Congressional Record: October 5, 2004 (Senate)
Page S10384-S10388
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE REFORM ACT OF 2004
Amendment No. 3933, As Modified
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the first amendment I call up is
amendment No. 3933, as modified, with the changes that are at the desk.
This is an amendment from Senators Cantwell, Sessions, Schumer, and
Kyl.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for Ms. Cantwell,
herself, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Kyl, proposes an
amendment numbered 3933, as modified.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. BIOMETRIC STANDARD FOR VISA APPLICATIONS.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Biometric Visa Standard Distant Borders Act''.
(b) Technology Standard for Visa Waiver Participants.--
Section 303(c) of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry
Reform Act of 2002 (8 U.S.C. 1732(c)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(c) Technology Standard for Visa Waiver Participants.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than October 26, 2006, the
Secretary of State shall certify to Congress which of the
countries designated to participate in the visa waiver
program established under section 217 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187) are developing a program to
issue to individuals seeking to enter that country pursuant
to a visa issued by that country, a machine readable visa
document that is tamper-resistant and incorporates biometric
identification information that is verifiable at its port of
entry.
``(2) Savings clause.--This subsection shall not be
construed to rescind the requirement of section 217(a)(3) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(3)).''.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is pending. Is there further
debate? If not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3933), as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3957
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I now call up a managers' amendment that
is at the desk and, again, has been cleared on both sides of the aisle.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for herself, and Mr.
Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 3957.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate on this amendment?
If not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3957) was agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 3712, As Modified, and 3768, As Further Modified
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent,
notwithstanding morning business, that I send two amendments to the
desk and ask the pending amendment also be set aside, to S. 2845.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. On behalf of Senator Rockefeller and Senator Baucus,
these amendments have been cleared on both sides and I urge their
adoption en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed
to.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:
amendment no. 3172, as modified
(Purpose: To provide improved aviation security)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
TITLE --AVIATION SECURITY
SEC. --01. IMPROVED PILOT LICENSES.
(a) In General.--Within 90 days after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Federal Aviation Administrator may develop a
system for the issuance of any pilot's license issued more
than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act that--
[[Page S10385]]
(1) are resistant to tampering, alteration, and
counterfeiting;
(2) include a photograph of the individual to whom the
license is issued; and
(3) are capable of accommodating a digital photograph, a
biometric1 measure, or other unique identifier that provides
a means of--
(A) ensuring its validity; and
(B) revealing whether any component or security feature of
the license has been compromised.
(b) Use of Designees.--The Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration may use designees to carry out
subsection (a) to the extent feasible in order to minimize
the burden of such requirements on pilots.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Administrator for fiscal year 2005,
$50,000,000 to carry out subsection (a).
SEC. --02. AIRCRAFT CHARTER CUSTOMER PRESCREENING.
(a) In General.--Within 1 year after the date of enactment
of this Act, or as soon as practicable thereafter, the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish a process by
which operators of charter aircraft with a maximum takeoff
weight of greater than 12,500 pounds may--
(1) request the Transportation Security Administration to
compare information about any individual seeking to charter
an aircraft, and any passengers proposed to be transported
aboard the aircraft, with a comprehensive, consolidated
database or watchlist containing information about known or
suspected terrorists and their associates; and
(2) refuse to charter an aircraft to or transport aboard
such aircraft any persons identified on such database or
watchlist.
(b) Privacy Safeguards.--The Secretary shall take
appropriate measures to ensure that--
(1) the Transportation Security Administration does not
disclose information to any person engaged in the business of
chartering aircraft other than whether an individual compared
against government watchlists constitutes a flight security
or terrorism risk; and
(2) an individual denied access to an aircraft is given an
opportunity to consult the Transportation Security
Administration for the purpose of correcting mis-
identification errors, resolve confusion resulting from names
that are the same as or similar to names on available
government watchlists, and address other information that is
alleged to be erroneous, that may have resulted in the
denial.
(c) Transfer.--The Secretary shall assess procedures to
transfer responsibility for conducting reviews of any
appropriate government watchlists under this section from
persons engaged in the business of chartering air carriers to
the public to the Secretary.
(d) Authority of the Secretary.--Nothing in this section
precludes the Secretary from requiring operators of charter
aircraft to comply with security procedures, including those
established under subsection (a), if the Secretary determines
that such a requirement is necessary based on threat
conditions.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this section.
SEC. --03. AIRCRAFT RENTAL CUSTOMER PRESCREENING.
(a) In General.--Within 1 year after the date of enactment
of this Act, or as soon as practicable thereafter, the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish a process by
which operators of rental aircraft with a maximum takeoff
weight of greater than 12,500 pounds may--
(1) request the Transportation Security Administration to
compare information about any individual seeking to rent an
aircraft, and any passengers proposed to be transported
aboard the aircraft, with a comprehensive, consolidated
database or watchlist containing information about known or
suspected terrorists and their associates; and
(2) refuse to rent an aircraft to or transport aboard such
aircraft any persons identified on such database or
watchlist.
(b) Privacy Safeguards.--The Secretary shall take
appropriate measures to ensure that--
(1) the Transportation Security Administration does not
disclose information to any person engaged in the business of
renting aircraft other than whether an individual compared
against government watchlists constitutes a flight security
or terrorism risk; and
(2) an individual denied access to an aircraft is given an
opportunity to consult the Transportation Security
Administration for the purpose of correcting mis-
identification errors, resolve confusion resulting from names
that are the same as or similar to names on available
government watchlists, and address other information that is
alleged to be erroneous, that may have resulted in the
denial.
(c) Transfer.--The Secretary shall assess procedures to
transfer responsibility for conducting reviews of any
appropriate government watchlists under this section from
persons engaged in the business of renting aircraft to the
public to the Secretary.
(d) Authority of the Secretary.--Nothing in this section
precludes the Secretary from requiring operators of rental
aircraft to comply with security procedures, including those
established under subsection (a), if the Secretary determines
that such a requirement is necessary based on threat
conditions.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this section.
SEC. --04. REPORT ON RENTAL AND CHARTER CUSTOMER PRESCREENING
PROCEDURES.
(a) In General.--Within 12 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall transmit a report to Congress on the feasibility of
extending the requirements of section --02, section --03, or
both sections to apply to aircraft with a maximum
certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or less.
(b) Issues Addressed.--The report shall--
(1) examine the technology and communications systems
needed to carry out such procedures;
(2) provide an analysis of the risks posed by such
aircraft; and
(3) examine the operational impact of proposed procedures
on the commercial viability of that segment of charter and
rental aviation operations.
SEC. --05. AVIATION SECURITY STAFFING.
(a) Staffing Level Standards.--
(1) Development of standards.--Within 90 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, in consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation and Federal Security Directors, shall develop
standards for determining the appropriate aviation security
staffing standards for all commercial airports in the United
States necessary--
(A) to provide necessary levels of aviation security; and
(B) to ensure that the average aviation security-related
delay experienced by airline passengers is minimized.
(2) GAO analysis.--The Comptroller General shall, as soon
as practicable after the date on which the Secretary of
Homeland Security has developed standards under paragraph
(1), conduct an expedited analysis of the standards for
effectiveness, administrability, ease of compliance, and
consistency with the requirements of existing law.
(3) Report to congress.--Within 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and
the Comptroller General shall transmit a report to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the
House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure on the standards developed under paragraph
(1), together with recommendations for further improving the
efficiency and effectiveness of the screening process,
including the use of maximum time delay goals of no more than
10 minutes on the average.
(b) Integration of Federal Airport Workforce and Aviation
Security.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall conduct a
study of the feasibility of combining operations of Federal
employees involved in screening at commercial airports and
aviation security related functions under the aegis of the
Department of Homeland Security in order to coordinate
security-related activities, increase the efficiency and
effectiveness of those activities, and increase commercial
air transportation security.
SEC. --06. IMPROVED AIR CARGO AND AIRPORT SECURITY.
(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Secretary of Homeland Security for the use of the
Transportation Security Administration, in addition to any
amounts otherwise authorized by law, for the purpose of
improving aviation security related to the transportation of
cargo on both passenger aircraft and all-cargo aircraft--
(1) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
(2) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
(3) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
(b) Next-Generation Cargo Security Grant Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish and carry
out a grant program to facilitate the development, testing,
purchase, and deployment of next-generation air cargo
security technology. The Secretary shall establish such
eligibility criteria, establish such application and
administrative procedures, and provide for such matching
funding requirements, if any, as may be necessary and
appropriate to ensure that the technology is deployed as
fully and as rapidly as practicable.
(2) Research and development; deployment.--To carry out
paragraph (1), there are authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary for research and development related to next-
generation air cargo security technology as well as for
deployment and installation of next-generation air cargo
security technology, such sums are to remain available until
expended--
(A) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
(B) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
(C) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
(c) Authorization for Expiring and New LOIs.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Secretary $150,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005
through 2007 to fund projects and activities for which
letters of intent are issued under section 44923 of title 49,
United States Code, after the date of enactment of this Act.
[[Page S10386]]
(2) Period of reimbursement.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary may provide that the period
of reimbursement under any letter of intent may extend for a
period not to exceed 10 years after the date that the
Secretary issues such letter, subject to the availability of
appropriations. This paragraph applies to letters of intent
issued under section 44923 of title 49, United States Code,
or section 367 of the Department of Transportation and
Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 2003 (49 U.S.C. 47110
note).
(d) Reports.--The Secretary shall transmit an annual report
for fiscal year 2005, fiscal year 2006, and fiscal year 2007
to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure on--
(1) the progress being made toward, and the status of,
deployment and installation of next-generation air cargo
security technology under subsection (b); and
(2) the amount and purpose of grants under subsection (b)
and the locations of projects funded by such grants.
SEC. --07. AIR CARGO SECURITY MEASURES.
(a) Enhancement of Air Cargo Security.--The Secretary of
Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation, shall develop and implement a plan to enhance
air cargo security at airports for commercial passenger and
cargo aircraft that incorporates the recommendations made by
the Cargo Security Working Group of the Aviation Security
Advisory Committee.
(b) Supply Chain Security.--The Administrator of the
Transportation Security Administration shall--
(1) promulgate regulations requiring the evaluation of
indirect air carriers and ground handling agents, including
background checks and checks against all Administration watch
lists; and
(2) evaluate the potential efficacy of increased use of
canine detection teams to inspect air cargo on passenger and
all-cargo aircraft, including targeted inspections of high
risk items.
(c) Increased Cargo Inspections.--Within 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall require that the percentage of cargo screened
or inspected is at least two-fold the percentage that is
screened or inspected as of September 30, 2004.
(c) All-Cargo Aircraft Security.--Subchapter I of chapter
449, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Sec. 44925. All-cargo aircraft security.
``(a) Access to Flight Deck.--Within 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the
Transportation Security Administration, in coordination with
the Federal Aviation Administrator, shall--
``(1) issue an order (without regard to the provisions of
chapter 5 of title 5)--
``(A) requiring, to the extent consistent with engineering
and safety standards, that all-cargo aircraft operators
engaged in air transportation or intrastate air
transportation maintain a barrier, which may include the use
of a hardened cockpit door, between the aircraft flight deck
and the aircraft cargo compartment sufficient to prevent
unauthorized access to the flight deck from the cargo
compartment, in accordance with the terms of a plan presented
to and accepted by the Administrator of the Transportation
Security Administration in consultation with the Federal
Aviation Administrator; and
``(B) prohibiting the possession of a key to a flight deck
door by any member of the flight crew who is not assigned to
the flight deck; and
``(2) take such other action, including modification of
safety and security procedures and flight deck redesign, as
may be necessary to ensure the safety and security of the
flight deck.
``(b) Screening and Other Measures.--Within 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the
Transportation Security Administration, in coordination with
the Federal Aviation Administrator, shall issue an order
(without regard to the provisions of chapter 5 of title 5)
requiring--
``(1) all-cargo aircraft operators engaged in air
transportation or intrastate air transportation to physically
screen each person, and that person's baggage and personal
effects, to be transported on an all-cargo aircraft engaged
in air transportation or intrastate air transportation;
``(2) each such aircraft to be physically searched before
the first leg of the first flight of the aircraft each day,
or, for inbound international operations, at aircraft
operator's option prior to the departure of any such flight
for a point in the United States; and
``(3) each such aircraft that is unattended overnight to be
secured or sealed or to have access stairs, if any, removed
from the aircraft.
``(c) Alternative Measures.--The Administrator of the
Transportation Security Administration, in coordination with
the Federal Aviation Administrator, may authorize alternative
means of compliance with any requirement imposed under this
section.''.
(d) Conforming Amendment.--The subchapter analysis for
subchapter I of chapter 449, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``44925. All-cargo aircraft security.''.
SEC. --08. EXPLOSIVE DETECTION SYSTEMS.
(a) In-Line Placement of Explosive-Detection Equipment.--
Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish a schedule for
replacing trace-detection equipment used for in-line
baggage screening purposes as soon as practicable where
appropriate with explosive detection system equipment. The
Secretary shall notify the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the House of
Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the schedule and provide an estimate of
the impact of replacing such equipment, facility
modification and baggage conveyor placement, on aviation
security-related staffing needs and levels.
(b) Next Generation EDS.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland Security for the
use of the Transportation Security Administration
$100,000,000, in addition to any amounts otherwise authorized
by law, for the purpose of research and development of next
generation explosive detection systems for aviation security
under section 44913 of title 49, United States Code. The
Secretary shall develop a plan and guidelines for
implementing improved explosive detection system equipment.
(c) Portal Detection Systems.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland Security for the
use of the Transportation Security Administration
$250,000,000, in addition to any amounts otherwise authorized
by law, for research and development and installation of
portal detection systems or similar devices for the detection
of biological, radiological, and explosive materials. The
Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish a pilot
program at not more than 10 commercial service airports to
evaluate the use of such systems.
(d) Reports.--The Secretary shall transmit an annual report
to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure on research and development
projects funded under subsection (b) or (c), and the pilot
program established under subsection (c), including cost
estimates for each phase of such projects and total project
costs.
SEC. --09. AIR MARSHAL PROGRAM.
(a) Cross-Training.--The Secretary of Homeland Security
shall transmit to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure a report on the
potential for cross-training of individuals who serve as air
marshals and on the need for providing contingency funding
for air marshal operations.
(b) Authorization of Additional Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland
Security for the use of Inspections and Customs Enforcement,
in addition to any amounts otherwise authorized by law, for
the deployment of Federal Air Marshals under section 44917 of
title 49, United States Code, $83,000,000 for the 3 fiscal
year period beginning with fiscal year 2005, such sums to
remain available until expended.
SEC. --10. TSA-RELATED BAGGAGE CLAIM ISSUES STUDY.
Within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation, shall transmit to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the
House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure a report on the present system for addressing
lost, stolen, damaged, or pilfered baggage claims relating to
air transportation security screening procedures. The report
shall include--
(1) information concerning the time it takes to settle such
claims under the present system;
(2) a comparison and analysis of the number, frequency, and
nature of such claims before and after enactment of the
Aviation and Transportation Security Act using data provided
by the major United States airlines; and
(3) recommendations on how to improve the involvement and
participation of the airlines in the baggage screening and
handling processes and better coordinate the activities of
Federal baggage screeners with airline operations.
SEC. --11. REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF GAO HOMELAND SECURITY
INFORMATION SHARING RECOMMENDATIONS.
Within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation with the
heads of Federal departments and agencies concerned, shall
transmit to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure a report on implementation
of recommendations contained in the General Accounting
Office's report titled ``Homeland Security: Efforts To
Improve Information Sharing Need To Be Strengthened'' (GAO-
03-760), August, 2003.
SEC. --12. AVIATION SECURITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
(a) Biometrics.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Secretary of Homeland Security for the use of the
Transportation Security Administration $20,000,000, in
addition to any amounts otherwise authorized by law, for
research and development of
[[Page S10387]]
biometric technology applications to aviation security.
(b) Biometrics Centers of Excellence.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland Security for
the use of the Transportation Security Administration
$1,000,000, in addition to any amounts otherwise authorized
by law, for the establishment of competitive centers of
excellence at the national laboratories.
SEC. --13. PERIMETER ACCESS TECHNOLOGY.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Homeland Security $100,000,000 for airport perimeter security
technology, fencing, security contracts, vehicle tagging, and
other perimeter security related operations, facilities, and
equipment, such sums to remain available until expended.
SEC. --14. BEREAVEMENT FARES.
(a) In General.--Chapter 415 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 41512. Bereavement fares.
``Air carriers shall offer, with appropriate documentation,
bereavement fares to the public for air transportation in
connection with the death of a relative or other relationship
(as determined by the air carrier) and shall make such fares
available, to the greatest extent practicable, at the lowest
fare offered by the air carrier for the flight for which the
bereavement fare is requested.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
415 is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 41511 the following:
``41512. Bereavement fares''.
SEC. --15. REVIEW AND REVISION OF PROHIBITED ITEMS LIST.
Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Transportation Security Administration shall
complete a review of its Prohibited Items List, set forth in
49 C.F.R. 1540, and release a revised list that--
(1) prohibits passengers from carrying butane lighters
onboard passenger aircraft; and
(2) modifies the Prohibited Items List in such other ways
as the agency may deem appropriate.
SEC. --16. REPORT ON PROTECTING COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT FROM THE
THREAT OF MAN-PORTABLE AIR DEFENSE SYSTEMS.
(a) Requirement.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, in
coordination with the head of the Transportation Security
Administration and the Under Secretary for Science and
Technology, shall prepare a report on protecting commercial
aircraft from the threat of man-portable air defense systems
(referred to in this section as ``MANPADS'').
(b) Content.--The report required by subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) An estimate of the number of organizations, including
terrorist organizations, that have access to MANPADS and a
description of the risk posed by each organization.
(2) A description of the programs carried out by the
Secretary of Homeland Security to protect commercial aircraft
from the threat posed by MANPADS.
(3) An assessment of the effectiveness and feasibility of
the systems to protect commercial aircraft under
consideration by the Under Secretary for Science and
Technology for use in phase II of the counter-MANPADS
development and demonstration program.
(4) A justification for the schedule of the implementation
of phase II of the counter-MANPADS development and
demonstration program.
(5) An assessment of the effectiveness of other technology
that could be employed on commercial aircraft to address the
threat posed by MANPADS, including such technology that is--
(A) either active or passive;
(B) employed by the Armed Forces; or
(C) being assessed or employed by other countries.
(6) An assessment of alternate technological approaches to
address such threat, including ground-based systems.
(7) A discussion of issues related to any contractor
liability associated with the installation or use of
technology or systems on commercial aircraft to address such
threat.
(8) A description of the strategies that the Secretary may
employ to acquire any technology or systems selected for use
on commercial aircraft at the conclusion of phase II of the
counter-MANPADS development and demonstration program,
including--
(A) a schedule for purchasing and installing such
technology or systems on commercial aircraft; and
(B) a description of--
(i) the priority in which commercial aircraft will be
equipped with such technology or systems;
(ii) any efforts to coordinate the schedules for installing
such technology or system with private airlines;
(iii) any efforts to ensure that aircraft manufacturers
integrate such technology or systems into new aircraft; and
(iv) the cost to operate and support such technology or
systems on a commercial aircraft.
(9) A description of the plan to expedite the use of
technology or systems on commercial aircraft to address the
threat posed by MANPADS if intelligence or events indicate
that the schedule for the use of such technology or systems,
including the schedule for carrying out development and
demonstration programs by the Secretary, should be expedited.
(10) A description of the efforts of the Secretary to
survey and identify the areas at domestic and foreign
airports where commercial aircraft are most vulnerable to
attack by MANPADS.
(11) A description of the cooperation between the Secretary
and the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
to certify the airworthiness and safety of technology and
systems to protect commercial aircraft from the risk posed by
MANPADS in an expeditious manner.
(c) Transmission to Congress.--The report required by
subsection (a) shall be transmitted to Congress along with
the budget for fiscal year 2006 submitted by the President
pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code.
SEC. --17. SCREENING DEVICES TO DETECT CHEMICAL AND PLASTIC
EXPLOSIVES.
Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide to the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation a
report on the current status of efforts, and the additional
needs, regarding passenger and carry-on baggage screening
equipment at United States airports to detect explosives,
including in chemical and plastic forms. The report shall
include the cost of and timetable for installing such
equipment and any recommended legislative actions.
SEC. --18. REPORTS ON THE FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS PROGRAM.
Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, and every 90 days thereafter, the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall provide to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation a classified report on the number
of individuals serving only as sworn Federal air marshals.
Such report shall include the number of Federal air marshals
who are women, minorities, or employees of departments or
agencies of the United States Government other than the
Department of Homeland Security, the percentage of domestic
and international flights that have a Federal air marshal
aboard, and the rate at which individuals are leaving service
as Federal air marshals.
SEC. --19. SECURITY OF AIR MARSHAL IDENTITY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security shall designate individuals and parties to
whom Federal air marshals shall be required to identify
themselves.
(b) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no procedure, guideline, rule, regulation, or other
policy shall expose the identity of an air marshal to anyone
other than those designated by the Secretary under subsection
(a).
SEC. --20. SECURITY MONITORING CAMERAS FOR AIRPORT BAGGAGE
HANDLING AREAS.
(a) In General.--The Under Secretary of Homeland Security
for Border Transportation and Security shall provide
assistance, subject to the availability of funds, to public
airports that have baggage handling areas that are not open
to public view in the acquisition and installation of
security monitoring cameras for surveillance of such areas in
order to deter theft from checked baggage and to aid in the
speedy resolution of liability claims against the
Transportation Security Administration.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland Security for
fiscal year 2005 such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section, such sums to remain available until expended.
SEC. --21. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, this title
takes effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
amendment no. 3768, as further modified
At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:
SEC. __. ANNUAL REPORT ON THE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES WITHIN
THE OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL.
(a) Requirement for Annual Report.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually
thereafter, the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit to
Congress a report on the allocation of resources within the
Office of Foreign Assets Control.
(b) Content of Annual Report.--An annual report required by
subsection (a) shall include--
(1) a description of--
(A) the allocation of resources within the Office of
Foreign Assets Control to enforce the economic and trade
sanctions of the United States against terrorist
organizations and targeted foreign countries during the
fiscal year prior to the fiscal year in which such report is
submitted; and
(B) the criteria on which such allocation is based;
(2) a description of any proposed modifications to such
allocation; and
(3) an explanation for any such allocation that is not
based on prioritization of threats determined using
appropriate criteria, including the likelihood that--
(A) a terrorist organization or targeted foreign country--
(i) will sponsor or plan a direct attack against the United
States or the interests of the United States; or
(ii) is participating in or maintaining a nuclear,
biological, or chemical weapons development program; or
[[Page S10388]]
(B) a targeted foreign country--
(i) is financing, or allowing the financing, of a terrorist
organization within such country; or
(ii) is providing safe haven to a terrorist organization
within such country.
(c) Effective Date.--Notwithstanding section 341 or any
other provision of this Act, this section shall take effect
on the date of the enactment of this Act.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment goes to the heart of our
debate over the structure and purpose of the U.S. intelligence
community. My amendment addresses the allocation of resources at
Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC.
Much of our attention has focused on the creation of a new,
independent office to oversee our intelligence activities. Often lost
in this debate are the details about many of the smaller, lesser known
Federal agencies whose efforts are essential to our national security.
Even though many people don't know who they are, OFAC is one of our
most powerful weapons in the war on terrorism, because it is charged
with tracking down and identifying the international sources of
terrorist financing.
Unfortunately, OFAC is also tasked with administration of the Cuba
travel ban. As we all know, U.S. policy toward Cuba is a highly
emotional and divisive issue. Still, I would doubt that anyone
seriously thinks that travel by Americans to Cuba poses a larger or
more serious threat to U.S. interests than al-Qaida or the insurgents
in Iraq, or Syria, Iran or North Korea.
My colleagues might be surprised and disturbed, then, to learn that--
at the direction of the State Department--OFAC diverts more of its
personnel resources to imposition of the Cuba travel ban than to any
other country or project-specific issue.
According to their records, the equivalent of 21 full-time OFAC
employees are allocated to the Cuba travel ban. On the other hand, only
16 are allocated to the search al-Qaida's financial sources of support.
Less than 15 full-time employee resources are spent on the former
Iraq regime and its insurgents, and less than 14 are spent on Iran.
Less than 10 are allocated to Syria, Sudan, and Libya combined.
Afghanistan doesn't even merit one full-time employee--it receives the
attention of roughly 2/3 of one full-time OFAC employee. North Korea
only gets \1/3\.
In other words, more OFAC personnel resources are spent on the effort
to prevent Americans from vacationing in Cuba than are spent to track
down and shut off the sources of funds used by al-Qaida to carry out
terrorist activities.
This is an appalling diversion of our resources. If we hope to defeat
the disparate threats arrayed against U.S. interests--both here at home
and abroad--we must dedicate our attention to the real dangers
confronting us around the world. Wisely allocating our resources will
better ensure our success.
The amendment I offer addresses this imbalance by requiring an annual
report from OFAC on how it allocates its resources and the criteria it
uses to make those resource decisions. It also outlines criteria that
ought to be considered when prioritizing the threats posed by different
countries and groups. Among these criteria are the likelihood that a
country or organization is: planning or sponsoring a direct attack on
U.S. interests; participating in a nuclear, biological, or chemical
weapons development program; financing or allowing the financing of
terrorists; or providing a safe haven to terrorists.
Colleagues, this is an issue of the highest importance. My amendment
simply asks for common sense in the allocation of our limited
resources. We cannot expect to win the war on terrorism if we refuse to
dedicate our full and focused efforts to fighting it. In this time of
crisis, the American people expect us to lead with vision and clarity.
My amendment offers this.
I see no credible reason why OFAC should waste precious resources
creating bureaucratic red tape for Montana producers who just want to
negotiate legal agricultural sales to Cuba. Instead, OFAC should focus
its resources where they are more urgently needed: on shutting down the
financial networks of al-Qaida and other more serious threats to U.S.
interests. That is why the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee
supports this amendment, and that is why the American Farm Bureau
Federation and the National Foreign Trade Council support this
amendment.
I take this opportunity to thank Senator Collins and Senator
Lieberman, the chairwoman and ranking member managing this bill, and
their staff, for all of their hard work on the Baucus-Roberts-Craig
amendment.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
There is no further time remaining on the majority side. The minority
has until 9:40 a.m.
____________________
Congressional Record: October 5, 2004 (Senate)
Page S10390-S10400
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.
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
[[Page S10391]]
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.
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.
[[Page S10392]]
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.
``(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
[[Page S10393]]
``(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.
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
[[Page S10394]]
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''.
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.
[[Page S10395]]
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 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, YO-han 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,
[[Page S10396]]
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 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
[[Page S10397]]
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 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
[[Page S10398]]
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.
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
[[Page S10399]]
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 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
[[Page S10400]]
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.
____________________
Congressional Record: October 5, 2004 (Senate)
Page S10400-S10417
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE REFORM ACT OF 2004--Continued
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity as the
Senate resumes this afternoon's debate to rise in very strong support
of the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004.
I am proud to join with Senator Collins and Senator Joe Lieberman as
a cosponsor of this bill. It is an excellent bill, and I want to
support my two colleagues, Senators Collins and Lieberman, for working
so hard and to go at it in a way that is not only bipartisan but
nonpartisan following the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
I am excited about this bill because I think it reforms our
intelligence to be able to make sure that we prevent any more 9/11s
affecting the United States; that we reform the intelligence so that we
never go to war again on dubious information; that we make the highest
and best use of the talent in our intelligence agencies, and that they
have the framework to be able to protect the Nation, as well as be able
to speak truth to power.
Mr. President, I am no stranger to reform. I am on the Intelligence
Committee. I came on the committee before 9/11 to be an advocate for
reform, particularly in the area of signals intelligence. As I worked
on the committee and served on the joint inquiry about what occurred on
9/11, I became deeply committed to other issues related to reform: to
have a national intelligence director, to create an inspector general,
to mandate alternative or red team analysis, to always make sure that
we policymakers have the best information, and that our troops and our
homeland security officials get the best intelligence they need to be
able to protect the Nation.
Following the 9/11 Commission report, but also with the wonderful
work of Senators Collins and Lieberman, we now have intelligence
legislation that will give us a single empowered leader for our
intelligence community, a strong inspector general, and a definite
alternative analysis to make sure that all views are heard.
This reform is broad, deep, and also authentic. I think that is what
the Nation wants of us.
Mr. President, 3,000 people died on September 11. They died at the
World Trade Center, they died at the Pentagon, and they died on a field
in Pennsylvania. At least 60 Marylanders died. We remember that they
came from all walks of life. We must remember those we lost that day.
The way we honor their memory is to take actions to do everything we
can to prevent it from ever happening again. That is what the families
have asked us to do. That is what the Nation has asked us to do. I am
so pleased that we will act on this legislation before we recess.
We need to do this, and we need to do this now. In joining the
Intelligence Committee, and also after those terrible acts, like many
others, I asked what could we have done to prevent the September 11
attacks on our country? Also, why did we think that Saddam Hussein had
weapons of mass destruction? What kind of information does the
President need before he sends troops into harm's way? What kinds of
information do we need--we, the Members of Congress--to be able to
provide the right response to a President's request? We reviewed a lot
of this information, and now we know we have the kind of reform in this
legislation that will help us.
The 9/11 Commission built on the 9/11 joint inquiry of the House and
Senate Intelligence Committees. We did that in a classified way. Then,
the 9/11 Commission was organized, and I am happy to say I voted for
it. The Commission could bring into the sunshine what many of us knew
privately because it was classified. We knew about missed
opportunities, insufficient or unreliable information, the failure to
share information, the shortcomings of watch lists.
The legislation that we have before us will move the priorities
forward for intelligence reform. First of all, it gives the
intelligence community one leader with authority, responsibility, and
financial control. In Washington, if you cannot control people or you
cannot control budgets, you cannot control the agency.
Second, it provides for diversity of opinion in the analysis. It
requires independent analysis. It also provides a framework for red
teaming or a devil's advocate so that, again, the policymakers get the
best information.
It also strengthens information sharing. It provides the support to
speak truth to power. And it also provides a unity of effort in the
global war on terrorism. All of this is done with a delicate balance of
protecting privacy and civil liberties.
I salute my colleagues. While they were doing their homework this
summer with the 9/11 report, I was doing mine--built on the experience
that I had both as a member of the Intelligence Committee and the joint
inquiry to investigate what went wrong on 9/11. I continued my homework
over the summer. I read the riveting report of the 9/11 Commission. I
attended hearings in the Intelligence Committee and Governmental
Affairs. I consulted with officials of the FBI and others in homeland
security in my State. I met with the Director of the National Security
Agency. Having done that, I now conclude that this is the best
legislation.
We are at a turning point. This is a new century. It poses new
threats to the Nation. Therefore, it requires a new framework to serve
the Nation. That is what I believe this legislation will do. So I say
to my colleagues that one of the best actions we can take now, in order
to serve the Nation, is stand up for our troops, protect the homeland,
and pass the Collins-Lieberman legislation, which I truly believe
brings about the reform of the national intelligence community.
I also salute the work of Senator Harry Reid and Senator Mitch
McConnell, who were working on how we need to reform ourselves in
Congress to be able to provide the best oversight of the intelligence
community so we can have the best intelligence, yet the highest value
for our dollar, and at the same time protect the Nation, finding the
balance to protect our civil liberties. I believe the task force report
saying the Senate needs to reform itself internally will come after
this legislation. I think we have done a great job working on a
bipartisan basis.
I remember that fateful evening of
9/11 and that day when we gathered on the Capitol steps. America had
lived through a lot. We didn't know what was yet to come. But joining
with our
[[Page S10401]]
House colleagues, we in the Senate, with our leadership, joined hands
and sang ``God Bless America.'' We were not a Democratic Party. We were
not a Republican Party. We were the red, white, and blue party, and
that is what we need to be here today. We need to join hands, pass the
reforms necessary to protect the Nation, and to truly ask God to bless
the United States of America.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my dear friend and colleague
from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, for that very thoughtful and strong
statement on behalf of the bill. It means a lot to me and I know
Senator Collins.
Senator Mikulski has focused on these national security intelligence
issues. She happens to have a lot of people who work in this field for
us in the State of Maryland. Senator Collins and I were very grateful
and proud when Senator Mikulski joined us as an original cosponsor of
this legislation. I appreciate all that she has contributed to our
efforts. Her statement is very timely and gratefully appreciated. I
thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I echo the words of my colleague from
Connecticut. Senator Mikulski has been so helpful throughout this
debate and in the development of this bill. In fact, when the
Governmental Affairs Committee was first assigned the responsibility
for evaluating the 9/11 Commission recommendations and producing this
bill, it was the Senator from Maryland who was the first to call me and
to offer to help, to share her knowledge from her years on the
Intelligence Committee and on the Appropriations Committee. I really
appreciated that gesture.
Since that time, she also participated in one of the Governmental
Affairs Committee hearings that we held. Her State lost so many
citizens on that awful day, and she has been relentless in her
determination to make sure their memory is never forgotten. I very much
appreciate all of her contributions.
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.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for a
few minutes on an unrelated matter, pertaining to a bill the House of
Representatives just passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Hold On S. 878
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose S. 878, or at least
the version the House of Representatives just passed today.
Essentially, what the House did was to poison a worthy bill, a bill
that was meant to alleviate the crisis of an overwhelming workload
under which the Federal judiciary is struggling. The House did so by
adding language to split the Ninth Circuit into three circuits. In
doing so, the House has essentially taken the new judges as hostages to
a starkly partisan and controversial ploy.
I will not go along with such bullying tactics, and I am placing a
hold on that bill today. It is with great regret, and with greater
frustration, that I place this hold.
I will take a few minutes to explain why we so desperately need the
new Federal judges S. 878 would provide, and then I want to make clear
why I am so opposed to the language the House of Representatives has
added to split the Ninth Circuit.
According to the Administrative Office of the Courts, the average
caseload for every Federal district judge in the country is now 523
cases per judge. In 1999, the average was 480 cases. So it has
increased 9 percent in 4 years. But that only tells part of the story.
Of the four Federal district courts in California, my home State, three
of them handled more cases per judge than the national average: the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 544 cases;
Southern District of California, 611 cases; the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District, 734 cases per judge, 40 percent more than the
national average.
So it is this burden that needed to be remedied, and in this bill
there were 51 district court judges. It was an important bill.
This situation extends far beyond California. For example, the
district court for Nebraska, represented by my colleague Chuck Hagel,
who has been working on this issue with me, has 627 cases per judge,
almost 20 percent more than the average. Other courts with exceedingly
high caseloads are in Iowa and Arizona.
The version of the Senate bill that the House Judiciary Committee
amended would have added 51 new Federal district court judges, 32 of
them permanent, 15 temporary judges whose seats would expire when they
retire, and 4 seats that would be converted from temporary to
permanent. That version of the bill would also have added 11 judges to
the circuits of the Court of Appeals. All of these additions came at
the recommendation of the nonpartisan Judicial Conference of the United
States. According to their 2003 report, the need for new judges is real
and growing.
They go on to state:
Since 1991, the number of criminal case filings has
increased 45 percent and the number of criminal defendants is
35 percent higher.
Then it continued on with the statistics. When the judges tell us
that they need more judges to supervise criminal trials, to secure our
borders, and to crack down on deadly firearms, it is our obligation to
listen and to act, because these judges are the linchpin of our justice
system. Just as we need soldiers to help win the war on terror, we need
enough judges to keep safe at home.
Instead of moving forward to simply add judges, which is what we
need, the House essentially sabotaged the bill by adding an amendment
to split the Ninth Circuit into these three new circuits.
This is not the time or the place for such an action. I am very much
aware of arguments in favor of splitting the Ninth Circuit. In the
Senate Judiciary Committee we have been debating this for years and, as
I said at the Senate hearing on the issue earlier this year, I welcome
the hearing and look at it with a much more open mind than I have in
the past. I am sensitive to the fact that the Ninth Circuit had a 13-
percent increase in caseload in a single year.
However, this is only one side of the argument. We have testimony
from the chief judge of the Ninth Circuit, whom I respect greatly, who
informs me that the size is not an obstacle to efficiency. We have
letters from the State Bar Associations of California, Arizona, and
Hawaii opposing a circuit split. I have a letter from Governor
Schwarzenegger of California opposing a split of the Ninth Circuit. I
have letters from eight judges in the Ninth Circuit opposing a circuit
split, and also a letter from Senator Sessions saying that he has
received letters from 15 Ninth Circuit judges opposing a split.
Suffice it to say that reasonable minds can differ on whether the
Ninth Circuit should be split. What reasonable minds, I think, have to
agree on is this is no way to undertake such a momentous change in our
Nation's history. I suspect what is happening is that opponents of the
Ninth Circuit are trying to take a bill that we need, add new judges,
and make the Congress accept the split to the Ninth Circuit as the
price.
The fact of the matter is the split they propose will not equalize
the caseload. There will still be a disproportionate caseload with the
methodology used in the split followed by the House decision voted on
this morning. Under the House bill, the new Ninth Circuit, with
California, Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, would have
407 cases per circuit judge. That is much more than the new Twelfth
Circuit, of Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, and Montana, which would have 280
cases per circuit judge. It is also much more than the new Thirteenth
Circuit, of Alaska, Oregon, and Washington, which would have 279 cases
per judge. So the House bill does not solve the problem of an even
split of cases between the circuits.
What we found as we looked at this over the years is that an even
split cannot happen unless California is split in half, because the
State, and ergo the
[[Page S10402]]
number of cases, is simply too large. This has always been the dilemma.
Additionally, this legislation causes major new costs. The
Administrative Office of the Courts states that the startup costs for a
three-way split that the House today demanded would ring up $131.3
million to make that particular split.
Despite the need for new judges, I cannot accept this ploy. This is
the time for new Federal judges. It is not the time to split the Ninth
Circuit. I think the House of Representatives has harmfully cemented
one weighty issue to the other and it is not going to work.
So, regretfully, I must place a hold on this bill. I hope Members who
are concerned about this will listen, and I hope it is not too late to
work out some solution.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak 10
minutes as if in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Guard and Reserve Forces
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know the issue the Senator from
California raised is very important and will be considered as we go
forward in our debates, as our session wraps up. The Senator from
Connecticut and the Senator from Maine have done an outstanding job in
managing the underlying bill and helping us come to grips with some of
the new fundamental changes necessary to reorganize our intelligence
communities to face the challenges confronting our Nation. I do not
want to take too much time away from that very important debate. But I
did feel compelled to come to the floor and raise an issue regarding
our military families, especially the families of our National
Guardsmen and Reservists. They, too, are so critical to meeting and
defeating enemies on the home-front and in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Because we call on thousands of Active men and women in our armed
forces, as well as reservists in our Guard and Reserve, to be in the
forefront of the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan, I thought it was
important to come to the floor to share some information that will
disappoint people in Louisiana and across the United States.
Right now, somewhere in this Capitol, there is a conference meeting
trying to finalize a tax relief package that we refer to around here as
FSC/ETI. It is a necessary change in our Tax Code because of some trade
decisions that were made relative to the way Europe and America conduct
trade and impose taxes and fees on imports and exports. For several
months, members of the Senate Finance Committee and Members of the
House Ways and Means Committee have been working to reach a final
agreement. Different amendments have been added and subtracted as a
means to bring the bill closer to final passage.
One of the amendments that I thought was one of the most important
amendments in that bill--one that my colleagues in the Senate,
Republicans and Democrats, agreed to unanimously called for tax credits
to be made available to employers who continued to pay the salaries of
their employees if those employees had been activated for duty in the
National Guard and Reserves. The Senate agreed that if we were going to
give tax relief and a trade fix for corporations and for businesses,
then we should also find space in that bill to provide tax relief in
some way to the patriotic employers who are trying to help their
employees in the Guard and Reserve make ends meet. We should do that so
the men and women who put the uniform on every morning and run those
patrols ferreting out insurgents and terrorists in Iraq would not have
to take a pay cut to do their job to defend America. We want those
troops focused on the war-front, not whether bills have been paid on
the home-front.
Americans might be shocked, because I am shocked, and I am
disappointed, that our Government has not yet found a way to make sure
that when we call up the men and women basically out of their regular
life--as doctors or lawyers or truck drivers or nurses or teachers or
government workers or firefighters or police officers--and ask them to
leave their families, leave their jobs, leave their businesses and go
fight on the front line for us, that we have not found a way to make
sure they can do that without taking a pay cut. The GAO has documented
that 41 percent of the Guardsmen and Reservists fighting for us--being
called away from their homes, away from their families, and putting
their lives in peril and great danger--are doing so with a pay cut. We
need to provide them a helmet and a gun and a flak jacket and some
protection. But I think we also should make every effort to ensure
their families back-home have some stability. We should take steps so
that the troop in Falujah knows his employer can take care of his
family.
If this Congress and the President were not already enacting
trillions in tax cuts and we were adhering to a plan of fiscal
responsibility, I might be able to look these families in the eye and
say, ``Sorry we have a budget deficit. We are doing the best we can.''
But do you know what the shame of it is? There is a conference
meeting somewhere in this Capitol giving out tax relief to people who
already have a lot of money, to corporations some of which may be on
the front line but many of which are not, and we have the Republican
leadership on the House that says we cannot afford a tax credit to
benefit patriotic employers, our Guardsmen and Reservists, and their
families. We are asking our men and women in unifrom to bear 100
percent of the risk and burden of fighting the war on terror. Yet in
all the tax relief in the Republican-drafted plan, the Republican-
leadership plan drafted by Chairman Thomas, we can't find one penny to
make sure the military families get a full paycheck. The cost of my
amendment amounts to less than .1 percent of all the Bush/Republican
tax cuts enacted since 2001. My amendment is even offset, but the
Republican leadership simply refuses to help military families.
Since 2001, the Republican leadership has passed over $2.1 trillion
in tax cuts and tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. I supported
some of these tax cuts but the major beneficiaries have been wealthy
individuals who had already accumulated great assets, and corporations.
Direct support for military families has been less than .1 percent, or
$1.37 billion, of the $2.1 trillion in tax cuts.
If you remember, in 2001, we had one bill for tax cuts which we
called the Military Family Relief Act. It amounted to $1.37 billion out
of $2.1 trillion. So the bulk of the tax relief is going to people who
are not on the front line. Only limited help is going to the people on
the front line.
You can see the graph here, $2.1 trillion to everybody else who is
not in uniform and $1.37 billion to the military families who are
fighting the battle. I don't understand how we are fighting this war.
Maybe somebody can explain it to me.
At least people say: Senator, you must not understand that much of
these tax cuts get to the military families; it is just not directly.
If they have children, they might get the child tax credit. I
understand that. But 75 percent of the enlisted men and women in our
armed services make less than $30,000 a year. A staff sergeant with 8
years of experience makes $30,000 a year. So if you don't write them
directly into the bills--because the bills are skewed to those
individuals and families making over $75,000, mostly $100,000,
$200,000, $300,000--the military families don't get to take advantage
of tax cuts.
Time and time again, every time a tax bill passes this Congress, the
military family is left on the cutting room floor. In 2001, we passed
the Economic Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, $1.6 trillion--
direct support for military families was $0.
In 2002, we passed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act,
$41 billion--military families, $0.
In 2003, we passed the Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Act, $230
billion--direct support for military, $0.
This year we passed the Working Families Tax Relief Act, $146
billion--direct support for military families, $0. This $146 billion
had no offsets.
Now we have a conference in this Capitol putting together an $81
billion tax bill. And the amendment, the one little amendment we put on
to encourage employers to keep the salaries up
[[Page S10403]]
for the Guard and Reserve when they are fighting in Iraq, was taken out
because we can't afford it. When it left the Senate, we had paid for
it. There are plenty of ways the House Republicans could pay for it,
today, but helping military families is not in their interests. We
could close a loophole that allows companies to leave the United States
for the purpose of reorganizing themselves so they do not have to pay
taxes. We could close that loophole and gave it to the men and women
putting on the uniform to defend our country. These soldiers, sailors,
airmen, and marines aren't fleeing the country to avoid paying taxes,
yet we don't get tough on the corporations that are leaving the country
to avoid taxes. They take every benefit of what this nation has to
offer, including the blood and sweat of our troops, and pay nothing in
return. But, some in Congress want to put these corporations in front
of our men and women in uniform.
Let me also say I am ashamed for our Government that we have not yet
closed our own loophole when a Federal Government worker takes off the
Government suit or dress or uniform and puts on the military uniform
and goes to fight on the front lines of Iraq. The US Government, as an
employer, does not fill the pay gap for Federal employees.
Mr. President, 41 percent of the guardsmen and reservists who are
fighting in Iraq take a pay cut to fight and we keep passing
appropriations bills and tax cuts to give everyone in the world a tax
break, except our military families. And, our poor military families
ask for help and we have the Republican leadership in the House telling
them: Sorry, there is no more money.
I just got back from Fort Polk a couple of weeks ago, where I have
4,000 maybe 5,000 families in Louisiana whose primary breadwinner has
stopped winning bread at home and gone over to Iraq to help fight this
war. I promised them that I was not going to just come on home without
a fight or without raising this issue for the 5,000 families in my
State and for the thousands of families around this country who do not
ask for much. They ask for good training. They ask for equipment. And
they are asking that they don't take a pay cut when they go to fight.
They are not asking for a pay raise; they just don't want a pay cut.
They'll get that pay cut if we let this last tax bill go out of here
without fixing this provision or without giving some tax credit to
companies, many of them small businesses, who continue to pay their
activated Guard and Reserve employees.
You can understand why a small business sometimes can't afford to
continue to pay the guardsmen and reservists 100 percent of their
salary and then have to pay 100 percent of the salary for a
replacement.
We are asking for a tax credit for these employers so they can
voluntarily, if they want, continue to pay the salary of their Guard
and Reserve, take a tax credit so we would basically share that expense
among everyone and allow that guardsman and reservist to get a full
paycheck.
I repeat for the record, the GAO reports that 41 percent of the
guardsmen and reservists called to active duty take a pay cut. We could
fix that, but for some reason we do not want to, we do not think we
should, or we do not have the money. Yet at the same time we are fixing
a lot of things for a lot of people and passing one appropriations bill
and one tax bill after another.
Forty percent of those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are Guard and
Reserve; 410,000 families or individuals have been activated since
September 11. We probably have a few more thousand to activate until we
get it right in Iraq.
We can pay for this, as I said, by closing loopholes, but the
Republican leadership said, ``No.'' We cannot not pay for it. They have
passed tax bills out of here and chalked it up to more debt. This would
not be that much to add for people assuming 100 percent of the risk to
defend this Nation, but they do not choose to do that, either. Right
now, as I speak, 3 o'clock today, it is not in the bill.
I hope these words are traveling through this Capitol. I hope there
are people listening and phones start ringing to include the military
families in this FSC/ETI bill that is moving through conference so this
tax relief can be given and the pay gap can be closed. If you are on
the front line, taking 100 percent of the risk, the last thing you need
to take is a pay cut.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD. 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. BYRD. Mr. President, does the rule of germaneness apply under
cloture?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Germaneness on debate is required on cloture.
Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent to speak for not more than 10
minutes on a matter not germane to the pending matter before the
Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Veterans Benefits
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, West Virginians have a long and proud record
of service to the U.S. military. General Stonewall Jackson, one of the
greatest military minds of his time, hailed from present day West
Virginia. Chuck Yeager, the World War II ace and the first man ever to
travel faster than sound, is proud to be a West Virginian. SSG Junior
Spurrier left his home of Bluefield, WV, to fight for the liberation of
France and received just one fewer awards than the legendary Audie
Murphy, the most decorated American soldier in World War II.
There are many more West Virginians whose names will not be recorded
in the great military histories of our country, but these veterans have
asked little of their country. They have a right to expect that our
Government will provide them with the benefits they earned in service
to our country, and that is the one thing they do expect.
Time and time again, President Bush has turned his back on veterans
who have served our country. Over and over again, President Bush has
had to choose between veterans programs and budget-busting tax cuts for
the wealthy, and he has chosen to cut taxes for America's super-wealthy
instead of taking care, as he should have, of America's veterans. As
veterans evaluate the actions of this administration, I hope they are
asking whether they are better off than they were 4 years ago.
For the last 3 years, Congress wanted to increase veterans' benefits
by allowing military retirees to keep all of their VA disability checks
and the military retirement pay, but President Bush opposed it. He
fought against it. In fact, he threatened to veto a $396 billion
Defense bill in order to keep Congress from allowing veterans to
receive all the compensation they have earned through their service in
the Armed Forces. Yes, my colleagues heard me right. President George
Bush threatened to veto an entire Defense bill because veterans would
get the benefits they had earned.
This year, President Bush approved plans to shut down three veterans
hospitals and partially close nine more. What is more, the Beckley VA
Medical Center which serves 40,000 veterans in southern West Virginia
and is located in my home county of Raleigh narrowly missed the
President's chopping block. Only a last-minute intervention by Senator
John D. Rockefeller, Representative Nick Rahall, and me saved the
Beckley Veterans Hospital. If the President gets a second term,
however, veterans better watch out. You veterans may have to kiss more
of your hospitals goodbye.
But the Bush administration didn't bother to wait for a second term
before slashing veterans health care in other ways. Last year, the Bush
administration decided that an entire category of veterans should no
longer be eligible to seek health care from the VA. This wrongheaded
decision means that by next year more than 520,000 veterans will be
barred from VA hospitals. In other words, the White House says it would
be too expensive to let these veterans enjoy their VA health care
benefits. How can President Bush claim he supports our troops if he
doesn't support VA health care for half a million veterans?
[[Page S10404]]
President Bush has also taken to shortchanging veterans to new,
disgusting levels. He is no longer content with simply underfunding
veterans health care to the tune of $3.2 billion per year, according to
leading veterans' service organizations. Now President Bush has decided
that some people who served our country in uniform should pay more for
their veterans health care benefits. The President's budget for this
year doubles the cost of prescription drugs for these veterans,
increases their fees for doctor visits by 33 percent, and sticks them
with new annual enrollment fees.
I know that when President Bush hits the campaign trail in West
Virginia, he will talk about how he cares about veterans, but I doubt
that he will tell West Virginia's veterans about his plans to cut their
benefits and raise their fees. I am sure you won't hear the President
talking about how he has shortchanged the VA, cut veterans health care,
fought Congress on veterans benefits, closed veterans hospitals, and
increased health care charges.
The Bible says:
. . . by their fruits ye shall know them.
In today's terms, we would say that you have to walk the walk if you
want to talk the talk. But when it comes to looking out for veterans,
George Bush is ambling off in the wrong direction.
The veterans of West Virginia know about sacrifice. They have given
up a lot in their service to this country. This administration has
spent 4 years undercutting veterans. The people of West Virginia should
know that it is time to stand up for our veterans.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today what we have seen is a fresh
topic of interest, as discussed in the newspaper. I ask unanimous
consent that in my hour of time, whatever time I have remaining be
available to me as if it were in morning business and that I be
permitted to use 15 minutes of that time at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Paul Bremer's Recent Comments
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the topic of very active discussion is
Mr. Paul Bremer's comments that are in the papers, particularly the
Washington Post, today. I say this with a great deal of respect for
Paul Bremer. I think he worked hard to do a very good job. He can
hardly be described as a leftwing liberal, for sure. He said something
that was, to use the vernacular, kind of a show stopper. He said:
We paid a big price for not stopping it (looting) because
it established an atmosphere of lawlessness. . . . We never
had enough troops on the ground.
This is our person in charge of the transition from Iraq's former
government, purportedly to become a democracy. He is the fellow who was
in charge in Iraq. We all, whoever went there, visited with him,
listened to him. He worked very closely with the military. He is very
skilled. But he said it. ``We never had enough troops on the ground,''
and that was the beginning of the problem in which we are now so deeply
enmeshed.
We have had generals saying it. We had General Shinseki saying that
we needed 300,000 of our troops there to do the job, and not having had
enough caused us, frankly, to become mired in a situation that, at
least by current appearances, seems as though it is going to hold us
there for a long time at a terrible cost in life, terrible cost in
family relationships, terrible cost financially as well.
The Vice President and HalliBurton
Tonight, as everyone knows, the debate will be between Vice President
Cheney and Senator John Edwards, for each of them to present their
credentials and their views. But I rise to discuss the Vice President's
relationship with Halliburton, his financial relationship with the oil
company he ran from 1995 to the year 2000, the company that is reaping
the benefits of multibillion-dollar contracts from the Bush-Cheney
administration.
Vice President Cheney still receives salary checks from Halliburton
for well over $150,000 each year. He holds 433,000 unexercised
Halliburton stock options. It presents a very questionable picture when
we look on this chart at the orange line which conveys the Halliburton
income to Vice President Cheney from 2001 on, and his Vice Presidential
salary. If one looks, we see the compensation from Halliburton exceeded
that of the U.S. Government's compensation or pay for the Vice
President. In the year 2002, Halliburton fell to $162,000 but then
crept back up to where they are very close together. That is, the
salary paid by the U.S. Government and the deferred compensation plan
that gives Vice President Cheney $178,000.
When you look at this, it presents a terrible picture. Here is a Vice
President of the United States, the next person in line to take over
if, Heaven forbid, something happened to the President, and he is
getting paid from a company he used to work for. We know this is a
deferred compensation plan, that it was earned before.
I also mention the fact that Vice President Cheney, when he left
Halliburton, got a $20 million termination bonus plus over $1 million
in another bonus. If we looked at the deferred salary and the
nontermination bonus Dick Cheney has received from Halliburton while
Vice President of the United States, it is up to almost $2 million.
This is, if not corrupting in its reality, its functionality. It has
the appearance that raises enormous questions. This relationship,
coupled with Halliburton's no-bid contract and other contracts in Iraq,
is extremely problematic.
On top of the salary, there are 433,000 shares options that are
exercisable. I come out of the corporate world and I know how valuable
the stock options can be. The profits are committed to a charity,
purportedly, but the more you get, the more you can give away.
Why does the Vice President permit this salary arrangement to
continue when he could have done away with it, as did Mr. John Snow,
who was the Secretary of the Treasury. He wrapped up 6 years' worth of
deferred compensation into one year and said: I want to be done with
this. I don't want to have my income coming from my former employer
while I work for the U.S. Government at such a high level.
By continuing this financial relationship, the Vice President
undermines our Nation's ethical credibility here and abroad. On
September 14, 2003, the Vice President was asked about his relationship
with Halliburton and the no-bid contract on the program, ``Meet the
Press.'' Vice President Cheney told Tim Russert--and I happened to be
watching the program; that is what stimulated my interest--the Vice
President said:
I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of
all my financial interests. I have no financial interest in
Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over 3 years.
The problem with that statement is that when he said it, he held
those 433,000 Halliburton stock options and continued to receive a
deferred salary from the company and still has a salary for the year
coming into 2005.
I went to the Congressional Research Service to see what the
definition of a ``financial interest'' might look like. The
Congressional Research Service confirmed to me that holding such
options and receiving deferred salary constitutes a financial interest.
They agree, and so do I, that when you have deferred compensation, when
you have stock options, that is a financial interest. They say if it
looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it must be a duck. There it
is, a financial interest.
Even though the exercised prices for Vice President Cheney's
Halliburton stock options are above the current market price, the
majority of the options extend to 2009. My goodness, what does it take
to free himself from a previous business contact?
When I left the company that I helped start and at which I spent 30
years, the minute I left there all of my options were canceled, to my
regret, because there was a lot of money involved.
Any option holder has to hope that the stock price surges so the
value of the options increase. One way this can happen is to be sure
that lucrative contracts keep coming from the U.S. Government.
In the first quarter of 2004, Halliburton's revenues were up 80
percent from the first quarter of 2003. Why? Wall Street analysts point
to one simple factor: The company's massive governmental contracts in
Iraq. Those are the things that are responsible for
[[Page S10405]]
this increase in revenue and profits, if any.
Vice President Cheney's annual deferred salary from Halliburton is
significant. As I pointed out earlier, in fact, the Vice President's
Halliburton salary is as high as his government pay--last year,
$178,000 in salary from Halliburton. I have heard the Vice President's
defense of his Halliburton deferred salary. He claims that the deal was
locked in in 1999 and there is no way for him to get out of his
deferred salary deal.
How about if he had an employment contract with the company for 10
years and then became Vice President of the United States, would he say
he had to have both jobs at the same time because he had a contract?
Come on.
Checking of the facts revealed otherwise. I obtained the terms of
Vice President Cheney's deferred salary contract with Halliburton, and
the bottom line is that the deferred salary agreement is not set in
stone. In fact, one need only look at the ethics agreement of Treasury
Secretary Snow to see what the Vice President should have done in order
to avoid taking salary from private corporations while in public
office. Secretary Snow took six different deferred compensation
packages as a lump sum upon taking office. Get rid of any shadow of
doubt, any shadow of conflict.
Worst of all, this financial relationship is going on while
Halliburton is ripping off American taxpayers. I am very specific about
this. Halliburton is ripping off American taxpayers. I have said it,
and I will say it again. Look at the record.
The Pentagon's inspector general revealed that Halliburton, while our
people were fighting for their lives, overcharged $27.4 million for
meals that were never served to our troops. False records. Fraudulent.
Another Pentagon audit found Halliburton overcharged the Army by
$1.09 a gallon for 57 million gallons of gasoline deferred to citizens
in Iraq.
Auditors found potential overcharges of up to $61 million for
gasoline that a Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, delivered as part of its
no-bid contract to help rebuild Iraq's oil industry.
Under its cost-plus contract with the Pentagon, the more Halliburton
spends, the more profit it makes regardless of whether that spending is
necessary. Several former Halliburton employees have come forward to
reveal how the company has taken advantage of this sweetheart deal by
spending millions on nonexistent or vastly overpriced goods and
services.
According to these former employees, Halliburton engaged in the
following wasteful practices: They had its employees drive empty trucks
back and forth across Iraq in order to bill for the trips despite the
obvious risks that this practice posed to both truck drivers and the
85,000 trucks. Halliburton, under their arrangement, whatever they
spent, came up with a profit for them.
If they needed an oil change they would buy a new truck. Halliburton
removed all of the spare tires from its trucks and failed to provide
basic maintenance supplies like oil filters. This is not something I am
making up. It is in the record. As a result, when tires went flat or
trucks broke down, they were abandoned or torched, with Halliburton
making a profit on the replacements. This is the most sinister of
behavior.
When a Halliburton employee needed one drill, his supervisor told him
to order four. When the employee said he did not need four drills, the
supervisor responded: Don't worry about it, it is a cost-plus contract.
One employee discovered that Halliburton was paying $45 for a case of
soda in Kuwait when local supermarkets charged only $7.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The Senator's 15 minutes have
expired.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I remind the Chair that according to the rules under
cloture I have an hour of time to be used if I can get an agreement for
unanimous consent.
I ask unanimous consent, because the time is going to be used by me,
that I be allowed a few more minutes until I finish my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is there
not a germaneness requirement for the debate at this point?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is, but the Senator had asked to speak
as in morning business for 15 minutes.
Ms. COLLINS. I will not object.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the time is running against the bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the manager. The Senator from
Maine has worked very hard on this intelligence reform bill. I
supported her as a member of that committee. I know this might be a
diversion to her, but I appreciate her consent.
One employee discovered that Halliburton was paying $45 for cases of
soda in Kuwait when local supermarkets charged about only $7. And then
there are the kickbacks. Halliburton admitted to the Pentagon that two
employees took kickbacks, valued at approximately $6 million, in return
for awarding a Kuwaiti-based company with lucrative subcontracts.
The scandal is playing itself out in the real world, while this
Senate sleeps. It is neglect on everybody's part that this was
permitted to continue.
This kind of corporate behavior resembles that of Enron and other
corporations that have sought to defraud the Government with kickbacks
and bribes and overcharges.
Profiteering during war is an outrageous action, if not a crime. When
I served in World War II, if a company profiteered as people were
losing their lives, they would be punished. They would have jail
sentences in front of them.
That is not what I am suggesting. What I am suggesting is that this
is abominable behavior and it ought not be permitted.
When I think of the debate that is going on and John Kerry is accused
of being soft on defense, when he served so bravely, when even though
he disagreed with the policy of the Government, he served the country
loyally, bravely, and was wounded. The assertions that maybe the wounds
weren't deep enough were challenged by statements in the paper
yesterday where it said that he still has shrapnel in his body from
those wounds. Anyone who would suggest that because Senator John Kerry
examined the question on moneys being spent for the war, because it
included tax relief for some of the richest among us, the fact is, he
served without question, without any reservation whatsoever, except he
had a difference in policy. But he put his life on the line, which we
haven't seen around here, I can tell you, as I have described in past
speeches.
I used the identification of the chicken hawk. The chicken hawk is
someone who makes war that other people are to fight. I don't think it
is fair to tear apart the loyalty, the heroism of Senator John Kerry
anymore than it was fair to challenge the heroism or the loyalty of
former Senator Max Cleland.
I hope this assault on character can stop and we can discuss the
issues that affect the American people.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time from my hour
when I come back to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Correct Reporting
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, politics is politics. As we all know, it
can be a contact sport. While many things can be considered fair or
unfair, depending on your outlook, I think most would agree that the
voting record and the printed and stated positions of a candidate or
elected official are right and proper to discuss. But it is also
important that those who report this discussion be correct in what they
report.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, may I challenge whether this is part
of the debate on the intelligence reform bill or is this discussing a
different matter?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Georgia be permitted to speak as in morning business for 20
minutes, just as the Senator from New Jersey was permitted to speak as
in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have made my request, but I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MILLER. I thought we were in morning business. If I may now
continue.
[[Page S10406]]
It is also important that those who report the discussion be correct
in what they report. From most of the national media, we have not had
that correct reporting on John Kerry's national defense record.
From the media we have heard, from their review of national defense
records, that the liberal Democrat John Kerry and the conservative Vice
President Dick Cheney are, in fact, long lost ideological soul mates,
separated only by birth and hair.
We hear from Wolf Blitzer and Judy Woodruff on CNN and Chris Matthews
on MSNBC, Alan Colmes of Fox, and the fact finders at the Washington
Post and the LA Times that if you took Dick Cheney and substituted him
for John Kerry or if you took John Kerry and substituted him for Dick
Cheney the defense votes that occurred in the House and Senate and the
outcomes of defense spending bills and Pentagon operations would be
virtually identical.
They would have you believe that when it comes to national defense
records, votes and positions, they say the very DNA of Dick Cheney and
John Kerry are practically indistinguishable, that they are doves from
the same nest. Or maybe it is hawks now, with Kerry's latest change.
As silly as this assertion is, the Democrats are more than happy to
make it because many in the media are only too happy to parrot it.
There is no better proof of this than the media's response to the
speech I made at the Republican National Convention in New York City.
Now, I was inclined to let the veracity of an old man soon to be
retired just go unanswered, thinking that the juice wasn't worth the
squeeze. And I would have, if it had been my reputation at stake
instead of the safety of my family. Let me start with the LA Times
which bought lock, stock, and barrel the Democrats' official line, and
I quote:
The Kerry campaign responded by accusing Miller of
mischaracterizing the Senator's record, pointing out that
Cheney also voted to cut funding for some of those weapons
systems while serving in Congress. Others were targeted for
cutback by Cheney when he was Defense Secretary in the first
Bush Administration.
USA Today minimized the negative of Kerry's defense votes this way:
. . . Kerry voted against large Pentagon spending bills
that include many weapons three times in his 20-year career.
And Defense Secretary Cheney recommended ending some of the
same systems that Miller cited.
CNN's Judy Woodruff said this to me only a few minutes after my
speech:
John Kerry voted for 16 of 19 defense budgets that came
through the Senate while he was in the Senate, and many of
those votes you cited, Dick Cheney also voted against.
Wolf Blitzer of CNN emphasized the similarity of Kerry and Cheney:
When the Vice President was the Secretary of Defense, he
proposed cutting back on the B-2 bomber, the F-14 Tomcat as
well. I covered him at the Pentagon during those years when
he was raising serious concerns about those two weapons
systems. . . .
And then, that citadel of sanctimony, the home of the whopper, the
Washington Post, weighed in with this totally untrue statement:
Miller's list was mostly derived from a single Kerry vote
against a spending bill in 1991, rather than individual votes
against particular systems.
Later, a Washington Post analysis added:
Kerry did not cast a series of votes against individual
weapon systems, but instead Kerry voted against a Pentagon
spending package in 1990 as part of deliberations over
restructuring and downsizing the military in the post-Cold
War period.
Editorial pages began to chime in, such as the Philadelphia Daily
News:
Miller charged that Kerry has voted to strip the Armed
Services of necessary weapons systems when Dick Cheney, as
Defense Secretary, proposed many of the cuts and voted for
others.
Mr. President, is this true? Are there just a handful of votes by
Kerry against weapons systems? Are those votes identical to those by
Dick Cheney? Did the media have their facts straight? And even more
important, did they really want to have their facts straight? Or did
they just simply adopt, without verification, the talking points from
the Kerry campaign?
Let's start at the beginning. I said in my speech that Kerry
``opposed the very weapons systems that won the Cold War and that are
now winning the war on terrorism.''
I then listed the systems that Kerry opposed, such as the B-1, the B-
2, F-14A, F-14D Tomcats, the Apache helicopter, the F-15 Eagle, the
Patriot missile, Aegis cruiser, the SDI, and the Trident missile.
Did Kerry oppose the weapons systems that won the Cold War? The
answer is yes.
In 1984, John Kerry ran for the Senate and built his campaign around
the promise to reverse what he called ``the biggest defense buildup
since World War II,'' a buildup he considered in his words, ``wasteful,
useless, and dangerous.''
In a key 1984 campaign document, Kerry identified 16 weapons systems
he wanted to ``cancel.''
All of those weapons systems that I stated that Kerry opposed are
found in this 1984 document, except for two--the Trident missile and
the B-2 bomber. But Senator Kerry's opposition to those was reported in
other press interviews in 1984.
Mr. President, this 1984 campaign document is the first, but by no
means the last, of Kerry's opposition to these weapons systems.
It is strange, but there has not been a single story that I can find
in the media about this document. No one wants the American people to
see what Kerry was wanting to cancel at the height of the Cold War.
This document doesn't exist as far as the national media is
concerned. But it is vital to any debate about John Kerry's national
defense record because it spells out in Kerry's own words his complete
and total opposition to these weapons systems. This document begins and
ends with the word ``cancel.''
In his own words, John Kerry says ``cancel'' the MX, the B-1, the
ASAT, SDI, the Apache helicopter, the Patriot, the Aegis cruiser, the
Harrier, the Tomcat, the Eagle, the Phoenix, the Sparrow, and all of
the other weapons systems listed on this chart.
If you are like most people, you might read this document and say, if
John Kerry wants to cancel these weapons systems, it certainly doesn't
mean he is for them. So then he must oppose them. In the name of common
sense, could you have any other meaning from this?
The media tells us that just because John Kerry wanted to cancel
those systems, that doesn't mean he opposed those systems. Such is
their strange and twisted logic.
Because the media is not convinced John Kerry meant ``cancel'' when
he said ``cancel,'' they ignore this document and think the American
people should, too.
Those who don't ignore this document dismiss it, basically because
Kerry opposed these systems 20 years ago. So what is the big deal
today?
Here is why it is a big deal. This document came out in 1984, when
America was in a life-and-death struggle with the Soviet Union. At that
time, the Cold War was anything but cold, and it was certainly not
over.
The premier of the Soviet Union was not Gorbachev but Konstantin
Chernenko, an old Brezhnev hard-liner.
This document that outlined John Kerry's vision for our national
defense, which the media ignores and doesn't want you to know about,
came out about 6 months after the Soviet Union shot down Korean
Airlines 747 filled with 269 civilians.
This Kerry proposal came at a time when Soviet troops were at the
halfway point of their armed invasion of Afghanistan.
This Kerry proposal came at a time when Cuban troops were in Angola
and Kampuchea.
This Kerry proposal came at a time when Marxists insurgents had taken
power in Nicaragua and were pushing northward into El Salvador.
This Kerry proposal came at a time when insurgents and terrorists
were on the attack, and the way Kerry wanted to deal with them was by
canceling crucial weapons systems.
Here, at the height of the Cold War, at a time when we were playing
cards with the devil himself, when our own future, the world's freedom,
and the fate of half a billion souls from Poland to Siberia, from the
Baltic to Crimea, were all in the pot, John Kerry said ``fold them'' to
what ultimately turned out to be one of the biggest winning hands ever
played for freedom.
That is why this 1984 document is a big deal, Mr. President. I ask
unanimous consent that this document be printed in the Record.
[[Page S10407]]
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
john kerry on the defense budget
``We are continuing a defense buildup that is consuming our
resources with weapons systems that we don't need and can't
use.''
The Reagan Administration has no rational plan for our
military. Instead, it acts on misinformed assumptions about
the strength of the Soviet military and a presumed ``window
of vulnerability'', which we now know not to exist.
And Congress, rather than having the moral courage to
challenge the Reagan Administration, has given Ronald Reagan
almost every military request he has made, no matter how
wasteful, no matter how useless, no matter how dangerous.
The biggest defense buildup since World War II has not
given us a better defense. Americans feel more threatened by
the prospect of war, not less so. And our national priorities
become more and more distorted as the share of our country's
resources devoted to human needs diminishes.
john kerry has a different approach
John Kerry believes that the time has come to take a close
look at what our defense needs are and to plan for them
rather than to assume we must spend indiscriminately on new
weapons systems.
John Kerry believes that we can cut from $45 to $53 billion
from the Reagan Defense budget this year. Some of these cuts
include:
Major nuclear programs
MX Missile, Cancel, $5.0 billion
B-1 Bomber, Cancel, $8.0 billion
Anti-satellite system, Cancel, $99 million
Star Wars, Cancel, $99 million
Tomahawk Missile, Reduce by 50 per cent, $294 million
Land forces
AH-64 Helicopters, Cancel, $1.4 billion
Division Air Defense, Gun (DIVAD), Cancel, $638 million
Patriot Air Defense Missile, Cancel, 1.3 billion
Naval forces
Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser, Cancel, $800 million
Battleship Reactivation, Cancel, $453 million
Aircraft
AV-8B Vertical Takeoff and Landing Aircraft, Cancel, $1.0
billion
F-15 Fighter Aircraft, Cancel, $2.3 billion
F-14A Fighter Aircraft, Cancel, $1.0 billion
F-14D Fighter Aircraft, Cancel, $286 million
Pheonix Air-to-Air Missile, Cancel, $431 million
Sparrow Air-to-Air Missile, Cancel, $264 million
In addition, acquisition of equipment and supplies should
depend on real defense needs, not inter-service rivalries.
``National security'' is no excuse for bad management
practices. The Congressional Budget Office and the General
Accounting Office'' agree that an additional $8 billion can
be saved by implementing the recommendations of the
President's own Grace Commission Report.
``I will never forget that the Defense Budget is not an
employment program, but a tool to provide the nation with a
strong, lean and stabilizing defense posture.
Finally, John thinks it's time for a Senator who will stand
up for what's right and not go along with what's expedient.
``If we don't need the MX, the B-1 or these other weapons
systems. . . . There is no excuse for casting even one vote
for unnecessary weapons of destruction and as your Senator, I
will never do that.''
Mr. MILLER. This document is not the end of this sorry story, for
with these weapons systems clearly in his crosshairs as candidate John
Kerry, Senator John Kerry pulled the trigger on them his first year in
the Senate in 1985, and then again at every other chance he got.
In 1985, the ``series of votes against individual weapons systems''
the Washington Post so snugly swore never took place began.
In all, 14 Senate votes took place in 1985 alone on 5 of the specific
weapons systems Kerry pledged to cancel. Mr. President, 13 of his 14
votes in 1984 were to cut the defense systems he promised to cancel.
Four of those were to cut the MX peacemaker missile; two votes were
to cut antisatellite weapons; two votes were to cut SDI; another vote
was to restrict SDI's use; another vote was to cut battleship
reactivation; and another vote was against binary weapons.
Kerry's only vote not to cut a defense program was on SDI. You know
why? Because after voting three times to cut SDI by as much as $1.5
billion, Kerry voted against a cut of $160 million because he said it
didn't cut SDI enough.
So when it comes to the weapons systems that won the Cold War, John
Kerry said in 1985 he wanted to cancel them, and then in 1985 he voted
against them 13 out of 14 times.
There were two other votes to cut back overall defense spending, for
a total of 16 votes in 1985 on national defense alone; but the Mr.
Magoos down at the pious Post somehow could not locate these facts.
In fact, the Washington Post could not only find ``a'' vote--one
single solitary vote over 20 years--where John Kerry voted against
defense. That single antidefense vote was after the Cold War in 1990 or
1991, depending upon which Washington Post report you read.
Judy Woodruff did some better. She found 19 total defense votes over
Kerry's 20 years in the Senate. There were 16 votes in 1985 on defense
systems and overall spending alone.
She also claimed that Cheney voted the same way as Kerry on ``many of
those'' 19.
Yet how many can ``many'' be if Cheney and Kerry served
simultaneously in Congress for only 4 of those 19 annual budget fights?
But Wolf Blitzer's defense of Kerry's national defense record was the
most interesting. With the wave of a hand, Blitzer dismissed the
numerous votes by Kerry against these weapon systems that occurred
years before as well as the years after Cheney was Secretary of
Defense.
Cheney's position in 1990 and Kerry's opposition in 1984 is the
difference between opposing the Sherman tank and the B-29 in the year
before D-day and then wanting to cut back on them the year after V-J
day.
Mr. President, you could review the series of John Kerry votes on
weapons systems in 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989--all that occurred before
the Berlin Wall fell.
The fact is you can look at Kerry's votes during the cold war, after
the cold war, before Desert Storm, after Desert Storm, after the first
World Trade Center attack, before the war on terrorism and now during
the war on terrorism, and you will find John Kerry was one of the most
reliable ``no'' votes against the weapons our soldiers needed to defend
this country and keep the U.S. safe.
The point is if the media won't tell you what the impact of Kerry's
position would have been on the cold war, they sure are not going to
tell you what the impact would be today on the war on terrorism.
So let me sum up what we can learn from the media's response to my
speech at the Republican National Convention on John Kerry's defense
record.
The media can only find John Kerry opposing defense weapon systems
that Secretary Cheney opposed also.
The media will only count overall spending bills as a vote against a
weapon system, and will not count the numerous votes on the systems
themselves nor the overall budget plans as votes on the systems or
national defense.
And the media can simply find no votes by John Kerry against any
weapon systems during the height of the cold war--not a one. Not a
single one.
What they found, or what they want you to believe they found is that
Cheney and Kerry had practically identical national defense voting
records during the cold war. And that is flagrantly wrong.
Let me take another minute to look at this.
In 1985, the House in which Cheney was a Member had a series of votes
on 17 specific weapon systems.
Seventeen of Dick Cheney's seventeen votes were to protect the
defense systems.
Seven ayes on seven votes to protect the MX peacekeeper missile;
Six ayes on six votes to protect SDI;
Another vote to protect the Trident II missile;
Another vote to protect binary weapons;
Another vote to protect chemical weapons; and
Another vote to protect ASAT weapons.
During the height of the cold war, essentially every vote by Dick
Cheney was the mirror opposite of John Kerry.
Where Cheney repeatedly voted for weapon systems, Kerry repeatedly
voted against those weapon systems.
Where Cheney supported President Reagan's announced position on each
vote on these weapon systems, Kerry opposed President Reagan's
announced position on each vote.
The sole vote of John Kerry against a cut in defense was because he
wanted
[[Page S10408]]
a bigger cut--a cut as much as ten times larger in SDI.
So there are differences between Dick Cheney and John Kerry on
national defense. It's the difference between the world's biggest and
greatest military superpower and, well, spitballs.
Mr. President, I probably have wasted my time and just spit in the
ocean because we all have learned the hard way that the elite media can
do anything it wants and sell anything it wants.
We saw earlier this year the New York Times and Washington Post
repeat on their front pages false allegations by Ambassador Joe Wilson
about Niger uranium and his wife's role in his own activities, but they
then buried the correction somewhere in the back pages.
We saw Newsweek's Evan Thomas report that: ``The media want Kerry to
win'' and that support, in Thomas's words, ``is going to be worth maybe
15 points.''
We see CBS News having to admit they were pushing forgeries about
President Bush's National Guard service.
The national media's all-out defense of John Kerry's indefensible
defense record falls into this same sorry and disgraceful pattern of
selling an agenda rather than the facts.
What I said in New York was true. It was true then. It is still true
now.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
John Kerry's Defense Record
Mr. REID. Mr. President, John Kerry's record on defense reflects more
than approximately 10,000 votes he has cast in the Senate. His defense
record goes back to the steaming jungles of Vietnam where he, as a
young sailor commanding a fast boat, went into harm's way on many
different occasions. We know about the number of those occasions
because his defense record indicates that the Government of the United
States awarded him two medals for heroism--one a Bronze Star, one a
Silver Star. He was wounded on three separate occasions and received
three Purple Hearts. They were awarded not by some gentleman's club but
by the U.S. military.
On the programs about which we have heard a dissertation today, as we
look through those--except for the MX missile, which was canceled by
the President of the United States, not by Congress, as I recall--all
of these programs came into being. So to think that any one Senator,
with the hundreds and hundreds of votes on defense matters, stopped the
Cold War from being won is really a little silly, for lack of a better
description.
Senator John Kerry supported more than $4.4 trillion in defense
spending, including for 16 of the last 19 Defense authorization bills.
In fact, he voted for the largest increase in defense spending since
the early 1980s.
John Kerry is a strong supporter of the U.S. armed services and has
consistently worked to ensure the military has the best equipment and
training possible. In 2002, as an example, Senator Kerry voted for the
largest increase in the history of the defense budget. This increase
provided more than $355 billion in the Defense Department for 2003, an
increase of $21 billion over the previous year. This measure includes
$71.5 billion for procurement programs, such as $4 billion for Air
Force's F-22 fighter jets which are now going to be stationed at Nellis
Air Force Base in Las Vegas; $3.5 billion for Joint Strike Fighter
which will also be stationed in Las Vegas at Nellis Air Force Base, and
$279.3 million for the E-8C Joint Stars aircraft.
Senator Kerry's vote also funded a 4.1-percent pay increase for
military personnel; $160 million for the B-1 bomber defense system
upgrade; $1.5 billion for a new attack submarine; more than $630
million for Army and Navy variants of the Black Hawk helicopter; $3.2
billion for additional C-17 transports; $900 million for R&D of the
Comanche helicopter; and more than $800 million for the Trident
submarine conversion.
For someone who has served in the Senate for 20 years--this is just
one Senator's opinion--it speaks well of him that he is not a
rubberstamp for requests submitted to us by the Defense Department.
That is what we are. We are a separate, equal branch of Government, the
U.S. Congress, and our part of it is the Senate. We have an obligation
to review very closely what is given to us by the Pentagon and given
here. They always ask for more than they deserve, knowing that we are
going to turn down some requests. We have budgets to meet also. It
speaks well of Senator Kerry if he did not rubberstamp everything they
asked for.
As to the Bradley fighting vehicle, which was mentioned in the
previous speech, Senator Kerry supported $8.5 billion for the Bradley
program. That is not bad. Senator Kerry, for the M-1 Abrams tank, has
supported at least $21.5 billion in defense authorization for that
tank.
He has supported all five new aircraft carriers since he joined the
Senate. Since 1985, John Kerry has voted to start work on each of the
five new aircraft carriers: the USS Stennis, USS Truman in 1988, the
USS Reagan in 1993, the USS Bush in 1998, and the newest yet unnamed
carrier in 2001. So these aircraft carriers, the Stennis, Reagan, Bush,
and formerly the CVNX, he voted for all of those.
The F-15 fighter jets, Senator Kerry supported almost $20 billion in
Defense authorizations for the F-15. For the F-16, Senator Kerry
supported at least $25 billion in Defense authorization.
There is going to be a debate tonight and maybe that is why the
speech was given, but in testimony before the House Armed Services
Committee, Mr. Cheney said:
If you're going to have a smaller air force, you don't need
as many F-16s. . . . The F-16D we basically continue to buy
and close it out because we're not going to have as big a
force structure and we won't need as many F-16s.
According to the Boston Globe, Bush's 1991 Defense budget ``kill[ed]
81 programs for potential savings of $11.9 billion . . . Major weapons
killed include[d] . . . the Air Force's F-16 airplane.'' This was
Secretary Cheney. This was House Member Cheney. This was Vice President
Cheney.
It is also important to note that Senator Kerry has supported at
least $10.3 billion in Defense authorizations for the B-1 bomber.
The Kerry record on the B-2 bomber. He supported $17 billion in
Defense authorization for the B-2. Mr. Cheney proposed cuts to the B-2
program. I am sure there were times when he supported it, as did
Senator Kerry. There were times when Senator Kerry thought there was
too much being spent, as did Secretary Cheney.
According to the Boston Globe in 1990:
Defense Secretary Richard Cheney announced a cutback . . .
of nearly 45 percent in the administration's B-2 Stealth
bomber program, from 132 programs to 75 . . .
If we want to go back and revisit history a long time ago, we do not
have to go back very far to find out, just a couple of years ago, an
introduction of John Kerry by Senator Zell Miller at the Georgia
Democratic Jefferson Jackson Day Dinner, and I quote my friend Zell
Miller:
My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of the
nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and
greatest leaders--and a good friend. He was once a lieutenant
governor--but he didn't stay in that office 16 years, like
someone I know (Miller). It just took two years before the
people of Massachusetts moved him to the United States Senate
in 1984.
Further quoting him:
In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought
against government waste and worked hard to bring some
accountability to Washington. Early in his Senate career in
1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit
Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it
was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so.
Senator Miller went on to say:
John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public
education--
Let me repeat this quote:
John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public
education, boost the economy and protect the environment.
Business Week magazine named him one of the top pro-
technology legislators and made him a member of its
``Digital Dozen.''
Further quoting:
John was reelected in 1990 and again in 1996--when he
defeated popular Republican Governor William Weld in the most
closely watched Senate race in the country.
John is a graduate of Yale University and was a gunboat
officer in the Navy. He received a Silver Star, Bronze Star
and three awards of the Purple Heart for combat duty in
Vietnam. He later cofounded the Vietnam Veterans of America.
As many of you know, I have great affection, some might say
an obsession, for my
[[Page S10409]]
two Labrador retrievers, Gus and Woodrow. It turns out John
is a fellow dog lover, too, and he better be. His German
shepherd, Kim, is about to have puppies. And I just want him
to know Gus and Woodrow had nothing to do with that.
This is a direct quote from Senator Zell Miller and, among other
things, I repeat, ``John has worked to strengthen our military.''
The record for Senator Kerry supporting the military is, as Senator
Miller said, a stellar performance. He has worked to strengthen our
military.
I also say that for someone who opposed the MX missile system, I do
not think that makes him a bad guy. We in Nevada did not like the
system. It was eventually stopped. If somebody does not support the
missile defense system--I think there is probably somebody sitting in
the Presiding Officer's chair today, which can only be presided by
those on the majority, who does not support the missile defense system.
So the fact that people pick and choose what they support for the
military does not make them bad.
Senator Kerry's record is very good, and I have gone over some of the
things he supported. I am not going to belabor the point, other than to
say that Senator Kerry supported the F-18, and he supported the $60
billion defense for that instrument of war. The Cheney F-18 record, he
asked for cutbacks on that.
Senator Kerry is a person who truly believes in the military. He was
a volunteer as a young man and went and fought, showing heroism in that
process, and he is still showing heroism in his defense of this
country, under tremendous odds, with terribly negative attacks. For
someone who has served with Senator Kerry for two decades in the
Senate, I am proud of him. I am proud he is the nominee for my party.
He is a man of integrity. He has tremendous competence.
I was on the Select Committee on MIA/POW. He chaired that. The
cochair was Bob Smith from New Hampshire. He did a remarkably good job
in a most difficult situation.
I wish today had not turned into a situation of trying to talk about
Presidential politics, but that is the way it has turned out.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak about
the issue of reimportation of prescription drugs. I also wanted to talk
for a moment about the tax bill that is being negotiated by the
conference committee between the House and Senate, especially with
respect to the runaway plant issue and tax incentives that now occur
for those who shut down their American manufacturing plants and export
jobs. I will speak about those two issues briefly.
Before I do that, I'd like to address some of the remarks of my
colleague from Georgia, who was speaking when I came to the floor of
the Senate.
I disagreed strongly with my colleague when I heard his speech at one
of the national political conventions. He certainly had every right to
give that speech. I disagree strongly with the presentation he gave on
the Senate floor, but he has every right, of course, to express those
opinions on the Senate floor.
I have great respect for my colleague from Georgia. I honor his
service. He has provided great public service to this country in many
different ways, so I honor that service.
But I, of course, reserve the right to disagree with my colleague as
well, just as he came to the floor and disagreed with some of the votes
that have been cast by Senator Kerry.
The last time I was on the floor when my colleague from Georgia came
to speak, he was offering a proposal that we take away the right of the
American people to vote for Senators. He proposed instead that Senators
be appointed or selected by State legislatures, and that the right of
the people to vote for Senators should be rescinded.
Well, I thought that did not sound like a very modern approach. We
left that idea a long time ago in this country, and I got up and spoke
and indicated I did not have quite such a pessimistic view of this
country's future and certainly did not agree that we ought to revert
back to the States appointing their Senators and taking away from the
American people the right to elect Senators. But that was the only
previous occasion I recall on which I took the floor of the Senate and
disagreed with my distinguished colleague from Georgia. I must say,
however, that I feel compelled to disagree once again.
I have not come to the Senate floor to be critical, ever, of
President George W. Bush's military record. I would not do that. And I
would not be critical of Senator Kerry's military record. Both of them
served.
My colleague came to talk about Senator Kerry's record in voting for
defense for this country. This is not a new technique in American
politics. This is timeless. It always happens that someone stands up
and points at someone else and says: You don't represent this country's
interests in defense. You don't support a strong defense. You are not
willing to stand up when you need to stand up and be counted and
support a strong defense for this country.
Sometimes that works. But let me just say this. I don't think it
works when you point at someone who decided on graduation from Yale
that he would volunteer to go to Vietnam; not only that, he would
volunteer to serve on a swift boat, where he was certain to be involved
in hostile action. He didn't have to do that. He did that, he
volunteered. He received a Bronze Star, a Silver Star, three Purple
Hearts, and still has fragments in his body from the wounds from which
those Purple Hearts arose. I don't think it works to point fingers at
that man and suggest he, somehow, is weak on defense.
My colleague's assessment of Senator Kerry has changed some. Senator
Reid pointed out that in March of 2001, at a banquet in Georgia, my
colleague from Georgia introduced Senator Kerry. Here is what he said
about him:
My job tonight is an easy one. It's to present to you one
of this Nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best
known and greatest leaders, and a good friend.
Then he said this, my colleague from Georgia:
John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public
education, boost the economy and protect the environment.
Let me say that again because it is important. It is at odds with
what we just heard from my colleague from Georgia on the floor of the
Senate this afternoon. Speaking of John Kerry, my colleague from
Georgia said:
John has worked to strengthen our military.
This is a speech from March 1, 2001. What is the difference between
then and now? John Kerry has had the same record on defense.
Incidentally, John Kerry has supported a great amount of this
country's defense: the Apache helicopter, Aegis, The Bradley, Black
Hawk, B-2 bomber, C-17 cargo jets, F-16, F-18, Tomahawk missiles, C-
130s, and I could go on and on and on. Billions, tens of billions, yes,
trillions of dollars for defense Senator Kerry has voted for.
What is the difference between March 1, 2001, in my colleague's
assessment of Senator Kerry where he said ``John,'' speaking of Senator
Kerry, ``has worked to strengthen our military,'' what is the
difference between that and the discussion we have just heard today?
The difference is, it's an election year and my colleague has,
apparently, decided to change his mind. If there were an Olympic event
called ``stretching,'' I have a couple of personal nominations for who
might win the gold medal.
This ought not be, in American elections, an attempt to find out who
is the worst. It ought to be a search for who is the best. Who can best
lead this country? Who has a vision for the future that grows our
economy, that protects our country, protects our homeland, provides for
a strong defense, protects the environment? It is a search, in my
judgment, for who is the best, not who is the worst.
We have two candidates running for President, both fully qualified to
serve in that office. It does not serve our country well to point at
one and say somehow he is weak on defense, doesn't support defense,
especially when it is so at odds with the record. But it is now an
election year. I guess almost anything goes.
There is a term, I suppose, for changing one's mind, and it is called
flip-flop. I have not used it, but some have used it to the point of
significant repetition this year. I will not use it here
[[Page S10410]]
except to say what we have just heard today is at significant odds, not
only with the record of a member of our caucus who has served with
great gallantry but also at odds with the previously stated views of
the person who made the speech today.
Let me end as I began and say I honor the service of the Senator from
Georgia. I disagree with him about these issues. Four weeks from today
this country will see fit to make an informed choice between two men
who strive to serve for the next 4 years as this country's President.
Both candidates, I am sure, care about national security. Both care
about homeland security. As was stated in the debate last week, both
love this country.
I submit, just as one Senator, both are qualified to serve in that
office. Both parties have nominated people they choose to support and
support aggressively. I come to the Senate floor today to simply say
this: John Kerry is someone with whom I have served for many years. I
have watched him vote. The fact is, he supports a strong defense for
this country. He always has and always will. When it came time to
answer his call, his country's call, he left one of the prestigious
colleges in this country upon graduation and said: Let me volunteer. He
went to Vietnam. He went in harm's way.
There is no amount of energy or wind that can be exerted by others
who will change the basic fact of a voting record that is in strong
support of America's defense.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. REID. I say through the Chair to the Senator from North Dakota,
the Senator from North Dakota has served more than 2 decades in the
Congress of the United States?
Mr. DORGAN. That is correct.
Mr. REID. So you have been called to vote on every Defense bill and
hundreds and hundreds of amendments offered on those Defense bills over
the years.
As strong as the Senator from North Dakota is on matters relating to
the U.S. military, I don't know this, but I will bet there were
occasions that you voted to cut certain programs; is that right?
Mr. DORGAN. I say to the Senator, I have, in fact. I serve on the
appropriations subcommittee here on the Senate. I care a lot about this
country's defense. And I voted against the MX missile program, because
I felt it was a terrible waste of money. But I am a strong supporter of
defense. I believe anyone who looks at my record will understand the
weapons programs I supported, significant weapons programs, have added
strength and boosted this country's capability.
Because I serve on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, I
watch what others do as well. From a firsthand knowledge, I say that
Senator Kerry has a strong and aggressive record in supporting this
country and supporting a strong defense for this country.
Mr. REID. The point I make, and I would like the Senator to respond
to this, a person from time to time, in service in the Congress of the
United States, votes for amendments to cut spending in different areas
for a lot of different reasons. They still can be some of the strongest
hawks we have around here; isn't that true?
Mr. DORGAN. No question about that.
My colleague from Georgia was talking about Vice President Cheney and
John Kerry. I didn't quite understand that comparison of their records
on defense. I have lived a couple of doors down from Dick and Lynne
Cheney for a number of years. I know them well. I would never come to
suggest somehow that Dick Cheney doesn't support a strong defense. And
I know John Kerry very well. I certainly wouldn't come to suggest he
doesn't support a strong defense. Both of them have records that
demonstrate a support for this country's defense.
Well, enough about that. I didn't come to the floor of the Senate to
speak about that. But I felt that there should be some response to the
statement by the Senator from Georgia this afternoon which I think,
frankly, is not supported at all by the facts.
American Jobs
On May 5 of this year, we had a vote in the Senate. That vote was on
an amendment that I had offered, together with my colleague, Senator
Mikulski from Maryland. The intent of the vote was to shut down a
loophole that rewards U.S. companies that move their manufacturing jobs
overseas.
Yes, we have that kind of loophole. It is a perverse, insidious
loophole in our Tax Code that says: Shut down your U.S. manufacturing
plant, get rid of your U.S. employees and outsource those jobs, and,
God bless you, while you leave this country, we will give you a tax
cut.
Talk about a perverse incentive to do exactly the wrong thing, that
is it.
We are now seeing the conference committee between the Senate Finance
Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee meet and negotiate
over a FSC/ETI bill, sometimes also called the ``jobs bill.'' If they
finish putting this bill together in conference and do not include a
provision to eliminate this perverse incentive, they will have done
precious little to help protect, nurture, and strengthen American jobs.
Incidentally, when I offered this amendment on May 5 of this year,
the amendment was tabled by a vote of 60 to 39. Sixty Members of the
Senate voted to say they did not want to shut down a tax loophole that
provides an incentive for companies to fire their American workers and
move their U.S. jobs overseas. So that loophole still exists in tax
law.
Now I read in the paper this morning they really do not want to pay
for the cost of this FSC/ETI bill by shutting down loopholes. This is
unbelievable.
We have American companies now that decide they want to do business
through a post office box in the Bahamas or the Grand Caymans. Why? Do
they want to be a citizen of the Grand Caymans? Not exactly. They just
want to avoid paying U.S. taxes so everyone else can pay taxes that
these folks do not pay.
I suggest that once companies have decided to move their corporation
and run their business out of a mailbox in the Bahamas for the purpose
of avoiding U.S. taxes, the next time they get in trouble maybe they
ought to call the Bahamian Navy to protect them. I understand the
Bahamian Navy has 20 people. Maybe the next time one of these companies
gets in trouble with some expropriated assets or other issue they can
call on the combined flexed muscle of the Bahamian Navy.
My point is simple. We have a real problem in this country with the
outsourcing of jobs. In the last 4 years, we have actually lost jobs at
a time when we are supposed to be creating jobs. We have an expanding
population. We need new jobs. But we are losing jobs.
I will not give the same speech I have given previously about the
Radio Flyer and Huffy bicycles, those quintessentially American
products that are now being made in China. I will not talk about the
all-American cookie, the Fig Newton, now being made in Monterey,
Mexico, so that it is now Mexican food. I will not give the speech
about the outsourcing of these jobs to Sri Lanka, Bangladesh,
Indonesia, and China. But if this country does not wake up soon and get
rid of these pernicious loopholes in the tax law that say, ship your
U.S. jobs overseas and we will give you a big tax cut, if we do not do
that, we are not going to succeed.
Growing an economy requires us to do the right things. We cannot talk
about growing the economy and then support tax loopholes and say, by
the way, ship your U.S. jobs overseas. That does not work. We are
outsourcing jobs every single day and no one seems to care much about
it.
Incidentally, that also relates to the trade deficit, because when we
outsource the jobs and ship the products from those jobs back into this
country, it means we exacerbate the trade deficit, which is the largest
deficit in human history.
One can make an argument as an economist--I used to teach a bit of
economy in college--one can make an argument that the budget deficit is
money we owe to ourselves. We cannot make that argument with respect to
a trade deficit. We owe a trade deficit to other countries. It will be
paid inevitably by a lower standard of living in our country in the
future.
The largest trade deficit in history ought to be cause for
substantial alarm in this Chamber and at the White
[[Page S10411]]
House. Yet there is almost a conspiracy of silence all around this town
about a trade deficit that, in my judgment, hurts this country very
badly.
Incidentally, Lou Dobbs has written a book about this trade deficit.
I encourage colleagues and others to read it. His program, more than
any on television these days, is talking about the danger of this trade
deficit.
At any rate, as they finalize this jobs bill in conference, which is
going on as I speak, they need to come back to the amendment I offered
last May 5 with my colleague, Senator Mikulski. They need to shut down
this perverse incentive in tax law, which gives benefits and
encouragement and financial help to companies that move their jobs
overseas.
Reimportation of Prescription Drugs
Let me make one other point on another subject that I think is
critical. We are told we are near the end of this session. Perhaps on
Friday of this week we will complete our work and then come back for a
lameduck session, which happens to be a terrible idea. Perhaps, because
this Congress has not done much of the right kind of work or much of
the work it needs to do, we will have to have a lameduck session.
As we near the end of this session, the one relentless issue that
many Members of Congress say they care about and want to do something
about is the issue of the prices of prescription drugs. We pay the
highest prices in the world for prescription drugs and there are far
too many in this country who cannot afford them.
Senior citizens are 12 percent of our population yet they consume
over one-third of the prescription drugs in America. Senior citizens
have reached that point in their lives when they have a fixed income.
Yet one-third of the prescription drugs are taken by our senior
citizens. Why? Because they must. These are lifesaving drugs, miracle
drugs. My hat is off to the pharmaceutical industry and to the
researchers at the National Institutes of Health and others who have
helped create these new drugs, but miracle drugs offer no miracle to
those who cannot afford to take them.
I sat on a bale of straw the other day at a farm in southern North
Dakota with a fellow who is 87 years old. He told me: I fought cancer
for 3 years and I think I finally have beaten it. This is an 87-year-
old man. I fought cancer for 3 years and I think I finally won. For
those 3 years, my wife and I drove to Canada to buy the prescription
drugs I needed to fight this cancer.
Why? Because the same FDA approved drug, the identical pill, is put
in the same bottle, made by the same company, but is priced at a
dramatically lower price in Canada.
He said: For 3 years, we went to Canada to save that money because we
had to. Senior citizens should not have to go to Canada to save money
on prescription drugs.
He is right about that. I would prefer that pharmacist be able to go
to Canada to purchase those lower priced prescription drugs from the
pharmacist in Canada, come back, and pass the savings along to the
consumers in our country.
By getting rid of the artificial barriers that prevent re-
importation, we would put downward pressure on prescription drug prices
in this country so people would not have to go anywhere but their local
drugstore to purchase prescription drugs. They could purchase them here
for a fair price. But we are charged the highest prices in the world
for these drugs.
We are told by the Food and Drug Administration that if we reimport
prescription drugs from Canada in any organized way that there would be
a safety issue. We are told by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services that there may be a safety issue. We are told by the President
that he thinks maybe we should look at this but there might be a safety
issue.
That suggests somehow that Americans are not able to do what
Europeans have done everyday for years. The Europeans have something
called parallel trading. Their parallel trading programs allow someone
from Germany to buy a prescription drug from Spain, someone from France
to buy a prescription drug from Italy.
They don't have any safety issues in Europe. The marketplace
determines the price for the drug, and the market puts downward
pressure so the Europeans don't pay the highest prices in the world for
prescription drugs as we do. They do what is called parallel trading,
and there are no safety issues at all. European officials have
testified before our committees. The safety issues simply are not
there. It is a bogus issue.
We have drafted a bipartisan piece of legislation called the
Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act. Myself, along with
Senators Snowe, McCain, Stabenow, Feingold, and others, we have drafted
a bipartisan piece of legislation that systematically addresses the
safety issues so that there cannot be any safety concerns. Our bill
would allow the reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada and
from other major developed countries and would put downward pressure on
prescription drug prices. The House of Representatives has passed such
a bill. That bill is on the calendar at the desk. The bipartisan bill
which we have introduced is similar to the bill that is at the desk.
Yet we are unable to get a final vote in the Senate.
We have had substantial discussion. I had a discussion with the
majority leader on this subject at midnight one night earlier this year
on the Senate floor. I had a hold on a nominee. I withdrew that hold
because I believed we had an agreement that we were going to work
toward an opportunity to have a vote on this legislation. I believed
that agreement with the majority leader existed. He now indicates it
was not an agreement for a vote. He indicates it was an agreement that
a process would begin and that the authorizing committee would work on
this. The authorizing committee worked on it, to be sure. They would
have markups scheduled and markups cancelled, markups scheduled and
markups cancelled. The fact is, they never were able to get a bill out
of committee because they couldn't get consensus on anything. We have a
consensus on the bill that is on the calendar. We have a consensus on
the bipartisan bill. If there is a vote on that in the Senate, it will
pass by a significant margin. We don't need another consensus. There is
a consensus that already exists. What we need is a vote on the floor of
the Senate.
I encourage the majority leader once again to allow us the
opportunity to cast this vote. Senator McCain, Senator Snowe, myself,
Senator Stabenow, Senator Feingold, Senator Daschle, Senator Kennedy
and many others have worked very hard on this issue. In my judgment, it
is a disservice to those who deserve to pay fair prices for
prescription drugs not to have a vote on this bill. It is a disservice
to their interests for us not to complete work on this bill during this
session of the Congress.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record two editorials. One is
by the Chicago Tribune and it is entitled ``Shielding the Drug
Industry.'' This says essentially what I have said:
While Congress dithers, States and cities skirt if not
break the law by helping seniors and others take advantage of
lower prescription-drug prices in Canada.
And the editorial talks about the desperate need for Congress to pass
a law dealing with reimportation. They specifically feel that the
legislation that is before the Congress would be meritorious and they
talk about Peter Rost who is vice president of marketing for one of the
largest drug companies who broke ranks with the drug industry in the
last couple of weeks and publicly endorsed the proposal in Congress
that my colleagues and I have sponsored.
Then I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a New York Times
editorial that is titled ``The Senate's Chance on Drug Costs.''
If Dr. Bill Frist, the Senator majority leader, knows
what's good for the body politic, he will allow a quick floor
vote on the drug reimportation bill he has been bottling up
for the benefit of President Bush and the pharmaceutical
industry.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Chicago Tribune, Oct. 1, 2004]
Shielding the Drug Industry
Last month Peter Rost, a vice president of marketing for
Pfizer Inc., broke ranks with the drug industry and his
employer by publicly endorsing a proposal in Maryland's
Montgomery County to allow its employees to buy cheaper drugs
from Canada. Rost disputed industry claims that reimportation
would pose a public health risk. ``The real concern about
safety is about people who do not take drugs because they
cannot afford it,'' he said.
[[Page S10412]]
Rost--who made it clear that he was speaking only for
himself, not Pfizer--joins a growing number of city and state
officials across the country arguing for reimportation. Only
a few months ago, a new law seemed inevitable. Even Health
and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson suggested that
was so. Unfortunately, ``inevitable'' may not mean any time
soon.
Competint reimportation bills have been bottled up in the
Senate for months. And Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of
Tennessee isn't likely to allow a debate or vote before the
election. Last month he argued that with only a few weeks
left in the session and other pressing issues, there wasn't
enough time for a full debate.
While Congress dithers, states and cities skirt if not
break the law by helping seniors and others take advantage of
lower prescription-drug prices in Canada. One such program is
supposed to be introduced soon in Illinois.
The lack of progress is frustrating. Last spring, at his
confirmation hearings, Medicare chief Mark McClellan promised
to help develop legislation to allow imports of lower-cost
prescription drugs with safeguards to protect consumers.
Frist said that the Senate ``will begin a process for
developing proposals that would allow for the safe
reimportation of FDA-approved prescription drugs.'' But Sen.
Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) said recently that the process had
``led to nothing.''
No wonder some politicians are so frustrated that they're
openly challenging the Food and Drug Administration in
announcing plans to help consumers link to pharmacies in
Canada and elsewhere.
Opponents of reimportation have argued that it would open
America's borders to a flood of tainted drugs, and that the
FDA could not guarantee the safety or purity of such imported
drugs. That argument isn't convincing. Many drugs are
manufactured abroad, and the FDA inspects those factories and
ensures that drugs are shipped to America without tampering.
That system could be expanded, using fees paid by those who
import or export the drugs.
Pfizer execs are asserting that Rost ``has no
qualifications to speak on importation'' and emphasize that
he is not speaking for the company. But his support for
reimportation resonates in Illinois, where 67 percent of
registered voters supported Gov. Rod Blagojevich's plan to
help residents buy prescription drugs from Canada, Ireland
and England, according to a recent Tribune/WGN-TV poll. A
survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation showed about 8 in 10
Medicare recipients support allowing Americans to buy drugs
from Canada if they can get a lower price. The same study
showed more than 6 in 10 don't believe such a system would
expose Americans to unsafe medicines from other countries.
It seems terribly clear that congressional leaders have one
intention here: protecting their heavy campaign contributors
in the drug industry from competition. This issue deserves a
vote. The stalling has to stop.
____
[From the New York Times, Sept. 29, 2004]
The Senate's Chance on Drug Costs
If Dr. Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, knows what's
good for the body politic, he will allow a quick floor vote
on the drug reimportation bill he has been bottling up for
the benefit of President Bush and the pharmaceutical
industry. A large majority--up to 75 members, by some
estimates--would easily pass the bill and delight the
organized older voters who have been clamoring for lower-
priced Canadian drugs. American consumers are increasingly
aware that their average drug prices are 67 percent higher
than what Canadians pay for comparable prescriptions.
Bipartisan Senate pressure is growing on Dr. Frist, along
with threats of the sort of floor rebellion that saw the
Republican House rise up last year to pass a drug
reimportation plan over Mr. Bush's opposition.
Mr. Bush continues to express concern about potential
safety risks from imported drugs while insisting that the new
Medicare subsidy for prescription drugs will eventually ease
the pocketbook pain of distressed retirees. Dr. Frist also
continues to express concern about the need to weigh the
benefits of lower prices against possible safety risks.
But this concern is addressed in the pending bipartisan
bill, which mandates that the bargain drugs would come from
licensed Canadian pharmacies and wholesalers registered with
the federal Food and Drug Administration.
The real issue appears to be to avoid forcing Mr. Bush to
choose between signing the bill and angering the drug
industry, which donates mightily to G.O.P. campaigns, or
vetoing it and infuriating older voters.
This page has supported the Medicare drug plan, but with
the imperative that the administration work harder to
restrain costs, however much the pharmaceutical lobby
complains. The reimportation bill is a promising cost saver.
Mr. DORGAN. As I have indicated, there is a bipartisan group of
Senators who have worked a long while on this issue. The House of
Representatives passed this idea by a wide bipartisan margin. This is
not a partisan issue. It is bipartisan.
My hope is that the majority leader will decide that as a matter of
scheduling, we will, before we adjourn sine die, address this issue and
resolve it for the benefit of the American people. There is no safety
issue. Everyone knows that is a bogus issue. To continue to raise that
issue suggests somehow that Americans are unable to do what the
Europeans have done routinely year after year. That is, put together a
system--we call it reimportation; in Europe it is called parallel
trading--that is safe for consumers and that puts downward pressure on
prescription drug prices.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
War on Terrorism
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there has
been use of the Senate floor in the last few minutes to discuss the
Presidential race and to make statements about the situation in Iraq
and our President's handling of that and our President's own war
service, his service in the guard, which was honorable. I don't know
everything that was said, but let me say that it is very important we
take every opportunity to look at what is happening in the war on
terrorism and the place that Iraq holds in the war on terrorism. Let's
don't forget Afghanistan, either.
Our country was hit on 9/11, 2001. Everybody in the world knows that.
It hasn't been easy to deal with a different kind of enemy, but that is
what we have, a different kind of enemy. Our President has been
resolute and firm in fighting this enemy every step of the way.
Americans can hardly imagine that human beings would actually be able
to shoot children in the back as they are running away, as happened in
Russia a few weeks ago, terrorists taking over a school and children
running away to go to safety and being shot in the back. Three hundred
people died in that event.
People can't imagine an enemy that would cut someone's head off
before a video camera and spread it out across the world. But that has
happened with the kind of enemy we are now facing. Does anyone think
that kind of enemy can be dealt with with kid gloves, with good
manners, as we would have in a debating society? The President doesn't.
The Vice President doesn't. They are standing up for our country. They
are standing up for our country against an unimaginable enemy, and they
are doing a great job. They are doing a great job because they feel
from their hearts that we must be firm and resolute against this enemy,
and we must not let anything stand in the way of protecting America and
protecting our homeland.
That is why I am so proud of our President and our Vice President.
They are not asking anyone else if America can defend itself.
And we are at war with terrorists who would shoot children in the
back and cut innocent people's heads off for absolutely no reason
whatsoever. So if we are going to use the Senate floor to be part of
the campaign, I think we need to make sure the people of our country
hear both sides. There are real differences. There are real differences
in how we would handle the war on terrorism, what we do in Iraq. Iraq
is not an easy situation. We all know that.
We know the enemy has infiltrated Iraq. They have come in through the
porous borders from all over the world to try to disrupt the stability
and the stabilization of Iraq. Americans have boots on the ground in
Iraq. Our young men and women are fighting for our freedom in the
deserts of Afghanistan and in Iraq so that we will be able to debate on
the Senate floor, hold our own elections, and live in the freedom that
we have come to know. I think our young men and women deserve the
respect that we have a united country in this war and in this effort.
This is every bit as much a fight for freedom as any war in which
America has been engaged.
Our President and our Vice President put one thing, and one thing
only, first: the security of the American people.
[[Page S10413]]
They want every child in our country to grow up with the same kind of
freedom and opportunity every one of us in the Senate has had growing
up. If we let terrorists curtail the way we live, we will have lost. We
will have said that we are not going to answer the call of our
generation to maintain the freedom and opportunity of our country,
which we have been able to enjoy. That is unthinkable. Our President
and our Vice President are standing firm for the protection of the
American people. They are standing firm for our economy.
One of the other hits we took on 9/11/01 was the hit to our economy.
The tourism industry went down, the airline industry was in trouble,
and it had a ripple effect throughout our economy. But our President
has remained firm in the way we would try to stabilize the stock market
and get jobs back and get people back to work. He is doing it with tax
cuts, so that people will have more of their own money to spend and
they will put it into the economy. Guess what. That has made the
difference.
The turnaround in our economy started right after the tax cuts were
signed by the President. The stock market is up and jobs are coming
back; 1.7 million jobs have been put on this year alone. We are almost
back to where we were before 9/11.
So, Mr. President, if we are going to use the Senate floor to talk
about the election that is going to happen in the next 6 weeks in this
country, I think we better look at the record. The record is good. We
have taken the steps that are necessary after being hit by terrorists
in a way that we could never have imagined being hit on 9/11. Our
homeland is more secure. Is it everything it needs to be? No. The
President will tell you that. Anyone will tell you that. But it is a
whole lot safer than it was on September 10, 2001.
We are taking the steps right now on the Senate floor to reform our
intelligence-gathering capabilities. We are going to have the best
intelligence operation in the entire world. We are already making great
strides. We have made great improvements. There is much more sharing
and, in fact, the increased and better intelligence has caused us
to know that there is a heightened alert right now. But we are taking
the steps to codify that and put it into statutory form. We are doing
exactly what we ought to be doing to assure that our country is
prepared to go forward, to stay the course in this war, and to win the
war on terrorism. We are going to do it one step at a time, with a
President who is absolutely focused on our national security.
Mr. President, I am proud of our President. I am proud of our Vice
President. They are staying focused. A lot of people think this
campaign has gotten pretty rough. Campaigns in America are rough. None
of us like it, but no one is going to unilaterally disarm. Therefore,
we are going to make sure that the truth comes out so that people can
see the differences between the two candidates. There doesn't have to
be any mud slung in this campaign because the differences are very
great. Our President is resolute that he is going to win the war on
terrorism and protect the American people, and he hopes we can fight
the war on terrorism on the turf where they are rather than allowing
them on our turf. That is his strategy, and it is the right one.
We have a President who is firmly committed to a domestic agenda that
includes an education for every child in our country; quality health
care for every person in our country, to bring more people who are
insured into our health care system; to have malpractice reform so that
we will be able to assure quality health care at a reasonable cost. Our
President is committed to Social Security reform so that it will be
there for our seniors, not just for the next 20 years, but for the next
100 years. It is going to take leadership. It is going to take
leadership and vision for the next President of the United States. Our
President is doing exactly the right thing in focusing on our security,
on education for children, on quality health care for all of the people
in our country. Our President is doing a great job. I am proud of him.
I think the people of America--the more they focus on not only the
accomplishments of the last 4 years, but the vision for the future--our
President is talking about his vision for the next 4 years and what we
will be able to do for our country that will build on the rising
economy, the better national security that he has already put in place.
Mr. President, I am going to yield the floor, and I hope that we can
keep this debate on the differences on the issues. I hope we will not
have extraneous charges and the use of the Senate floor for extraneous
charges that do not have a place in the civilized debate that I hope we
will have on the floor of the Senate in the future.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, may I inquire as to the parliamentary
situation in the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are postcloture on S. 2485.
Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. I wish to make some remarks on an
amendment that I have filed. I will not ask that that amendment be
brought before the Senate this evening, but I look toward doing so at
an appropriate time.
Mr. President, 3 years have passed since the attacks of September 11,
2001. Largely because of the anger and the concern and the desire to
show that the lives of those 3,000 Americans who were sacrificed on
that day had meaning, we are nearing passage of a meaningful
intelligence reform plan. But as we commit ourselves to implementing
this plan, I remain convinced that we still will not be doing all we
can do, all we should do to win the war on terror and to hold our
adversaries to account.
Why do I hold those views?
It is my view that we have allowed to escape at least one and
possibly more make-believe allies that have and may be today supporting
terrorists with financial, logistical, and even diplomatic resources.
These allies are saying one thing in their public relations campaign
but doing quite another in their palaces, in the halls of government
when it comes to nurturing al-Qaida and other terrorist networks.
Let me give a little explanation of why I think this issue is so
important. For 19 relatively young men, most of whom were strangers to
each other, to be able to come into the United States without much
command of the English language and almost no knowledge of American
culture and practices, stay in this country for, in some cases, 18
months, to be able to refine a plan that had been developed prior to
their entry, to deal with unexpected complications, such as the
detaining of the 20th hijacker, and to be able to practice that plan
and finally execute it with the tragic consequences of September 11 is
not an easy task. Many have asked how could they have done it.
I believe, for one thing, these 19 people were more capable than we
may have originally thought, and that itself is a chilling observation,
because it says something about the adversary we are going to continue
to be facing once we restart the war on terror.
But second, I also believe they were not here alone. In that famous
August 2001 briefing which the President received at Crawford, TX, one
of the items in that briefing which has, in my opinion, been
inadequately observed was that the President was told that al-Qaida had
a network inside the United States.
Supplementing that network, I believe the Saudis were given license
to take advantage of a network that was already in existence in the
United States for another purpose, primarily the purpose of surveilling
countrymen who were in the United States to determine if they were
fulminating any plots that might be adverse to the interests of the
royal family. That network was then made available to at least 2 and
maybe more, possibly all, of the 19 hijackers.
I will remind my colleagues again, as I have previously, that much of
the information that makes this case is contained in the 27 pages of
the final report of the House and Senate inquiry into 9/11, the 27
pages which were censored by the administration and, therefore, have
never been made available to the American people. But I can say this: A
California-based former employee of the Saudi Civil Aviation Authority,
a then 42-year-old Saudi national named Omar al-Bayoumi, had extensive
contacts with two of the Saudi national hijackers, Khalid al
[[Page S10414]]
Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi. These two men had entered the United States
in January of 2000 after having attended a summit of terrorists in
Malaysia a few weeks earlier.
Bayoumi was paid $40,000 a year by a Saudi Government subcontractor,
but he never showed up for work. He was what is referred to as a ghost
employee. Indeed, a CIA agent described him as a spy of the Saudi
Government assigned to keep track of Saudi citizens in southern
California, particularly the large number of Saudi students studying at
higher education institutions there.
The day that al-Bayoumi met the two hijackers at a Los Angeles
restaurant, he had first attended a meeting at the Saudi consulate with
a Saudi official who subsequently was denied reentry into the United
States because of his alleged terrorist background.
He then, over lunch, invited the two terrorists to come from Los
Angeles to San Diego where he proceeded to first allow them to live
with him until they could arrange for an apartment, he cosigned their
lease, paid their first month's rent, hosted a welcome party, and
helped them get a variety of services, including driver's licenses and
flight school applications. He introduced them to others who served as
their translator and other support roles.
This is just one strand in the web of connections between hijackers
and the Saudi Government. But, again, I am restricted in terms of how
fulsome the details can be.
There is other evidence of Saudi complicity, especially when it comes
to financing al-Qaida. In a monograph on the finances of al-Qaida
prepared by the 9/11 Commission, staff investigators found government-
sponsored Islamic charities had helped provide funds for Osama bin
Laden. The monograph states:
Fund-raisers and facilitators throughout Saudi Arabia and
the Gulf raised money for al Qaeda from witting and unwitting
donors and diverted funds from Islamic charities and mosques.
It attributed this thriving network to ``a lack of awareness and a
failure to conduct oversight over institutions [which] created an
environment in which such activity has flourished.''
The 9/11 Commission investigators concluded:
It appears that the Saudis have accepted that terrorist
financing is a serious issue and are making progress in
addressing it. It remains to be seen whether they will (and
are able to do) enough, and whether the U.S. Government will
push them hard enough, to substantially eliminate al Qaeda
financing by Saudi sources.
At least one other authority body is even more skeptical. The Council
on Foreign Relations established a task force on terrorist financing,
and representatives of the task force testified last week on the 29th
of September before a hearing of the Senate Banking Committee.
Mallory Factor, vice chairman of the Independent Task Force on
Terrorist Financing, said this:
The Saudi Government has clearly allowed individual and
institutional financiers of terror to operate and prosper
within Saudi borders.
Let me repeat that statement:
The Saudi government has clearly allowed individuals and
institutional financiers of terror to operate and prosper
within Saudi borders.
He continued:
Saudi Arabia has enacted a new anti-money laundering law
designed to impede the flow from Saudi Arabia to terrorist
groups. However, significant enforcement by Saudi Arabia of
several of these new laws appears to be lacking. . . .
He continued:
Furthermore, even if these laws were fully implemented,
they contain a number of exceptions and flaws which weaken
their effectiveness in curbing terror financing. . . . Quite
simply, Saudi Arabia continues to allow many key financiers
of global terror to operate, remain free and go unpunished
within Saudi borders.
Lee Wolosky, the codirector of the Council on Foreign Relations Task
Force, added:
There is no evidence . . . that since September 11, 2001,
Saudi Arabia has taken public punitive actions against any
individual for financing terror.
That directly contradicts the statements made by this administration
that the Saudis have been cooperating and continue to deserve to be
considered as allies.
Despite all of the evidence, President Bush has said nothing to
suggest that he is reconsidering the assurance he offered to the
American people in the Rose Garden on September 24, 2001, when he said:
As far as the Saudi Arabians go . . . they've been nothing
but cooperative. Our dialogue has been one of--as you would
expect friends to be, able to discuss issues.
On Sunday, like several million Americans, I watched the Sunday
interview programs and I saw a lady I admire, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, as
she attempted to explain why she and other key members of this
administration, aware of the fact that there was a considerable
disagreement as to whether aluminum tubes which were destined for Iraq
but had been intercepted, but which had been determined by the best
experts in the United States, those in the Department of Energy, to not
be appropriate for the construction of a centrifuge, one of the
preliminary steps in the development of weaponizable material--she said
any prudent policymaker would have to take the most conservative view
if there was a disagreement, take the view that would best protect the
American people.
I say this: If we have the kinds of comments that have come from
responsible citizens who served on the 9/11 Commission, statements that
have been made by a respected independent task force of the Council on
Foreign Relations, and the recommendations of the joint House-Senate
task force, why do we not take the same conservative position as
relates to Saudi Arabia?
This is what our colleagues in this Chamber and the House said in
December of 2002. Recommendation 19 of the final report of the joint
inquiry stated: The intelligence community, and particularly the FBI
and the CIA, should aggressively address the possibility that foreign
governments are providing support to or are involved in terrorist
activity targeting the United States and U.S. interests. State-
sponsored terrorism substantially increases the likelihood of
successful and more lethal attacks against the United States. This
issue must be addressed.
If we believe that we should take the stance which is most protective
of the security of the people of the United States of America, why have
we taken this position of coddling passivity and deference to the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with this record of their support of terrorism?
My lack of confidence in both Saudis and the administration, my lack
of confidence in their ability to level with the American people, leads
me to offer this amendment on behalf of the families of those who died
on 9/11.
Several groups of families and survivors have filed lawsuits against
the Saudi Government, members of the Saudi Royal Family, other Saudi
entities, alleging that they were part of a conspiracy that led to the
successful attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001.
The Saudi Government, in Federal court, has moved to strike not only
the Royal Family, not only individuals but also to strike virtually
every entity under the umbrella, that those entities are a part of the
sovereign immunity in Saudi Arabia and therefore come under the
umbrella of sovereign immunity from their acts.
The effect of this position is to prevent the victims' families from
proceeding to the discovery portion of the trial which could yield
valuable information about the Saudi Government's activities. This
amendment would waive sovereign immunity protections for foreign
governments involved in lawsuits related to the September 11 attacks.
It would not automatically declare that the Saudi Government or any
other government is responsible for the attacks or was complicit in the
attacks, but it would give victims' families a chance to have their day
in court. While exceptions like this are rare, this is because
terrorist attacks of the magnitude of September 11 are rare.
Congress has waived sovereign immunity before. In the case of the
Iran hostage-taking, sovereign immunity was waived because there was
reason to suspect that the hostage-takers had received support from the
Iranian Government. We decided an exception to the law was necessary in
this case in order to both get to the truth and see that justice was
provided for innocent American families.
[[Page S10415]]
I believe the family members of the victims of 9/11 deserve to have
an equal opportunity to get to the truth, especially in light of the
coverup our Government has engaged in and which has prevented the
American people from a full understanding of the extent of that
complicity.
For all we know, the network which functioned prior to 9/11 and which
contributed to the ability of these 19 people who were new to the
United States, woefully deficient in the English language, to be able
to hide out for 18 months and then refine, practice, and execute a plan
of terror, that infrastructure is still in place. This amendment would
help these families and the people of the United States better
understand what has happened to us in the past, what the threat might
be today, and to hold those responsible and accountable for their
actions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in
morning business for no more than 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Idaho.
Flu Vaccine Supply
Mr. CRAIG. I come to the Senate floor this afternoon to express a
grave concern about today's announcement concerning a new threat to
America's flu vaccine supply--and to urge that firm and decisive action
is needed to meet this potential deadly threat.
First, the facts as we know them: Earlier this morning, the
California-based Chiron Corporation announced that British regulators
had unexpectedly imposed a 3-month suspension of operations of its
Liverpool plant, citing unspecified manufacturing problems.
What does this mean? Mr. President, I believe today's announcement
may prove to have worldwide and deadly consequences. This is because
Chiron's Liverpool facility is today one of only two major
manufacturers of flu vaccine worldwide, and it supplies approximately
one-half of the total U.S. flu vaccine supply.
More specifically, if Chiron is unable to ship its vaccine this year,
the U.S. will lose approximately 46 million doses of flu vaccine, just
under half of the anticipated supply of about 100 million doses.
Ideally, as many as 185 million doses would be needed to protect all
Americans who are at risk. This gives you some idea of the parameters
of the problem.
Because flu vaccine is produced seasonally and cannot easily be
accelerated on short notice, and because the annual flu season
typically begins in October--the month we are now in--this announcement
effectively deals a body blow to U.S. preparedness as we enter this
year's flu season.
As the chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I am
especially concerned about the effects of this development on America's
senior population, who account for over 90 percent of the approximately
36,000 American flu deaths each year.
Indeed, just last week the Aging Committee held a hearing to examine
ways of improving flu preparedness and vaccination rates.
At our hearing, Chiron president and CEO testified that Chiron was on
track to deliver its full complement of flu vaccine this year.
According to initial accounts, today's announcement from the British
Government came as an alarming surprise, both to Chiron itself and to
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which itself had conducted
reviews of Chiron's operations in recent months.
Time will tell, of course, but there is no question that today's
developments have caught the world public health community off guard.
So what can be done?
First, I am very encouraged that FDA, CDC, and the NIH have moved
swiftly today to convene emergency meetings of top vaccine experts to
confer with their British counterparts and to seek assistance from the
other major vaccine manufacturer, Aventis. I understand that Secretary
Tommy Thompson has already dispatched a team to England to address this
crisis.
I believe these discussions are extremely important. Of course,
safety must always be our paramount consideration. Nevertheless,
considering Chiron's critical role in flu vaccine production, coupled
with the deadly worldwide threat that confronts us, I urge U.S. and
British scientists and officials to do everything in their power to
correct whatever problems might exist in time to permit shipment of at
least some of Chiron's vaccine this year.
Second, I believe it is imperative that Federal authorities act
swiftly to guarantee that, if there is to be a sharp drop in vaccine
supplies, priority distribution go first to America's elderly and to
the young children, as well as certain other especially vulnerable
populations.
Third, today's alarming announcement is a wake-up call that better
long-term flu preparedness is imperative. As we heard at last week's
hearing, this is especially true in light of the fact that scientists
now believe that a return of an especially strong pandemic strain of
flu is overdue.
Scientific progress is being made in a number of promising areas,
among them options for developing cell-based alternatives to today's
egg-based technology. I am also encouraged that the administration in
recent months has made substantial progress in its pandemic
preparedness planning.
In addition, Senator Evan Bayh and I introduced legislation earlier
this year to further address some of these longer-term issues. For
example, our legislation, S. 2038, would encourage an increase in
vaccine production capacity by offering a tax credit for companies to
invest in the construction or renovation of production facilities and
for the production of new and improved vaccines. Our legislation also
contains provisions to encourage greater volume of vaccine production,
as well as to improve outreach and education about the importance of
flu vaccination.
Finally, I want to close by noting that perhaps the single most
important reason today's announcement is so potentially devastating is
the simple fact that we have only two manufacturers for flu vaccine.
Stop and think about that. In a country as great and as rich as ours,
with our medical science as advanced as it is, we rely only on two
companies to produce this vaccine. Why? In part, for example, it is
because in recent years vaccine companies, in trying to guess what the
market is going to be and to produce for the market, lost well over
$120 million and simply could not take those kinds of losses.
That is why Senator Evan Bayh and I introduced legislation to try,
again, to resolve this problem.
Why? Again, flu is a worldwide killer, and the need for vaccine is
very clear. Yet the market has dwindled to a point that the pullout of
just one company, as was announced today, devastates a worldwide supply
of vaccine.
An additional factor underlying this problem, as in so many other
sectors, is the issue of tort liability. The risk of lawsuit is so
great today that some of these companies are simply closing their shops
and walking away.
Today is not the time to discuss this particular issue in great
detail, but as we move forward we need to ask ourselves, can we put the
American population at risk simply because we have developed such a
litigious society that everybody has to sue? When they do that, we find
ourselves, as the announcement today found us, dramatically wanting for
tens of millions of Americans who may this year not receive the
vaccinations they need. Is that a risk that is acceptable, or is that a
risk that is too high?
There is no question in my mind, and there is no question in the
minds of the scientists in public health, that flu is a killer. Last
year, 36,000 Americans died as a result of the flu or conditions
stemming from it.
Once again, I commend the swift response of Secretary Thompson and
others. I hope this grave situation can successfully be addressed. If
it is, many will be saved.
We do not yet know all the facts, and again, safety is paramount, but
if the American Government and the British Government can perhaps come
to some degree of accord regarding acceptable and safe development and
production standards between ourselves and Great Britain, thousands of
Americans and others worldwide may yet receive the vaccine they need.
This is a critical issue, and it is an issue that will play out in
the coming days. But whatever transpires, I believe this Congress, the
CDC, the FDA,
[[Page S10416]]
and all who are involved in this issue must clearly prioritize vaccine
distribution first for our very elderly, our very vulnerable, and our
youngest citizens--those who are the greatest potential victims of this
tragic illness.
I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BENNETT. 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.
Mr. BENNETT. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak in
morning business for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Just the Numbers
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, in this election time we are hearing a
great deal of discussion about the economy. We are hearing all kinds of
spin being placed on the economic numbers. I don't come to the floor to
try to put any spin on the numbers, but I do come to try to list the
numbers. As I read the various speeches on both sides of the aisle,
many times they pick out one particular portion of the economy that can
be used to make a point for or against where their political position
is. I want to simply outline the numbers and let those who may be
watching come to their own conclusions as to whether the economy is
doing well.
First number: Over the past four quarters the U.S. economy has
expanded by 4.8 percent. Let's put that in perspective. In that same
period, Italy has seen its economy expand by 1.2 percent; Germany 2
percent; 2.8 percent in France; 3.6 percent in Britain; and 4.2 percent
in Japan. Japan is emerging from a 15-year recession, and they are
thrilled about their growth at 4.2 percent. In America, we are growing
at 4.8 percent. Those are the numbers.
Comparison to our own history: The U.S. growth rate over the past
year has been nearly a full percentage point above the 3.9 percent
growth over a comparable period when President Clinton was seeking
reelection. August's 5.4 unemployment rate, for those who want to focus
primarily on jobs, is well below the average of the 1970s. The average
unemployment in the 1970s was 6.2; the 1980s, the average unemployment
in the 1980s was 7.3; and the 1990s, the average unemployment in the
1990s was 5.75. Our current unemployment is 5.4.
The nonfarm business sector productivity growth has averaged 4.6
percent per year from the beginning of 2002 through the second quarter
of this year. Unprecedented in the post-World War II period, the
annualized productivity increases since early 2002 have been nearly
three times the annual average rate that prevailed from 1994 to 1996.
Let me repeat that. If you go back to those 2 years from 1994 to 1996,
again trying to take a comparable period, 2 years before a Presidential
election, the average annual rate in that period was 1.6 percent. Right
now our annualized rate is three times as high.
Consumer price inflation was 3.4 percent in 2000. Since then it has
averaged 2.4 percent. Inflation is under control. Inflation
expectations are very well contained.
So we are having growth higher than we have had. We are having
productivity higher than we have had. We are having unemployment lower
than we have had. And inflation and inflation expectations are well
under control.
I could go on with additional statistics. Let me cite a few very
recent numbers to bring people up to date. One of the things about
economics that many of us forget is that the numbers take a while to be
accumulated. You will have a number released and then, when the
economists go back through the data, they come back and say, no, that
number was wrong. We now know that the average was either higher or
lower than we had indicated.
The second quarter GDP growth of this year was originally reported at
2.8 percent below the numbers I have been talking about, causing some
people to say, see, the economy has slowed down. They have now been
revised. The economists have gone back, reexamined the data, and have
revised that 2.8 percent upward to 3.3 percent, which gives us the
average for the four quarters that I cited earlier. The economy is
doing very well. Business investment increased by 12.5 percent and has
now increased for five consecutive quarters. Export growth was strong
and the revised second quarter trade deficit was smaller than
previously reported.
Residential investment, primarily home building, is now estimated to
have grown at a stellar 16.5 percent annualized rate. This is the
second strongest quarterly growth in home building in 8 years. More
Americans own their home now than at any time in American history.
Household wealth--which represents for many people the equity in their
homes--is at a record high. It hit a record high--the highest in
American history--in the second quarter of 2004.
For those who talk about squeezes and those who talk about Americans
who cannot save anything, Americans who cannot acquire any wealth, I
suggest that you look at the facts. Again, according to the Federal
Reserve data, U.S. household wealth hit a record high in the second
quarter of 2004. It will be interesting to see where it goes in the
third quarter.
New home sales dropped off for a while. People said maybe the
recovery was slowing down. New home sales regained their vigor in
August, with a 9.4-percent annualized rate of increase. Construction
activity remains on a solid footing. Housing starts were up by a robust
9 percent in August over the year before. As I said, the home ownership
rate in the United States is now 69 percent, the highest in American
history.
It is interesting that we focus on the percentage, because the growth
of the population would allow people to say, yes, it is the highest in
history numerically, but a smaller percentage of Americans are living
in their own homes. That is not true. It is not only the highest
numerically; it is the highest percentage of Americans owning their own
home and living in their own home.
These are the facts. We will let the politicians in this election
spin whatever they want to spin, but I hope everybody will ultimately
come back to the facts.
If I may put my interpretation on the facts which I believe are very
defensible, the recovery out of the recent recession has not only taken
hold, not only gained traction, it is strong, it is growing, and the
next President of the United States--whomever he may be--will inherit a
very strong and robust economy. He will take credit for it because it
will have happened on his watch, but the groundwork for this economy,
for the next economy, has been laid already. We are seeing the results
now.
Economists are looking back and saying 2002 was a better year than we
thought; 2003 was a stronger year in the last half; and in 2004, the
economy is growing at a rate at which every other industrialized
country in the world would be very grateful. America is doing
economically very well. Those are the facts.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, shortly, I am hopeful we will be able to
clear three amendments offered by the Senator from Alaska--three
pending amendments. We have reached compromises due to a lot of hard
work and good faith on both parts. We have asked the Senator from
Alaska if he is available to come over to the floor now, and I am
hopeful we will be able to resolve those three pending amendments this
evening. In the meantime, 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. LIEBERMAN. Mr. 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. 3767 Withdrawn
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, with the authorization of the sponsor
of the amendment, Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey, I withdraw
amendment No. 3767 among the pending amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
[[Page S10417]]
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment No. 3814, As Modified
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment
No. 3814, previously agreed to, be modified with a change that is at
the desk. This modification is technical in nature, involving only the
instruction line of the amendment. It has been cleared on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
On page 4, after line 12, of the agreed to language of
amendment No. 3942, insert the following:
(4) regions of specific concern where United States foreign
assistance should be targeted to assist governments in
efforts to prevent the use of such regions as terrorist
sanctuaries are South Asia, Southeast Asia, West Africa, the
Horn of Africa, North and North Central Africa, the Arabian
peninsula, Central and Eastern Europe, and South America;
Mr. LIEBERMAN. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3866
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding
cloture, the Specter amendment No. 3866 be in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as the Senator from Nevada is aware, this
amendment is not germane to the underlying bill. We are in a
postcloture situation. There are objections on both sides of the aisle
to proceeding with this amendment.
Regretfully, I inform the Senator I must object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am disappointed. However, I understand
fully. If the Senator from Maine had the ability to make this in order,
the same as last night, it would have been done. This is a complicated
bill. But I felt I had to attempt to move forward on this so there will
be no misunderstanding as to what took place last night on this matter.
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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
