing 
     permanent under the USA PATRIOT ACT.
       Warner Amendment No. 3876, to preserve certain authorities 
     and accountability in the implementation of intelligence 
     reform.
       Collins (for Cornyn) Amendment No. 3803, to provide for 
     enhanced criminal penalties for crimes related to alien 
     smuggling.
       Collins (for Baucus/Roberts) Modified Amendment No. 3768, 
     to require an annual report on the allocation of funding 
     within the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department 
     of the Treasury.
       Frist (for McConnell) Amendment No. 3930, to clarify that a 
     volunteer for a federally-created citizen volunteer program 
     and for the program's State and local affiliates is protected 
     by the Volunteer Protection Act.
       Frist (for McConnell) Amendment No. 3931, to remove civil 
     liability barriers that discourage the donation of equipment 
     to volunteer fire companies.
       Levin Modified Amendment No. 3809, to exempt military 
     personnel from certain personnel transfer authorities.
       Levin Amendment No. 3810, to clarify the definition of 
     National Intelligence Program.
       Stevens Amendment No. 3830, to modify certain provisions 
     relating to the Central Intelligence Agency.
       Warner Amendment No. 3875, to clarify the definition of 
     National Intelligence Program.
       Warner Amendment No. 3874, to provide for the treatment of 
     programs, projects, and activities within the Joint Military 
     Intelligence Program and Tactical Intelligence and Related 
     Activities programs as of the date of the enactment of the 
     Act.
       Reid (for Leahy) Amendment No. 3913, to address enforcement 
     of certain subpoenas.
       Reid (for Leahy) Amendment No. 3915, to establish criteria 
     for placing individuals on the consolidated screening watch 
     list of the Terrorist Screening Center.
       Reid (for Leahy) Amendment No. 3916, to strengthen civil 
     liberties protections.
       Collins (for Frist) Modified Amendment No. 3895, to 
     establish the National Counterproliferation Center within the 
     National Intelligence Authority.
       Collins (for Frist) Amendment No. 3896, to include certain 
     additional Members of Congress among the congressional 
     intelligence committees.
       Sessions (for Grassley) Amendment No. 3850, to require the 
     inclusion of information regarding visa revocations in the 
     National Crime Information Center database.
       Sessions (for Grassley) Amendment No. 3851, to clarify the 
     effects of revocation of a visa.
       Sessions (for Grassley) Amendment No. 3855, to combat money 
     laundering and terrorist financing, to increase the penalties 
     for smuggling goods into the United States.
       Sessions (for Grassley) Amendment No. 3856, to establish a 
     United States drug interdiction coordinator for Federal 
     agencies.
       Sessions/Ensign Amendment No. 3872, to amend the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act to require fingerprints on 
     United States passports and to require countries desiring to 
     participate in the Visa Waiver Program to issue passports 
     that conform to the biometric standards required for United 
     States passports.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 9:45 
a.m. having arrived, the Senate will proceed to a vote on the motion to 
invoke cloture.
  Under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke 
cloture.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 2845, 
     Calendar No. 716, a bill to reform the intelligence community 
     and the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of 
     the United States Government, and for other purposes.
         Bill Frist, Tom Daschle, Susan Collins, Lamar Alexander, 
           Orrin Hatch, Lindsey Graham, John Warner, Judd Gregg, 
           Saxby Chambliss, John Cornyn, Kay Bailey Hutchison, 
           George Allen, Gordon Smith, Jim Talent, Norm Coleman, 
           Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Mitch McConnell, Joseph 
           Lieberman.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 
2845, the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, shall be brought to 
a close? The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Corzine), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), and the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 85, nays 10, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 197 Leg.]

                                YEAS--85

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--10

     Burns
     Byrd
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Ensign
     Inouye
     Levin
     Sessions
     Stevens

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Akaka
     Biden
     Corzine
     Edwards
     Kerry
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 85, the nays are 
10. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative the motion is agreed to.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to consider sequentially the Feinstein amendment, No. 3718, and 
the Gregg amendment, No. 3934, both as modified with changes that are 
at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 20691]]




                    Amendment No. 3718, As Modified

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, my comments are related to amendment 
No. 3718, as modified, which the chairman said is at the desk. I will 
not have to ask for the amendment to be modified. This amendment has 
been previously debated. I have spoken on the floor twice about it. It 
was set aside at my request.
  The amendment clarifies the relationship of the FBI to the new 
national intelligence director. It ensures that national intelligence 
programs include the FBI's intelligence activities. I had hoped that 
the amendment could be disposed of yesterday, but apparently that could 
not happen and, thus, the amendment is before us today.
  I thank Senators Lieberman, Collins, Roberts, and Gregg, all of whose 
staff worked hard to improve the original amendment. The result is, in 
essence, a compromise that accomplishes our fundamental goal, which is 
to ensure that the intelligence functions of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation are both reorganized and, secondly, effective and 
coordinated in the intelligence community.
  The original amendment has been modified to that effect. It is my 
understanding that the amendment, as modified, is acceptable to both 
sides.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I congratulate the Senator from 
California for her amendment. She has worked very closely with Senator 
Lieberman and me, as well as with the Judiciary Committee and Senator 
Gregg.
  Senator Feinstein's amendment is a good one. It strengthens the bill. 
It underscores her commitment to making the FBI as effective as 
possible in the war against terrorism. I thank the Senator for her 
leadership, and I urge adoption of her amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I also thank the Senator from 
California for her persistence, both on the substance of this amendment 
and in the vagaries and twists and turns of the legislative process.
  This is an important amendment. In some sense, it strengthens, 
ratifies, and makes statutory some of the very constructive changes 
that have been occurring at the FBI, by establishing a directorate of 
intelligence within the FBI that is based on the existing Office of 
Intelligence there.
  The amendment also modifies the definition of national intelligence 
under the bill, in order to make clear that national intelligence 
programs within the FBI will be included within the national 
intelligence program. So there will be no more of the division between 
foreign and domestic, and no more of the division between the FBI and 
CIA, which occurred so heartbreakingly and infuriatingly before 
September 11. We are all going to be together in the national 
intelligence program under the national intelligence director, 
protecting the safety of the American people.
  This amendment increases substantially the probability that we can 
deter the terrorist enemy by knowing where they are before they strike 
us. I thank the Senator for her leadership, and I support the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3718), as modified, was agreed to.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, it is my understanding that the Senator 
from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, is on his way to the floor to speak 
briefly on his amendment.
  While we are awaiting his arrival, 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. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3710

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I call up for consideration amendment 
No. 3710.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
laid aside.
  Mr. REID. What was the request, Madam President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is seeking to call up amendment 
No. 3710. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3710.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam 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 provide for the establishment of a unified combatant 
                   command for military intelligence)

       On page 153, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 207. UNIFIED COMBATANT COMMAND FOR MILITARY 
                   INTELLIGENCE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 6 of title 10, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 167a the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 167b. Unified combatant command for military 
       intelligence

       ``(a) Establishment.--(1) With the advice and assistance of 
     the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the President, 
     through the Secretary of Defense, shall establish under 
     section 161 of this title a unified combatant command for 
     military intelligence (hereinafter in this section referred 
     to as the `military intelligence command').
       ``(2) The principle functions of the military intelligence 
     command are--
       ``(A) to coordinate all military intelligence activities;
       ``(B) to develop new military intelligence collection 
     capabilities; and
       ``(C) to represent the Department of Defense in the 
     intelligence community under the National Intelligence 
     Director.
       ``(b) Assignment of Forces and Civilian Personnel.--(1) 
     Unless otherwise directed by the Secretary of Defense, all 
     active and reserve military intelligence forces of the armed 
     forces within the elements of the Department of Defense 
     referred to in subsection (i)(2) shall be assigned to the 
     military intelligence command.
       ``(2) Unless otherwise directed by the Secretary of 
     Defense, the civilian personnel of the elements of the 
     Department of Defense referred to in subsection (i)(2) shall 
     be under the military intelligence command.
       ``(c) Grade of Commander.--The commander of the military 
     intelligence command shall hold the grade of general or, in 
     the case of an officer of the Navy, admiral while serving in 
     that position, without vacating his permanent grade. The 
     commander of such command shall be appointed by the 
     President, by and with the consent of the Senate, for service 
     in that position.
       ``(d) Duties of Commander.--Unless otherwise directed by 
     the President or the Secretary of Defense, the commander of 
     the military intelligence command shall--
       ``(1) carry out intelligence collection and analysis 
     activities in response to requests from the National 
     Intelligence Director; and
       ``(2) serve as the principle advisor to the Secretary of 
     Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the 
     National Intelligence Director on all matters relating to 
     military intelligence.
       ``(e) Authority of Commander.--(1) In addition to the 
     authority prescribed in section 164(c) of this title, the 
     commander of the military intelligence command shall be 
     responsible for, and shall have the authority to conduct, all 
     affairs of the command relating to military intelligence 
     activities.
       ``(2) The commander of the military intelligence command 
     shall be responsible for, and shall have the authority to 
     conduct, the following functions relating to military 
     intelligence activities:
       ``(A) Developing strategy, doctrine, and tactics.
       ``(B) Preparing and submitting to the Secretary of Defense 
     and the National Intelligence Director recommendations and 
     budget proposals for military intelligence forces and 
     activities.
       ``(C) Exercising authority, direction, and control over the 
     expenditure of funds for personnel and activities assigned to 
     the command.
       ``(D) Training military and civilian personnel assigned to 
     or under the command.
       ``(E) Conducting specialized courses of instruction for 
     military and civilian personnel assigned to or under the 
     command.
       ``(F) Validating requirements.
       ``(G) Establishing priorities for military intelligence in 
     harmony with national priorities established by the National 
     Intelligence Director and approved by the President.
       ``(H) Ensuring the interoperability of intelligence sharing 
     within the Department of Defense and within the intelligence 
     community as a whole, as directed by the National 
     Intelligence Director.
       ``(I) Formulating and submitting requirements to other 
     commanders of the unified combatant commands to support 
     military intelligence activities.

[[Page 20692]]

       ``(J) Recommending to the Secretary of Defense individuals 
     to head the components of the command.
       ``(3) The commander of the military intelligence command 
     shall be responsible for--
       ``(A) ensuring that the military intelligence requirements 
     of the other unified combatant commanders are satisfied; and
       ``(B) responding to intelligence requirements levied by the 
     National Intelligence Director.
       ``(4)(A) The commander of the military intelligence command 
     shall be responsible for, and shall have the authority to 
     conduct the development and acquisition of specialized 
     technical intelligence capabilities.
       ``(B) Subject to the authority, direction, and control of 
     the Secretary of Defense, the commander of the command, in 
     carrying out the function under subparagraph (A), shall have 
     authority to exercise the functions of the head of an agency 
     under chapter 137 of this title.
       ``(f) Inspector General.--The staff of the commander of the 
     military intelligence command shall include an inspector 
     general who shall conduct internal audits and inspections of 
     purchasing and contracting actions through the command and 
     such other inspector general functions as may be assigned.
       ``(g) Budget Matters.--(1) The commander of the military 
     intelligence command shall, with guidance from the National 
     Intelligence Director, prepare the annual budgets for the 
     Joint Military Intelligence Program and the Tactical 
     Intelligence and Related Activities program that are 
     presented by the Secretary of Defense to the President.
       ``(2) In addition to the activities of a combatant 
     commander for which funding may be requested under section 
     166(b) of this title, the budget proposal for the military 
     intelligence command shall include requests for funding for--
       ``(A) development and acquisition of military intelligence 
     collection systems; and
       ``(B) acquisition of other material, supplies, or services 
     that are peculiar to military intelligence activities.
       ``(h) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     prescribe regulations for the activities of the military 
     intelligence command. The regulations shall include 
     authorization for the commander of the command to provide for 
     operational security of military intelligence forces, 
     civilian personnel, and activities.
       ``(i) Identification of Military Intelligence Forces.--(1) 
     For purposes of this section, military intelligence forces 
     are the following:
       ``(A) The forces of the elements of the Department of 
     Defense referred to in paragraph (2) that carry out military 
     intelligence activities.
       ``(B) Any other forces of the armed forces that are 
     designated as military intelligence forces by the Secretary 
     of Defense.
       ``(2) The elements of the Department of Defense referred to 
     in this paragraph are as follows:
       ``(A) The Defense Intelligence Agency.
       ``(B) The National Security Agency.
       ``(C) The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.
       ``(D) The National Reconnaissance Office.
       ``(E) Any intelligence activities or units of the military 
     departments designated by the Secretary of Defense for 
     purposes of this section.
       ``(j) Military Intelligence Activities.--For purposes of 
     this section, military intelligence activities include each 
     of the following insofar as it relates to military 
     intelligence:
       ``(1) Intelligence collection.
       ``(2) Intelligence analysis.
       ``(3) Intelligence information management.
       ``(4) Intelligence workforce planning.
       ``(5) Such other activities as may be specified by the 
     President or the Secretary of Defense.''.
       ``(k) Intelligence Community Defined.--In this section, the 
     term `intelligence community' means the elements of the 
     intelligence community listed or designated under section 
     3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 
     401a(4)).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of that chapter is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 167a the following new item:

``167b. Unified combatant command for military intelligence.''.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I call up this amendment with the 
intention of withdrawing it. We had discussions with the chairman of 
the committee, along with the ranking member. While we feel this is a 
significantly important amendment, we are still a ways from coming to 
an agreement relative to the substance of it.
  Basically, in today's intelligence community, there are 15 agencies 
within the Federal Government that have some jurisdiction and some 
involvement. Eight of those 15 agencies are located within the 
Department of Defense. We have our three combat support agencies--the 
National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, 
and the National Reconnaissance Office--all of which have been 
discussed very liberally within this debate. We also have the Defense 
Intelligence Agency, as well as every one of the four service branches 
with an intelligence division.
  Under the current setup--and the setup that will be in place after 
the passage of the intelligence reform bill, as it is now on the 
floor--all eight of those agencies report to the Secretary of Defense 
and they will report in a dual capacity to the Secretary of Defense and 
the National Intelligence Director.
  Senator Nelson, who has been a very strong cohort and cosponsor of 
this amendment, and I strongly believe that what we need to do to 
improve the effectiveness and the communication in the intelligence 
community relevant to the Department of Defense is to combine all eight 
of those intelligence agencies under one combatant commander, create a 
new combatant commander that is at the four-star level and require all 
eight of these agencies to report to that one four-star general so that 
the Secretary of Defense and the national intelligence director have 
one person to go to when it comes to the collection, analysis, and 
dissemination of intelligence from a Department of Defense perspective.
  Having been involved in this for the last 4 years, both in my last 2 
years on the House side and 2 years now on the Senate side, I know how 
complex the intelligence world is and how many overlaps there are 
between the civilian side and the Defense Department side and how 
absolutely necessary it is that we have an ongoing line of 
communication between the military and civilian departments and 
agencies that are involved in the collection, analysis, and 
dissemination of intelligence and the sharing of that information at 
different levels and across various agencies.
  For the Secretary of Defense to have eight people report to him and 
for the new National Intelligence Director to have eight people report 
to him, when we could have one person reporting to both of those two on 
issues relating to military intelligence, seems almost commonsensical 
that we reduce those eight down to one if we are going to provide a 
more efficient, a more effective intelligence line of communication.
  That is the substance of our amendment. While I understand there is 
some objection forthcoming to the inclusion of the amendment, Senator 
Nelson and I wanted to offer it, we want to debate it, and we want to 
make sure this entire body knows we are going to come back next year 
when we have a little different forum within which to operate to offer 
this amendment again as a stand-alone bill and see it to its 
conclusion.
  I close by saying that there is some objection from the Department of 
Defense on amendment 3710. While they are not publicly objecting, if 
they were asked, they would say they would rather not have a unified 
combatant command for intelligence because they want to have the 
flexibility of doing it the way they want to do it.
  Several years ago, we had a similar situation relative to the 
consolidation of special operations when this body took the lead and 
told the Department of Defense: We are going to create a new unified 
combatant command for special forces, or SOCOM; we are going to create 
a four-star commander and consolidate all special operations under 
SOCOM and that one combatant commander.
  The Defense Department resisted that, but today they will tell you at 
the Pentagon that it is one of the best things we have ever done. It 
was this body that initiated it. Senator Nelson and I think the same 
thing should apply in the area of intelligence. While I will withdraw 
the amendment, we both wanted to stress that a unified combatant 
command for military intelligence will be equally important for 
informing the National Intelligence Director of military intelligence 
requirements as it will be for assigning military intelligence 
capabilities to assist in fulfilling the National Intelligence 
Director's intelligence responsibilities.
  I yield to my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Nelson.

[[Page 20693]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I thank my colleague for the 
opportunity to join with him to support this bipartisan legislation 
which we will be working to get passed in January.
  As my colleague said, the new command will be a functional rather 
than a regional command, just like the U.S. Strategic Command in my 
State of Nebraska, and the U.S. Special Operations Command in Florida, 
the U.S. Joint Forces Command in Virginia, and U.S. Transportation 
Command in Illinois.
  As stated, the goal of this new command will be to organize the eight 
combat support intelligence elements within the Department of Defense 
under a single military commander. These elements will include bringing 
together what are often referred to as the alphabet agencies. Most 
people know them more by their initials than they do by the actual 
names. But it will bring together the DIA, or the Defense Intelligence 
Agency, the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, and the Army, 
Navy, Air Force, and Marine intelligence offices. All total, these 
offices employ thousands with budgets in the billions.
  Eighty percent of all intelligence gathered by the U.S. Government is 
used by our armed services, and the ability to rapidly disseminate this 
information, as well as share the information, often means the 
difference between success and failure in the field. This new combatant 
commander will streamline the flow of information from our combat 
support elements to the warfighter, an important part, an important 
role for this agency.
  The responsibility of the military intelligence commander will 
include intelligence collection and analysis in response to requests 
from the national intelligence director. As we know, this past week we 
all heard a great deal about whether it should be a NID, national 
intelligence director, or a NIC, whether it should be about directing 
or coordinating. This commander will act as the single entry point for 
the NID to assign military intelligence capabilities, and will 
strengthen the coordination of those efforts.
  This will strengthen coordination between the NID and the Department 
of Defense because without one central contact inside DOD who can 
manage the military intelligence capabilities of the Department, it 
will be an extraordinary challenge for somebody outside DOD, such as 
the NID, to proficiently administer eight separate military 
intelligence assets.
  This new command will prepare and submit to the Secretary of Defense 
and the NID recommendations and budget proposals for military 
intelligence forces and activities. Additionally, the commander will 
establish priorities for military intelligence that coincide with 
national priorities established by the NID and approved by the 
President. The commander will also ensure interoperability of 
intelligence sharing within the Department of Defense and within the 
intelligence community as a whole, as directed by the NID.
  The commander will answer to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and the President, and will represent 
the Department of Defense in the intelligence community under the NID.
  I realize some of my colleagues may be asking the question whether 
this new position will add yet another layer to military intelligence-
gathering agencies, but consider the fact that no military coordinator 
currently exists. So I do not see this as another layer; I view it as a 
necessary position that DOD has been far too long without.
  Perhaps if the commander for military intelligence already existed, 
then discovering how command was severed at Abu Ghraib might have been 
easier. The tragedy there likely would not have been prevented 
entirely, but there certainly would have been more direct lines of 
accountability with a combatant commander for military intelligence.
  This is an opportunity for us to debate the issue at this time, but 
the opportunity to pass it after the first of the year will be one that 
I think we must, in fact, take up. It will improve coordination and 
will not undermine the direction of the national intelligence director, 
but it will, in fact, help harmonize in the sharing of intelligence 
throughout the entire military and intelligence community.
  I thank my colleague from Georgia for the opportunity to participate, 
and I congratulate the chairman of the committee and the ranking member 
for doing an outstanding job in reforming our intelligence-gathering 
agencies' operations.
  It is not an easy task. We think this could be a part of it, but 
rather than have any effect in slowing down the operation of what we 
are doing today, we think we can take this up at another time.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Senator from Nebraska for his always keen 
insight into the problem that exists and why this amendment would help 
with the solution to that problem. I look forward to continuing to work 
with him when we get back in the next session of Congress.
  I also thank the chairman for her effort to try to figure out some 
compromise relevant to this particular issue. Senator Collins and 
Senator Lieberman have been very cooperative, and it is not for a lack 
of effort on their part that we are not able to come to some compromise 
on this issue, but we look forward to continuing the dialogue and 
working with them.
  I yield the floor.


                      Amendment No. 3710 Withdrawn

  I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Georgia and 
the Senator from Nebraska for their contributions to this debate. They 
have raised an important issue. It is, as they have recognized, a 
difficult and controversial issue, and I am very grateful to both of 
them for being willing to raise the issue but not press forward with 
their amendment at this time. I look forward to continuing to work with 
both of them. Both of them are leaders in military and intelligence 
matters, and I very much respect their judgment and their knowledge.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I join Senator Collins in thanking 
our colleagues from Georgia and Nebraska for a very thoughtful and 
substantial idea that is not going to be possible to act on in this 
bill, but I thank them for the question they have raised. I think they 
are heading in the right direction, and I look forward to working with 
them.
  We have two choices. The four of us could work together on the Armed 
Services Committee or we could continue to work through the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, but in either case, as Senator Collins 
has said, Senator Chambliss and Senator Ben Nelson are leaders in the 
Senate on matters of national security and just in the best tradition 
of our Government and our Congress, which is not always honored, moving 
in a totally bipartisan, nonpartisan way. I thank them for that and 
look forward to seeing this to fruition someday soon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.


                    Amendment No. 3934, as Modified

  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we now 
turn to Gregg amendment No. 3934, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:


                    amendment no. 3934, as modified

       On page 121, line 13, strike ``and analysts'' and insert 
     ``, analysts, and related personnel''.
       On page 121, line 17, strike ``and analysts'' and insert 
     ``, analysts, and related personnel''.
       On page 121, line 19, strike ``and analysts'' and insert 
     ``, analysts, and related personnel''.
       On page 123, beginning on line 8, strike ``, in 
     consultation with the Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget, modify the'' and insert ``establish a''.

[[Page 20694]]

       On page 123, line 11, strike ``in order to organize the 
     budget according to'' and insert ``to reflect''.

  Ms. COLLINS. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3934), as modified, was agreed to.
  Ms. COLLINS. 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.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3933

  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise to thank the managers of this 
bill for their hard work and perseverance in trying to get the 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission passed and their accommodation 
of many Members with various amendments. Obviously they have been 
working long before this time period, through the August recess and 
since we have come back, and now we are pushing towards the final 
stages.
  I thank the managers of the bill for including a provision in the 
bill, a Cantwell-Sessions amendment dealing with the Visa Waiver 
Program and closing a loophole that I call the Ressam loophole. That is 
a loophole that allowed a terrorist to go from Algiers to France to 
Canada and then load up his car with explosives and head to the U.S.-
Canadian border at the State of Washington with plans to set off those 
explosives, potentially, at LAX Airport or perhaps somewhere along the 
way of the west corridor.
  What the amendment did was to basically say to those who are our 
partner countries that the United States wants to make sure that people 
coming into our country on visas meet certain biometric standards so we 
know who people are. If we actually knew Mr. Ressam's true identity 
when he left France to go to Canada, he would have been stopped at the 
Canadian border. He could have been stopped earlier in the process if 
we actually knew who this individual was.
  So what this Cantwell-Sessions amendment did, and, again, I thank the 
managers for adding it, was to help us identify the types of 
technologies that we hope our partner visa waiver countries also adopt 
for their biometrics on visas allowing people into their country.
  To put it simply, our borders will only be as strong as our partner 
countries' and as they adopt standards. The last thing we want to do in 
the United States is to have a process by which we are more sure of 
people we are giving visas to, only to have, then, individuals who are 
looking for ways to get access to the United States to go to Mexico or 
Canada or France or Germany and then find their way to easy entry into 
the United States by creating a new identity.
  The estimates are that there are millions of passports that have been 
lost or stolen and that individuals easily create new identities. But 
if our partner countries in the Visa Waiver Program, such as Mexico, 
France, Germany, also create biometric on their visas for people coming 
into their countries, we will have a safer process of understanding and 
stopping terrorists at their point of origin as opposed to continuing 
to allow them to travel around the globe, creating new identities or 
possibly getting easy access to our neighboring countries and then 
easily sneaking across U.S. borders.
  I thank the managers for their hard work and diligence on this issue 
and for working to accommodate so many Members on what are very 
challenging issues. We have done great work on making our borders more 
secure since 9/11. We have put resources there. We have tightened our 
programs. We have worked on the US VISIT implementation. But we need to 
continue to understand that our security will only be as good as the 
security of our partner nations, working in this battle to fight 
terrorism around the globe. I very much appreciate the managers being 
included in that.
  If I could say, I am also pleased that the conference report on the 
JOBS bill is moving. It seems to be progressing. While we are working 
to finish up this 9/11 report and finish up the legislation that 
implements it, I am hopeful we will be successful in passing the FSC/
ETI conference report before we leave for this recess that is scheduled 
for this Friday. That is very important legislation to help companies 
that want a level playing field on the trade front, helping large 
companies in my State or exporters such as Boeing and Microsoft--there 
are many more--to get a level playing field.
  There is also tax fairness in this JOBS bill for Washingtonians and 
seven other States that have not been able to deduct their sales tax 
from the Federal income tax. I am glad to see that recision is in the 
bill. I hope we can move forward this week to give the fairness back to 
those States that have been unjustly penalized on that for about the 
last 18 years. While this 9/11 legislation is moving through, I hope we 
are also successful in moving the JOBS bill through and that we can 
continue to work diligently on that process.
  As I see no other Members who are ready to offer amendments, I will 
say one more word of thanks to the incredibly hard work that is going 
on in the State of Washington by the U.S. Geological Survey. Many 
people realize that there is an imminent eruption of Mount St. Helens 
about to take place. We have seen the ash and steam of several smaller 
events occur in the last several days. But because of the investment 
this country has made in the Department Interior and the U.S. 
Geological Survey, we have so much more information at hand today.
  In 1980, we heard the final cry of a U.S. Geological Survey worker 
who said, ``Vancouver, Vancouver, this is it.'' Then he ended up losing 
his life to the explosion, as did 57 other residents of the Northwest. 
The impact of that volcanic explosion was so significant it impacted 
various cities such as Yakima and Vancouver.
  Today, because seismologists, geologists, meteorologists, and 
vulcanologists also have been working together, we have much more data 
and we have been able to advise the larger community on the hazards we 
are facing with another eruption of Mount St. Helens. I thank the men 
and women who are doing terrific work in informing all of us so we can 
make great plans, so that aviation, transportation, and the health and 
security of the emergency management system can do their jobs, because 
we have good science and information.
  I thank the managers of this bill for their hard work and 
perseverance on an issue that many times during this debate didn't seem 
to be very decisive, as Members have many different ideas about how we 
approach terrorism and what our country needs to do to harden our 
targets and to improve our intelligence operation. But I want to thank 
the diligence of these Members because they are doing the work to 
understand the details of this legislation. They have been doing that 
work for the summer while we were out on recess, and what they did is 
work to understand these amendments in detail. I appreciate their 
adoption of the Cantwell-Sessions amendment, which I do believe will 
help us not only make U.S. borders more secure but make our partner 
countries' borders more secure and stop terrorism at the point of 
origin. I thank the managers for their help and support for the passage 
of this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, let me thank the Senator from 
Washington for her kind words about Senator Collins and me, but really 
much more than that, for having an excellent idea here which will 
measurably increase the security of the American people.
  Our borders are more secure than they were on September 10, 2001, but 
they are not secure enough. We don't want to discourage people from 
coming to the United States for business or

[[Page 20695]]

pleasure, but to protect ourselves we have to ask not only of ourselves 
but of other countries that they begin to use the technology available 
to identify those who are coming to our country, not for business or 
pleasure but to do us harm. This amendment will move us forward on 
that.
  Senator Cantwell has been--I think I heard her use the word 
``perseverance'' with regard to the chairman and myself. She has been 
the model of perseverance because she really believes in this. In the 
twists and turns of the legislative process where individuals can 
register objections, the Senator from Washington was here late last 
night and early this morning. The result is that ultimately all the 
objections faded away because this is a great idea. It was adopted.
  I thank her very much and look forward to monitoring the 
implementation of this as we go forward.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Minnesota Twins

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will have more remarks on another 
matter, but I wanted to start this morning by acknowledging yet another 
remarkable year by the Minnesota Twins.
  Tonight, the Twins will be playing in the Major League Baseball 
playoffs, and this marks the third year in a row that the Twins have 
made the playoffs.
  We follow the Twins in South Dakota because we have no team ourselves 
in the eastern part of the State. So the Twins have become very special 
to many South Dakotans as well.
  I might remind my colleagues that this is the same small market 
Minnesota Twins team that was threatened not long ago with 
``contraction''--a euphemism cooked up by big city owners for shutting 
down a team that generations of South Dakotans have come to call their 
own.
  Tonight the Twins will face off against the New York Yankees, whose 
huge payroll ensures that it is never a surprise when they make it to 
the playoffs.
  The Twins will pitch their ace, Johan Santana--who also happens to be 
a leading contender for the Cy Young award. His dominance is in many 
ways a symbol of what has made the Twins so solid.
  After being cast off by another team, he was brought up in the Twins 
system, which rewards dedication and loyalty. And like so many of the 
Twins stars, he is a hard worker who leaves everything on the field.
  It is no mistake that the Twins' strengths--dedication, loyalty and 
hard work--are the same traits that have made the Midwest strong.
  So let me add my voice to those of thousands of Twins fans across 
South Dakota and Minnesota in saying to Grady and his boys, good luck. 
You have made us proud, and we know you will continue to do so in the 
days ahead.


                            HIGHER EDUCATION

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Congress, unfortunately, is going to miss 
many important deadlines this year and many critical opportunities to 
help relieve the increasing economic squeeze on America's families. 
This morning, I would like to talk about one of those missed 
opportunities, which is helping families pay for college.
  We knew for 6 years that the Federal Higher Education Act would 
expire on September 30. Despite that, the majority failed to set aside 
time to reauthorize the law.
  That leaves the Senate in the unfortunate position of having to 
simply extend the current law--with no improvements, and no additional 
help for the millions of middle-class families in South Dakota and 
across America who are struggling to put their sons and daughters 
through college.
  Kim and Todd Dougherty are two of those parents. They live in 
Chamberlain, SD. They have three children: two sons, ages 20 and 22, 
and a daughter who is a junior in high school. Todd is a salesman. Kim 
teaches second graders at a tribal school. Both of her parents were 
teachers, too. This is a family that believes in education.
  The Dougherty's older son, Scott, started college at a small college 
in Minnesota 4 years ago but left after two semesters because of 
frustration with a learning disability and came home to consider other 
schools and options.
  Shortly after he returned home, Scott tore the ACL ligament in his 
knee. Unfortunately, he had let his health insurance lapse because he 
couldn't pay his tuition and insurance premiums at the same time. His 
knee surgery cost him $12,000. After his surgery, he had to start 
paying back his student loans.
  Today, Scott works as a cook in a restaurant. He pays $409 each month 
towards his medical and student loan debts, and another $200 a month 
for health insurance. That leaves him $75 a month for everything else. 
He can't go back to college until he pays off a sizable portion of his 
debts, and he worries that he can't get a better-paying job because he 
has so much debt.
  All across America, there are tens of thousands of families who are 
in situations similar to the Doughertys'--or soon could be.
  They are hard-working, middle-class families in which parents have 
saved for years to pay for their children's college educations. There 
is no margin for error in their family budgets. If one thing goes 
wrong--if a parent loses a job unexpectedly, or someone in the family 
has a serious illness or accident--the debts start to pile up and 
suddenly, college starts to feel unattainable. Middle-class parents 
watch their dreams for their children's future start to slip away.
  We need to do right by these families, and that means keeping the 
doors of college open to all Americans, no matter what their family's 
economic circumstances.
  Unfortunately, we are moving in the opposite direction. This year, 
nearly a half-million Americans will be turned away from colleges 
strictly for financial reasons. They can do the work, they just can't 
afford the tuition.
  Since President Bush took office, the average tuition at a 4-year 
public college has increased 28 percent; when this year's increases are 
released in about a month, that number is likely to climb to well over 
30 percent.
  College costs are rising faster than inflation--faster than average 
family incomes--and much faster than increases in student financial 
aid.
  Every 2 years, a non-partisan group called the National Center for 
Public Policy and Higher Education releases State-by-State report cards 
on higher education. The report cards grade each State on six different 
criteria. One is affordability: How large a share of their income do 
families have to pay for college at a public 4-year college or 
university?
  Their latest report, released in early September, ought to concern us 
all. Thirty-seven States--including South Dakota--got an ``F'' for 
affordability. Thirty-seven of 50 States. Ten additional States 
received ``Ds,'' two States got ``Cs,'' and one State received a ``B.''
  No State earned an ``A.'' Even in the best-performing States, we are 
losing ground; college is less affordable today than it was a decade 
ago. This is a serious national problem.
  What is the response from the administration and congressional 
Republicans? Silence. They failed to bring the Higher Education Act up 
for reauthorization.
  Their oversized tax cuts have eaten up Federal resources that we 
could otherwise invest in higher education, and in basic research and 
investment.
  The President's proposed budget for next year provides no new money 
for the Perkins low-interest loan program, no new money for the College 
Work Study program, and the Supplemental Educational Opportunity 
Grants, and no money at all for the LEAP program--all of which help 
lower-income students pay for college.
  Despite the President's campaign promise in 2000 to increase the 
maximum Pell grant, his proposed budget

[[Page 20696]]

for next year freezes Pell grants for the third year in a row.
  Even worse, the administration is once again proposing changes to the 
eligibility rules that would reduce Pell grants by 270 million overall 
and cause 84,000 families to lose their Pell grants altogether.
  I joined a bipartisan coalition of Senators to protect students and 
families from these unwise changes last year--and we are determined to 
prevent these cuts again this year. Making it even harder for the sons 
and daughters of America's working families to afford college is the 
wrong direction for America.
  The repeated attempts to cut Pell grants are part of a pattern by 
this administration and the Republican leadership in this Congress to 
deny educational opportunities.
  Earlier this year, Democrats made a simple proposal: Let's help those 
Americans whose jobs are being shipped to China or India attend a 
community college, where they can learn new skills to get new jobs. The 
administration said, flatly, ``no'' and shut the doors of college in 
the faces of these Americans.
  But we want to do right by America.
  We support increasing the maximum Pell grant from $4,050 to $5,100--
the amount candidate Bush called for in 2000 but has never supported as 
President.
  We support doubling the HOPE Scholarship tax credit from $1,500 per 
student to 3,000 per student, extending the deductibility of tuition 
expenses, and making the education tax credits refundable for the 
poorest families. We support Senator Kerry's proposed $4,000-a-year 
``College Opportunity Tax Credit'' which would be refundable for low-
income families.
  Instead of the cuts the President proposes for tribal colleges and 
the minuscule increases he recommends for historically black colleges 
and universities, and Hispanic serving institutions, we support 
significantly increasing support for these minority-serving 
institutions because we believe diversity strengthens our democracy and 
our economy.
  We believe in expanding the use of loan-forgiveness programs to 
reduce student debt while addressing crucial needs, such as placing 
doctors and teachers in rural communities and inner cities.
  We believe our brave National Guard and Reserve members in Iraq and 
Afghanistan who are facing the same bullets as full-time military 
members deserve the same education benefits. The National Guard Bill of 
Rights provides that educational equity. We should pass an entire 
National Guard Bill of Rights this year.
  Over the course of a career, a person with a 2-year college degree 
will earn an average of $400,000 more than a high school graduate. 
Someone with a 4-year degree will earn $1 million more.
  It is not just individuals who benefit when we open the doors of 
college to the sons and daughters of working families. America's 
economic future depends on our ability to develop the potential of all 
of our people.
  A while back I read a story in the New York Times. The headline read, 
``U.S. Is Losing Its Dominance in the Sciences.''
  The story said:

       The United States has started to lose its worldwide 
     dominance in critical areas of science and innovation, 
     according to federal and private experts who point to strong 
     evidence like prizes awarded to Americans and the number of 
     papers in major professional journals.

  Unless we reverse this decline and regain America's scientific and 
technological knowledge, our children will grow up in a less 
productive, less prosperous America.
  Keeping college affordable is a very personal issue for me. I was the 
first person in my family to go to college. I worked to pay for part of 
my tuition, and I also had help from my parents. My mother went back to 
work when I was in high school to help pay for my college education. 
Even with all of us pitching in, it was still not quite enough. As so 
many others today, I joined the ROTC program and I spent 3 years in the 
Air Force after I graduated to pay back my loans.
  I know what a difference it makes when America invests in the 
children of regular working people. I also know the pride a parent 
feels watching his child receive a college degree. I have seen all 
three of my own children graduate from college.
  We believe every American deserves those same opportunities. We will 
continue to fight for them as we resolve these matters in the Senate 
and elsewhere throughout our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I commend and thank the 
chairman of the committee, the Senator from Maine, and the ranking 
member, the Senator from Connecticut, because they have already 
approved and passed last evening an amendment I had offered which will 
be very helpful as we try to meet this threat of terrorism.
  Indeed, we have a watch list. Recent news stories say the watch list 
is not necessarily being implemented as it should by the Department of 
Homeland Security. Nevertheless, we try. That watch list has been 
specifically targeted to commercial aviation.
  The watch list needs to be expanded because there is plenty of 
opportunity of mischief, as I have said in this Chamber many times, 
with regard to the securing of our seawater ports and, specifically, in 
addition to cargo, the cruise ship industry and the thousands of people 
who vacation on a cruise ship.
  This is particularly important to my State of Florida because we have 
the three largest cruise ports in the world: the Port of Miami, Port 
Canavaral, and Port Everglades, all on the east coast of Florida and 
all of which have these gigantic cruise ships that sail to the great 
delight of the passengers. These are cruises that are sometimes only a 
day but usually they are 4 to 7 days in duration. It is certainly a 
place for a wonderful vacation for people to cruise to the Bahamas in 
the midst of this floating hotel, a cruise ship.
  Because there are several thousand people located in one place and 
they are treated as passengers on an airline, checking their baggage 
and their persons for all kinds of weapons and other destructive 
materials, is it not logical that the watch list for avowed terrorists, 
given to commercial airline companies and to TSA, should not be 
administered by TSA as they check the baggage of people on cruise 
ships? The answer to that is common sense. Yes, it should be.
  Because of the very professional manner in which the Chair and her 
ranking member of this committee have handled this legislation, they 
understood that and they have agreed to the amendment. They were very 
kind to pass the amendment last night. I cannot imagine this would 
become an issue in the conference committee.
  I give credit where credit is due, to the cruise industry. The cruise 
industry recognizes the possibility for mischief. It makes sense. I 
thank the cruise industry for stepping up.
  I am compelled to speak about two more matters not directly related 
to this but which are very timely in the consideration of the Senate.
  Did the Senator from Maine have a question?
  Ms. COLLINS. Would the Senator be willing to yield for two quick 
unanimous consent requests?
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. It is the absolute least I can do for the 
gracious Senator from Maine who recognized the common sense of this 
amendment. She, along with Senator Lieberman, have made it possible to 
be accepted.
  I certainly yield.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator for his cooperation and his 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in 
recess from 12:30 to 2:15 today to accommodate the weekly party 
luncheons and that the time in recess be counted against the 
postcloture period.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator from Florida.


                           Hurricane Cleanup

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank the leaders for the 
tremendous job they have done in handling this legislation. Anyone who 
can

[[Page 20697]]

pass legislation in such a contentious atmosphere has to be Merlin, the 
Magician. My hat is off to the Senator from Maine and the Senator from 
Connecticut.
  Two other very timely topics, timely in the sense of an emergency, 
after having been hit by four hurricanes in Florida, with the 
tremendous debris that is left over, part of the moneys we have passed 
here for FEMA is for debris cleanup of which FEMA then reimburses the 
local governments that go out and, either with their own crews or by 
contracting out, arrange for the removal of debris. This is not only 
clearly getting one's life back in order but it is also a health 
question, a safety question.
  I was going through some of this debris on Sunday at a mobile home 
park for senior citizens called Palm Bay Estates in my home county of 
Broward. All of the aluminum, particularly on carports, was whipped up 
and twisted by the wind and now is in piles, with razor-sharp edges. So 
it is a safety as well as a health question. The debris accumulates in 
canals, in waters, in estuaries, particularly if it is of an organic 
nature. Then it starts to become a health hazard as well. We simply 
need to have it picked up.
  But that is not the question. FEMA is taking the position that they 
are not going to reimburse the local government unless it is picked up 
from a public right-of-way. Yet FEMA has the authority, if it involves 
the health and safety of the people, to allow the repayment for the 
pickup from private rights-of-way.
  Why is that important in Florida? Because we have huge senior citizen 
complexes with thousands of senior citizens. But they are not public 
rights-of-way, they are private rights-of-way. That debris has to be 
picked up for health and safety reasons. Yet who is going to pay for 
it? FEMA has the authority to do that. Since the local governments are 
not going to be able to bear the cost of all that pickup, especially 
after four hurricanes, the only other alternative is to assess the 
residents of that area for the pickup.
  Senior citizens on fixed income cannot afford that. FEMA has it under 
its authority, but FEMA is not doing it. We want to give them a little 
encouragement.
  I have spoken to the chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations 
Subcommittee. That bill is now in conference with the House. I have 
suggested some language that will give FEMA some help to recognize that 
this is in the public interest, particularly in the State of Florida, 
after four hurricanes, and that they should be so directed. I am 
hopeful the conferees will accept that language.


                     Voter Registration in Florida

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the last item I want to talk 
about is of grave concern. Yesterday was the final day for voter 
registration in the State of Florida. As one can imagine, there were 
huge lines at all of the registration points in Florida's 67 counties. 
But there is a subtle administrative order that could be directing 
extreme mischief in denying people the right to vote; for a directive, 
according to the supervisor of elections in one of our counties--
specifically in Volusia--has come out from the secretary of State's 
office, division of elections, in the capital city of Tallahassee, that 
says if any piece of information on this Florida voter registration 
form is missing, this voter registration is to be treated as null and 
void.
  Why am I concerned about that? Because they specifically say in the 
directive that if the box on line 2 that states, ``Are you a U.S. 
citizen?'' is not checked yes, they are to discard it, when in fact the 
oath that is signed specifically states, ``I do solemnly swear or 
affirm that I am a U.S. citizen. I am a legal resident of Florida.'' 
And the voter registration applicant signs that form.
  This is a clear intent--hopefully, not an intent--it is a clear 
manifestation of disenfranchising people, of not allowing them the 
right to vote, if on a technicality, because on line 2 they have not 
checked the box of being a U.S. citizen, but on line 17 have sworn 
under oath that they are a U.S. citizen, they are saying that they are 
going to discount the voter's registration application.
  I hope we don't have to go to court again. I hope we don't have to do 
what CNN did, go to court to strike down a law that said they were 
going to strike 48,000 convicted felons but would not release that to 
the public so that the public could see if those names were accurate. 
And lo and behold, when the Miami Herald got hold of the list, they 
found over 2,000 who were legitimate registered voters and not 
convicted felons.
  Why do we have to keep going back to the courts to enforce this when 
what is at stake is the right of people to vote, which is absolutely a 
part of the constitutional foundation of this country?
  The people should have the confidence and the knowledge that if they 
are eligible, they will be able to register and then, if registered to 
vote, that they will have the right to vote and to have that vote 
counted as they intended.
  We are only about 4 weeks away from an election. I don't want to see 
a repeat in Florida of what happened 4 years ago when there was so much 
dissension and uncertainty. The whole electoral process has to work. It 
is important that it works for the sake of our democracy. A good place 
for us to start is for the secretary of State's office, the division of 
elections of the State of Florida, to stop issuing such edicts and 
directives to the election supervisors in Florida's 67 counties that 
would cause a voter trying to register to be thrown out on a silly 
omission, which is covered by their solemn oath.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendments Nos. 3739 and 3750, Withdrawn

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendments 
Nos. 3739 and 3750 be withdrawn. These are amendments that had been 
offered by Senator Roberts previously. He has asked that I withdraw 
them on his behalf.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. 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.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Points of Order, En Bloc

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it now be in 
order to raise points of order, en bloc against the following 
amendments in that they are not germane under the provisions of rule 
XXII. They are the following amendments: 3887, 3888, 3889, 3890, 3891, 
3892, 3893, 3894, 3808, 3849, 3782, 3905, 3747, 3881, 3724, 3928, 3873, 
3871, 3870, 3803, 3930, 3931, 3874, 3850, 3851, 3855, 3856, 3872, 3926, 
and 3819.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to raising the points of 
order?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. I announce that this will allow us to officially 
consider the remaining germane amendments. The nongermane amendments, 
as determined last week, will fall under this order. We will continue 
to work through the pending amendments that remain at the desk as we 
move toward completing this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I have no objection. I want to ask 
Senator Collins, through you, my staff thought the Senator from Maine 
may have inadvertently read 3908 as 3808. Just to clarify, it is 3908.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would not be surprised.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Their ears are much better than mine.

[[Page 20698]]


  Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent that the list be corrected to 
indicate the correct number is 3908.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Chair sustains the points of order, en bloc. The amendments fall.
  Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. 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. LAUTENBERG. 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. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be able to 
speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  IRAQ

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to discuss the situation in 
Iraq.
  Every day we see the terrible news about innocent Iraqis being 
killed, about the terrible tension in the country, about our young 
people being attacked and killed and, frankly, the mess we are 
witnessing, which is painful to see.
  It came home today in a stark recitation, in a statement by Paul 
Bremer.
  Paul Bremer was sent to Iraq to be in charge of the transition as we 
tried to go from the culmination of what appeared to be the end of the 
violence until we got to a government that was going to be run by 
Iraqis on an interim basis and the vote coming up in January. But what 
we heard from Mr. Bremer was painful to hear, and it has to be 
particularly painful to President Bush and his administration. What he 
said was there were not enough troops to do their job. We believed that 
from the beginning. General Shinseki said it, and he was overruled by 
the Pentagon and by the Defense Secretary. He was fired for saying: We 
need more troops to do the job, Mr. President.
  People across the country understand that we need more people. Over 
300,000 I believe was the number he used. He now says that and the 
failure to immediately stop the looting, stop the violence, and stop 
the response from those who would commit violence on the country were 
part of the reasons we are in this terrible situation we are in.
  Last week, we finally had a chance to hear what President Bush's 
plans for Iraq were. And this is the image of what we got. It is blank. 
It says nothing. There is no plan.
  Last Thursday, we heard repetition from President Bush, the same 
tired slogans we have heard for almost 2 years now, no plan was 
articulated, no new ideas, nothing, just the same as we see on this 
placard. President Bush basically said that we are going to get more of 
the same in Iraq. What a terrible condition that is. Iraq has become an 
absolute crisis, and there is no plan to fix the situation.
  When the President asked Senator John Kerry what his plan is, it adds 
insult to injury. He has a plan. He talked about his plan. But the 
President has offered nothing on his side and challenges John Kerry to 
have a plan, and John Kerry presents a plan and the President doesn't 
show any. The President is showing a stubbornness. He calls it 
``staying the course.'' It is a stubbornness that is costing American 
lives, the lives of our young people, the lives of our soldiers, and 
the lives of American workers in Iraq.
  We need a dramatic change in direction. Everything that was assumed 
to be in order was wrong. They were wrong about the weapons of mass 
destruction, and they were wrong about how our troops would be greeted 
on the streets of Iraq. Certainly, as I said earlier, they were wrong 
about how many troops we needed to secure the country. They were wrong 
about the reaction of the Shiites. They were wrong about how long the 
conflict would last and the toll it would take on Americans lives.
  The President and his team have just about done it wrong. The 
President's worst adviser in terms of being wrong on almost everything 
is Vice President Cheney.
  At the outset of the war in March of 2003, Vice President Cheney 
declared:

       We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.

  In fact, be greeted as liberators? In fact? I don't think so.
  But maybe the reason Vice President Cheney kept getting things wrong 
on the war is he has not ever seen it. He has never worn a uniform, and 
he was never on a battlefield. In fact, when duty called, Vice 
President Cheney turned his back on the call while many answered the 
call to serve. Dick Cheney took five student deferments in order to 
avoid service in Vietnam.
  He wasn't, however, the only member of the Bush team who kept getting 
it wrong. I want to review some of the quotes of President Bush's top 
advisers. One is by Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He said on February 7, 
2003:

       It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could 
     last 6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months.

  It is one thing to be wrong one time but you try to correct the 
situation.
  Here is what Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said:

       We know that there are ties between the Iraqi regime and a 
     whole range of terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, and we 
     know that Saddam has these weapons.

  Again, what kind of a statement is that? It doesn't tell us anything 
except that we are wrong.
  When we look at other statements that have been made, on March 30, 
2003, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said:

       The area in the south and the west and the north that 
     coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be 
     the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We 
     know where they were. They're in the area around Tikrit, and 
     Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

  Each one of these statements indicates a lack of knowledge and a lack 
of understanding as to what was going to happen when this war was 
concluded. It has not been concluded.
  When we look at the cost of the war, as of today, 1,058 our troops 
have died, some 7,000 injured, many with terrible injuries that will 
handicap them all of their lives.
  We need to change course. We don't need more of the same. Senator 
Kerry, our colleague, is offering a new direction, and that is what we 
need. We need to stop bearing the entire burden of Iraq. We are taking 
90 percent of the casualties, and the American taxpayers have shelled 
out almost $200 billion for Iraq. It is not right. It is not fair to 
the American taxpayers. It is certainly not fair to the families whose 
young sons and daughters are in service over there. Senator Kerry 
prepared a plan for a new direction in Iraq, a direction that will 
bring other countries to the table.
  President Bush makes reference to Poland helping us in Iraq. He was 
almost obsessed with Poland during the debate.
  What are the facts? Poland has 2,500 troops in Iraq, and they 
announced just this week they are getting out. They will have all of 
their troops pulled out sometime next year. Thailand wants to take its 
troops out--I think they have some 400 people there.
  Again, under the administration's war plan, we are left with even 
more of the burden, and we are left with almost all of the costs both 
in terms of our soldiers' lives and American taxpayer dollars. All that 
has been accomplished in the last 2 years is we have alienated critical 
allies, and we are paying the price for that.
  A big part of the problem is that the President refuses to accept 
reality.
  Last week in a television interview President Bush was asked whether 
he regrets the moment on the aircraft carrier on May 21st in 2003, the 
infamous ``Mission accomplished'' speech. Incredibly, President Bush 
said he would do it all over again. In fact, in response to that 
question, would he have done it, he said he would ``absolutely'' do it 
again. He went on to say, ``You bet I'd do it again.''
  It is incredible. He made that speech approximately a year and a half 
ago, saying, ``Mission accomplished.'' That meant it was over, that we 
would not have to worry about things.
  Instead, we have lost over 800 people, four or five times the number 
killed during what was considered the active part of the war. We are 
moving to the delusional. The President does not regret telling our 
Nation's military families ``Mission accomplished''? He does

[[Page 20699]]

not regret giving families false hope that major combat operations had 
ended?
  We are now facing the biggest fallout of reservists ever in the State 
of New Jersey. There are pictures in the paper of men and women, saying 
they are scared; they are worried. Their families are frightened. Their 
kids are scared. Their spouses are scared. They know darn well it is 
dangerous over there.
  Does the President regret taunting the terrorists and insurgents when 
he said ``Bring 'em on''? I'm sure the men and women on the ground in 
Iraq wish he had never said those words.
  When I was wearing a uniform a long time ago, during World War II in 
Europe, I never wanted to see the enemy. I never wanted to see anyone 
who was hostile.
  It was the wrong thing to say. I hope one day we will be able to face 
up to the truth that these were terrible statements.
  More recently, President Bush told the world that the war on terror 
could not be won, but a couple days later he said, no, no, we will win. 
When the President was asked about a CIA report and the material he was 
looking at on intelligence, he said he dismisses the CIA report as just 
guessing when they told him the situation in Iraq was bad and could get 
much worse. Just guessing? The arm of our intelligence corps that is 
supposed to have the latest and the fullest data, and they are just 
guessing?
  We need someone to take the bad news seriously, a President who will 
react to it and fix the situation. So far, President Bush simply 
ignored the bad news. I guess he hopes it goes away.
  Unfortunately, he is inflexible on one simple point. He would repeat 
every one of the mistakes he has made over the last few years. The plan 
to go to war without a real alliance in place, he would do again. The 
decision to ignore the advice from General Shinseki that 300,000 troops 
would be needed, he would ignore the general's advice again. The 
argument that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction to reconstitute a 
nuclear programs, links to al-Qaida, he would make all of those 
arguments again.
  All of this while ignoring, for all practical purposes, North Korea, 
Iran, countries that are actually developing nuclear weapons, while 
taking some of the attention away from the pursuit of Osama bin Laden 
who killed 3,000 Americans.
  Not only does the President like to stick with bad ideas but there 
are flip-flops when someone else suggested good ideas, often resisting 
and then supporting. One flip was the Department of Homeland support. 
President Bush strongly opposed creating it in March 2002. His 
spokesman said a Homeland Security Department ``doesn't solve 
anything.'' Then flopping 3 months later, the President said he did 
want a Homeland Security Department.
  President George Bush opposed creation of the 9/11 Commission. In 
April of 2002, President Bush said he was against the creation of the 
9/11 Commission. He flopped after that as a result of increased 
political pressure. The President said he does support creating the 9/
11 Commission in September of the same year. In April, no; In 
September, yes. It goes on and on.
  Then the President, in response to an inquiry about Osama bin Laden, 
which in September of 2001 President Bush said he wanted Osama bin 
Laden dead or alive. In March of 2002, President Bush said, I don't 
know where he is; I truly am not that concerned about him.
  Not concerned? He murdered 3,000 Americans, 700 of my constituents in 
New Jersey. A terrible comment.
  What we have seen shows we are on a very bad track right now. In 
fairness to the American people, families, those who are serving, we 
ought to come forward with a statement about what we intend to do. How 
much longer will we have to have people in harm's way? How are we going 
to get the troops that it is suggested are needed--30,000 or 40,000? 
Where will they come from? Is there an intention to initiate a draft? I 
don't know where we are going to get the soldiers and other service 
people to fill these obligations.
  I know one thing. Every day we read about another American 
serviceperson being killed or American civilians being captured or 
beheaded, it tells everyone in the country we are on the wrong path and 
we have to make a change.
  I hope President Bush, even in this interim period, can see the 
necessity to come forward to the American people and say, look, we made 
some errors; we are going to correct them. We are going to get more 
people in there, but we are going to end this conflict by that time so 
we can start to bring our people home. There is no encouragement out 
there to believe that.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________