Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 103 (Thursday, July 22, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 103 (Thursday, July 22, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8601-S8614]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

financial solicitations on military bases

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern about
a rider included in the Department of Defense appropriations conference
report that we will be taking up shortly. This rider is from the House
Defense appropriations bill. It will limit the ability of the
Department of Defense to address deceptive sales practices on our
military bases.
This week, the New York Times has published a two-part series which
included disturbing reports of financial advisers taking advantage of
service men and women on our military installations. These articles
contained evidence which indicate that recently enlisted service
members are required, at many installations, to attend mandatory
financial advisory classes. In those classes, it has been discovered
that sales agents use questionable tactics to sell insurance and
investments that may not fit the needs of our young men and women in
uniform.
Mr. President, I commend to my colleagues the articles from the July
20 and July 21 editions of the New York Times titled ``Basic Training
Doesn't Guard Against Insurance Pitch to G.I.'s'' and ``Insurers Rely
on Congress to Keep Access to G.I.'s.''
Mr. President, as you well know, our men and women in uniform today
are being called upon to sacrifice, sometimes--for more than 900 of
them--the ultimate sacrifice. All of them are separated from their
families. They are putting their lives at risk in the service of our
Nation.
It is almost unimaginable that in addition to their sacrifice they
would be exposed to less than scrupulous financial advisers at the
installations at which they serve. However, instead of protecting our
service members, a culture of financial abuse persists on our military
bases. As soon as I learned of these reports, I immediately wrote to
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, asking for an immediate
investigation of these practices, as well as immediate action to
prevent these abuses from continuing.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter to Secretary
Rumsfeld be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, July 20, 2004.
Hon. Donald Rumsfeld,
Secretary of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Secretary: I write to urge you to conduct an
immediate investigation into reports about efforts by
financial advisors to take advantage of our men and women in
uniform through the use of deceptive sales practices. I am
greatly alarmed by these reports which indicate that recently
enlisted service members at many installations are required
to attend mandatory financial advisory classes in which sales
agents use questionable tactics to sell insurance and
investments that may not fit the needs of people in uniform.
Today our men and women in uniform are being called upon to
sacrifice, be separated from their families, and to put their
lives at risk in service of their nation. They should not,
under any circumstances, be exposed to less than scrupulous
financial advisors at the installations at which they serve.
However, instead of protecting our service members, a culture
of financial abuse persists at military installations. It
should not be too much to expect that our service men and
women are protected from this behavior through the
enforcement of post policies and regulations restricting
disreputable financial practices. In short, our men and women
in uniform should never be the unwitting prey of self-
interested sales agents at military installations.
In addition to conducting a thorough investigation, I urge
you to establish a financial education program for enlistees
and review the practices whereby sales agents are given
unfettered access to new recruits. This financial education
program should include a component that equips soldiers to
recognize that an attempt is being made to entice them to
purchase financial services that are not in their best
interest.
With our men and women in uniform serving bravely in Iraq,
Afghanistan and elsewhere, we owe it to them to make sure
they are not solicited for questionable financial schemes at
the installations where they live.
I thank you for your consideration of my request and look
forward to your response.
Sincerely yours,
Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Mrs. CLINTON. I have also written to and spoken to both Chairman
Warner and Ranking Member Levin from the Senate Committee on Armed
Services, to ask for hearings on this issue when we return in
September. However, I was alerted yesterday that there is a provision
in the Department of Defense conference report that would prohibit the
Department of Defense from taking immediate action to address these
financial abuses on our military installations.
Specifically, section 8133 of the conference report does not allow
any changes to the Department of Defense Directive 1344.7, entitled
``Personal Commercial Solicitation on DOD Installations,'' until 90
days after a report containing the results of an investigation
regarding insurance premium allotment processing is submitted to the
House Committee on Government Reform and the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
With that investigation still ongoing, it could be months--maybe
years, for

[[Page S8602]]

all we know--until any changes are made to these abusive practices.
During that time, more of our young men and women will fall prey to
these unscrupulous agents who sell them financial products they do not
need and they barely understand.
Yesterday, I sent a letter to Senators Stevens and Byrd, the
distinguished chair and ranking member of the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, as well as to Senator Inouye, the ranking member of the
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, to express my concern
about the inclusion of this provision in the conference report of the
DOD appropriations bill and to urge them to take action to remove this
rider.
I understand a similar provision, with an even longer delay before
DOD can take action, was included in the House Defense authorization
bill. I am a conferee in the House-Senate conference on the Defense
authorization bill, and I intend to do everything I can to include
language that will allow the Department of Defense to immediately
address this troubling issue without having to wait several months
while our men and women in uniform continue to be fleeced.
I hope I will have the support of my colleagues who are also
conferees on the Department of Defense authorization bill. I look
forward to working with Senators on the Committee on Appropriations to
figure out the best way to address this issue.
The problem of financial advisers taking advantage of our service men
and women is one that requires immediate action. It is almost hard to
believe, as the two articles in the New York Times so poignantly point
out, that young men and women, who have a lot on their minds--such as
leaving their families; oftentimes worrying about young wives left
alone, taking care of children; or parents who are worried about their
safety; trying to get the training they need; trying to get prepared
for the dangerous missions they will face in Afghanistan, Iraq, and
elsewhere--would be required, in many instances, to attend these
meetings, which could do a lot to help educate them.
In fact, in my letter to Secretary Rumsfeld I ask there be financial
education provided to these young men and women and oftentimes, if
possible, where there are large bases, to the spouses who are left
behind. I have visited bases where particularly young wives--often as
young as 17, 18, 19 years old--are seeing their husbands leave for
overseas deployments. They do not know how to keep a checkbook. They do
not know how to pay bills. They have gone literally from their parents'
home into a new, young marriage, oftentimes under the pressure of an
impending deployment--usually of their husbands--and now, all of a
sudden, they are left to try to deal with the financial demands of
running a household. They should be given help. They should not be
taken advantage of.

It strikes me as just regrettable that we would permit the
solicitation for questionable financial schemes at the very military
installations where these young men and women live prior to asking them
to go into harm's way.
There certainly is a role for additional insurance, for other kinds
of investment information to be provided, but not in a situation where
the people doing the presentations are often former military officers
or high-ranking noncommissioned officers, who purport to and present
themselves as people in authority, and often lay the groundwork for a
very rushed and somewhat coercive atmosphere, where these young men and
women sign things they do not understand. It is somewhat reminiscent of
many of our college students, who are in comparable age and group
settings, who are given the hard sells for credit cards and insurance
policies they do not understand. So I think there is a tremendous
opportunity for legitimate financial education and for helping our
military service members know what their needs are, and then to meet
those needs.
I am looking forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee
on Armed Services, as well as Senators on the Committee on
Appropriations, to find a solution to this problem. I regret these
riders were injected into the DOD appropriations subcommittee
conference report that we will vote up or down this afternoon.
I will certainly support the appropriations bill because there are
much-needed resources in it for our military and other ongoing needs
that are within the purview of the Department of Defense that we need
to be funding.

Report of the 9/11 Commission

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I salute the 9/11 Commission for an
extraordinary job well done and an act of real patriotism. The men and
one woman who served on this Commission were asked to do a very
difficult task, to try to separate themselves from their prior
associations. These are all political people. Not everyone ran for
political office, but the distinguished chair and vice chair certainly
did and other members as well. These are all people who understand our
political process and who with great distinction have served their
party as well as our country, but they put that to one side when it
came to working together. This 9/11 Commission report is a great
testimony to their willingness to search hard for the truth, to get at
the facts, to then explain, in understandable language, whatever they
could discover about the events leading up to
9/11.
This report not only is educational and informative, but it is an
urgent call to action. There are recommendations that ask the branches
of our Government, the executive and legislative, as well as the
American public, to understand we are up against a determined and
committed adversary. Therefore, we have to think differently. We have
to organize differently. We cannot act as though business as usual is
sufficient. The recommendations from this Commission will ask this body
to reorganize itself, to have a different approach to the oversight of
intelligence. I hope we will respond to that request and
recommendation.
There have been many other commissions, led by distinguished
Americans, who have plowed the same ground, who have come forth with
worthwhile and compelling recommendations which, frankly, have been
ignored. We ignore this one at our peril.
I have stood in this spot numerous times, most recently just a week
ago Thursday, to ask what are we doing. We sometimes act as though
there is no threat beyond what our young men and women in the military
face in the mountains of Afghanistan or the streets of Baghdad. This
threat is real and it is here. It is among us. We know enough to
understand that there are credible reports of plans underway as I speak
to strike again.
If one reads this report--and I hope every American does, and I hope
this is assigned in junior high schools and high schools and colleges
because this is not just a report to be read by decisionmakers, to be
read by political leaders, this is a report that should be read by
every American--they cannot help but be struck by the ongoing threat we
face.
I perhaps feel it more strongly because we know that in every report
of any credibility, New York is always mentioned. Therefore, I have to
ask: Are we doing our part even now, before we get to the point of
considering the Commission's recommendations? Why aren't we considering
homeland security right now? Why have we done nearly everything but
consider the appropriations for homeland security, consider the very
good legislation offered on both sides of the aisle to try to have a
better approach to everything from port security to providing our first
responders with the resources they need, to disbursing Federal funds
based on threat and not treating it, as the Commission rightly says,
like some kind of revenue sharing? Obviously, that will mean New York
will get more than any other place, probably followed closely by
Washington, DC, but those are the places of highest risk and threat.

The work before us is obvious. But I have to confess to a certain
level of frustration that we have not even addressed what is within our
purview. Now we are being asked by the 9/11 Commission to be even more
imaginative, to be willing to change the turf, to remove some of the
authority some have in order to better organize ourselves going
forward.
At the press conference today, one of our distinguished former
Members who served in this body for a number of years, Senator Bob
Kerrey, summed it

[[Page S8603]]

up. He said, knowing as he does how this town works and how this body
works, how this Congress works, he was hopeful but not optimistic that
we would face up to our responsibilities.
What does it take for us to realize that the partisan bickering, the
divisiveness, the point scoring, and the political gamesmanship have no
place in the ongoing serious war against terror?
I hope, as a result of the fine work of this Commission and the path
it has charted that we should follow into the future, we will rise to
the occasion. There are recommendations certainly for the White House,
the FBI, the CIA, the Department of Defense, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, the Department of Homeland Security. There are
many recommendations that go to the administration, that go to the
executive branch, that regardless of who is our President after
November, that President will have to address. But that does not let
the Congress off the hook. We have not fulfilled our responsibilities
of oversight, and we now must take seriously the recommendations of
these patriotic, hard-working, thoughtful Commissioners.
This report cannot be allowed to sit on a shelf somewhere. I hope we
will take it in the spirit it is offered, as not just a bipartisan but,
frankly, nonpartisan report; that we will immediately, under the
leadership we have in this Senate, begin to figure out how we will
fulfill the hope this Commission offers us; that we will be better
prepared, better organized to play our part in the struggle against
terrorism. I certainly will look forward to working with my colleagues
in order to do that. I trust and hope that I can afford to be
optimistic and that we will be able to prove our former colleague and
one of the Commissioners, Senator Kerrey, wrong to a limited extent,
that we can be both hopeful and optimistic that the Senate, the
Congress, and our Government will live up to the obligations this
report lays out so clearly.
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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to talk about what
so many Americans are thinking about as they turn on their television
today, and that is the 9/11 Commission report that is being issued by
many of our former colleagues and partners in trying to address the
security needs of our Nation. I am sure many Americans are going to
want to know from this 9/11 report, is it going to result in us getting
off our orange alert? Is it going to help us in providing better
security across America?
One of the things we have to think about is the fact that this report
now needs to be put into legislative action by this body. I thank the
Commission, including Governor Keane, former Congressman Hamilton, and
former Senator Slade Gorton, for their contribution to this report and
their hard work. The voluminous report has a lot of recommendations,
but I would like to call out two or three of those recommendations that
are particularly important for us as a body to address when we return
in September.
First and foremost is the need for us to focus on international
cooperation. We in the Northwest learned that lesson very well when
Ahmed Ressam came across the Canadian border with a car full of
explosives on his way to LAX Airport. Many people in America know that
story and know that a good customs agent was able to stop Ressam and
confiscate those goods, and that act was never perpetrated on American
soil. We also know after that, 9/11 did happen. So the question for us
in America is, What are we going to do to make sure we have good
international cooperation?
What is interesting about the Ressam case is Mr. Ressam started his
efforts in Algiers, was successful in getting into France, then
successful in creating a new identity and getting into Canada. Even
though that was an illegal entry into Canada, he was able to remain in
Canada and then create a Canadian passport and birth certificate and
try to gain access to the United States.
As I said, the route he took through several countries to try to get
to Port Angeles, WA, to start his journey shows the need we have in
this country for international cooperation as it relates to our visa
program and our visa standards. This is something we have seen a delay
in in the last several years and something we need to pay particular
attention to in the Senate to make sure this visa standard program gets
implemented and gets implemented as soon as possible.
While we in the United States can have a visa entry program based on
a biometric standard, that standard will only be as good as the
standard that is then adopted by Canada and Mexico, our European
partners, our Middle East allies, and various other countries around
the world. By that, I mean if Mr. Ressam had entered France on a
biometric standard which showed, perhaps with fingerprints or facial
recognition, who Ahmed Ressam was, the various times he tried to
perpetrate a false identity to get into the United States, we would be
able to track that individual.
We know this is very important because we know that of the hijackers
on 9/11, many of them had various trips back and forth to the United
States. While we want to continue to have good international commerce
with many countries and have people travel to the United States, we
need a better security system with our visa standard, and we should
make a top priority of getting such international cooperation based on
biometrics.

I can say the same for international cooperation on port security.
Washington State, being the home to many ports, needs to focus on the
fact that cargo containers come in every day into the ports of Seattle,
Tacoma, Vancouver, and various parts of Washington State. What we need
is not to wait until the last minute for cargo containers to get into
the Seattle area to find out whether they have explosives or whether
the containers have been tampered with, but to have point of origin
cooperation with countries all over the world to make sure that
security system is deployed at the time the cargo leaves its port.
Here are two examples, one of human deployment of people coming to
the United States and another of goods and services in which
international cooperation is essential. That is why I take to heart the
recommendation on page 20 of the 9/11 Commission report, the executive
summary saying that:

Unifying strategic intelligence and operational planning
against Islamic terrorists across foreign-domestic divide
with a National Counterterrorism Center.

What I believe the report is saying is we have to have the
cooperation of our allies and the global community in fighting
terrorism and doing so in a cooperative effort if we are going to be
successful in the United States.
Secondly, while I think the report emphasizes the focus of a flat
organization, from my 2 years on the Judiciary Committee and review of
the incidents of 9/11 through the FBI and their organization and
changes that have been made to that organization, one thing that is
very clear about the 9/11 report is that a flat, decentralized
organization and network of information must be accomplished.
While the report does talk about consolidation and the central focus,
the important thing to understand is we are facing an asymmetrical
threat by terrorists. We are not facing a superpower. We are not facing
a well-oiled, well-heeled organization with a lot of support that we
can track, detect, and analyze on a large-scale basis; it is very
decentralized, with a lot of information flowing from a lot of
different cells through different parts of the international community.
What is important about that is if we are going to face that
asymmetrical threat and meet that challenge, having a large bureaucracy
facing an asymmetrical threat of lots of cells presents a challenging
problem.
That is why it is very important, as Special Agent Coleen Rowley
pointed out to many of the people in the intelligence community and the
FBI community, the information that existed in different FBI offices
throughout America but was not shared, was not pieced together with the
other intelligence information by the CIA about potential people
entering and exiting the country, needs to be pieced together in a flat
organization.

[[Page S8604]]

Critical to this report and our success is for us to monitor the new
organizations and agencies, such as Homeland Security, the structure of
the FBI and CIA, and any new structures coming out of the 9/11 report
to make sure we are keeping a flat organization. That flat organization
is about getting access to as much information as possible.
Just as the Intelligence Committee report released by my colleagues
in the last 10 days showed and just as this 9/11 report shows, the
third thing we need to do is make sure we use the information we
acquire and put much more focus and analysis behind that. While that
sounds simple and it sounds like something that can be easily
forgotten, I remind my colleagues that in 1998, ADM David Jeremiah,
under a CIA governance order study, was asked the question: Why did the
CIA miss India's testing of a nuclear bomb? Why did we as a country not
really understand that was happening? Well, the No. 1 recommendation
from that report was not enough analysis, and we had a culture that was
not really assessing the 21st century threats to our country.
That is a report that was done in 1998 about a particular part of
intelligence, in a particular part of the world, that missed something.
We had a report that basically is saying the same things the 9/11
report is saying today, that information and analysis are critical to
our success on international efforts at understanding information and
potential threats or use of weapons of mass destruction.
To me, it is very important that we take to heart the fact that we
need more analysts, and how that analyst structure is going to work. We
live in an information age. You can say that terrorists, in their
decentralized structure, are going to create much more information
about their prospects, their attention to different projects, their
communication with cells across the globe. It is this information that
we need to acquire, put together, and have analysts working on, on an
ongoing basis.
It is safe to say we need a dramatic increase in the number of
analysts that we need to recruit into Government, new processes to put
this information into a network, and access and assess it on an ongoing
basis. I believe this is going to be a very hard challenge for us in
Congress because we will see it as something that an agency is assigned
to do, and we will forget about the challenges that face each of these
agencies as they change their culture and change their structure.
We must keep in mind we are facing a threat of a very decentralized
nature. To face a threat of a very decentralized nature we must build
organizations and teams of people, including analysts, who also think
in a decentralized way.
The report also talks about technology and the role that technology
can play. I am a big proponent of technology in this information age.
Something like a biometric standard on fingerprints and identification
can be helpful. The report goes into a great deal of detail about
implementing those at borders, at airports, at various other
facilities. Yes, I want to expedite the speed and flow of individuals
in and out of the country and have the United States continue to remain
a great place where people want to visit. But in adopting these
technology solutions, we need to work hard, as the 9/11 report says, to
make sure the civil liberties and privacy rights of individuals are
protected.
The United States has its privileges. The right to privacy is one of
those. So we need to work on this recommendation in the report with
that in mind. I think the structure within the FBI and Homeland
Security needs to have someone, as these recommendations are
implemented, who can--as databases are created, as information is
assessed--help create the safeguards that are necessary.
But that should not impede us from working on an international basis
to make sure that information about terrorist threats is shared through
numerous countries in the world, and shared on a systematic database
form with the United States. That is where I believe we have been
lacking since 9/11. We have had a visa program and standard that we set
in the PATRIOT Act and other bills as an objective. Yet we have failed
to execute those. We should use this report today to continue our
sharpened focus on getting that standard implemented so we can be sure
the same people, like the 9/11 attackers, are not moving in and out of
the country.
This report is so critical for us now to join together on these
specific recommendations. We must not continue to focus on the past but
focus on what we can do to get off of orange alert. It is important
that we look at international cooperation, organizations, resources for
analysts, new technology, and protecting civil liberties. But as I
think about this issue, I think about the significant threats we face
from those asymmetrical forms. Yet the results of those could be very
catastrophic. That is why we need to get this program implemented.

I look to my colleagues, when we return in September, to keep away
from what now has been an analysis of the past and look forward to
implementing these solutions as quickly as possible, giving Americans
better security in the future.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Troubling Trends

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise this morning because issues are
brought to mind that somehow or other have slipped into the background.
For example, look at this morning's Washington Post and see there is
disturbing news about the impending retirement of air traffic
controllers. This is a subject I have dealt with, even in my previous
terms, and certainly in my current term in the Senate, sounding the
alarm that we are going to be woefully short of people to replace
retirees. We have to be certain that in the middle of what is an
impending crisis because of the lack of skilled professionals in the
towers, we do not turn to the subject of commercializing this.
We went through an enormous amount of pain and dislocation when we
took the baggage screeners out of commercial hands and put them into
Government hands because we knew they would operate more efficiently.
Now the conversation goes that we are trying as well to go back with
our screeners and put that function into commercial hands.
I ask unanimous consent that article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, July 22, 2004]

FAA Faces Exodus of Traffic Controllers

(By Karin Brulliard)

Federal officials said yesterday that they are preparing to
deal with a nationwide wave of retirements by air traffic
controllers over the next decade and that passenger safety
will not be jeopardized.
Regional officials with the Federal Aviation Administration
are gauging how a potential exodus of nearly half the
nation's air traffic controllers will affect individual
airports, including Reagan National, Dulles International and
Baltimore-Washington International, said Doug Simons, manager
at National's control tower.
``Neither the FAA nor its controllers will permit the
system to operate in ways that are unsafe or with staffing
that is inadequate to the task,'' Simons told reporters
yesterday. ``We will be there, with the numbers of people we
need, everywhere, at all times.''
The FAA estimates that nearly half of the nation's 15,000
air traffic controllers will be eligible for retirement
before 2013. Many of the potential retirees were hired in
1982 after President Ronald Reagan fired more than 11,000
striking members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers
Organization the year before.
In the Washington region, nearly 700 air traffic
controllers direct more than 3,000 daily flights from six
towers and radar centers. Ten percent of those controllers
will be eligible to retire in 2006, said FAA spokesman Greg
Martin.
Paul Rinaldi, alternate vice president of the National Air
Traffic Controllers Association's eastern region said at
least one-third of the controllers at Dulles and BWI will be
eligible to retire or will reach the mandatory retirement age
of 56 by 2008.
The association has warned in recent weeks that the
retirements, if not headed off by aggressive recruiting and
increased funding, could cause a controller shortage that
would result in chronic flight delays, overstressed
controllers and safety risks.
If we don't have the adequate number of certified
controllers to work this system, basically we're not going to
be able . . . to

[[Page S8605]]

safely meet the needs of the traveler, Rinaldi said.
The association, which represents 30,000 controllers
nationwide, has called on Congress to appropriate an
additional $14 million to the FAA to hire controllers. The
current budget is $6.2 billion. To stave off a crisis, at
least 1,000 controllers must be hired annually for the next
three to five years, Rinaldi said. The FAA hired 762
controller in 2003.
The retirements will come at a time when air traffic is
expected to increase dramatically because of expanded flight
schedules, new budget airlines, and growth in the private and
charter plane industrys.
A shortage could hit Dulles especially hard. The flight
schedule there is expanding rapidly, partly because of the
arrival of Independence Air, a discount airline that has been
based there since June, Rinaldi said.
The FAA says it is uncertain how many new controllers will
be needed and which of the nation's 300 air traffic
facilities will need them, Simons said. He said the agency is
studying the situation at each of the facilities and will
deliver a report to Congress in December.
In the meantime, the agency said, it is taking steps to
stem a potential shortage. It has proposed raising the
controller retirement age and is focusing on advancements in
technology to help reduce the dependence on air traffic
controllers.
It is also streamlining controller training, an extensive
process that can take up to five years, officials said.
``The task at hand is not simply to hire a number of new
controllers, but the right number,'' Simons said.
Union representatives say there is no time to wait. Hiring
must start now so that enough veteran controllers are still
in towers to train recruits, said John Carr, national
president of the Air Traffic Controllers Association.
``When it comes to having eyes on the skies, we need help
and we need help now,'' Carr said.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That speaks to the leadership we have. We see a
headline that says, ``War Funds Dwindling, GAO Warns.'' That is
terrible. We have spent a ton of money.
One thing all of us can agree upon, whether Democrat or Republican,
is that we want our troops protected. We want them to be able to
conduct their responsibilities in Iraq and Afghanistan with the best
equipment they can get. Frankly, I have been looking for some time now
at a way to compensate these service people for the 90 days of extended
term that has been demanded by this administration. I want to get a
$2,000-a-month extra stipend to help them weather the financial storm.
The emotional, family storm is terribly painful. We see an unusual
number of suicides--far greater than we have seen in past wars--because
of the emotional distress. It is overpowering. Soldiers are away from
their families for a year. They are often people with little children.
These are people, largely in the Reserve Corps, who are often young,
have young families, and are trying to take care of their family and
financial needs at the same time--paying the mortgage payments, paying
for the normal sustenance of life.
That could not get heard here. It wasn't allowed to be brought up.
There are other things that I consider detrimental to the purported
support we want to give our troops. I agree all of us in this body want
to do what we can for those who are serving so dutifully and
courageously. But we see, no matter what we have allocated, the funds
are short. We have a lack of sufficient numbers of service people
there, and we are trying to find our way out of that. We now find that
a promise made recently that we would go from 130,000 down to 90,000
service people there is now kind of canceled. It has fallen into the
background. We are going to maintain 130,000 people there.
I submit that is not enough. We know darned well that is not enough
because all we have to do is look at the casualty count and we see now
we have finally gone over 900 dead in Iraq.
We see we are miscalculating on all fronts--whether it is financial,
whether it is service, whether it is the kind of equipment we should
have had early on.
I ask unanimous consent this article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, July 22, 2004]

War Funds Dwindling, GAO Warns

(By Jonathan Weisman)

The U.S. military has spent most of the $65 billion that
Congress approved for fighting the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan and is scrambling to find $12.3 billion more from
within the Defense Department to finance the wars through the
end of the fiscal year, federal investigators said yesterday.
The report from the Government Accountability Office,
Congress's independent investigative arm, warned that the
budget crunch is having an adverse impact on the military as
its shifts resources to Iraq and away from training and
maintenance in other parts of the world. The study--the most
detailed examination to date of the military's funding
problems--appears to contradict White House assurances that
the services have enough money to get through the calendar
year.
Already, the GAO said, the services have deferred the
repair of equipment used in Iraq, grounded some Air Force and
Navy pilots, canceled training exercises and delayed
facility-restoration projects. The Air Force is straining to
cover the cost of body armor for airmen in combat areas,
night-vision gear and surveillance equipment, according to
the report.
The Army, which is overspending its budget by $10.2 billion
for operations and maintenance, is asking the Marines and Air
Force to help cover the escalating costs of its logistics
contract with Halliburton Co. But the Air Force is also
exceeding its budget by $1.4 billion, while the Marines
are coming up $500 million short. The Army is even having
trouble paying the contractors guarding its garrisons
outside the war zones, the report said.
White House spokesman Trent Duffy said the Defense
Department continues to believe that extra funds will not be
needed this fiscal year. President Bush had requested a $25
billion reserve to cover shortfalls that may arise between
Oct. 1, when the new fiscal year begins, and February, when
the White House plans to submit a detailed funding request
for military operations. But for now, Duffy said, there are
no plans to tap the reserve. He added: ``This president has
said repeatedly the troops will have what they need, when
they need it. That's why he has stood steadfastly in support
of funding for our troops.''
Lt. Col. Rose-Ann Lynch, a spokeswoman for the Pentagon's
comptroller, said that though the fiscal 2004 budget is
tight, ``the department still anticipates sufficient funding
to finance ongoing operations.''
Democrats quickly pounced on the report, charging that the
Bush administration is turning a blind eye to military
funding issues to avoid adding to the overall budget deficit
or conceding that the Iraq operations are off-course.
``George W. Bush likes to call himself a wartime president,
yet in his role as commander in chief, he has grossly
mismanaged the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq,''
contended Mark Kitchens, national security spokesman for
Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry. ``He went to
war without allies, without properly equipping our troops and
without a plan to win the peace. Now we find he can't even
manage a wartime budget.''
The GAO report detailed just why a $65 billion emergency
appropriation has proved to be insufficient. When Bush
requested that money, the Pentagon assumed that troop levels
in Iraq would decline from 130,000 to 99,000 by Sept. 30,
that a more peaceful Iraq would allow the use of more cost-
effective but slower sea lifts to transport troops and
equipment, and that troops rotating in would need fewer
armored vehicles than the service members they replace.
Instead, troop levels will remain at 138,000 for the
foreseeable future, the military is heavily dependent on
costly airlifts and the Army's force has actually become more
dependent on heavily armored vehicles. The weight of those
vehicles, in turn, has contributed to higher-than-anticipated
repair and maintenance costs. Higher troop levels have also
pushed up the cost of the Pentagon's massive logistical
contract with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root.
About 4,000 Navy personnel in Iraq and Kuwait were not
expected to be there, contributing to a $931 million hole in
the Navy's budget for fiscal 2004. The Marine Corps was
supposed to have decreased its presence in Iraq but instead
has 26,500 Marines in the country and an additional two
expeditionary units supporting the war on terrorism.
The strain is beginning to add up, the GAO said. The hard-
hit Army faces a $5.3 billion shortfall in funds supporting
deployed forces, a $2 billion budget deficit for the
refurbishing of equipment used in Iraq and a $753 million
deficit in its logistics contract. The Army also needs $800
million more to cover equipment maintenance costs and $650
million to pay contractors guarding garrisons.
The Air Force has decreased flying hours for pilots,
eliminated some training, slowed civilian hiring and
curtailed ``lower priority requirements such as travel,
supplies and equipment,'' the report said.
The Pentagon comptroller told GAO investigators that the
Defense Department has sufficient funds to cover the
shortfalls, provided Congress gives officials more authority
to transfer money among accounts.
But the GAO report warned that there will be a serious
downside to that approach, especially the deferral of
maintenance and refurbishing plans until next year.
``We believe that the deferral of these activities will add
to the requirements that will need to be funded in fiscal
year 2005 and potentially later years and could result in a
`bow wave' effect in future years,'' the report cautioned.
``Activities that are deferred also run the risk of costing
more in future years.''
A ``bow wave'' refers to a time when deferred costs
confront Congress all at once, making it impossible to meet
the demands.

[[Page S8606]]

Mr. LAUTENBERG. When I look at the morning paper, I see examples of
what the administration has failed to do. Look at the status of things
in Washington, DC. I assume it is a representative city of urban
centers across the country. We see the DC gap in wealth is growing.
I ask unanimous consent to have that article entitled ``D.C. Gap In
Wealth Growing'' printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, July 22, 2004]

D.C. Gap in Wealth Growing

Uneducated Suffer Most, Study Shows

(By D'Vera Cohn)

The gap between rich and poor is as great in the District
as in any other major city and has grown more here than in
most places, a widening chasm that troubles government
leaders.
A study to be released today by the D.C. Fiscal Policy
Institute said the top 20 percent of the city's households
have 31 times the average income of the 20 percent at the
bottom. The gap in the District is fed by extremes at both
ends: The poor have less average income than in most of the
country's 40 biggest cities, and the rich have more.
The persistent gap between rich and poor has been fueling
debate over whether the national economic recovery is helping
all Americans. The study deepens the picture of an
increasingly fractured city, where poverty and wealth both
grew in the last decade. The average household income for the
top group was $186,830, and the average income for the
poorest group was $6,126.
``The rich got richer and the poor didn't get richer,''
said Stephen Fuller, a regional economist at George Mason
University in Fairfax. ``The poor can't afford to get out of
Washington to the suburbs. . . . Our wealthy class got
wealthier in the 1990s, and it didn't trickle down to the
bottom.''
The new report identifies the District, Atlanta and Miami
as the big U.S. cities with the largest income gaps.
Another recent analysis, by the Lewis Mumford Center at the
State University of New York at Albany, found that the
District now ranks higher among economically polarized cities
than it did in 1990. The analysis, by Brian Stults, a
sociology professor at the University of Florida, employed a
standard technique to analyze income inequality and ranked
the District among the five big cities with the largest gap
between rich and poor.
The D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute study measured 1999
income, but a co-author, Ed Lazere, said the income gap is
not likely to have closed since then. Nationally, the gap
between rich and poor widened from the 1970s until the early
1990s, and has inched up slightly since.
The trend, experts say, reflects a growing gap in wages
between skilled, educated workers and those with no skills,
as well as social changes such as a growing number of single
parents, who have lower incomes than married couples.
Although some gap is expected, they see the trend as a
disturbing reflection of an economy in which people without
college educations will be stuck at the bottom.
The city's richest and poorest households could not be more
different, according to Lazere's analysis. Half of the
richest households, with incomes starting at $89,814, are
married. Among the poorest, where incomes topped out at
$14,000, six in 10 were single, living alone. Single mothers
accounted for less than 10 percent of the richest households,
and more than a quarter of the poorest ones. Nearly all the
working-age adults held jobs in the richest households, but
only about half did in the poorest ones.
Using numbers from another census survey, Lazere's study
calculated that the incomes of the city's richest households
rose 38 percent over the decade, while those of the poorest
went up 3 percent.
Tony Bullock, a spokesman for Mayor Anthony A. Williams
(D), said the gap is the product of complex forces, including
poor city services and poor schooling, that have persisted
for decades and cannot be fixed overnight.
``We have a large concentration of poverty where no matter
what we seem to do to bring investment into the District, a
certain population is not able to access the kind of
employment opportunities that come from a growing tax base,''
he said. ``But it is our hope that we can improve in the
future.''
Bullock said the attractiveness of the city to high-income
households is good for its tax base, and the study agreed. It
said high-income families in the Washington region are more
likely to live in the city than are affluent families in most
other big metro areas.
Those at the top benefit from the District's unique job
bank of high-paid employment related to the federal
government, including lobbying and contracting. A single
young professional can earn $100,000 in his or her first year
out of law school.
At the other end of the income scale, Lazere's study said,
the D.C. minimum wage, $6.15 an hour, is worth less when
inflation is taken into account than it was worth in 1979.
The purchasing power of the city's maximum welfare benefit--
$379 for a family of three--fell by nearly a third over the
decade, it said.
A bill co-sponsored by D.C. Council members David A.
Catania (R-At Large) and Sandy Allen (D-Ward 8) would raise
the D.C. minimum wage to $6.60 an hour next year and to $7 an
hour by January 2006. It would be the first increase since
1997 in the D.C. minimum wage, which is set at $1 above the
federal level. Catania said yesterday that he is confident
that it will pass, and that he also wants the city to beef up
its training programs for less-skilled workers.
``I don't want to focus so much on income disparity,'' he
said. ``The government should focus more on how to lift these
workers out of poverty and help them make better wages.''
Lazere said he is concerned that the mayor's efforts to
boost the city's population by 100,000 over the next decade
and attract high-income residents could squeeze out the poor
through gentrification if the city does not expand its
assistance to low-income workers.
``At the high end, the city already is attractive.'' he
said. ``Specific policies to attract more high-income
families may not be needed and may exacerbate the problems
for our neediest residents.''

INCOME GAP
[The income gap between the richest and poorest households is at least
as wide in the District as in the nation's other big cities, according
to a new study by the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute. The average income
of the city's richest households was about 31 times that of the poorest
ones.\1\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Ratio of
income Average highest
Rank and city bottom income top income to
fifth of fifth of lowest
households households income
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Washington, D.C................... $6,126 $186,830 30.5
2. Atlanta........................... 5,858 172,773 29.5
3. Miami............................. 4,294 125,934 29.3
4. New York.......................... 5,746 159,631 27.8
5. Newark............................ 3,747 93,680 25.0
6. Boston............................ 5,832 145,406 24.9
7. Los Angeles....................... 7,124 162,639 22.8
8. Fort Lauderdale, Fla.............. 7,831 176,053 22.5
9. Cincinnati, Ohio.................. 5,440 117,086 21.5
10. Oakland, Calif................... 7,642 163,931 21.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Census 2000 data analyzed by the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute. The
difference between D.C., Atlanta and Miami may not be statistically
significant.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If you look at the chart and see what has happened in
terms of the difference in the wage scales, it is atrocious.
The wage scale gap at the top of the ladder goes up $186,000 and the
people at the bottom of the ladder are at $6,000. Once again, we see a
failure of responsibility.
I see on television a message that says, ``My name is George W. Bush
and I approve of this message.'' We see talk about the number of votes
John Kerry has missed but we don't see in the same message what John
Kerry did when he was in Vietnam. Even though he disagreed with the
war, he went there and served bravely. He got three Purple Hearts, a
Bronze Star, and a Silver Star--medals of bravery. One of the instances
that got him that medal was pulling out of the water one of his
colleagues who was practically drowning as bullets were flying
overhead. He stopped that boat he was in command of and pulled his
friend and subordinate out of the water. We don't see that. Instead, it
says John Kerry missed these votes.
Yes. John Kerry is a man who is always devoted to duty. Right now
what he is doing is important. All of us think the votes are very
important here, but very often these votes are already predetermined by
the numbers in the majority and the numbers in the minority--not that
we should miss votes. But he has a more important task. He has a task
of changing the leadership in this country and making sure we are
paying attention to our responsibilities to the community at large and
not just to a particular moment in time but, rather, in the total
picture of leadership.
In my view, it is not how one runs government. What we see is a
question of leadership in the administration--the question of
leadership of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. If you look at
their prior leadership positions, you will see similar problems.
For instance, take Vice President Cheney's recent leadership of
Halliburton. How did he transform that company?
My experience in the corporate world was a very good experience. I,
with two other fellows--all three of us coming from poor homes, two
brothers--started a business over 50 years ago. It was a very small
business in its beginning days. We had a few dollars of borrowed
money--not much. We started a business that never looked like it was

[[Page S8607]]

going to mature. It took us 12 years to get to the stage where we could
apply computer technology to our business. Today that company we
started--three poor kids with no resources to begin with--has over
40,000 employees and the longest growth record of any company in
America, a growth of 10 percent each and every year for 42 years in a
row. We grew at 10-percent earnings each and every year. It is
remarkable.
I give that background not to boast but, rather, to try to make a
point, the point being that there is a culture associated with our
company--a culture, I am proud to say, has never been challenged in
over 50 years of business, a culture that says whatever we do we have
to be honest with our customers, honest with our employees, honest with
our shareholders, and honest with the public at large. That sets the
corporate culture. It tells you how we want that company to operate.
A CEO has an impact on a company that should endure beyond his or her
years of service. I want to use that example to reflect on what has
happened with Halliburton, one of America's largest companies.
In the wake of early leadership, Halliburton has been associated with
bribes, kickbacks, violating terrorist sanctions laws, and sweetheart,
no-bid Government deals. It doesn't sound very pretty, and it is not.
To make matters worse, Vice President Cheney still receives salary
checks from Halliburton for well over $150,000 each and every year. It
has been 4 years now, somewhere around $700,000. He still holds over
400,000 unexercised Halliburton stock options. They are exercisable to
2009. He left the company 4 years ago. If the administration continues
its service, he will have 4 more years. That is 2008, by my count. But
the options exercise in 2009.
It is unconscionable that he would have a financial association with
this company that disgraced corporate leadership in a time of war.
When I was in the Army a long time ago, I enlisted in 1942. I was 18
years old. During that period of time that America was fighting for its
life, it was unthinkable that a company could profiteer while a war was
going on; unthinkable. It would have been considered traitorous
behavior.
But here we are in a session where the Vice President is undermining
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 contracts on ``Meet the
Press.'' This is what triggered my interest. I listened very carefully,
because I have respect for the office, and I think Dick Cheney is
someone who wants to do the right thing but it has hasn't come out that
way. Vice President Cheney told Tim Russert:

I have severed all of my ties with the company, gotten rid
of all of my financial interest. I have no financial interest
in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over 3
years.

There is a problem with that statement. When he said it, he held over
400,000 Halliburton stock options and continued to receive a deferred
salary from the company.
In fairness, the Vice President has said, well, this is insured
income, took out an insurance policy not dependent on the operating
results of Halliburton. I take him at his word. He said he is going to
give profits away from the stock option exercise to charitable
institutions, philanthropic institutions.
But it is better for him if the company does well. He has these
options, and even if he wants to give away the profits, the more
profits the better if you look at the institutes he is giving the
profits to. But he does hold 433,000 unexercised Halliburton stock
options. Even though most of the exercise prices are above the current
market price, the majority of the options, as I mentioned earlier,
extend to 2009.
Any optionholder has to hope that the stock price will surge relative
to the value of the options in excess. One way it can happen is to be
sure that lucrative contracts keep coming from whatever source, whoever
the customer is. In this case, the customer is the U.S. Government, and
it is happening.
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 Government contracts in
Iraq.
In addition, as I said, to the stock options, Vice President Cheney
continues to receive a deferred salary. Halliburton has paid the Vice
President a salary of at least $150,000 a year since he has been Vice
President of the United States. I think it is wrong and it ought to
stop.
I heard the Vice President's defense: The deal was locked in in 1999;
there was no way for him to get out of his deferred salary deal. That
is not so. A little checking of the facts shows otherwise. I have
obtained the terms of Vice President Cheney's deferred salary contract
with Halliburton. The bottom line is that the deferred salary agreement
was 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 the salary from a private corporation while in public
office. Secretary Snow took six different deferred compensation
packages as a lump sum upon taking office. The Vice President is not a
victim of Halliburton's generosity. He could have attempted to take the
deferred salary as a lump sum.
In the meantime, what has happened to Vice President Cheney's former
company? For starters, Halliburton overcharged the Pentagon a $27.4
million fee for meals served to troops abroad. The company billed
taxpayers for meals never served to our troops. This is not Senator
Lautenberg's concoction. These are the facts printed in news media,
printed in contract agreements, printed in Pentagon papers.
Another Pentagon investigation is continuing after an audit found
Halliburton overcharged the Army by $61 million for gasoline delivered
to Iraq as part of its no-bid contract to operate Iraq's oil industry.
Now whistleblowers, former Halliburton employees, have revealed
Halliburton employees would abandon $85,000 trucks because of flat
tires--do not bother to fix them, get rid of it--or the need for an oil
change. Dump the truck; we can bill the taxpayers. The whistleblowers
also said Halliburton spent $45 for 30 canned cases of soda when local
Kuwaiti supermarkets charged about $7. Halliburton has a cost-plus
contract so they get reimbursed for their spending plus a calculated
percentage of profit. That system is being heartily abused and is
costing taxpayers a lot of money.
In my view, Halliburton is a company that suffers from failures in
leadership, the same type of leadership that continues.
These overcharges are confirmed when the Pentagon, the Department of
Defense, is refusing to pay bills of $160 million comprised of the
elements I talked about. The auditors at the Pentagon said, Don't pay
them; we do not owe that kind of money.
Those are overcharges, Mr. President.
In the meanwhile, we see the attack on Senator Kerry, our colleague.
They are saying he has misplaced priorities; he missed votes in the
Senate. What they are unwilling to admit is Senator Kerry and all of us
are on a critical mission such as those he took on in Vietnam. What he
is doing is not purposeless, it is not something to be made fun of. He
is working for a safer, stronger America at home and respect for us
across the world.
I wish President Bush would talk about the things he did or failed to
do and that he would want to correct, such as protecting the purchasing
power of working families, eliminating the creation of larger and
larger deficits, protecting the solvency of Medicare, now estimated to
be insolvent in 2019.
How about the costs of gasoline to the average person in this country
since this administration has taken over? And $2.40 a gallon is not
unusual for high test; $2.19 for regular gas is not unusual. I don't
hear the President saying he wants to correct that problem.
No, he would rather try to say John Kerry deserted his
responsibilities, he is soft on defense. He received three Purple
Hearts. Citizens do not get Purple Hearts for nothing. They even wanted
to challenge the depth of one wound to see whether it was deserving of
a Purple Heart.

Look at the cost of prescription drugs. Where are we going with that
if drug prices go higher and higher? But

[[Page S8608]]

we do not hear any protest. As a matter of fact, we had a Medicare bill
that says within its content that Medicare is forbidden to negotiate
with the drug companies to try to get a lower price because of the huge
volume of purchasing for Medicare beneficiaries. The VA negotiates drug
prices and it brings the prices way down, much lower, 20, 30 percent
lower than those the Medicare beneficiaries pay.
How about improving the job market? We see what is happening in the
stock market. If that is to be a barometer of where we are going, it is
a terrible indication. The market has been reeling from shock and in an
awesome decline from where it was. This market that was supposed to be
making everybody, the pensioners and the mutual funds and the
investors, happy is not doing so.
We should be hearing from President Bush about what he is going to do
to correct the problems so worrisome to American families today:
whether they can afford their mortgage, whether they can afford to
educate their kids, whether they can afford to take care of a
grandparent, if necessary, whether they could guarantee that someone
who can learn can get an education. Those are the things we would like
to hear.
Stop this insidious criticism, personal criticism, of Senator John
Kerry. Look at John Kerry's record and look at the record of this
administration. What a comparison that is. The Nation is tired of
hearing this negative stuff. Talk about positive things. Talk about
what you are going to do for America, not about what the other guy
failed to do. Talk about what you failed to do and are ready to
correct.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1039

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to legislative session to consider S. 1039, the Wastewater
Treatment Works Security Act of 2003, that the bill be read a third
time and passed, and that the Senate return to executive session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will my friend restate the unanimous consent
request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator asks for a restatement of the
request?
Mr. REID. Yes, please.
Mr. INHOFE. Of course.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to
legislative session to consider S. 1039, the Wastewater Treatment Works
Security Act of 2003, that the bill be read a third time and passed,
and that the Senate return to executive session.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, in committee
I voted for this matter, to have it reported out. The ranking member,
Senator Jeffords, did not, as did a number of other people who are in
the minority. Their belief is this bill does not require wastewater
systems to do basic tasks such as even completing a vulnerability
assessment. Senator Jeffords believes this legislation is a step
backward from existing law for drinking water plants and what we have
agreed to already for chemical plants. So because of that, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to at least mention this is a
bill that is in the committee I chair. It is one that has been
requested by virtually every community we have in Oklahoma. In fact,
the Senator who is presiding right now was a cosponsor of this bill. It
passed the committee by a vote of 12 to 6. It passed the House of
Representatives, once on a voice vote and the second time by a vote of
413 to 2--413 to 2. Virtually every Republican and Democrat voted for
it. In fact, every Democrat voted for it. Only two Republicans did not
vote for it. The House cosponsors include Congressman Jim Oberstar.
Wastewater treatment works are responsible for treating municipal and
industrial waste to a level clean enough to be released into the
Nation's waterways. I have to say, I cannot think of any one bill that
means more to local communities. Having been a mayor of a major
community at one time, this is a very critical bill. It is one I am
hoping there will be no objection to when we come back from this recess
in September.
With that, 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. NELSON of Florida. 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. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

9/11 Commission Report

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to comment about the 9/
11 Commission report. I think it is an excellent report. Its
recommendations ought to be implemented and they ought to be
implemented soon by the Congress. Given the fact that we are near
gridlock in an election season and it is very unlikely in September
when we come back from the August recess we will get anything done, I
think we ought to consider coming back after the election and
implementing the recommendations of the report. Why? Because the only
way we protect ourselves from the enemies whom we call terrorists is to
have accurate and timely information.
The terrorist uses surprise and stealth, and the only way to defeat
that is by having accurate and timely intelligence.
So whatever we need to do to avoid the colossal intelligence failure
we had on September 11 and the colossal intelligence failure we had
again prior to going into Iraq, we best get about the job of correcting
that information gathering, information flow, and information analysis
so we can try to continue to thwart the attempts at doing damage to us.
Is it not interesting what the 9/11 Commission report said? It
specifically defined the terrorist as someone who is usually an
Islamist fundamentalist who has warped the teachings of Islam so that
it becomes a passion of hatred, and out of that wanting to do damage to
the free world. Of course, we being the superpower are the target of
that.
It was also noteworthy in the Commission's report, as they are
suggesting how to restructure the intelligence apparatus, they have
suggested having a national intelligence director and that the
counterterrorism center would be a compendium that would report to him.
It is also interesting that they still wanted to keep the
administration of intelligence gathering and analysis from direct
political involvement. So the Commission did not recommend the new
intelligence chief be a member of the President's Cabinet but rather be
what they have defined as the National Intelligence Director. Then in
all of these subdepartments that have a myriad of filling out a flow
chart, an organizational chart, it is interesting how all of the
different components of intelligence, the CIA, the DIA, the FBI, would
then fit together into this new apparatus.
We only have to remember that about a month ago we had another major
information failure, and this was at the time of President Reagan's
funeral. We had the Governor of Kentucky on his State airplane, having
been given clearance by the FAA to come in and land at Washington
National Airport, and his transponder was not working. He had been
given clearance by the FAA, but the FAA was not communicating with the
military. So the military, seeing a blip on the radar moving to the
center of Washington, without a transponder, sent out the alert and, of
course, everybody in this U.S. Capitol building and in all of those
office buildings off to the side of this building got the emergency
evacuate order, so much so that the Capitol Police, bless their hearts,
were shouting at the top of their lungs, get out of the building, run,
there is an inbound aircraft.

[[Page S8609]]

So how many more of these do we need to have before we come to the
commonsense reality that we are not collating and coordinating all of
this information like we ought to? So, we best get on the process of
reforming the system.
Now we have a good blueprint with which to do it. We have an
opportunity to make America safer--and, with our allies, quite a bit.
That leads me to the next subject I want to talk about, our allies.
The 9/11 Commission report also says something that many of us in this
Chamber have been saying for some period of time: You can't go out and
be successful in the war on terror until you can bring in a lot of
colleagues, a lot of allies, in a coordinated and planned effort so you
internationalize the effort. We did that brilliantly 13 years ago in
the gulf war. We did that again brilliantly in Afghanistan when we
started going after bin Laden. But we didn't do that in Iraq.
Especially, we didn't do it in Iraq after a brilliant military victory.
We didn't do it in the occupation.
What the 9/11 Commission is pointing out is that if you want to
improve the intelligence-gathering mechanism and analysis, then you
have to internationalize the effort. That stands to reason.
Fortunately, through Interpol and direct one-to-one relationships
with other countries' intelligence services, we get a lot of that
information. But as the 9/11 Commission said, we have to do a lot more.
The 9/11 Commission also told us something that we didn't know. It
said the country of Iran may have facilitated al-Qaida. It did not
suggest that Iran's Government knew anything about the planning for the
September 11 attack, but it suggested that some of those operatives
passed through Iran.
There have been a number of us in this body who have been talking
about Iran; that after September 11, and the importance of going after
al-Qaida, that the next imminent threat to the interest of the United
States were the countries of Iran and North Korea. Why? Because they
are trying to acquire or already are building nuclear capability.
Therefore, I think it is very important that we get our act together
and implement this Commission report for many reasons. That is just one
additional reason.
I see the esteemed chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee
has come into the Chamber. I want to say in his presence, as he knows,
as one of the members of his committee, on a completely different
subject, I have spoken out time and time again about the plight and the
determination to find some evidence about CAPT Scott Speicher, the Navy
pilot who was shot down on the first night of the gulf war in 1991.
There is a report in the Washington Times--and I will make reference
directly only to what is reported in today's Washington Times--and what
the Washington Times says is that a Speicher team has left and has
given up the search. I hope that is not true. The family who lives in
my State, in Jacksonville, FL, deserves to have closure. The family has
been through a trauma like hardly any of us could believe. The
Washington Times gives a great deal of detail. I don't know if it is
true or not, but if it is, then what this country owes to that family
is to keep searching. If a team has been returned, as the Washington
Times has stated, then it is important that whatever the size of that
team, that we have a presence. As long as the U.S. military is located
there, a fallen flier in the future will always have the confidence to
know we are not going to leave him or her there alone, and we are
coming to get you. We didn't do that with Scott Speicher.
Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I am delighted to yield.
Mr. WARNER. First and foremost, I can't comment on the Washington
Times article. But yesterday, in the course of an Armed Services
Committee briefing by General Dayton, who at this point in time is also
briefing the Senate Intelligence Committee--and I just left the
Intelligence Committee meeting to come to the floor--the matter was
discussed. That much I will confirm, as appropriate. As a member of the
Committee of the Armed Services, my able friend knows that at every
juncture our committee, largely through yourself and Senator Roberts
most often, brings up a current report on that.

I will not say, other than it was a matter that was discussed, and
General Dayton shared with us his views. But I wish to point out, in
discussing it with General Dayton, he finds that whatever was carried
today, reflects it as his views, and he simply wants to say the final
decision rests with the Secretary of the Navy, not General Dayton, as
to the course of this investigation. So that much I will say. Beyond
that, I believe, regrettably, it was a top secret briefing, but
nevertheless information might well have gotten out. That is
regrettable.
I thank the Senator for bringing it up. I, too, join you in fervently
wishing and praying for Scott Speicher. The Senator has to be commended
for the amount of time he has spent on this situation.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank my colleague, my esteemed chairman. I
am a devoted member of his committee, under his leadership. I thank the
Senator from Virginia for all the personal encouragement he has given
to me as we have relentlessly kept after this, trying to find some
evidence.
I do want to say, since my colleague mentioned General Dayton, I
think he performed magnificently. He, of course, had many other
responsibilities other than just the search for CAPT Speicher. He had
all the responsibilities of the search for weapons of mass destruction.
But he had a special team that was led by Major Eames, who has now been
promoted to lieutenant colonel. That young officer was as devoted as
any that I could ever imagine in the search, when I visited with him in
his headquarters in Baghdad. At the time we had actually gone to one of
the cells where we thought maybe it was Scott Speicher's initials on
the wall, having been scratched into the stucco: MSS.
All those leads did not pan out. But there are other leads they need
to follow. It is my hope the U.S. military will continue to do that,
even though General Dayton is not in Iraq anymore, and he deserves to
be home. Even though Colonel Eames is not in Iraq.
If those leads would be continued, Colonel Eames would, in fact, be
back in Iraq in a heartbeat, following up that new information.
I want to take the occasion of reminding the Senate that this Senator
will continue to speak out on this issue, to remind the U.S. military
of its obligation to continue to search for evidence so the case of
Scott Speicher can be brought to closure.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend my colleague. He has worked very
hard on the Speicher case and undoubtedly his commitment will carry
forward. I suggest, based on what was said yesterday, that he will be
in consultation with the Secretary of the Navy. He has the authority to
make disclosures as he sees fit about this case, but I believe General
Dayton, in a very professional and conscientious way, will discharge
his duties.

The 9/11 Commission Report

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to provide this Senator's
observations, very preliminary though they may be, with regard to the
report of the 9/11 Commission which was made public today.
Yesterday I joined about a dozen or so Senators, the distinguished
majority leader, and others to receive a brief private briefing. That
was our first official glimpse of this report. I have not had the
opportunity to, of course, go through this rather prodigious volume--
each Member received a copy--but I do intend to do so because I think
it is a very important contribution by this Commission. I think many
parts of it can provide a roadmap for things that must be done.
It has been my privilege to serve in the Senate--this is my 26th
year, and I commit to work with other colleagues, all colleagues, to
see what we can do to strengthen our ability, not only in intelligence,
but across the board in all areas of national security.
As privileged as I am to be the chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, I am prepared to listen to how the responsibilities of that
committee should be changed for the better. I will not participate in
any obstruction simply because of turf. I have been here too long.
Also, this changed

[[Page S8610]]

world in which we live is so very different than when I came to this
institution a quarter of a century ago, and most particularly in the
aftermath of the tragedy of 9/11.
So I think it is incumbent upon all of us in the Congress and,
indeed, the executive branch to have a strong self-examination of the
areas covered by this report; to use this report, along with input from
other commissions, groups, and individuals, as a sort of roadmap to
guide us into those areas which need to be carefully reviewed.
Out of that process, which I hope is a carefully thought through, not
rushed, deliberative process, I hope will evolve such changes as we,
Congress, deem necessary to strengthen our capability to deter and, if
necessary, engage further in this war against terrorism. So, therefore,
I say with respect, I welcome the recommendations of the Commission. I
commit to study them and commit to work with my colleagues.
Yesterday a specific question was put to the two cochairmen of the 9/
11 Commission: Is America safer today? And their unhesitating
acknowledgment was it is safer today, and I agree it is. Is it as safe
as we need? None of us believe that. But I think conscientious efforts
have been made all along the way to make this a safer Nation, and we
have, in large measure, succeeded with the goals within the timetable
we have had.
I am disappointed, however, that there was not more thorough dialog
between the 9/11 Commission and Members of the Congress. I do not take
that personally. I did have an opportunity to visit in my office some 2
weeks ago--a very pleasant visit--with one member, at which time we
exchanged views. Somehow I do not feel that was the type of
consultation that enabled us to get into the report and make
constructive contributions. I do not suggest all 535 Members of
Congress troop up before the 9/11 Commission. We do not have time to do
that. Somehow it seems to me a better balance could have been struck
between the knowledge and the ideas we have in the institution of the
legislative branch of our Government that could have been shared with
this Commission. After all, the Commission was, in many respects,
created as a consequence of the actions of Congress.
Having said that, I am going to take some specific issue with this
rather sweeping indictment that we have been dysfunctional in our
oversight.
All throughout my public service, I have been privileged to have a
number of jobs, and I am very humble about it, but I am far from
perfect, and I have always welcomed constructive advice and criticism.
But this time this dysfunctional brush that was wiped across struck me
as not fair to certain things I personally have a knowledge of that
were done by this body, the Senate.

I will start back some years ago in 1987 when, as a member of the
Armed Services Committee, we structured the Goldwater-Nichols
legislation which had sweeping ramifications in our overall defense
setup. It has been hailed since that period of time as a landmark
achievement by the Congress to begin to transform our military from the
cold war era to the era of the threats today which are so diverse and
so different as compared to those we confronted during World War II and
in the immediate aftermath of the cold war.
That was quite an accomplishment and, in large measure, is owing to
Senator Goldwater and Congressman Nichols. Again, I had the privilege
to serve with those two men for many years, long before we started the
Goldwater-Nichols Act.
As a member of the Armed Services Committee--and I say with humility
and personal pride, I was a close personal friend of Senator Goldwater.
I admired him so much and looked forward to the times we worked
together and traveled together. I remember Congressman Nichols bore the
scars of World War II, having been a very courageous serviceperson in
that war. He was extremely conscientious about his duties on the House
Armed Services Committee. These two giants in the way of thinking got
together and relentlessly drove this legislation through both bodies of
the Congress, and it has withstood the test of time.
Contemporaneous with this, I remember my dear friend with whom I came
to the Senate, Senator Cohen, who later became, after he resigned from
the Senate, Secretary of Defense. We worked together as a team with
others to carve out of the Department of Defense, taking from the Army,
the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marines some of the best and the
brightest to create the Special Operations Command.
While today most colleagues have seen their magnificent performance
worldwide, particularly as a front line against terrorism, I remind
them it was a tough and long struggle, vigorously resisted by the
Department of Defense, to create this new entity and to give them their
dedicated assets of modest naval vessels, modest number of airplanes,
and other equipment which was their own. But we succeeded. Today those
forces have established themselves in the contemporary military history
of this country as an essential part of our military structure, much
admired by all, much envied by all, and their performance record is
second to none. I do not mean to suggest by that they have outpaced or
outperformed the basic elements, particularly combat-committed elements
of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. No, it is that the whole
military looks with a sense of pride toward their accomplishments. I am
proud to have been a part of establishing this important part of our
armed forces.
Then in 1999, when I was privileged for the first time to become
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I went in there and I
changed basically a structure that had been in place for decades, the
subcommittee structure. Again, I carved out a new subcommittee called
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities. This is 1999. This
is not in the aftermath of 9/11. This is 1999.
I must say, I have had the constructive support of the members of the
committee, and by pure coincidence--I am speaking of the Subcommittee
on Emerging Threats and Capabilities--the first chairman of that
subcommittee, the distinguished Senator from Kansas, Mr. Roberts, just
walked into the Chamber, and perhaps he will have a word or two about
the functions of that subcommittee.
Mr. President, I say to my distinguished colleague, I was saying the
9/11 Commission has brushed the Congress as being sort of
dysfunctional, and I was going back in history. The Senator from Kansas
was one of my principal supporters on establishing the Subcommittee on
Emerging Threats and Capabilities. He has been ranking member or
chairman of that subcommittee, and under his leadership and that of the
full committee, we have achieved a great deal, and have helped the
Department of Defense move forward in the areas of joint
experimentation, homeland defense, counterterrorism, and future
technologies and concepts that will be needed to confront future
threats.
That subcommittee was directed to look forward a decade and determine
what are the threats that are going to face the United States of
America and how best our Department of Defense needs to transform
itself and allocate assets and men and women to take up the positions
of responsibility to meet those threats.
That subcommittee has done its work and done it admirably and has
measurably enhanced the overall strength of our military today.
My distinguished colleague, Senator Roberts from Kansas, is chairman
of the Intelligence Committee. I am privileged to serve on that
committee today. In years past, I was privileged to serve 8 years. We
have this rotation in the Senate, and this is my second tour on that
committee. When I was vice chairman, together with other members of
that committee, we fought hard against the cuts in intelligence.
I ask unanimous consent that portions of the minority view report be
printed into the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Minority Views of Senators Warner, Danforth, Stevens, Lugar, and Wallop

The United States must maintain and strengthen U.S.
intelligence capabilities to provide for the future security
of the Nation and for the protection of its interests around
the globe. The U.S. should commit more resources to
achievement of that objective than the fiscal year 1994
intelligence authorization bill reported by the Select
Committee on Intelligence would provide.

[[Page S8611]]

The U.S. faced grave security risks during the Cold War,
but it faced them in an international environment that was
comparatively stable and predictable. With the end of the
Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union and its
Warsaw Pact military alliance, the U.S. had hoped for a ``New
World Order'' with stable and steady progress toward greater
democracy, freedom and free enterprise. What the U.S. faces
in the post-Cold War era, however, is a more chaotic
environment with multiple challenges to U.S. interests that
complicate the efforts of the U.S. and cooperating nations to
achieve the desired progress. In an unstable world of diverse
and increasing challenges, the need for robust and reliable
U.S. intelligence capabilities has grown rather than
diminished.
America faces a world in which:
Ethnic, religious and social tensions spawn regional
conflicts;
A number of nations possess nuclear weapons and the means
to deliver them on a target;
Other nations seek nuclear, chemical or biological weapons
of mass destruction and the means to deliver them;
Terrorist organizations continue to operate and attack U.S.
interests (including here at home, as the bombing of the
World Trade Center in New York reflects);
International drug organizations continue on a vast scale
to produce illegal drugs and smuggle them into the U.S.; and
U.S. economic interests are under constant challenge.
The United States continues to have a vital interest in
close monitoring of developments in the independent republics
on the territory of the former Soviet Union. The U.S.
Government needs accurate and timely intelligence on the
nuclear arsenals, facilities and materials located in Russia,
Ukraine and other republics; the economic and military
restructuring in the republics; and the ethnic, religious and
other social turmoil and secessionist pressures in the
republics.
To the extent that the end of the Cold War allows a
reduction of U.S. resources devoted to intelligence
capabilities focused on military capabilities of countries on
the territory of the former Soviet Union, the U.S. should
reallocate the gained resources to strengthen intelligence
capabilities to deal with growing risks to America's
interests. The U.S. should make such resources available for
strengthened intelligence capabilities focused on the
problems with which the U.S. Government must deal in the
coming decades, including proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, terrorism, international narcotics
trafficking, and the illegal transfer of U.S. high
technology. In many intelligence disciplines, investment
in research and development is needed now to yield
intelligence capabilities a decade from now. Absent needed
investment, capabilities will not be available when needed
and existing capabilities will erode.
At the same time as risks to U.S. interest grow, U.S.
military power will decline as the U.S. draws down
substantially the size of its armed forces following victory
in the Cold War. With a diverse and growing array of risks to
U.S. interests and a reduced commitment of resources to the
Nation's defense, the U.S. will grow increasingly dependent
for its security and the protection of its interests abroad
upon its intelligence capabilities--the Nation's eyes and
ears. Indeed, the substantial cuts of recent years in defense
budgets have been premised directly upon the strengthening of
intelligence support to the remaining, smaller armed forces.
Reducing the Nation's intelligence capabilities magnifies
significantly the risks attendant to reductions in resources
devoted to the Nation's defense. As this Committee noted in
discussing legislation to assist in managing the personnel
reductions at the Central Intelligence Agency, ``. . .
maintaining a strong intelligence capability is particularly
important when military forces are being substantially
reduced . . .'' (S. Rept. 103-43, p. 3).
The U.S. will depend on effective foreign intelligence in
allocating scarce U.S. national security resources
effectively. To protect America's interests in times of peace
and of conflict, U.S. policymakers and military commanders
will depend heavily upon early warning of trouble and early
and extensive knowledge of the activities, capabilities and
intentions of foreign powers. Effective intelligence will
multiply substantially the effectiveness of the smaller U.S.
military force.
A sampling of the deployment of the U.S. armed forces
abroad in the past four years illustrates risks to American
interests in the post-Cold War world, likely uses of U.S.
military forces in the future, and the importance of
effective intelligence in supporting military operations. In
late 1989, American troops in Operation JUST CAUSE liberated
Panama from the Noriega dictatorship that suppressed
Panamanian democracy and threatened U.S. personnel. In 1990
and 1991 in Operations DESERT SHIELD and DESERT STORM
American and coalition forces liberated Kuwait from Iraqi
occupation, and those forces remain on station in and around
the Arabian Peninsula to enforce United Nations sanctions on
Iraq. American forces have rescued American diplomats caught
in civil insurrections abroad. U.S. forces have assisted in
stemming the flow of illegal immigrants into the United
States. U.S. forces have undertaken humanitarian relief
operations, to feed hungry people and provide them medical
care. The U.S. has assigned its forces as part of or in
support of United Nations peacekeeping forces in many
countries, including Bosnia, Macedonia, Somalia, and
Cambodia. In every one of these operation--from massive
operations on the scale of DESERT STORM to the smallest
humanitarian relief operations--the successful accomplishment
of missions by the U.S. armed forces and the protection of
American troops have depended directly upon the high quality
and timeliness of the intelligence available to American
forces.
Reductions in U.S. intelligence capabilities in this period
of international instability are unwise and do not serve the
Nation's long-term security interests. Defense of America and
America's interests abroad requires a greater commitment of
resources to U.S. intelligence capabilities than the fiscal
year 1994 intelligence authorization bill provides.
John Warner.
John C. Danforth.
Ted Stevens.
Richard G. Lugar.
Malcolm Wallop.

Mr. WARNER. I have the report that accompanied the 1994 bill. This
was written in July of 1993. This report covered the ensuing fiscal
year. I wrote the minority views, which were joined in by other
colleagues on the committee at that time: Senator Danforth, who is now
our Ambassador to the United Nations; Senator Stevens, who is currently
chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee; Senator Lugar, who is
currently chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee; and our former
colleague, Senator Wallop.
Here is what we had to say, and I do not think this is dysfunctional
participation, but I will let my colleagues judge for themselves after
I have read portions of this report.
The minority views of the following Senators:

We were, of course, members of that select committee.

This is 1993. It is interesting. It was June 30, just about this
time--

international drug organizations continue on a vast scale to
produce illegal drugs and smuggle them into the U.S.; and
U.S. economic interests are under constant challenge.
To the extent that the end of the Cold War allows a
reduction of U.S. resources devoted to intelligence
capabilities focused on military capabilities of countries on
the territory of the former Soviet Union, the U.S. should
reallocate the gained resources to strengthen intelligence
capabilities to deal with growing risks to America's
interests. The U.S. should make such resources available for
strengthened intelligence capabilities focused on the
problems with which the U.S. Government must deal in the
coming decades, including proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, terrorism, international narcotics trafficking,
and the illegal transfer of U.S. high technology.

I shall not read further because I will put it in the Record.
This is not dysfunctional action by legislators; this is legislators
looking into the future and seeing much of what is occurring today. I
only wish we had the opportunity to advise the 9/11 Commission of this
and other contributions by many others in this Chamber at that period
of time who were in the service of the Senate and their States. This
was not dysfunctional.
In the days ahead, we do need to look at how best to organize the
intelligence elements of our national security structure, along with
many other components. We must not, however, do anything precipitously.

[[Page S8612]]

In the specific area of intelligence, our intelligence services, even
with the flaws that have been recently pointed out, are the best in the
world, by far. They are not perfect, and their business is, by
definition, one of uncertainty--best judgments made with the
information that is currently in hand. Any changes we make must be
carefully constructed to preserve existing excellence, while improving
other functions.
As we consider any changes, we must remember that intelligence is an
integral part of military operations. Recent military operations by our
forces in Afghanistan and Iraq have been extraordinarily successful, in
large part because of excellent intelligence, and because of the close
relationship between military operations and intelligence that has been
so carefully built over the years. Intelligence is part of a whole
Department of Defense, as well as part of a larger intelligence
community. Moving defense intelligence functions under the authority of
another cabinet-level official could have unintended consequences--we
must move with careful deliberation.
I yield the floor, and 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. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Tribute To Tom Diemer

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the retiring
dean of the Ohio press corps. Tom Diemer, a veteran reporter who spent
more than 26 years at the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper, has left
the paper to pursue another career.
Tom is one of those rare reporters who truly do ``get it.'' Tom
understands Ohio. He understands Ohio government. He understands Ohio
politics and certainly national politics. He understands what his
readers need and what they want to know.
Tom Diemer began working at the Columbus bureau of the Plain Dealer
in 1978. A few years later, in 1981, Tom was promoted to bureau chief.
When the opportunity came in 1985 to join the Plain Dealer's Washington
bureau, Tom took it. During his career here in Washington, Tom has
covered four Ohio U.S. Senators: first, Howard Metzenbaum and John
Glenn; later on, myself and then George Voinovich.
With a healthy dose of skepticism, Tom reported to his readers in
Cleveland about the activities in the U.S. Senate. But Tom was never a
reporter to take a press release at face value or a prepared statement
at face value. I think Tom was a skeptic in a good sense of the term.
He required his sources and those he got information from to make the
case to him, and he questioned them, questioned them hard. He asked
them questions that showed he was looking for the story behind the
story. Whether it was local issues, such as the Great Lakes or the
Euclid Corridor, or national issues, such as a war declaration or the
PATRIOT Act, we could always expect Tom to dig deeper and go further
with his line of questioning than just about anybody else.
Tom would want to know the implications of a certain story or he
would want some ``color'' for his story so he could capture the
``feel'' of an event for his readers. He would want to be able to take
his readers here to Washington and let them feel and understand how
things really work in our Nation's Capital.
I always got the feeling that when Tom wrote a story, his editors got
off pretty easily. They really did not have to do much work. However
Tom wrote it, that was probably just about the way the story appeared
in the Plain Dealer because Tom got it right. No matter how tough his
questions were to me, I always knew any story I read by Tom Diemer
would be fair and accurate.
In Washington, Tom came to lead the Ohio press corps. His expertise
about Ohio politics often made him the go-to person for C-SPAN or CNN
or any of the national reporters anytime they needed someone to analyze
the Ohio political scene during an election year.
I have always appreciated Tom's great professionalism, his
thoroughness, his frankness, his fairness, his kindness, and the way he
deals honestly, forthrightly with people.
Tom Diemer will still be writing, but he is leaving the Plain Dealer
to set out now on his own. I certainly will miss him. I will miss my
frequent contact with him. I certainly wish him the best of luck.

Transportation Safety

Mr. President, I would like to turn to the issue of highway safety.
Over 43,000 people lost their lives on our Nation's highways last year.
That is one death every 12 minutes or the equivalent of two Boeing 747-
400s filled to capacity going down every week with no survivors.
This past May, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
NHTSA, released its 2003 traffic safety report, which details when,
where, and why so many Americans lose their lives on our roads. This
information gives us an idea of how effective our efforts are at the
local, State, and national levels and where we need to focus resources
in the future to help save lives. Based on the preliminary 2003 data,
we have, tragically, a long way to go.
Overall, fatalities increased 1 percent, from 42,815 in 2002 to
43,220 in the year 2003. This is the fourth consecutive increase in
annual traffic fatalities. This is truly bad news, particularly in
light of the progress we made throughout the 1990s, when the norm was a
reduction in fatalities each year. On the other hand, the number of
deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled stayed constant at 1.5
from 2002 to 2003. While not an increase, this figure does show how
difficult it will be to reach the Secretary of Transportation's very
aggressive goal of reaching 1.0 fatalities per 100 million vehicle
miles traveled by the year 2008.
The 2003 report also includes a number of other findings that shed
light on the direction our country is taking as far as highway safety.
Among other things, the report states the following:
Standard passenger car fatalities are down but deaths in sports
utility vehicles, SUVs, are up in the past year, with most of the
increase coming from rollover crashes. NHTSA estimates this trend may
continue as SUVs grow as a share of sales volume.
Motorcycle crash deaths are up 11 percent from last year, now
totaling 3,592. Further, drunk driving death rates are essentially
unchanged from 2002, with 40 percent of crash fatalities involving
alcohol in the year 2003.
Further, the number of fatal crashes involving young drivers, those
between 16 and 20, declined by 3.7 percent, from 7,738 in 2002 to 7,542
in the year 2003.
While the report does bring welcome news with regard to young drivers
who are much more vulnerable while driving than adults, it is also
clear that progress needs to be made in a host of other areas,
particularly rollover crashes and drunk driving. I have been working in
the Senate, along with others, to see that we do just that through
safety issues we have added and that the Senate added to the 6-year
highway bill currently under consideration by the joint House-Senate
conference committee.
These initiatives are designed to advance our ability to test
vehicles for passenger protection and rollover crashes, get consumers
vital crash test information when they need it most, and increase
seatbelt use and reduce drunk driving through nationwide high-
visibility traffic safety enforcement campaigns. Combined with
increased seatbelt use, something that in my State of Ohio, Ohio State
Senator Jeff Armbruster is working diligently to enforce in Columbus,
better driver education, which the Ohio Department of Public Safety is
focusing on, and responsible practices, such as using a designated
driver, can in fact make a real difference.
These initiatives are contained in the Senate-passed bill that is
currently being considered by the House-Senate conference committee. It
is vitally important that they remain in this conference committee.
They will, in fact, save many lives.
Traffic safety affects all of us. We all have a role to play in
making sure that when the 2004 numbers come out early next year, they
are headed in the right direction.
In a related matter, I would also like to discuss a very important
development in the effort to make our Nation's roads safer. Earlier
this month,

[[Page S8613]]

Delaware became the 50th and last U.S. State to adopt a .08 blood-
alcohol content per se drunk driving standard. Now every State in the
Union has that standard.
This development constitutes the culmination of many years of work
here in the Senate to get tough, uniform drunk driving laws on the
books across our country. In 2000, the Senate took decisive action to
help stop drunk driving by implementing mandatory sanctions for States
that do not adopt a .08 per-se standard. Now we are finally seeing the
full realization of this effort, as all 50 States now have .08 laws.
This is so important from a safety perspective because the fact is
that a person with a .08 blood-alcohol concentration level is seriously
impaired. When a person reaches .08, his or her vision, balance,
reaction time, hearing, judgment, and self-control are severely
impaired. Additionally, critical driving tasks, such as concentrated
attention, speed control, braking, steering, gear-changing and lane-
tracking, are negatively impacted at .08.
Beyond these facts, there are other scientifically sound reasons to
have a national .08 standard. First, the risk of being in a crash
increases gradually with each blood-alcohol level, but then rises
rapidly after a driver reaches or exceeds .08 compared to drivers with
no alcohol in their systems. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration reports that in single-vehicle crashes, the relative
fatality risk for drivers with blood alcohol levels between .05 and .09
is over eleven times greater than for drivers with blood alcohol levels
of zero.
Second, .08 blood alcohol laws have proven results in reducing
crashes and fatalities. Some studies have found that .08 laws reduce
the overall incidence of alcohol fatalities by 16 percent and also
reduced fatalities at higher blood alcohol levels. Now that all 50
States have a .08 law, we will have the opportunity to see its effects
on a much larger scale.
The reduction in alcohol-related fatalities since the 1970s is not
attributable to one single law or program. Rather, it is the result of
a whole series of actions taken by State and Federal Government and the
tireless efforts of many organizations, such as Mothers Against Drunk
Driving, Students Against Drunk Driving, Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the Alliance of
Auto Manufacturers, and many others.
I thank my friend from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, for his
continued dedication to fighting drunk driving. His hard work and
perseverance have made the nationwide .08 standard possible. Mr.
President, .08 was definitely a legislative effort worth fighting for,
and now that all 50 States have a companion law in effect, I believe we
will see why.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Job Growth: Good Jobs

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, shortly we will be going to the Defense
bill and we will have a UC in a little bit on that. While we are
waiting for some final approval on language, I want to take this
opportunity to comment on the economy, job growth, and jobs.
Earlier this week, Chairman Greenspan presented his semiannual
monetary policy report to Congress. The chairman's conclusion needs to
be highlighted. He said: ``Economic developments of the United States
have generally been quite favorable in 2004'' and that this favorable
situation ``increasingly supports the view that the expansion is self-
sustaining.''
On the same day the chairman presented his upbeat, optimistic
assessment of the economy to the Senate Banking Committee, the
Department of Labor released its latest report on State-by-State
employment figures for June. The Department of Labor report presents
hard data that shows the unemployment rate has fallen in 47 States
since last June--47 States. Nonfarm payroll employment increased in 41
States in June. Over the past year, employment has increased in 46
States. Today, 37 States have unemployment rates at or below the
national unemployment rate of 5.6 percent in June. Further, since last
August, the economy has generated 1.5 million private sector jobs, and
an average of more than 250,000 jobs have been created each month over
the last 4 months. Finally, today, more Americans are working than at
any time in this country's history--over 139 million Americans.
Unable to refute this good news, this positive news, this real and
continually improving news on the job front, some of our Democratic
Senators and colleagues, including the presumptive Democratic
Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees, have tried a whole new
approach in attacking this positive news. They now have decided: OK,
maybe there have been jobs created, but they are not good jobs; they
are low-paying jobs. This is a new approach. As former President Ronald
Reagan would say: There they go again.
The question was asked directly of Chairman Greenspan by my
colleague, Senator Dole, on Tuesday:

Does your analysis show that the current jobs being created
are basically lower wage jobs with little or no benefits?

The chairman's answer, in one uncharacteristic word for him:

No.

More recently, the University of Pennsylvania's nonpartisan Annenberg
Public Policy Center supported research found that after analyzing data
over the last year from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there was
``solid growth in employment in relatively higher paying occupations,''
including construction workers, health care professionals, business
managers, and teachers, and virtually no growth in relatively lower
paying occupations, such as office clerks and assembly line workers.
Factually, the study concluded that we have seen ``good evidence that
job quality has increased over the past year or more.''
I asked my staff to similarly analyze the data since the most recent
job growth began last August. Using the current population survey data
distributed by 11 industries broken down by 14 occupations, 154
categories of workers, there were in these 154 categories 1.8 million
jobs created and 110,000 jobs lost since last August.
The median weekly earnings for these 154 categories in 2003 was $541.
Of the gross 1.8 million jobs created since last August, 1.4 million
were in categories where their weekly wage exceeded the median wage of
all workers in 2003. In other words, 77 percent of all the jobs created
since last August have been in occupations with weekly earnings above
the median.
Of the 1.8 jobs created since last August, 461,000 were in
occupations with weekly earnings below the median, or 27 percent of the
jobs created were in those below median earnings jobs. Only about
110,000 jobs created since last August have been in occupations at the
median.
The conclusion, supported by other objective analyses, higher paying
jobs are growing faster than other jobs in this recovery.
My friends on the other side of the aisle who are looking hard to
find a way to spread pessimism across the political landscape of this
election year are simply wrong in saying the quality of jobs being
created is low.
Chairman Greenspan just simply disagrees. The nonpartisan Annenberg
Public Policy Center-supported research disagrees, and hard data from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics disagree.
Economic growth is on track, job growth is good, and the quality of
those jobs is high. I hope my Democratic friends could at least try to
get their facts correct, and when they do they will find this latest
attempt to discredit the progress made is a canard.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in executive session.
Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S8614]]

(The remarks of Mr. Dodd pertaining to the introduction of S. 2755
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')

____________________