[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 124 (Tuesday, October 5, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10400-S10417]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE REFORM ACT OF 2004--Continued

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity as the 
Senate resumes this afternoon's debate to rise in very strong support 
of the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004.
  I am proud to join with Senator Collins and Senator Joe Lieberman as 
a cosponsor of this bill. It is an excellent bill, and I want to 
support my two colleagues, Senators Collins and Lieberman, for working 
so hard and to go at it in a way that is not only bipartisan but 
nonpartisan following the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
  I am excited about this bill because I think it reforms our 
intelligence to be able to make sure that we prevent any more 9/11s 
affecting the United States; that we reform the intelligence so that we 
never go to war again on dubious information; that we make the highest 
and best use of the talent in our intelligence agencies, and that they 
have the framework to be able to protect the Nation, as well as be able 
to speak truth to power.
  Mr. President, I am no stranger to reform. I am on the Intelligence 
Committee. I came on the committee before 9/11 to be an advocate for 
reform, particularly in the area of signals intelligence. As I worked 
on the committee and served on the joint inquiry about what occurred on 
9/11, I became deeply committed to other issues related to reform: to 
have a national intelligence director, to create an inspector general, 
to mandate alternative or red team analysis, to always make sure that 
we policymakers have the best information, and that our troops and our 
homeland security officials get the best intelligence they need to be 
able to protect the Nation.
  Following the 9/11 Commission report, but also with the wonderful 
work of Senators Collins and Lieberman, we now have intelligence 
legislation that will give us a single empowered leader for our 
intelligence community, a strong inspector general, and a definite 
alternative analysis to make sure that all views are heard.
  This reform is broad, deep, and also authentic. I think that is what 
the Nation wants of us.
  Mr. President, 3,000 people died on September 11. They died at the 
World Trade Center, they died at the Pentagon, and they died on a field 
in Pennsylvania. At least 60 Marylanders died. We remember that they 
came from all walks of life. We must remember those we lost that day. 
The way we honor their memory is to take actions to do everything we 
can to prevent it from ever happening again. That is what the families 
have asked us to do. That is what the Nation has asked us to do. I am 
so pleased that we will act on this legislation before we recess.
  We need to do this, and we need to do this now. In joining the 
Intelligence Committee, and also after those terrible acts, like many 
others, I asked what could we have done to prevent the September 11 
attacks on our country? Also, why did we think that Saddam Hussein had 
weapons of mass destruction? What kind of information does the 
President need before he sends troops into harm's way? What kinds of 
information do we need--we, the Members of Congress--to be able to 
provide the right response to a President's request? We reviewed a lot 
of this information, and now we know we have the kind of reform in this 
legislation that will help us.
  The 9/11 Commission built on the 9/11 joint inquiry of the House and 
Senate Intelligence Committees. We did that in a classified way. Then, 
the 9/11 Commission was organized, and I am happy to say I voted for 
it. The Commission could bring into the sunshine what many of us knew 
privately because it was classified. We knew about missed 
opportunities, insufficient or unreliable information, the failure to 
share information, the shortcomings of watch lists.

  The legislation that we have before us will move the priorities 
forward for intelligence reform. First of all, it gives the 
intelligence community one leader with authority, responsibility, and 
financial control. In Washington, if you cannot control people or you 
cannot control budgets, you cannot control the agency.
  Second, it provides for diversity of opinion in the analysis. It 
requires independent analysis. It also provides a framework for red 
teaming or a devil's advocate so that, again, the policymakers get the 
best information.
  It also strengthens information sharing. It provides the support to 
speak truth to power. And it also provides a unity of effort in the 
global war on terrorism. All of this is done with a delicate balance of 
protecting privacy and civil liberties.
  I salute my colleagues. While they were doing their homework this 
summer with the 9/11 report, I was doing mine--built on the experience 
that I had both as a member of the Intelligence Committee and the joint 
inquiry to investigate what went wrong on 9/11. I continued my homework 
over the summer. I read the riveting report of the 9/11 Commission. I 
attended hearings in the Intelligence Committee and Governmental 
Affairs. I consulted with officials of the FBI and others in homeland 
security in my State. I met with the Director of the National Security 
Agency. Having done that, I now conclude that this is the best 
legislation.
  We are at a turning point. This is a new century. It poses new 
threats to the Nation. Therefore, it requires a new framework to serve 
the Nation. That is what I believe this legislation will do. So I say 
to my colleagues that one of the best actions we can take now, in order 
to serve the Nation, is stand up for our troops, protect the homeland, 
and pass the Collins-Lieberman legislation, which I truly believe 
brings about the reform of the national intelligence community.
  I also salute the work of Senator Harry Reid and Senator Mitch 
McConnell, who were working on how we need to reform ourselves in 
Congress to be able to provide the best oversight of the intelligence 
community so we can have the best intelligence, yet the highest value 
for our dollar, and at the same time protect the Nation, finding the 
balance to protect our civil liberties. I believe the task force report 
saying the Senate needs to reform itself internally will come after 
this legislation. I think we have done a great job working on a 
bipartisan basis.
  I remember that fateful evening of 
9/11 and that day when we gathered on the Capitol steps. America had 
lived through a lot. We didn't know what was yet to come. But joining 
with our

[[Page S10401]]

House colleagues, we in the Senate, with our leadership, joined hands 
and sang ``God Bless America.'' We were not a Democratic Party. We were 
not a Republican Party. We were the red, white, and blue party, and 
that is what we need to be here today. We need to join hands, pass the 
reforms necessary to protect the Nation, and to truly ask God to bless 
the United States of America.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my dear friend and colleague 
from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, for that very thoughtful and strong 
statement on behalf of the bill. It means a lot to me and I know 
Senator Collins.
  Senator Mikulski has focused on these national security intelligence 
issues. She happens to have a lot of people who work in this field for 
us in the State of Maryland. Senator Collins and I were very grateful 
and proud when Senator Mikulski joined us as an original cosponsor of 
this legislation. I appreciate all that she has contributed to our 
efforts. Her statement is very timely and gratefully appreciated. I 
thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I echo the words of my colleague from 
Connecticut. Senator Mikulski has been so helpful throughout this 
debate and in the development of this bill. In fact, when the 
Governmental Affairs Committee was first assigned the responsibility 
for evaluating the 9/11 Commission recommendations and producing this 
bill, it was the Senator from Maryland who was the first to call me and 
to offer to help, to share her knowledge from her years on the 
Intelligence Committee and on the Appropriations Committee. I really 
appreciated that gesture.
  Since that time, she also participated in one of the Governmental 
Affairs Committee hearings that we held. Her State lost so many 
citizens on that awful day, and she has been relentless in her 
determination to make sure their memory is never forgotten. I very much 
appreciate all of her contributions.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for a 
few minutes on an unrelated matter, pertaining to a bill the House of 
Representatives just passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Hold On S. 878

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose S. 878, or at least 
the version the House of Representatives just passed today. 
Essentially, what the House did was to poison a worthy bill, a bill 
that was meant to alleviate the crisis of an overwhelming workload 
under which the Federal judiciary is struggling. The House did so by 
adding language to split the Ninth Circuit into three circuits. In 
doing so, the House has essentially taken the new judges as hostages to 
a starkly partisan and controversial ploy.
  I will not go along with such bullying tactics, and I am placing a 
hold on that bill today. It is with great regret, and with greater 
frustration, that I place this hold.
  I will take a few minutes to explain why we so desperately need the 
new Federal judges S. 878 would provide, and then I want to make clear 
why I am so opposed to the language the House of Representatives has 
added to split the Ninth Circuit.
  According to the Administrative Office of the Courts, the average 
caseload for every Federal district judge in the country is now 523 
cases per judge. In 1999, the average was 480 cases. So it has 
increased 9 percent in 4 years. But that only tells part of the story. 
Of the four Federal district courts in California, my home State, three 
of them handled more cases per judge than the national average: the 
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 544 cases; 
Southern District of California, 611 cases; the U.S. District Court for 
the Eastern District, 734 cases per judge, 40 percent more than the 
national average.
  So it is this burden that needed to be remedied, and in this bill 
there were 51 district court judges. It was an important bill.
  This situation extends far beyond California. For example, the 
district court for Nebraska, represented by my colleague Chuck Hagel, 
who has been working on this issue with me, has 627 cases per judge, 
almost 20 percent more than the average. Other courts with exceedingly 
high caseloads are in Iowa and Arizona.
  The version of the Senate bill that the House Judiciary Committee 
amended would have added 51 new Federal district court judges, 32 of 
them permanent, 15 temporary judges whose seats would expire when they 
retire, and 4 seats that would be converted from temporary to 
permanent. That version of the bill would also have added 11 judges to 
the circuits of the Court of Appeals. All of these additions came at 
the recommendation of the nonpartisan Judicial Conference of the United 
States. According to their 2003 report, the need for new judges is real 
and growing.
  They go on to state:

       Since 1991, the number of criminal case filings has 
     increased 45 percent and the number of criminal defendants is 
     35 percent higher.

  Then it continued on with the statistics. When the judges tell us 
that they need more judges to supervise criminal trials, to secure our 
borders, and to crack down on deadly firearms, it is our obligation to 
listen and to act, because these judges are the linchpin of our justice 
system. Just as we need soldiers to help win the war on terror, we need 
enough judges to keep safe at home.
  Instead of moving forward to simply add judges, which is what we 
need, the House essentially sabotaged the bill by adding an amendment 
to split the Ninth Circuit into these three new circuits.
  This is not the time or the place for such an action. I am very much 
aware of arguments in favor of splitting the Ninth Circuit. In the 
Senate Judiciary Committee we have been debating this for years and, as 
I said at the Senate hearing on the issue earlier this year, I welcome 
the hearing and look at it with a much more open mind than I have in 
the past. I am sensitive to the fact that the Ninth Circuit had a 13-
percent increase in caseload in a single year.
  However, this is only one side of the argument. We have testimony 
from the chief judge of the Ninth Circuit, whom I respect greatly, who 
informs me that the size is not an obstacle to efficiency. We have 
letters from the State Bar Associations of California, Arizona, and 
Hawaii opposing a circuit split. I have a letter from Governor 
Schwarzenegger of California opposing a split of the Ninth Circuit. I 
have letters from eight judges in the Ninth Circuit opposing a circuit 
split, and also a letter from Senator Sessions saying that he has 
received letters from 15 Ninth Circuit judges opposing a split.
  Suffice it to say that reasonable minds can differ on whether the 
Ninth Circuit should be split. What reasonable minds, I think, have to 
agree on is this is no way to undertake such a momentous change in our 
Nation's history. I suspect what is happening is that opponents of the 
Ninth Circuit are trying to take a bill that we need, add new judges, 
and make the Congress accept the split to the Ninth Circuit as the 
price.

  The fact of the matter is the split they propose will not equalize 
the caseload. There will still be a disproportionate caseload with the 
methodology used in the split followed by the House decision voted on 
this morning. Under the House bill, the new Ninth Circuit, with 
California, Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, would have 
407 cases per circuit judge. That is much more than the new Twelfth 
Circuit, of Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, and Montana, which would have 280 
cases per circuit judge. It is also much more than the new Thirteenth 
Circuit, of Alaska, Oregon, and Washington, which would have 279 cases 
per judge. So the House bill does not solve the problem of an even 
split of cases between the circuits.
  What we found as we looked at this over the years is that an even 
split cannot happen unless California is split in half, because the 
State, and ergo the

[[Page S10402]]

number of cases, is simply too large. This has always been the dilemma.
  Additionally, this legislation causes major new costs. The 
Administrative Office of the Courts states that the startup costs for a 
three-way split that the House today demanded would ring up $131.3 
million to make that particular split.
  Despite the need for new judges, I cannot accept this ploy. This is 
the time for new Federal judges. It is not the time to split the Ninth 
Circuit. I think the House of Representatives has harmfully cemented 
one weighty issue to the other and it is not going to work.
  So, regretfully, I must place a hold on this bill. I hope Members who 
are concerned about this will listen, and I hope it is not too late to 
work out some solution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak 10 
minutes as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      The Guard and Reserve Forces

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know the issue the Senator from 
California raised is very important and will be considered as we go 
forward in our debates, as our session wraps up. The Senator from 
Connecticut and the Senator from Maine have done an outstanding job in 
managing the underlying bill and helping us come to grips with some of 
the new fundamental changes necessary to reorganize our intelligence 
communities to face the challenges confronting our Nation. I do not 
want to take too much time away from that very important debate. But I 
did feel compelled to come to the floor and raise an issue regarding 
our military families, especially the families of our National 
Guardsmen and Reservists. They, too, are so critical to meeting and 
defeating enemies on the home-front and in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Because we call on thousands of Active men and women in our armed 
forces, as well as reservists in our Guard and Reserve, to be in the 
forefront of the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan, I thought it was 
important to come to the floor to share some information that will 
disappoint people in Louisiana and across the United States.
  Right now, somewhere in this Capitol, there is a conference meeting 
trying to finalize a tax relief package that we refer to around here as 
FSC/ETI. It is a necessary change in our Tax Code because of some trade 
decisions that were made relative to the way Europe and America conduct 
trade and impose taxes and fees on imports and exports. For several 
months, members of the Senate Finance Committee and Members of the 
House Ways and Means Committee have been working to reach a final 
agreement. Different amendments have been added and subtracted as a 
means to bring the bill closer to final passage.

  One of the amendments that I thought was one of the most important 
amendments in that bill--one that my colleagues in the Senate, 
Republicans and Democrats, agreed to unanimously called for tax credits 
to be made available to employers who continued to pay the salaries of 
their employees if those employees had been activated for duty in the 
National Guard and Reserves. The Senate agreed that if we were going to 
give tax relief and a trade fix for corporations and for businesses, 
then we should also find space in that bill to provide tax relief in 
some way to the patriotic employers who are trying to help their 
employees in the Guard and Reserve make ends meet. We should do that so 
the men and women who put the uniform on every morning and run those 
patrols ferreting out insurgents and terrorists in Iraq would not have 
to take a pay cut to do their job to defend America. We want those 
troops focused on the war-front, not whether bills have been paid on 
the home-front.
  Americans might be shocked, because I am shocked, and I am 
disappointed, that our Government has not yet found a way to make sure 
that when we call up the men and women basically out of their regular 
life--as doctors or lawyers or truck drivers or nurses or teachers or 
government workers or firefighters or police officers--and ask them to 
leave their families, leave their jobs, leave their businesses and go 
fight on the front line for us, that we have not found a way to make 
sure they can do that without taking a pay cut. The GAO has documented 
that 41 percent of the Guardsmen and Reservists fighting for us--being 
called away from their homes, away from their families, and putting 
their lives in peril and great danger--are doing so with a pay cut. We 
need to provide them a helmet and a gun and a flak jacket and some 
protection. But I think we also should make every effort to ensure 
their families back-home have some stability. We should take steps so 
that the troop in Falujah knows his employer can take care of his 
family.
  If this Congress and the President were not already enacting 
trillions in tax cuts and we were adhering to a plan of fiscal 
responsibility, I might be able to look these families in the eye and 
say, ``Sorry we have a budget deficit. We are doing the best we can.''
  But do you know what the shame of it is? There is a conference 
meeting somewhere in this Capitol giving out tax relief to people who 
already have a lot of money, to corporations some of which may be on 
the front line but many of which are not, and we have the Republican 
leadership on the House that says we cannot afford a tax credit to 
benefit patriotic employers, our Guardsmen and Reservists, and their 
families. We are asking our men and women in unifrom to bear 100 
percent of the risk and burden of fighting the war on terror. Yet in 
all the tax relief in the Republican-drafted plan, the Republican-
leadership plan drafted by Chairman Thomas, we can't find one penny to 
make sure the military families get a full paycheck. The cost of my 
amendment amounts to less than .1 percent of all the Bush/Republican 
tax cuts enacted since 2001. My amendment is even offset, but the 
Republican leadership simply refuses to help military families.
  Since 2001, the Republican leadership has passed over $2.1 trillion 
in tax cuts and tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. I supported 
some of these tax cuts but the major beneficiaries have been wealthy 
individuals who had already accumulated great assets, and corporations. 
Direct support for military families has been less than .1 percent, or 
$1.37 billion, of the $2.1 trillion in tax cuts.
  If you remember, in 2001, we had one bill for tax cuts which we 
called the Military Family Relief Act. It amounted to $1.37 billion out 
of $2.1 trillion. So the bulk of the tax relief is going to people who 
are not on the front line. Only limited help is going to the people on 
the front line.
  You can see the graph here, $2.1 trillion to everybody else who is 
not in uniform and $1.37 billion to the military families who are 
fighting the battle. I don't understand how we are fighting this war. 
Maybe somebody can explain it to me.
  At least people say: Senator, you must not understand that much of 
these tax cuts get to the military families; it is just not directly. 
If they have children, they might get the child tax credit. I 
understand that. But 75 percent of the enlisted men and women in our 
armed services make less than $30,000 a year. A staff sergeant with 8 
years of experience makes $30,000 a year. So if you don't write them 
directly into the bills--because the bills are skewed to those 
individuals and families making over $75,000, mostly $100,000, 
$200,000, $300,000--the military families don't get to take advantage 
of tax cuts.
  Time and time again, every time a tax bill passes this Congress, the 
military family is left on the cutting room floor. In 2001, we passed 
the Economic Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, $1.6 trillion--
direct support for military families was $0.
  In 2002, we passed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, 
$41 billion--military families, $0.
  In 2003, we passed the Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Act, $230 
billion--direct support for military, $0.
  This year we passed the Working Families Tax Relief Act, $146 
billion--direct support for military families, $0. This $146 billion 
had no offsets.
  Now we have a conference in this Capitol putting together an $81 
billion tax bill. And the amendment, the one little amendment we put on 
to encourage employers to keep the salaries up

[[Page S10403]]

for the Guard and Reserve when they are fighting in Iraq, was taken out 
because we can't afford it. When it left the Senate, we had paid for 
it. There are plenty of ways the House Republicans could pay for it, 
today, but helping military families is not in their interests. We 
could close a loophole that allows companies to leave the United States 
for the purpose of reorganizing themselves so they do not have to pay 
taxes. We could close that loophole and gave it to the men and women 
putting on the uniform to defend our country. These soldiers, sailors, 
airmen, and marines aren't fleeing the country to avoid paying taxes, 
yet we don't get tough on the corporations that are leaving the country 
to avoid taxes. They take every benefit of what this nation has to 
offer, including the blood and sweat of our troops, and pay nothing in 
return. But, some in Congress want to put these corporations in front 
of our men and women in uniform.
  Let me also say I am ashamed for our Government that we have not yet 
closed our own loophole when a Federal Government worker takes off the 
Government suit or dress or uniform and puts on the military uniform 
and goes to fight on the front lines of Iraq. The US Government, as an 
employer, does not fill the pay gap for Federal employees.
  Mr. President, 41 percent of the guardsmen and reservists who are 
fighting in Iraq take a pay cut to fight and we keep passing 
appropriations bills and tax cuts to give everyone in the world a tax 
break, except our military families. And, our poor military families 
ask for help and we have the Republican leadership in the House telling 
them: Sorry, there is no more money.
  I just got back from Fort Polk a couple of weeks ago, where I have 
4,000 maybe 5,000 families in Louisiana whose primary breadwinner has 
stopped winning bread at home and gone over to Iraq to help fight this 
war. I promised them that I was not going to just come on home without 
a fight or without raising this issue for the 5,000 families in my 
State and for the thousands of families around this country who do not 
ask for much. They ask for good training. They ask for equipment. And 
they are asking that they don't take a pay cut when they go to fight. 
They are not asking for a pay raise; they just don't want a pay cut. 
They'll get that pay cut if we let this last tax bill go out of here 
without fixing this provision or without giving some tax credit to 
companies, many of them small businesses, who continue to pay their 
activated Guard and Reserve employees.
  You can understand why a small business sometimes can't afford to 
continue to pay the guardsmen and reservists 100 percent of their 
salary and then have to pay 100 percent of the salary for a 
replacement.
  We are asking for a tax credit for these employers so they can 
voluntarily, if they want, continue to pay the salary of their Guard 
and Reserve, take a tax credit so we would basically share that expense 
among everyone and allow that guardsman and reservist to get a full 
paycheck.
  I repeat for the record, the GAO reports that 41 percent of the 
guardsmen and reservists called to active duty take a pay cut. We could 
fix that, but for some reason we do not want to, we do not think we 
should, or we do not have the money. Yet at the same time we are fixing 
a lot of things for a lot of people and passing one appropriations bill 
and one tax bill after another.
  Forty percent of those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are Guard and 
Reserve; 410,000 families or individuals have been activated since 
September 11. We probably have a few more thousand to activate until we 
get it right in Iraq.
  We can pay for this, as I said, by closing loopholes, but the 
Republican leadership said, ``No.'' We cannot not pay for it. They have 
passed tax bills out of here and chalked it up to more debt. This would 
not be that much to add for people assuming 100 percent of the risk to 
defend this Nation, but they do not choose to do that, either. Right 
now, as I speak, 3 o'clock today, it is not in the bill.
  I hope these words are traveling through this Capitol. I hope there 
are people listening and phones start ringing to include the military 
families in this FSC/ETI bill that is moving through conference so this 
tax relief can be given and the pay gap can be closed. If you are on 
the front line, taking 100 percent of the risk, the last thing you need 
to take is a pay cut.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, does the rule of germaneness apply under 
cloture?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Germaneness on debate is required on cloture.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent to speak for not more than 10 
minutes on a matter not germane to the pending matter before the 
Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Veterans Benefits

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, West Virginians have a long and proud record 
of service to the U.S. military. General Stonewall Jackson, one of the 
greatest military minds of his time, hailed from present day West 
Virginia. Chuck Yeager, the World War II ace and the first man ever to 
travel faster than sound, is proud to be a West Virginian. SSG Junior 
Spurrier left his home of Bluefield, WV, to fight for the liberation of 
France and received just one fewer awards than the legendary Audie 
Murphy, the most decorated American soldier in World War II.
  There are many more West Virginians whose names will not be recorded 
in the great military histories of our country, but these veterans have 
asked little of their country. They have a right to expect that our 
Government will provide them with the benefits they earned in service 
to our country, and that is the one thing they do expect.
  Time and time again, President Bush has turned his back on veterans 
who have served our country. Over and over again, President Bush has 
had to choose between veterans programs and budget-busting tax cuts for 
the wealthy, and he has chosen to cut taxes for America's super-wealthy 
instead of taking care, as he should have, of America's veterans. As 
veterans evaluate the actions of this administration, I hope they are 
asking whether they are better off than they were 4 years ago.
  For the last 3 years, Congress wanted to increase veterans' benefits 
by allowing military retirees to keep all of their VA disability checks 
and the military retirement pay, but President Bush opposed it. He 
fought against it. In fact, he threatened to veto a $396 billion 
Defense bill in order to keep Congress from allowing veterans to 
receive all the compensation they have earned through their service in 
the Armed Forces. Yes, my colleagues heard me right. President George 
Bush threatened to veto an entire Defense bill because veterans would 
get the benefits they had earned.
  This year, President Bush approved plans to shut down three veterans 
hospitals and partially close nine more. What is more, the Beckley VA 
Medical Center which serves 40,000 veterans in southern West Virginia 
and is located in my home county of Raleigh narrowly missed the 
President's chopping block. Only a last-minute intervention by Senator 
John D. Rockefeller, Representative Nick Rahall, and me saved the 
Beckley Veterans Hospital. If the President gets a second term, 
however, veterans better watch out. You veterans may have to kiss more 
of your hospitals goodbye.

  But the Bush administration didn't bother to wait for a second term 
before slashing veterans health care in other ways. Last year, the Bush 
administration decided that an entire category of veterans should no 
longer be eligible to seek health care from the VA. This wrongheaded 
decision means that by next year more than 520,000 veterans will be 
barred from VA hospitals. In other words, the White House says it would 
be too expensive to let these veterans enjoy their VA health care 
benefits. How can President Bush claim he supports our troops if he 
doesn't support VA health care for half a million veterans?

[[Page S10404]]

  President Bush has also taken to shortchanging veterans to new, 
disgusting levels. He is no longer content with simply underfunding 
veterans health care to the tune of $3.2 billion per year, according to 
leading veterans' service organizations. Now President Bush has decided 
that some people who served our country in uniform should pay more for 
their veterans health care benefits. The President's budget for this 
year doubles the cost of prescription drugs for these veterans, 
increases their fees for doctor visits by 33 percent, and sticks them 
with new annual enrollment fees.
  I know that when President Bush hits the campaign trail in West 
Virginia, he will talk about how he cares about veterans, but I doubt 
that he will tell West Virginia's veterans about his plans to cut their 
benefits and raise their fees. I am sure you won't hear the President 
talking about how he has shortchanged the VA, cut veterans health care, 
fought Congress on veterans benefits, closed veterans hospitals, and 
increased health care charges.
  The Bible says:

     . . . by their fruits ye shall know them.

  In today's terms, we would say that you have to walk the walk if you 
want to talk the talk. But when it comes to looking out for veterans, 
George Bush is ambling off in the wrong direction.
  The veterans of West Virginia know about sacrifice. They have given 
up a lot in their service to this country. This administration has 
spent 4 years undercutting veterans. The people of West Virginia should 
know that it is time to stand up for our veterans.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today what we have seen is a fresh 
topic of interest, as discussed in the newspaper. I ask unanimous 
consent that in my hour of time, whatever time I have remaining be 
available to me as if it were in morning business and that I be 
permitted to use 15 minutes of that time at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Paul Bremer's Recent Comments

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the topic of very active discussion is 
Mr. Paul Bremer's comments that are in the papers, particularly the 
Washington Post, today. I say this with a great deal of respect for 
Paul Bremer. I think he worked hard to do a very good job. He can 
hardly be described as a leftwing liberal, for sure. He said something 
that was, to use the vernacular, kind of a show stopper. He said:

       We paid a big price for not stopping it (looting) because 
     it established an atmosphere of lawlessness. . . . We never 
     had enough troops on the ground.

  This is our person in charge of the transition from Iraq's former 
government, purportedly to become a democracy. He is the fellow who was 
in charge in Iraq. We all, whoever went there, visited with him, 
listened to him. He worked very closely with the military. He is very 
skilled. But he said it. ``We never had enough troops on the ground,'' 
and that was the beginning of the problem in which we are now so deeply 
enmeshed.
  We have had generals saying it. We had General Shinseki saying that 
we needed 300,000 of our troops there to do the job, and not having had 
enough caused us, frankly, to become mired in a situation that, at 
least by current appearances, seems as though it is going to hold us 
there for a long time at a terrible cost in life, terrible cost in 
family relationships, terrible cost financially as well.


                   The Vice President and HalliBurton

  Tonight, as everyone knows, the debate will be between Vice President 
Cheney and Senator John Edwards, for each of them to present their 
credentials and their views. But I rise to discuss the Vice President's 
relationship with Halliburton, his financial relationship with the oil 
company he ran from 1995 to the year 2000, the company that is reaping 
the benefits of multibillion-dollar contracts from the Bush-Cheney 
administration.
  Vice President Cheney still receives salary checks from Halliburton 
for well over $150,000 each year. He holds 433,000 unexercised 
Halliburton stock options. It presents a very questionable picture when 
we look on this chart at the orange line which conveys the Halliburton 
income to Vice President Cheney from 2001 on, and his Vice Presidential 
salary. If one looks, we see the compensation from Halliburton exceeded 
that of the U.S. Government's compensation or pay for the Vice 
President. In the year 2002, Halliburton fell to $162,000 but then 
crept back up to where they are very close together. That is, the 
salary paid by the U.S. Government and the deferred compensation plan 
that gives Vice President Cheney $178,000.
  When you look at this, it presents a terrible picture. Here is a Vice 
President of the United States, the next person in line to take over 
if, Heaven forbid, something happened to the President, and he is 
getting paid from a company he used to work for. We know this is a 
deferred compensation plan, that it was earned before.

  I also mention the fact that Vice President Cheney, when he left 
Halliburton, got a $20 million termination bonus plus over $1 million 
in another bonus. If we looked at the deferred salary and the 
nontermination bonus Dick Cheney has received from Halliburton while 
Vice President of the United States, it is up to almost $2 million.
  This is, if not corrupting in its reality, its functionality. It has 
the appearance that raises enormous questions. This relationship, 
coupled with Halliburton's no-bid contract and other contracts in Iraq, 
is extremely problematic.
  On top of the salary, there are 433,000 shares options that are 
exercisable. I come out of the corporate world and I know how valuable 
the stock options can be. The profits are committed to a charity, 
purportedly, but the more you get, the more you can give away.
  Why does the Vice President permit this salary arrangement to 
continue when he could have done away with it, as did Mr. John Snow, 
who was the Secretary of the Treasury. He wrapped up 6 years' worth of 
deferred compensation into one year and said: I want to be done with 
this. I don't want to have my income coming from my former employer 
while I work for the U.S. Government at such a high level.
  By continuing this financial relationship, the Vice President 
undermines our Nation's ethical credibility here and abroad. On 
September 14, 2003, the Vice President was asked about his relationship 
with Halliburton and the no-bid contract on the program, ``Meet the 
Press.'' Vice President Cheney told Tim Russert--and I happened to be 
watching the program; that is what stimulated my interest--the Vice 
President said:

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

  The problem with that statement is that when he said it, he held 
those 433,000 Halliburton stock options and continued to receive a 
deferred salary from the company and still has a salary for the year 
coming into 2005.
  I went to the Congressional Research Service to see what the 
definition of a ``financial interest'' might look like. The 
Congressional Research Service confirmed to me that holding such 
options and receiving deferred salary constitutes a financial interest. 
They agree, and so do I, that when you have deferred compensation, when 
you have stock options, that is a financial interest. They say if it 
looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it must be a duck. There it 
is, a financial interest.
  Even though the exercised prices for Vice President Cheney's 
Halliburton stock options are above the current market price, the 
majority of the options extend to 2009. My goodness, what does it take 
to free himself from a previous business contact?
  When I left the company that I helped start and at which I spent 30 
years, the minute I left there all of my options were canceled, to my 
regret, because there was a lot of money involved.
  Any option holder has to hope that the stock price surges so the 
value of the options increase. One way this can happen is to be sure 
that lucrative contracts keep coming from the U.S. Government.

  In the first quarter of 2004, Halliburton's revenues were up 80 
percent from the first quarter of 2003. Why? Wall Street analysts point 
to one simple factor: The company's massive governmental contracts in 
Iraq. Those are the things that are responsible for

[[Page S10405]]

this increase in revenue and profits, if any.
  Vice President Cheney's annual deferred salary from Halliburton is 
significant. As I pointed out earlier, in fact, the Vice President's 
Halliburton salary is as high as his government pay--last year, 
$178,000 in salary from Halliburton. I have heard the Vice President's 
defense of his Halliburton deferred salary. He claims that the deal was 
locked in in 1999 and there is no way for him to get out of his 
deferred salary deal.
  How about if he had an employment contract with the company for 10 
years and then became Vice President of the United States, would he say 
he had to have both jobs at the same time because he had a contract? 
Come on.
  Checking of the facts revealed otherwise. I obtained the terms of 
Vice President Cheney's deferred salary contract with Halliburton, and 
the bottom line is that the deferred salary agreement is not set in 
stone. In fact, one need only look at the ethics agreement of Treasury 
Secretary Snow to see what the Vice President should have done in order 
to avoid taking salary from private corporations while in public 
office. Secretary Snow took six different deferred compensation 
packages as a lump sum upon taking office. Get rid of any shadow of 
doubt, any shadow of conflict.
  Worst of all, this financial relationship is going on while 
Halliburton is ripping off American taxpayers. I am very specific about 
this. Halliburton is ripping off American taxpayers. I have said it, 
and I will say it again. Look at the record.
  The Pentagon's inspector general revealed that Halliburton, while our 
people were fighting for their lives, overcharged $27.4 million for 
meals that were never served to our troops. False records. Fraudulent.
  Another Pentagon audit found Halliburton overcharged the Army by 
$1.09 a gallon for 57 million gallons of gasoline deferred to citizens 
in Iraq.
  Auditors found potential overcharges of up to $61 million for 
gasoline that a Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, delivered as part of its 
no-bid contract to help rebuild Iraq's oil industry.
  Under its cost-plus contract with the Pentagon, the more Halliburton 
spends, the more profit it makes regardless of whether that spending is 
necessary. Several former Halliburton employees have come forward to 
reveal how the company has taken advantage of this sweetheart deal by 
spending millions on nonexistent or vastly overpriced goods and 
services.
  According to these former employees, Halliburton engaged in the 
following wasteful practices: They had its employees drive empty trucks 
back and forth across Iraq in order to bill for the trips despite the 
obvious risks that this practice posed to both truck drivers and the 
85,000 trucks. Halliburton, under their arrangement, whatever they 
spent, came up with a profit for them.
  If they needed an oil change they would buy a new truck. Halliburton 
removed all of the spare tires from its trucks and failed to provide 
basic maintenance supplies like oil filters. This is not something I am 
making up. It is in the record. As a result, when tires went flat or 
trucks broke down, they were abandoned or torched, with Halliburton 
making a profit on the replacements. This is the most sinister of 
behavior.
  When a Halliburton employee needed one drill, his supervisor told him 
to order four. When the employee said he did not need four drills, the 
supervisor responded: Don't worry about it, it is a cost-plus contract.
  One employee discovered that Halliburton was paying $45 for a case of 
soda in Kuwait when local supermarkets charged only $7.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The Senator's 15 minutes have 
expired.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I remind the Chair that according to the rules under 
cloture I have an hour of time to be used if I can get an agreement for 
unanimous consent.
  I ask unanimous consent, because the time is going to be used by me, 
that I be allowed a few more minutes until I finish my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is there 
not a germaneness requirement for the debate at this point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is, but the Senator had asked to speak 
as in morning business for 15 minutes.
  Ms. COLLINS. I will not object.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the time is running against the bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the manager. The Senator from 
Maine has worked very hard on this intelligence reform bill. I 
supported her as a member of that committee. I know this might be a 
diversion to her, but I appreciate her consent.
  One employee discovered that Halliburton was paying $45 for cases of 
soda in Kuwait when local supermarkets charged about only $7. And then 
there are the kickbacks. Halliburton admitted to the Pentagon that two 
employees took kickbacks, valued at approximately $6 million, in return 
for awarding a Kuwaiti-based company with lucrative subcontracts.
  The scandal is playing itself out in the real world, while this 
Senate sleeps. It is neglect on everybody's part that this was 
permitted to continue.
  This kind of corporate behavior resembles that of Enron and other 
corporations that have sought to defraud the Government with kickbacks 
and bribes and overcharges.
  Profiteering during war is an outrageous action, if not a crime. When 
I served in World War II, if a company profiteered as people were 
losing their lives, they would be punished. They would have jail 
sentences in front of them.
  That is not what I am suggesting. What I am suggesting is that this 
is abominable behavior and it ought not be permitted.
  When I think of the debate that is going on and John Kerry is accused 
of being soft on defense, when he served so bravely, when even though 
he disagreed with the policy of the Government, he served the country 
loyally, bravely, and was wounded. The assertions that maybe the wounds 
weren't deep enough were challenged by statements in the paper 
yesterday where it said that he still has shrapnel in his body from 
those wounds. Anyone who would suggest that because Senator John Kerry 
examined the question on moneys being spent for the war, because it 
included tax relief for some of the richest among us, the fact is, he 
served without question, without any reservation whatsoever, except he 
had a difference in policy. But he put his life on the line, which we 
haven't seen around here, I can tell you, as I have described in past 
speeches.
  I used the identification of the chicken hawk. The chicken hawk is 
someone who makes war that other people are to fight. I don't think it 
is fair to tear apart the loyalty, the heroism of Senator John Kerry 
anymore than it was fair to challenge the heroism or the loyalty of 
former Senator Max Cleland.
  I hope this assault on character can stop and we can discuss the 
issues that affect the American people.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time from my hour 
when I come back to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.


                           Correct Reporting

  Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, politics is politics. As we all know, it 
can be a contact sport. While many things can be considered fair or 
unfair, depending on your outlook, I think most would agree that the 
voting record and the printed and stated positions of a candidate or 
elected official are right and proper to discuss. But it is also 
important that those who report this discussion be correct in what they 
report.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, may I challenge whether this is part 
of the debate on the intelligence reform bill or is this discussing a 
different matter?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Georgia be permitted to speak as in morning business for 20 
minutes, just as the Senator from New Jersey was permitted to speak as 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have made my request, but I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MILLER. I thought we were in morning business. If I may now 
continue.

[[Page S10406]]

  It is also important that those who report the discussion be correct 
in what they report. From most of the national media, we have not had 
that correct reporting on John Kerry's national defense record.
  From the media we have heard, from their review of national defense 
records, that the liberal Democrat John Kerry and the conservative Vice 
President Dick Cheney are, in fact, long lost ideological soul mates, 
separated only by birth and hair.
  We hear from Wolf Blitzer and Judy Woodruff on CNN and Chris Matthews 
on MSNBC, Alan Colmes of Fox, and the fact finders at the Washington 
Post and the LA Times that if you took Dick Cheney and substituted him 
for John Kerry or if you took John Kerry and substituted him for Dick 
Cheney the defense votes that occurred in the House and Senate and the 
outcomes of defense spending bills and Pentagon operations would be 
virtually identical.
  They would have you believe that when it comes to national defense 
records, votes and positions, they say the very DNA of Dick Cheney and 
John Kerry are practically indistinguishable, that they are doves from 
the same nest. Or maybe it is hawks now, with Kerry's latest change.
  As silly as this assertion is, the Democrats are more than happy to 
make it because many in the media are only too happy to parrot it. 
There is no better proof of this than the media's response to the 
speech I made at the Republican National Convention in New York City.
  Now, I was inclined to let the veracity of an old man soon to be 
retired just go unanswered, thinking that the juice wasn't worth the 
squeeze. And I would have, if it had been my reputation at stake 
instead of the safety of my family. Let me start with the LA Times 
which bought lock, stock, and barrel the Democrats' official line, and 
I quote:

       The Kerry campaign responded by accusing Miller of 
     mischaracterizing the Senator's record, pointing out that 
     Cheney also voted to cut funding for some of those weapons 
     systems while serving in Congress. Others were targeted for 
     cutback by Cheney when he was Defense Secretary in the first 
     Bush Administration.

  USA Today minimized the negative of Kerry's defense votes this way:

       . . . Kerry voted against large Pentagon spending bills 
     that include many weapons three times in his 20-year career. 
     And Defense Secretary Cheney recommended ending some of the 
     same systems that Miller cited.

  CNN's Judy Woodruff said this to me only a few minutes after my 
speech:

       John Kerry voted for 16 of 19 defense budgets that came 
     through the Senate while he was in the Senate, and many of 
     those votes you cited, Dick Cheney also voted against.

  Wolf Blitzer of CNN emphasized the similarity of Kerry and Cheney:

       When the Vice President was the Secretary of Defense, he 
     proposed cutting back on the B-2 bomber, the F-14 Tomcat as 
     well. I covered him at the Pentagon during those years when 
     he was raising serious concerns about those two weapons 
     systems. . . .

  And then, that citadel of sanctimony, the home of the whopper, the 
Washington Post, weighed in with this totally untrue statement:

       Miller's list was mostly derived from a single Kerry vote 
     against a spending bill in 1991, rather than individual votes 
     against particular systems.

  Later, a Washington Post analysis added:

       Kerry did not cast a series of votes against individual 
     weapon systems, but instead Kerry voted against a Pentagon 
     spending package in 1990 as part of deliberations over 
     restructuring and downsizing the military in the post-Cold 
     War period.

  Editorial pages began to chime in, such as the Philadelphia Daily 
News:

       Miller charged that Kerry has voted to strip the Armed 
     Services of necessary weapons systems when Dick Cheney, as 
     Defense Secretary, proposed many of the cuts and voted for 
     others.

  Mr. President, is this true? Are there just a handful of votes by 
Kerry against weapons systems? Are those votes identical to those by 
Dick Cheney? Did the media have their facts straight? And even more 
important, did they really want to have their facts straight? Or did 
they just simply adopt, without verification, the talking points from 
the Kerry campaign?
  Let's start at the beginning. I said in my speech that Kerry 
``opposed the very weapons systems that won the Cold War and that are 
now winning the war on terrorism.''
  I then listed the systems that Kerry opposed, such as the B-1, the B-
2, F-14A, F-14D Tomcats, the Apache helicopter, the F-15 Eagle, the 
Patriot missile, Aegis cruiser, the SDI, and the Trident missile.
  Did Kerry oppose the weapons systems that won the Cold War? The 
answer is yes.
  In 1984, John Kerry ran for the Senate and built his campaign around 
the promise to reverse what he called ``the biggest defense buildup 
since World War II,'' a buildup he considered in his words, ``wasteful, 
useless, and dangerous.''
  In a key 1984 campaign document, Kerry identified 16 weapons systems 
he wanted to ``cancel.''
  All of those weapons systems that I stated that Kerry opposed are 
found in this 1984 document, except for two--the Trident missile and 
the B-2 bomber. But Senator Kerry's opposition to those was reported in 
other press interviews in 1984.
  Mr. President, this 1984 campaign document is the first, but by no 
means the last, of Kerry's opposition to these weapons systems.
  It is strange, but there has not been a single story that I can find 
in the media about this document. No one wants the American people to 
see what Kerry was wanting to cancel at the height of the Cold War.
  This document doesn't exist as far as the national media is 
concerned. But it is vital to any debate about John Kerry's national 
defense record because it spells out in Kerry's own words his complete 
and total opposition to these weapons systems. This document begins and 
ends with the word ``cancel.''

  In his own words, John Kerry says ``cancel'' the MX, the B-1, the 
ASAT, SDI, the Apache helicopter, the Patriot, the Aegis cruiser, the 
Harrier, the Tomcat, the Eagle, the Phoenix, the Sparrow, and all of 
the other weapons systems listed on this chart.
  If you are like most people, you might read this document and say, if 
John Kerry wants to cancel these weapons systems, it certainly doesn't 
mean he is for them. So then he must oppose them. In the name of common 
sense, could you have any other meaning from this?
  The media tells us that just because John Kerry wanted to cancel 
those systems, that doesn't mean he opposed those systems. Such is 
their strange and twisted logic.
  Because the media is not convinced John Kerry meant ``cancel'' when 
he said ``cancel,'' they ignore this document and think the American 
people should, too.
  Those who don't ignore this document dismiss it, basically because 
Kerry opposed these systems 20 years ago. So what is the big deal 
today?
  Here is why it is a big deal. This document came out in 1984, when 
America was in a life-and-death struggle with the Soviet Union. At that 
time, the Cold War was anything but cold, and it was certainly not 
over.
  The premier of the Soviet Union was not Gorbachev but Konstantin 
Chernenko, an old Brezhnev hard-liner.
  This document that outlined John Kerry's vision for our national 
defense, which the media ignores and doesn't want you to know about, 
came out about 6 months after the Soviet Union shot down Korean 
Airlines 747 filled with 269 civilians.
  This Kerry proposal came at a time when Soviet troops were at the 
halfway point of their armed invasion of Afghanistan.
  This Kerry proposal came at a time when Cuban troops were in Angola 
and Kampuchea.
  This Kerry proposal came at a time when Marxists insurgents had taken 
power in Nicaragua and were pushing northward into El Salvador.
  This Kerry proposal came at a time when insurgents and terrorists 
were on the attack, and the way Kerry wanted to deal with them was by 
canceling crucial weapons systems.
  Here, at the height of the Cold War, at a time when we were playing 
cards with the devil himself, when our own future, the world's freedom, 
and the fate of half a billion souls from Poland to Siberia, from the 
Baltic to Crimea, were all in the pot, John Kerry said ``fold them'' to 
what ultimately turned out to be one of the biggest winning hands ever 
played for freedom.
  That is why this 1984 document is a big deal, Mr. President. I ask 
unanimous consent that this document be printed in the Record.

[[Page S10407]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                    john kerry on the defense budget

       ``We are continuing a defense buildup that is consuming our 
     resources with weapons systems that we don't need and can't 
     use.''
       The Reagan Administration has no rational plan for our 
     military. Instead, it acts on misinformed assumptions about 
     the strength of the Soviet military and a presumed ``window 
     of vulnerability'', which we now know not to exist.
       And Congress, rather than having the moral courage to 
     challenge the Reagan Administration, has given Ronald Reagan 
     almost every military request he has made, no matter how 
     wasteful, no matter how useless, no matter how dangerous.
       The biggest defense buildup since World War II has not 
     given us a better defense. Americans feel more threatened by 
     the prospect of war, not less so. And our national priorities 
     become more and more distorted as the share of our country's 
     resources devoted to human needs diminishes.


                  john kerry has a different approach

       John Kerry believes that the time has come to take a close 
     look at what our defense needs are and to plan for them 
     rather than to assume we must spend indiscriminately on new 
     weapons systems.
       John Kerry believes that we can cut from $45 to $53 billion 
     from the Reagan Defense budget this year. Some of these cuts 
     include:

                         Major nuclear programs

     MX Missile, Cancel, $5.0 billion
     B-1 Bomber, Cancel, $8.0 billion
     Anti-satellite system, Cancel, $99 million
     Star Wars, Cancel, $99 million
     Tomahawk Missile, Reduce by 50 per cent, $294 million

                              Land forces

     AH-64 Helicopters, Cancel, $1.4 billion
     Division Air Defense, Gun (DIVAD), Cancel, $638 million
     Patriot Air Defense Missile, Cancel, 1.3 billion

                              Naval forces

     Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser, Cancel, $800 million
     Battleship Reactivation, Cancel, $453 million

                                Aircraft

     AV-8B Vertical Takeoff and Landing Aircraft, Cancel, $1.0 
         billion
     F-15 Fighter Aircraft, Cancel, $2.3 billion
     F-14A Fighter Aircraft, Cancel, $1.0 billion
     F-14D Fighter Aircraft, Cancel, $286 million
     Pheonix Air-to-Air Missile, Cancel, $431 million
     Sparrow Air-to-Air Missile, Cancel, $264 million

       In addition, acquisition of equipment and supplies should 
     depend on real defense needs, not inter-service rivalries. 
     ``National security'' is no excuse for bad management 
     practices. The Congressional Budget Office and the General 
     Accounting Office'' agree that an additional $8 billion can 
     be saved by implementing the recommendations of the 
     President's own Grace Commission Report.
       ``I will never forget that the Defense Budget is not an 
     employment program, but a tool to provide the nation with a 
     strong, lean and stabilizing defense posture.
       Finally, John thinks it's time for a Senator who will stand 
     up for what's right and not go along with what's expedient.
       ``If we don't need the MX, the B-1 or these other weapons 
     systems. . . . There is no excuse for casting even one vote 
     for unnecessary weapons of destruction and as your Senator, I 
     will never do that.''

  Mr. MILLER. This document is not the end of this sorry story, for 
with these weapons systems clearly in his crosshairs as candidate John 
Kerry, Senator John Kerry pulled the trigger on them his first year in 
the Senate in 1985, and then again at every other chance he got.
  In 1985, the ``series of votes against individual weapons systems'' 
the Washington Post so snugly swore never took place began.
  In all, 14 Senate votes took place in 1985 alone on 5 of the specific 
weapons systems Kerry pledged to cancel. Mr. President, 13 of his 14 
votes in 1984 were to cut the defense systems he promised to cancel.
  Four of those were to cut the MX peacemaker missile; two votes were 
to cut antisatellite weapons; two votes were to cut SDI; another vote 
was to restrict SDI's use; another vote was to cut battleship 
reactivation; and another vote was against binary weapons.
  Kerry's only vote not to cut a defense program was on SDI. You know 
why? Because after voting three times to cut SDI by as much as $1.5 
billion, Kerry voted against a cut of $160 million because he said it 
didn't cut SDI enough.
  So when it comes to the weapons systems that won the Cold War, John 
Kerry said in 1985 he wanted to cancel them, and then in 1985 he voted 
against them 13 out of 14 times.
  There were two other votes to cut back overall defense spending, for 
a total of 16 votes in 1985 on national defense alone; but the Mr. 
Magoos down at the pious Post somehow could not locate these facts.
  In fact, the Washington Post could not only find ``a'' vote--one 
single solitary vote over 20 years--where John Kerry voted against 
defense. That single antidefense vote was after the Cold War in 1990 or 
1991, depending upon which Washington Post report you read.
  Judy Woodruff did some better. She found 19 total defense votes over 
Kerry's 20 years in the Senate. There were 16 votes in 1985 on defense 
systems and overall spending alone.
  She also claimed that Cheney voted the same way as Kerry on ``many of 
those'' 19.
  Yet how many can ``many'' be if Cheney and Kerry served 
simultaneously in Congress for only 4 of those 19 annual budget fights?
  But Wolf Blitzer's defense of Kerry's national defense record was the 
most interesting. With the wave of a hand, Blitzer dismissed the 
numerous votes by Kerry against these weapon systems that occurred 
years before as well as the years after Cheney was Secretary of 
Defense.
  Cheney's position in 1990 and Kerry's opposition in 1984 is the 
difference between opposing the Sherman tank and the B-29 in the year 
before D-day and then wanting to cut back on them the year after V-J 
day.
  Mr. President, you could review the series of John Kerry votes on 
weapons systems in 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989--all that occurred before 
the Berlin Wall fell.
  The fact is you can look at Kerry's votes during the cold war, after 
the cold war, before Desert Storm, after Desert Storm, after the first 
World Trade Center attack, before the war on terrorism and now during 
the war on terrorism, and you will find John Kerry was one of the most 
reliable ``no'' votes against the weapons our soldiers needed to defend 
this country and keep the U.S. safe.
  The point is if the media won't tell you what the impact of Kerry's 
position would have been on the cold war, they sure are not going to 
tell you what the impact would be today on the war on terrorism.
  So let me sum up what we can learn from the media's response to my 
speech at the Republican National Convention on John Kerry's defense 
record.
  The media can only find John Kerry opposing defense weapon systems 
that Secretary Cheney opposed also.
  The media will only count overall spending bills as a vote against a 
weapon system, and will not count the numerous votes on the systems 
themselves nor the overall budget plans as votes on the systems or 
national defense.
  And the media can simply find no votes by John Kerry against any 
weapon systems during the height of the cold war--not a one. Not a 
single one.
  What they found, or what they want you to believe they found is that 
Cheney and Kerry had practically identical national defense voting 
records during the cold war. And that is flagrantly wrong.
  Let me take another minute to look at this.
  In 1985, the House in which Cheney was a Member had a series of votes 
on 17 specific weapon systems.
  Seventeen of Dick Cheney's seventeen votes were to protect the 
defense systems.
  Seven ayes on seven votes to protect the MX peacekeeper missile;
  Six ayes on six votes to protect SDI;
  Another vote to protect the Trident II missile;
  Another vote to protect binary weapons;
  Another vote to protect chemical weapons; and
  Another vote to protect ASAT weapons.
  During the height of the cold war, essentially every vote by Dick 
Cheney was the mirror opposite of John Kerry.
  Where Cheney repeatedly voted for weapon systems, Kerry repeatedly 
voted against those weapon systems.
  Where Cheney supported President Reagan's announced position on each 
vote on these weapon systems, Kerry opposed President Reagan's 
announced position on each vote.
  The sole vote of John Kerry against a cut in defense was because he 
wanted

[[Page S10408]]

a bigger cut--a cut as much as ten times larger in SDI.
  So there are differences between Dick Cheney and John Kerry on 
national defense. It's the difference between the world's biggest and 
greatest military superpower and, well, spitballs.
  Mr. President, I probably have wasted my time and just spit in the 
ocean because we all have learned the hard way that the elite media can 
do anything it wants and sell anything it wants.
  We saw earlier this year the New York Times and Washington Post 
repeat on their front pages false allegations by Ambassador Joe Wilson 
about Niger uranium and his wife's role in his own activities, but they 
then buried the correction somewhere in the back pages.
  We saw Newsweek's Evan Thomas report that: ``The media want Kerry to 
win'' and that support, in Thomas's words, ``is going to be worth maybe 
15 points.''
  We see CBS News having to admit they were pushing forgeries about 
President Bush's National Guard service.
  The national media's all-out defense of John Kerry's indefensible 
defense record falls into this same sorry and disgraceful pattern of 
selling an agenda rather than the facts.
  What I said in New York was true. It was true then. It is still true 
now.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                      John Kerry's Defense Record

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, John Kerry's record on defense reflects more 
than approximately 10,000 votes he has cast in the Senate. His defense 
record goes back to the steaming jungles of Vietnam where he, as a 
young sailor commanding a fast boat, went into harm's way on many 
different occasions. We know about the number of those occasions 
because his defense record indicates that the Government of the United 
States awarded him two medals for heroism--one a Bronze Star, one a 
Silver Star. He was wounded on three separate occasions and received 
three Purple Hearts. They were awarded not by some gentleman's club but 
by the U.S. military.
  On the programs about which we have heard a dissertation today, as we 
look through those--except for the MX missile, which was canceled by 
the President of the United States, not by Congress, as I recall--all 
of these programs came into being. So to think that any one Senator, 
with the hundreds and hundreds of votes on defense matters, stopped the 
Cold War from being won is really a little silly, for lack of a better 
description.
  Senator John Kerry supported more than $4.4 trillion in defense 
spending, including for 16 of the last 19 Defense authorization bills. 
In fact, he voted for the largest increase in defense spending since 
the early 1980s.
  John Kerry is a strong supporter of the U.S. armed services and has 
consistently worked to ensure the military has the best equipment and 
training possible. In 2002, as an example, Senator Kerry voted for the 
largest increase in the history of the defense budget. This increase 
provided more than $355 billion in the Defense Department for 2003, an 
increase of $21 billion over the previous year. This measure includes 
$71.5 billion for procurement programs, such as $4 billion for Air 
Force's F-22 fighter jets which are now going to be stationed at Nellis 
Air Force Base in Las Vegas; $3.5 billion for Joint Strike Fighter 
which will also be stationed in Las Vegas at Nellis Air Force Base, and 
$279.3 million for the E-8C Joint Stars aircraft.
  Senator Kerry's vote also funded a 4.1-percent pay increase for 
military personnel; $160 million for the B-1 bomber defense system 
upgrade; $1.5 billion for a new attack submarine; more than $630 
million for Army and Navy variants of the Black Hawk helicopter; $3.2 
billion for additional C-17 transports; $900 million for R&D of the 
Comanche helicopter; and more than $800 million for the Trident 
submarine conversion.
  For someone who has served in the Senate for 20 years--this is just 
one Senator's opinion--it speaks well of him that he is not a 
rubberstamp for requests submitted to us by the Defense Department. 
That is what we are. We are a separate, equal branch of Government, the 
U.S. Congress, and our part of it is the Senate. We have an obligation 
to review very closely what is given to us by the Pentagon and given 
here. They always ask for more than they deserve, knowing that we are 
going to turn down some requests. We have budgets to meet also. It 
speaks well of Senator Kerry if he did not rubberstamp everything they 
asked for.
  As to the Bradley fighting vehicle, which was mentioned in the 
previous speech, Senator Kerry supported $8.5 billion for the Bradley 
program. That is not bad. Senator Kerry, for the M-1 Abrams tank, has 
supported at least $21.5 billion in defense authorization for that 
tank.
  He has supported all five new aircraft carriers since he joined the 
Senate. Since 1985, John Kerry has voted to start work on each of the 
five new aircraft carriers: the USS Stennis, USS Truman in 1988, the 
USS Reagan in 1993, the USS Bush in 1998, and the newest yet unnamed 
carrier in 2001. So these aircraft carriers, the Stennis, Reagan, Bush, 
and formerly the CVNX, he voted for all of those.
  The F-15 fighter jets, Senator Kerry supported almost $20 billion in 
Defense authorizations for the F-15. For the F-16, Senator Kerry 
supported at least $25 billion in Defense authorization.
  There is going to be a debate tonight and maybe that is why the 
speech was given, but in testimony before the House Armed Services 
Committee, Mr. Cheney said:

       If you're going to have a smaller air force, you don't need 
     as many F-16s. . . . The F-16D we basically continue to buy 
     and close it out because we're not going to have as big a 
     force structure and we won't need as many F-16s.

  According to the Boston Globe, Bush's 1991 Defense budget ``kill[ed] 
81 programs for potential savings of $11.9 billion . . . Major weapons 
killed include[d] . . . the Air Force's F-16 airplane.'' This was 
Secretary Cheney. This was House Member Cheney. This was Vice President 
Cheney.
  It is also important to note that Senator Kerry has supported at 
least $10.3 billion in Defense authorizations for the B-1 bomber.
  The Kerry record on the B-2 bomber. He supported $17 billion in 
Defense authorization for the B-2. Mr. Cheney proposed cuts to the B-2 
program. I am sure there were times when he supported it, as did 
Senator Kerry. There were times when Senator Kerry thought there was 
too much being spent, as did Secretary Cheney.
  According to the Boston Globe in 1990:

       Defense Secretary Richard Cheney announced a cutback . . . 
     of nearly 45 percent in the administration's B-2 Stealth 
     bomber program, from 132 programs to 75 . . .

  If we want to go back and revisit history a long time ago, we do not 
have to go back very far to find out, just a couple of years ago, an 
introduction of John Kerry by Senator Zell Miller at the Georgia 
Democratic Jefferson Jackson Day Dinner, and I quote my friend Zell 
Miller:

       My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of the 
     nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and 
     greatest leaders--and a good friend. He was once a lieutenant 
     governor--but he didn't stay in that office 16 years, like 
     someone I know (Miller). It just took two years before the 
     people of Massachusetts moved him to the United States Senate 
     in 1984.

  Further quoting him:

       In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought 
     against government waste and worked hard to bring some 
     accountability to Washington. Early in his Senate career in 
     1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit 
     Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it 
     was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so.

  Senator Miller went on to say:

       John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public 
     education--

  Let me repeat this quote:

       John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public 
     education, boost the economy and protect the environment. 
     Business Week magazine named him one of the top pro-
     technology legislators and made him a member of its 
     ``Digital Dozen.''
  Further quoting:

       John was reelected in 1990 and again in 1996--when he 
     defeated popular Republican Governor William Weld in the most 
     closely watched Senate race in the country.
       John is a graduate of Yale University and was a gunboat 
     officer in the Navy. He received a Silver Star, Bronze Star 
     and three awards of the Purple Heart for combat duty in 
     Vietnam. He later cofounded the Vietnam Veterans of America.
       As many of you know, I have great affection, some might say 
     an obsession, for my

[[Page S10409]]

     two Labrador retrievers, Gus and Woodrow. It turns out John 
     is a fellow dog lover, too, and he better be. His German 
     shepherd, Kim, is about to have puppies. And I just want him 
     to know Gus and Woodrow had nothing to do with that.

  This is a direct quote from Senator Zell Miller and, among other 
things, I repeat, ``John has worked to strengthen our military.''
  The record for Senator Kerry supporting the military is, as Senator 
Miller said, a stellar performance. He has worked to strengthen our 
military.
  I also say that for someone who opposed the MX missile system, I do 
not think that makes him a bad guy. We in Nevada did not like the 
system. It was eventually stopped. If somebody does not support the 
missile defense system--I think there is probably somebody sitting in 
the Presiding Officer's chair today, which can only be presided by 
those on the majority, who does not support the missile defense system. 
So the fact that people pick and choose what they support for the 
military does not make them bad.
  Senator Kerry's record is very good, and I have gone over some of the 
things he supported. I am not going to belabor the point, other than to 
say that Senator Kerry supported the F-18, and he supported the $60 
billion defense for that instrument of war. The Cheney F-18 record, he 
asked for cutbacks on that.
  Senator Kerry is a person who truly believes in the military. He was 
a volunteer as a young man and went and fought, showing heroism in that 
process, and he is still showing heroism in his defense of this 
country, under tremendous odds, with terribly negative attacks. For 
someone who has served with Senator Kerry for two decades in the 
Senate, I am proud of him. I am proud he is the nominee for my party. 
He is a man of integrity. He has tremendous competence.
  I was on the Select Committee on MIA/POW. He chaired that. The 
cochair was Bob Smith from New Hampshire. He did a remarkably good job 
in a most difficult situation.
  I wish today had not turned into a situation of trying to talk about 
Presidential politics, but that is the way it has turned out.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak about 
the issue of reimportation of prescription drugs. I also wanted to talk 
for a moment about the tax bill that is being negotiated by the 
conference committee between the House and Senate, especially with 
respect to the runaway plant issue and tax incentives that now occur 
for those who shut down their American manufacturing plants and export 
jobs. I will speak about those two issues briefly.
  Before I do that, I'd like to address some of the remarks of my 
colleague from Georgia, who was speaking when I came to the floor of 
the Senate.
  I disagreed strongly with my colleague when I heard his speech at one 
of the national political conventions. He certainly had every right to 
give that speech. I disagree strongly with the presentation he gave on 
the Senate floor, but he has every right, of course, to express those 
opinions on the Senate floor.
  I have great respect for my colleague from Georgia. I honor his 
service. He has provided great public service to this country in many 
different ways, so I honor that service.
  But I, of course, reserve the right to disagree with my colleague as 
well, just as he came to the floor and disagreed with some of the votes 
that have been cast by Senator Kerry.
  The last time I was on the floor when my colleague from Georgia came 
to speak, he was offering a proposal that we take away the right of the 
American people to vote for Senators. He proposed instead that Senators 
be appointed or selected by State legislatures, and that the right of 
the people to vote for Senators should be rescinded.
  Well, I thought that did not sound like a very modern approach. We 
left that idea a long time ago in this country, and I got up and spoke 
and indicated I did not have quite such a pessimistic view of this 
country's future and certainly did not agree that we ought to revert 
back to the States appointing their Senators and taking away from the 
American people the right to elect Senators. But that was the only 
previous occasion I recall on which I took the floor of the Senate and 
disagreed with my distinguished colleague from Georgia. I must say, 
however, that I feel compelled to disagree once again.

  I have not come to the Senate floor to be critical, ever, of 
President George W. Bush's military record. I would not do that. And I 
would not be critical of Senator Kerry's military record. Both of them 
served.
  My colleague came to talk about Senator Kerry's record in voting for 
defense for this country. This is not a new technique in American 
politics. This is timeless. It always happens that someone stands up 
and points at someone else and says: You don't represent this country's 
interests in defense. You don't support a strong defense. You are not 
willing to stand up when you need to stand up and be counted and 
support a strong defense for this country.
  Sometimes that works. But let me just say this. I don't think it 
works when you point at someone who decided on graduation from Yale 
that he would volunteer to go to Vietnam; not only that, he would 
volunteer to serve on a swift boat, where he was certain to be involved 
in hostile action. He didn't have to do that. He did that, he 
volunteered. He received a Bronze Star, a Silver Star, three Purple 
Hearts, and still has fragments in his body from the wounds from which 
those Purple Hearts arose. I don't think it works to point fingers at 
that man and suggest he, somehow, is weak on defense.
  My colleague's assessment of Senator Kerry has changed some. Senator 
Reid pointed out that in March of 2001, at a banquet in Georgia, my 
colleague from Georgia introduced Senator Kerry. Here is what he said 
about him:

       My job tonight is an easy one. It's to present to you one 
     of this Nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best 
     known and greatest leaders, and a good friend.

  Then he said this, my colleague from Georgia:

       John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public 
     education, boost the economy and protect the environment.

  Let me say that again because it is important. It is at odds with 
what we just heard from my colleague from Georgia on the floor of the 
Senate this afternoon. Speaking of John Kerry, my colleague from 
Georgia said:

       John has worked to strengthen our military.

  This is a speech from March 1, 2001. What is the difference between 
then and now? John Kerry has had the same record on defense.
  Incidentally, John Kerry has supported a great amount of this 
country's defense: the Apache helicopter, Aegis, The Bradley, Black 
Hawk, B-2 bomber, C-17 cargo jets, F-16, F-18, Tomahawk missiles, C-
130s, and I could go on and on and on. Billions, tens of billions, yes, 
trillions of dollars for defense Senator Kerry has voted for.
  What is the difference between March 1, 2001, in my colleague's 
assessment of Senator Kerry where he said ``John,'' speaking of Senator 
Kerry, ``has worked to strengthen our military,'' what is the 
difference between that and the discussion we have just heard today? 
The difference is, it's an election year and my colleague has, 
apparently, decided to change his mind. If there were an Olympic event 
called ``stretching,'' I have a couple of personal nominations for who 
might win the gold medal.
  This ought not be, in American elections, an attempt to find out who 
is the worst. It ought to be a search for who is the best. Who can best 
lead this country? Who has a vision for the future that grows our 
economy, that protects our country, protects our homeland, provides for 
a strong defense, protects the environment? It is a search, in my 
judgment, for who is the best, not who is the worst.
  We have two candidates running for President, both fully qualified to 
serve in that office. It does not serve our country well to point at 
one and say somehow he is weak on defense, doesn't support defense, 
especially when it is so at odds with the record. But it is now an 
election year. I guess almost anything goes.

  There is a term, I suppose, for changing one's mind, and it is called 
flip-flop. I have not used it, but some have used it to the point of 
significant repetition this year. I will not use it here

[[Page S10410]]

except to say what we have just heard today is at significant odds, not 
only with the record of a member of our caucus who has served with 
great gallantry but also at odds with the previously stated views of 
the person who made the speech today.
  Let me end as I began and say I honor the service of the Senator from 
Georgia. I disagree with him about these issues. Four weeks from today 
this country will see fit to make an informed choice between two men 
who strive to serve for the next 4 years as this country's President. 
Both candidates, I am sure, care about national security. Both care 
about homeland security. As was stated in the debate last week, both 
love this country.
  I submit, just as one Senator, both are qualified to serve in that 
office. Both parties have nominated people they choose to support and 
support aggressively. I come to the Senate floor today to simply say 
this: John Kerry is someone with whom I have served for many years. I 
have watched him vote. The fact is, he supports a strong defense for 
this country. He always has and always will. When it came time to 
answer his call, his country's call, he left one of the prestigious 
colleges in this country upon graduation and said: Let me volunteer. He 
went to Vietnam. He went in harm's way.
  There is no amount of energy or wind that can be exerted by others 
who will change the basic fact of a voting record that is in strong 
support of America's defense.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. I say through the Chair to the Senator from North Dakota, 
the Senator from North Dakota has served more than 2 decades in the 
Congress of the United States?
  Mr. DORGAN. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. So you have been called to vote on every Defense bill and 
hundreds and hundreds of amendments offered on those Defense bills over 
the years.
  As strong as the Senator from North Dakota is on matters relating to 
the U.S. military, I don't know this, but I will bet there were 
occasions that you voted to cut certain programs; is that right?
  Mr. DORGAN. I say to the Senator, I have, in fact. I serve on the 
appropriations subcommittee here on the Senate. I care a lot about this 
country's defense. And I voted against the MX missile program, because 
I felt it was a terrible waste of money. But I am a strong supporter of 
defense. I believe anyone who looks at my record will understand the 
weapons programs I supported, significant weapons programs, have added 
strength and boosted this country's capability.
  Because I serve on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, I 
watch what others do as well. From a firsthand knowledge, I say that 
Senator Kerry has a strong and aggressive record in supporting this 
country and supporting a strong defense for this country.
  Mr. REID. The point I make, and I would like the Senator to respond 
to this, a person from time to time, in service in the Congress of the 
United States, votes for amendments to cut spending in different areas 
for a lot of different reasons. They still can be some of the strongest 
hawks we have around here; isn't that true?
  Mr. DORGAN. No question about that.
  My colleague from Georgia was talking about Vice President Cheney and 
John Kerry. I didn't quite understand that comparison of their records 
on defense. I have lived a couple of doors down from Dick and Lynne 
Cheney for a number of years. I know them well. I would never come to 
suggest somehow that Dick Cheney doesn't support a strong defense. And 
I know John Kerry very well. I certainly wouldn't come to suggest he 
doesn't support a strong defense. Both of them have records that 
demonstrate a support for this country's defense.
  Well, enough about that. I didn't come to the floor of the Senate to 
speak about that. But I felt that there should be some response to the 
statement by the Senator from Georgia this afternoon which I think, 
frankly, is not supported at all by the facts.

                             American Jobs

  On May 5 of this year, we had a vote in the Senate. That vote was on 
an amendment that I had offered, together with my colleague, Senator 
Mikulski from Maryland. The intent of the vote was to shut down a 
loophole that rewards U.S. companies that move their manufacturing jobs 
overseas.
  Yes, we have that kind of loophole. It is a perverse, insidious 
loophole in our Tax Code that says: Shut down your U.S. manufacturing 
plant, get rid of your U.S. employees and outsource those jobs, and, 
God bless you, while you leave this country, we will give you a tax 
cut.
  Talk about a perverse incentive to do exactly the wrong thing, that 
is it.
  We are now seeing the conference committee between the Senate Finance 
Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee meet and negotiate 
over a FSC/ETI bill, sometimes also called the ``jobs bill.'' If they 
finish putting this bill together in conference and do not include a 
provision to eliminate this perverse incentive, they will have done 
precious little to help protect, nurture, and strengthen American jobs.
  Incidentally, when I offered this amendment on May 5 of this year, 
the amendment was tabled by a vote of 60 to 39. Sixty Members of the 
Senate voted to say they did not want to shut down a tax loophole that 
provides an incentive for companies to fire their American workers and 
move their U.S. jobs overseas. So that loophole still exists in tax 
law.
  Now I read in the paper this morning they really do not want to pay 
for the cost of this FSC/ETI bill by shutting down loopholes. This is 
unbelievable.
  We have American companies now that decide they want to do business 
through a post office box in the Bahamas or the Grand Caymans. Why? Do 
they want to be a citizen of the Grand Caymans? Not exactly. They just 
want to avoid paying U.S. taxes so everyone else can pay taxes that 
these folks do not pay.
  I suggest that once companies have decided to move their corporation 
and run their business out of a mailbox in the Bahamas for the purpose 
of avoiding U.S. taxes, the next time they get in trouble maybe they 
ought to call the Bahamian Navy to protect them. I understand the 
Bahamian Navy has 20 people. Maybe the next time one of these companies 
gets in trouble with some expropriated assets or other issue they can 
call on the combined flexed muscle of the Bahamian Navy.
  My point is simple. We have a real problem in this country with the 
outsourcing of jobs. In the last 4 years, we have actually lost jobs at 
a time when we are supposed to be creating jobs. We have an expanding 
population. We need new jobs. But we are losing jobs.
  I will not give the same speech I have given previously about the 
Radio Flyer and Huffy bicycles, those quintessentially American 
products that are now being made in China. I will not talk about the 
all-American cookie, the Fig Newton, now being made in Monterey, 
Mexico, so that it is now Mexican food. I will not give the speech 
about the outsourcing of these jobs to Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, 
Indonesia, and China. But if this country does not wake up soon and get 
rid of these pernicious loopholes in the tax law that say, ship your 
U.S. jobs overseas and we will give you a big tax cut, if we do not do 
that, we are not going to succeed.
  Growing an economy requires us to do the right things. We cannot talk 
about growing the economy and then support tax loopholes and say, by 
the way, ship your U.S. jobs overseas. That does not work. We are 
outsourcing jobs every single day and no one seems to care much about 
it.
  Incidentally, that also relates to the trade deficit, because when we 
outsource the jobs and ship the products from those jobs back into this 
country, it means we exacerbate the trade deficit, which is the largest 
deficit in human history.
  One can make an argument as an economist--I used to teach a bit of 
economy in college--one can make an argument that the budget deficit is 
money we owe to ourselves. We cannot make that argument with respect to 
a trade deficit. We owe a trade deficit to other countries. It will be 
paid inevitably by a lower standard of living in our country in the 
future.
  The largest trade deficit in history ought to be cause for 
substantial alarm in this Chamber and at the White

[[Page S10411]]

House. Yet there is almost a conspiracy of silence all around this town 
about a trade deficit that, in my judgment, hurts this country very 
badly.
  Incidentally, Lou Dobbs has written a book about this trade deficit. 
I encourage colleagues and others to read it. His program, more than 
any on television these days, is talking about the danger of this trade 
deficit.
  At any rate, as they finalize this jobs bill in conference, which is 
going on as I speak, they need to come back to the amendment I offered 
last May 5 with my colleague, Senator Mikulski. They need to shut down 
this perverse incentive in tax law, which gives benefits and 
encouragement and financial help to companies that move their jobs 
overseas.


                  Reimportation of Prescription Drugs

  Let me make one other point on another subject that I think is 
critical. We are told we are near the end of this session. Perhaps on 
Friday of this week we will complete our work and then come back for a 
lameduck session, which happens to be a terrible idea. Perhaps, because 
this Congress has not done much of the right kind of work or much of 
the work it needs to do, we will have to have a lameduck session.
  As we near the end of this session, the one relentless issue that 
many Members of Congress say they care about and want to do something 
about is the issue of the prices of prescription drugs. We pay the 
highest prices in the world for prescription drugs and there are far 
too many in this country who cannot afford them.
  Senior citizens are 12 percent of our population yet they consume 
over one-third of the prescription drugs in America. Senior citizens 
have reached that point in their lives when they have a fixed income. 
Yet one-third of the prescription drugs are taken by our senior 
citizens. Why? Because they must. These are lifesaving drugs, miracle 
drugs. My hat is off to the pharmaceutical industry and to the 
researchers at the National Institutes of Health and others who have 
helped create these new drugs, but miracle drugs offer no miracle to 
those who cannot afford to take them.
  I sat on a bale of straw the other day at a farm in southern North 
Dakota with a fellow who is 87 years old. He told me: I fought cancer 
for 3 years and I think I finally have beaten it. This is an 87-year-
old man. I fought cancer for 3 years and I think I finally won. For 
those 3 years, my wife and I drove to Canada to buy the prescription 
drugs I needed to fight this cancer.
  Why? Because the same FDA approved drug, the identical pill, is put 
in the same bottle, made by the same company, but is priced at a 
dramatically lower price in Canada.
  He said: For 3 years, we went to Canada to save that money because we 
had to. Senior citizens should not have to go to Canada to save money 
on prescription drugs.
  He is right about that. I would prefer that pharmacist be able to go 
to Canada to purchase those lower priced prescription drugs from the 
pharmacist in Canada, come back, and pass the savings along to the 
consumers in our country.
  By getting rid of the artificial barriers that prevent re-
importation, we would put downward pressure on prescription drug prices 
in this country so people would not have to go anywhere but their local 
drugstore to purchase prescription drugs. They could purchase them here 
for a fair price. But we are charged the highest prices in the world 
for these drugs.
  We are told by the Food and Drug Administration that if we reimport 
prescription drugs from Canada in any organized way that there would be 
a safety issue. We are told by the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services that there may be a safety issue. We are told by the President 
that he thinks maybe we should look at this but there might be a safety 
issue.
  That suggests somehow that Americans are not able to do what 
Europeans have done everyday for years. The Europeans have something 
called parallel trading. Their parallel trading programs allow someone 
from Germany to buy a prescription drug from Spain, someone from France 
to buy a prescription drug from Italy.
  They don't have any safety issues in Europe. The marketplace 
determines the price for the drug, and the market puts downward 
pressure so the Europeans don't pay the highest prices in the world for 
prescription drugs as we do. They do what is called parallel trading, 
and there are no safety issues at all. European officials have 
testified before our committees. The safety issues simply are not 
there. It is a bogus issue.
  We have drafted a bipartisan piece of legislation called the 
Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act. Myself, along with 
Senators Snowe, McCain, Stabenow, Feingold, and others, we have drafted 
a bipartisan piece of legislation that systematically addresses the 
safety issues so that there cannot be any safety concerns. Our bill 
would allow the reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada and 
from other major developed countries and would put downward pressure on 
prescription drug prices. The House of Representatives has passed such 
a bill. That bill is on the calendar at the desk. The bipartisan bill 
which we have introduced is similar to the bill that is at the desk. 
Yet we are unable to get a final vote in the Senate.
  We have had substantial discussion. I had a discussion with the 
majority leader on this subject at midnight one night earlier this year 
on the Senate floor. I had a hold on a nominee. I withdrew that hold 
because I believed we had an agreement that we were going to work 
toward an opportunity to have a vote on this legislation. I believed 
that agreement with the majority leader existed. He now indicates it 
was not an agreement for a vote. He indicates it was an agreement that 
a process would begin and that the authorizing committee would work on 
this. The authorizing committee worked on it, to be sure. They would 
have markups scheduled and markups cancelled, markups scheduled and 
markups cancelled. The fact is, they never were able to get a bill out 
of committee because they couldn't get consensus on anything. We have a 
consensus on the bill that is on the calendar. We have a consensus on 
the bipartisan bill. If there is a vote on that in the Senate, it will 
pass by a significant margin. We don't need another consensus. There is 
a consensus that already exists. What we need is a vote on the floor of 
the Senate.
  I encourage the majority leader once again to allow us the 
opportunity to cast this vote. Senator McCain, Senator Snowe, myself, 
Senator Stabenow, Senator Feingold, Senator Daschle, Senator Kennedy 
and many others have worked very hard on this issue. In my judgment, it 
is a disservice to those who deserve to pay fair prices for 
prescription drugs not to have a vote on this bill. It is a disservice 
to their interests for us not to complete work on this bill during this 
session of the Congress.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record two editorials. One is 
by the Chicago Tribune and it is entitled ``Shielding the Drug 
Industry.'' This says essentially what I have said:

       While Congress dithers, States and cities skirt if not 
     break the law by helping seniors and others take advantage of 
     lower prescription-drug prices in Canada.

  And the editorial talks about the desperate need for Congress to pass 
a law dealing with reimportation. They specifically feel that the 
legislation that is before the Congress would be meritorious and they 
talk about Peter Rost who is vice president of marketing for one of the 
largest drug companies who broke ranks with the drug industry in the 
last couple of weeks and publicly endorsed the proposal in Congress 
that my colleagues and I have sponsored.
  Then I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a New York Times 
editorial that is titled ``The Senate's Chance on Drug Costs.''

       If Dr. Bill Frist, the Senator majority leader, knows 
     what's good for the body politic, he will allow a quick floor 
     vote on the drug reimportation bill he has been bottling up 
     for the benefit of President Bush and the pharmaceutical 
     industry.

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Chicago Tribune, Oct. 1, 2004]

                      Shielding the Drug Industry

       Last month Peter Rost, a vice president of marketing for 
     Pfizer Inc., broke ranks with the drug industry and his 
     employer by publicly endorsing a proposal in Maryland's 
     Montgomery County to allow its employees to buy cheaper drugs 
     from Canada. Rost disputed industry claims that reimportation 
     would pose a public health risk. ``The real concern about 
     safety is about people who do not take drugs because they 
     cannot afford it,'' he said.

[[Page S10412]]

       Rost--who made it clear that he was speaking only for 
     himself, not Pfizer--joins a growing number of city and state 
     officials across the country arguing for reimportation. Only 
     a few months ago, a new law seemed inevitable. Even Health 
     and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson suggested that 
     was so. Unfortunately, ``inevitable'' may not mean any time 
     soon.
       Competint reimportation bills have been bottled up in the 
     Senate for months. And Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of 
     Tennessee isn't likely to allow a debate or vote before the 
     election. Last month he argued that with only a few weeks 
     left in the session and other pressing issues, there wasn't 
     enough time for a full debate.
       While Congress dithers, states and cities skirt if not 
     break the law by helping seniors and others take advantage of 
     lower prescription-drug prices in Canada. One such program is 
     supposed to be introduced soon in Illinois.
       The lack of progress is frustrating. Last spring, at his 
     confirmation hearings, Medicare chief Mark McClellan promised 
     to help develop legislation to allow imports of lower-cost 
     prescription drugs with safeguards to protect consumers. 
     Frist said that the Senate ``will begin a process for 
     developing proposals that would allow for the safe 
     reimportation of FDA-approved prescription drugs.'' But Sen. 
     Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) said recently that the process had 
     ``led to nothing.''
       No wonder some politicians are so frustrated that they're 
     openly challenging the Food and Drug Administration in 
     announcing plans to help consumers link to pharmacies in 
     Canada and elsewhere.
       Opponents of reimportation have argued that it would open 
     America's borders to a flood of tainted drugs, and that the 
     FDA could not guarantee the safety or purity of such imported 
     drugs. That argument isn't convincing. Many drugs are 
     manufactured abroad, and the FDA inspects those factories and 
     ensures that drugs are shipped to America without tampering. 
     That system could be expanded, using fees paid by those who 
     import or export the drugs.
       Pfizer execs are asserting that Rost ``has no 
     qualifications to speak on importation'' and emphasize that 
     he is not speaking for the company. But his support for 
     reimportation resonates in Illinois, where 67 percent of 
     registered voters supported Gov. Rod Blagojevich's plan to 
     help residents buy prescription drugs from Canada, Ireland 
     and England, according to a recent Tribune/WGN-TV poll. A 
     survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation showed about 8 in 10 
     Medicare recipients support allowing Americans to buy drugs 
     from Canada if they can get a lower price. The same study 
     showed more than 6 in 10 don't believe such a system would 
     expose Americans to unsafe medicines from other countries.
       It seems terribly clear that congressional leaders have one 
     intention here: protecting their heavy campaign contributors 
     in the drug industry from competition. This issue deserves a 
     vote. The stalling has to stop.
                                  ____


               [From the New York Times, Sept. 29, 2004]

                   The Senate's Chance on Drug Costs

       If Dr. Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, knows what's 
     good for the body politic, he will allow a quick floor vote 
     on the drug reimportation bill he has been bottling up for 
     the benefit of President Bush and the pharmaceutical 
     industry. A large majority--up to 75 members, by some 
     estimates--would easily pass the bill and delight the 
     organized older voters who have been clamoring for lower-
     priced Canadian drugs. American consumers are increasingly 
     aware that their average drug prices are 67 percent higher 
     than what Canadians pay for comparable prescriptions. 
     Bipartisan Senate pressure is growing on Dr. Frist, along 
     with threats of the sort of floor rebellion that saw the 
     Republican House rise up last year to pass a drug 
     reimportation plan over Mr. Bush's opposition.
       Mr. Bush continues to express concern about potential 
     safety risks from imported drugs while insisting that the new 
     Medicare subsidy for prescription drugs will eventually ease 
     the pocketbook pain of distressed retirees. Dr. Frist also 
     continues to express concern about the need to weigh the 
     benefits of lower prices against possible safety risks.
       But this concern is addressed in the pending bipartisan 
     bill, which mandates that the bargain drugs would come from 
     licensed Canadian pharmacies and wholesalers registered with 
     the federal Food and Drug Administration.
       The real issue appears to be to avoid forcing Mr. Bush to 
     choose between signing the bill and angering the drug 
     industry, which donates mightily to G.O.P. campaigns, or 
     vetoing it and infuriating older voters.
       This page has supported the Medicare drug plan, but with 
     the imperative that the administration work harder to 
     restrain costs, however much the pharmaceutical lobby 
     complains. The reimportation bill is a promising cost saver.

  Mr. DORGAN. As I have indicated, there is a bipartisan group of 
Senators who have worked a long while on this issue. The House of 
Representatives passed this idea by a wide bipartisan margin. This is 
not a partisan issue. It is bipartisan.
  My hope is that the majority leader will decide that as a matter of 
scheduling, we will, before we adjourn sine die, address this issue and 
resolve it for the benefit of the American people. There is no safety 
issue. Everyone knows that is a bogus issue. To continue to raise that 
issue suggests somehow that Americans are unable to do what the 
Europeans have done routinely year after year. That is, put together a 
system--we call it reimportation; in Europe it is called parallel 
trading--that is safe for consumers and that puts downward pressure on 
prescription drug prices.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            War on Terrorism

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there has 
been use of the Senate floor in the last few minutes to discuss the 
Presidential race and to make statements about the situation in Iraq 
and our President's handling of that and our President's own war 
service, his service in the guard, which was honorable. I don't know 
everything that was said, but let me say that it is very important we 
take every opportunity to look at what is happening in the war on 
terrorism and the place that Iraq holds in the war on terrorism. Let's 
don't forget Afghanistan, either.
  Our country was hit on 9/11, 2001. Everybody in the world knows that. 
It hasn't been easy to deal with a different kind of enemy, but that is 
what we have, a different kind of enemy. Our President has been 
resolute and firm in fighting this enemy every step of the way. 
Americans can hardly imagine that human beings would actually be able 
to shoot children in the back as they are running away, as happened in 
Russia a few weeks ago, terrorists taking over a school and children 
running away to go to safety and being shot in the back. Three hundred 
people died in that event.
  People can't imagine an enemy that would cut someone's head off 
before a video camera and spread it out across the world. But that has 
happened with the kind of enemy we are now facing. Does anyone think 
that kind of enemy can be dealt with with kid gloves, with good 
manners, as we would have in a debating society? The President doesn't. 
The Vice President doesn't. They are standing up for our country. They 
are standing up for our country against an unimaginable enemy, and they 
are doing a great job. They are doing a great job because they feel 
from their hearts that we must be firm and resolute against this enemy, 
and we must not let anything stand in the way of protecting America and 
protecting our homeland.
  That is why I am so proud of our President and our Vice President. 
They are not asking anyone else if America can defend itself.
  And we are at war with terrorists who would shoot children in the 
back and cut innocent people's heads off for absolutely no reason 
whatsoever. So if we are going to use the Senate floor to be part of 
the campaign, I think we need to make sure the people of our country 
hear both sides. There are real differences. There are real differences 
in how we would handle the war on terrorism, what we do in Iraq. Iraq 
is not an easy situation. We all know that.
  We know the enemy has infiltrated Iraq. They have come in through the 
porous borders from all over the world to try to disrupt the stability 
and the stabilization of Iraq. Americans have boots on the ground in 
Iraq. Our young men and women are fighting for our freedom in the 
deserts of Afghanistan and in Iraq so that we will be able to debate on 
the Senate floor, hold our own elections, and live in the freedom that 
we have come to know. I think our young men and women deserve the 
respect that we have a united country in this war and in this effort. 
This is every bit as much a fight for freedom as any war in which 
America has been engaged.
  Our President and our Vice President put one thing, and one thing 
only, first: the security of the American people.

[[Page S10413]]

They want every child in our country to grow up with the same kind of 
freedom and opportunity every one of us in the Senate has had growing 
up. If we let terrorists curtail the way we live, we will have lost. We 
will have said that we are not going to answer the call of our 
generation to maintain the freedom and opportunity of our country, 
which we have been able to enjoy. That is unthinkable. Our President 
and our Vice President are standing firm for the protection of the 
American people. They are standing firm for our economy.
  One of the other hits we took on 9/11/01 was the hit to our economy. 
The tourism industry went down, the airline industry was in trouble, 
and it had a ripple effect throughout our economy. But our President 
has remained firm in the way we would try to stabilize the stock market 
and get jobs back and get people back to work. He is doing it with tax 
cuts, so that people will have more of their own money to spend and 
they will put it into the economy. Guess what. That has made the 
difference.
  The turnaround in our economy started right after the tax cuts were 
signed by the President. The stock market is up and jobs are coming 
back; 1.7 million jobs have been put on this year alone. We are almost 
back to where we were before 9/11.
  So, Mr. President, if we are going to use the Senate floor to talk 
about the election that is going to happen in the next 6 weeks in this 
country, I think we better look at the record. The record is good. We 
have taken the steps that are necessary after being hit by terrorists 
in a way that we could never have imagined being hit on 9/11. Our 
homeland is more secure. Is it everything it needs to be? No. The 
President will tell you that. Anyone will tell you that. But it is a 
whole lot safer than it was on September 10, 2001.
  We are taking the steps right now on the Senate floor to reform our 
intelligence-gathering capabilities. We are going to have the best 
intelligence operation in the entire world. We are already making great 
strides. We have made great improvements. There is much more sharing 
and, in fact, the increased and better intelligence has caused us 
to know that there is a heightened alert right now. But we are taking 
the steps to codify that and put it into statutory form. We are doing 
exactly what we ought to be doing to assure that our country is 
prepared to go forward, to stay the course in this war, and to win the 
war on terrorism. We are going to do it one step at a time, with a 
President who is absolutely focused on our national security.

  Mr. President, I am proud of our President. I am proud of our Vice 
President. They are staying focused. A lot of people think this 
campaign has gotten pretty rough. Campaigns in America are rough. None 
of us like it, but no one is going to unilaterally disarm. Therefore, 
we are going to make sure that the truth comes out so that people can 
see the differences between the two candidates. There doesn't have to 
be any mud slung in this campaign because the differences are very 
great. Our President is resolute that he is going to win the war on 
terrorism and protect the American people, and he hopes we can fight 
the war on terrorism on the turf where they are rather than allowing 
them on our turf. That is his strategy, and it is the right one.
  We have a President who is firmly committed to a domestic agenda that 
includes an education for every child in our country; quality health 
care for every person in our country, to bring more people who are 
insured into our health care system; to have malpractice reform so that 
we will be able to assure quality health care at a reasonable cost. Our 
President is committed to Social Security reform so that it will be 
there for our seniors, not just for the next 20 years, but for the next 
100 years. It is going to take leadership. It is going to take 
leadership and vision for the next President of the United States. Our 
President is doing exactly the right thing in focusing on our security, 
on education for children, on quality health care for all of the people 
in our country. Our President is doing a great job. I am proud of him. 
I think the people of America--the more they focus on not only the 
accomplishments of the last 4 years, but the vision for the future--our 
President is talking about his vision for the next 4 years and what we 
will be able to do for our country that will build on the rising 
economy, the better national security that he has already put in place.
  Mr. President, I am going to yield the floor, and I hope that we can 
keep this debate on the differences on the issues. I hope we will not 
have extraneous charges and the use of the Senate floor for extraneous 
charges that do not have a place in the civilized debate that I hope we 
will have on the floor of the Senate in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, may I inquire as to the parliamentary 
situation in the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are postcloture on S. 2485.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. I wish to make some remarks on an 
amendment that I have filed. I will not ask that that amendment be 
brought before the Senate this evening, but I look toward doing so at 
an appropriate time.
  Mr. President, 3 years have passed since the attacks of September 11, 
2001. Largely because of the anger and the concern and the desire to 
show that the lives of those 3,000 Americans who were sacrificed on 
that day had meaning, we are nearing passage of a meaningful 
intelligence reform plan. But as we commit ourselves to implementing 
this plan, I remain convinced that we still will not be doing all we 
can do, all we should do to win the war on terror and to hold our 
adversaries to account.

  Why do I hold those views?
  It is my view that we have allowed to escape at least one and 
possibly more make-believe allies that have and may be today supporting 
terrorists with financial, logistical, and even diplomatic resources. 
These allies are saying one thing in their public relations campaign 
but doing quite another in their palaces, in the halls of government 
when it comes to nurturing al-Qaida and other terrorist networks.
  Let me give a little explanation of why I think this issue is so 
important. For 19 relatively young men, most of whom were strangers to 
each other, to be able to come into the United States without much 
command of the English language and almost no knowledge of American 
culture and practices, stay in this country for, in some cases, 18 
months, to be able to refine a plan that had been developed prior to 
their entry, to deal with unexpected complications, such as the 
detaining of the 20th hijacker, and to be able to practice that plan 
and finally execute it with the tragic consequences of September 11 is 
not an easy task. Many have asked how could they have done it.
  I believe, for one thing, these 19 people were more capable than we 
may have originally thought, and that itself is a chilling observation, 
because it says something about the adversary we are going to continue 
to be facing once we restart the war on terror.
  But second, I also believe they were not here alone. In that famous 
August 2001 briefing which the President received at Crawford, TX, one 
of the items in that briefing which has, in my opinion, been 
inadequately observed was that the President was told that al-Qaida had 
a network inside the United States.
  Supplementing that network, I believe the Saudis were given license 
to take advantage of a network that was already in existence in the 
United States for another purpose, primarily the purpose of surveilling 
countrymen who were in the United States to determine if they were 
fulminating any plots that might be adverse to the interests of the 
royal family. That network was then made available to at least 2 and 
maybe more, possibly all, of the 19 hijackers.
  I will remind my colleagues again, as I have previously, that much of 
the information that makes this case is contained in the 27 pages of 
the final report of the House and Senate inquiry into 9/11, the 27 
pages which were censored by the administration and, therefore, have 
never been made available to the American people. But I can say this: A 
California-based former employee of the Saudi Civil Aviation Authority, 
a then 42-year-old Saudi national named Omar al-Bayoumi, had extensive 
contacts with two of the Saudi national hijackers, Khalid al

[[Page S10414]]

Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi. These two men had entered the United States 
in January of 2000 after having attended a summit of terrorists in 
Malaysia a few weeks earlier.
  Bayoumi was paid $40,000 a year by a Saudi Government subcontractor, 
but he never showed up for work. He was what is referred to as a ghost 
employee. Indeed, a CIA agent described him as a spy of the Saudi 
Government assigned to keep track of Saudi citizens in southern 
California, particularly the large number of Saudi students studying at 
higher education institutions there.

  The day that al-Bayoumi met the two hijackers at a Los Angeles 
restaurant, he had first attended a meeting at the Saudi consulate with 
a Saudi official who subsequently was denied reentry into the United 
States because of his alleged terrorist background.
  He then, over lunch, invited the two terrorists to come from Los 
Angeles to San Diego where he proceeded to first allow them to live 
with him until they could arrange for an apartment, he cosigned their 
lease, paid their first month's rent, hosted a welcome party, and 
helped them get a variety of services, including driver's licenses and 
flight school applications. He introduced them to others who served as 
their translator and other support roles.
  This is just one strand in the web of connections between hijackers 
and the Saudi Government. But, again, I am restricted in terms of how 
fulsome the details can be.
  There is other evidence of Saudi complicity, especially when it comes 
to financing al-Qaida. In a monograph on the finances of al-Qaida 
prepared by the 9/11 Commission, staff investigators found government-
sponsored Islamic charities had helped provide funds for Osama bin 
Laden. The monograph states:

       Fund-raisers and facilitators throughout Saudi Arabia and 
     the Gulf raised money for al Qaeda from witting and unwitting 
     donors and diverted funds from Islamic charities and mosques.

  It attributed this thriving network to ``a lack of awareness and a 
failure to conduct oversight over institutions [which] created an 
environment in which such activity has flourished.''
  The 9/11 Commission investigators concluded:

       It appears that the Saudis have accepted that terrorist 
     financing is a serious issue and are making progress in 
     addressing it. It remains to be seen whether they will (and 
     are able to do) enough, and whether the U.S. Government will 
     push them hard enough, to substantially eliminate al Qaeda 
     financing by Saudi sources.

  At least one other authority body is even more skeptical. The Council 
on Foreign Relations established a task force on terrorist financing, 
and representatives of the task force testified last week on the 29th 
of September before a hearing of the Senate Banking Committee.
  Mallory Factor, vice chairman of the Independent Task Force on 
Terrorist Financing, said this:

       The Saudi Government has clearly allowed individual and 
     institutional financiers of terror to operate and prosper 
     within Saudi borders.

  Let me repeat that statement:

       The Saudi government has clearly allowed individuals and 
     institutional financiers of terror to operate and prosper 
     within Saudi borders.

  He continued:

       Saudi Arabia has enacted a new anti-money laundering law 
     designed to impede the flow from Saudi Arabia to terrorist 
     groups. However, significant enforcement by Saudi Arabia of 
     several of these new laws appears to be lacking. . . .

  He continued:

       Furthermore, even if these laws were fully implemented, 
     they contain a number of exceptions and flaws which weaken 
     their effectiveness in curbing terror financing. . . . Quite 
     simply, Saudi Arabia continues to allow many key financiers 
     of global terror to operate, remain free and go unpunished 
     within Saudi borders.

  Lee Wolosky, the codirector of the Council on Foreign Relations Task 
Force, added:

       There is no evidence . . . that since September 11, 2001, 
     Saudi Arabia has taken public punitive actions against any 
     individual for financing terror.

  That directly contradicts the statements made by this administration 
that the Saudis have been cooperating and continue to deserve to be 
considered as allies.
  Despite all of the evidence, President Bush has said nothing to 
suggest that he is reconsidering the assurance he offered to the 
American people in the Rose Garden on September 24, 2001, when he said:

       As far as the Saudi Arabians go . . . they've been nothing 
     but cooperative. Our dialogue has been one of--as you would 
     expect friends to be, able to discuss issues.

  On Sunday, like several million Americans, I watched the Sunday 
interview programs and I saw a lady I admire, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, as 
she attempted to explain why she and other key members of this 
administration, aware of the fact that there was a considerable 
disagreement as to whether aluminum tubes which were destined for Iraq 
but had been intercepted, but which had been determined by the best 
experts in the United States, those in the Department of Energy, to not 
be appropriate for the construction of a centrifuge, one of the 
preliminary steps in the development of weaponizable material--she said 
any prudent policymaker would have to take the most conservative view 
if there was a disagreement, take the view that would best protect the 
American people.
  I say this: If we have the kinds of comments that have come from 
responsible citizens who served on the 9/11 Commission, statements that 
have been made by a respected independent task force of the Council on 
Foreign Relations, and the recommendations of the joint House-Senate 
task force, why do we not take the same conservative position as 
relates to Saudi Arabia?
  This is what our colleagues in this Chamber and the House said in 
December of 2002. Recommendation 19 of the final report of the joint 
inquiry stated: The intelligence community, and particularly the FBI 
and the CIA, should aggressively address the possibility that foreign 
governments are providing support to or are involved in terrorist 
activity targeting the United States and U.S. interests. State-
sponsored terrorism substantially increases the likelihood of 
successful and more lethal attacks against the United States. This 
issue must be addressed.

  If we believe that we should take the stance which is most protective 
of the security of the people of the United States of America, why have 
we taken this position of coddling passivity and deference to the 
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with this record of their support of terrorism?
  My lack of confidence in both Saudis and the administration, my lack 
of confidence in their ability to level with the American people, leads 
me to offer this amendment on behalf of the families of those who died 
on 9/11.
  Several groups of families and survivors have filed lawsuits against 
the Saudi Government, members of the Saudi Royal Family, other Saudi 
entities, alleging that they were part of a conspiracy that led to the 
successful attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001.
  The Saudi Government, in Federal court, has moved to strike not only 
the Royal Family, not only individuals but also to strike virtually 
every entity under the umbrella, that those entities are a part of the 
sovereign immunity in Saudi Arabia and therefore come under the 
umbrella of sovereign immunity from their acts.
  The effect of this position is to prevent the victims' families from 
proceeding to the discovery portion of the trial which could yield 
valuable information about the Saudi Government's activities. This 
amendment would waive sovereign immunity protections for foreign 
governments involved in lawsuits related to the September 11 attacks. 
It would not automatically declare that the Saudi Government or any 
other government is responsible for the attacks or was complicit in the 
attacks, but it would give victims' families a chance to have their day 
in court. While exceptions like this are rare, this is because 
terrorist attacks of the magnitude of September 11 are rare.
  Congress has waived sovereign immunity before. In the case of the 
Iran hostage-taking, sovereign immunity was waived because there was 
reason to suspect that the hostage-takers had received support from the 
Iranian Government. We decided an exception to the law was necessary in 
this case in order to both get to the truth and see that justice was 
provided for innocent American families.

[[Page S10415]]

  I believe the family members of the victims of 9/11 deserve to have 
an equal opportunity to get to the truth, especially in light of the 
coverup our Government has engaged in and which has prevented the 
American people from a full understanding of the extent of that 
complicity.
  For all we know, the network which functioned prior to 9/11 and which 
contributed to the ability of these 19 people who were new to the 
United States, woefully deficient in the English language, to be able 
to hide out for 18 months and then refine, practice, and execute a plan 
of terror, that infrastructure is still in place. This amendment would 
help these families and the people of the United States better 
understand what has happened to us in the past, what the threat might 
be today, and to hold those responsible and accountable for their 
actions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in 
morning business for no more than 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Idaho.


                           Flu Vaccine Supply

  Mr. CRAIG. I come to the Senate floor this afternoon to express a 
grave concern about today's announcement concerning a new threat to 
America's flu vaccine supply--and to urge that firm and decisive action 
is needed to meet this potential deadly threat.
  First, the facts as we know them: Earlier this morning, the 
California-based Chiron Corporation announced that British regulators 
had unexpectedly imposed a 3-month suspension of operations of its 
Liverpool plant, citing unspecified manufacturing problems.
  What does this mean? Mr. President, I believe today's announcement 
may prove to have worldwide and deadly consequences. This is because 
Chiron's Liverpool facility is today one of only two major 
manufacturers of flu vaccine worldwide, and it supplies approximately 
one-half of the total U.S. flu vaccine supply.
  More specifically, if Chiron is unable to ship its vaccine this year, 
the U.S. will lose approximately 46 million doses of flu vaccine, just 
under half of the anticipated supply of about 100 million doses. 
Ideally, as many as 185 million doses would be needed to protect all 
Americans who are at risk. This gives you some idea of the parameters 
of the problem.
  Because flu vaccine is produced seasonally and cannot easily be 
accelerated on short notice, and because the annual flu season 
typically begins in October--the month we are now in--this announcement 
effectively deals a body blow to U.S. preparedness as we enter this 
year's flu season.
  As the chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I am 
especially concerned about the effects of this development on America's 
senior population, who account for over 90 percent of the approximately 
36,000 American flu deaths each year.
  Indeed, just last week the Aging Committee held a hearing to examine 
ways of improving flu preparedness and vaccination rates.
  At our hearing, Chiron president and CEO testified that Chiron was on 
track to deliver its full complement of flu vaccine this year. 
According to initial accounts, today's announcement from the British 
Government came as an alarming surprise, both to Chiron itself and to 
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which itself had conducted 
reviews of Chiron's operations in recent months.
  Time will tell, of course, but there is no question that today's 
developments have caught the world public health community off guard.
  So what can be done?
  First, I am very encouraged that FDA, CDC, and the NIH have moved 
swiftly today to convene emergency meetings of top vaccine experts to 
confer with their British counterparts and to seek assistance from the 
other major vaccine manufacturer, Aventis. I understand that Secretary 
Tommy Thompson has already dispatched a team to England to address this 
crisis.
  I believe these discussions are extremely important. Of course, 
safety must always be our paramount consideration. Nevertheless, 
considering Chiron's critical role in flu vaccine production, coupled 
with the deadly worldwide threat that confronts us, I urge U.S. and 
British scientists and officials to do everything in their power to 
correct whatever problems might exist in time to permit shipment of at 
least some of Chiron's vaccine this year.
  Second, I believe it is imperative that Federal authorities act 
swiftly to guarantee that, if there is to be a sharp drop in vaccine 
supplies, priority distribution go first to America's elderly and to 
the young children, as well as certain other especially vulnerable 
populations.
  Third, today's alarming announcement is a wake-up call that better 
long-term flu preparedness is imperative. As we heard at last week's 
hearing, this is especially true in light of the fact that scientists 
now believe that a return of an especially strong pandemic strain of 
flu is overdue.
  Scientific progress is being made in a number of promising areas, 
among them options for developing cell-based alternatives to today's 
egg-based technology. I am also encouraged that the administration in 
recent months has made substantial progress in its pandemic 
preparedness planning.
  In addition, Senator Evan Bayh and I introduced legislation earlier 
this year to further address some of these longer-term issues. For 
example, our legislation, S. 2038, would encourage an increase in 
vaccine production capacity by offering a tax credit for companies to 
invest in the construction or renovation of production facilities and 
for the production of new and improved vaccines. Our legislation also 
contains provisions to encourage greater volume of vaccine production, 
as well as to improve outreach and education about the importance of 
flu vaccination.
  Finally, I want to close by noting that perhaps the single most 
important reason today's announcement is so potentially devastating is 
the simple fact that we have only two manufacturers for flu vaccine.
  Stop and think about that. In a country as great and as rich as ours, 
with our medical science as advanced as it is, we rely only on two 
companies to produce this vaccine. Why? In part, for example, it is 
because in recent years vaccine companies, in trying to guess what the 
market is going to be and to produce for the market, lost well over 
$120 million and simply could not take those kinds of losses.
  That is why Senator Evan Bayh and I introduced legislation to try, 
again, to resolve this problem.
  Why? Again, flu is a worldwide killer, and the need for vaccine is 
very clear. Yet the market has dwindled to a point that the pullout of 
just one company, as was announced today, devastates a worldwide supply 
of vaccine.
  An additional factor underlying this problem, as in so many other 
sectors, is the issue of tort liability. The risk of lawsuit is so 
great today that some of these companies are simply closing their shops 
and walking away.
  Today is not the time to discuss this particular issue in great 
detail, but as we move forward we need to ask ourselves, can we put the 
American population at risk simply because we have developed such a 
litigious society that everybody has to sue? When they do that, we find 
ourselves, as the announcement today found us, dramatically wanting for 
tens of millions of Americans who may this year not receive the 
vaccinations they need. Is that a risk that is acceptable, or is that a 
risk that is too high?
  There is no question in my mind, and there is no question in the 
minds of the scientists in public health, that flu is a killer. Last 
year, 36,000 Americans died as a result of the flu or conditions 
stemming from it.
  Once again, I commend the swift response of Secretary Thompson and 
others. I hope this grave situation can successfully be addressed. If 
it is, many will be saved.
  We do not yet know all the facts, and again, safety is paramount, but 
if the American Government and the British Government can perhaps come 
to some degree of accord regarding acceptable and safe development and 
production standards between ourselves and Great Britain, thousands of 
Americans and others worldwide may yet receive the vaccine they need.
  This is a critical issue, and it is an issue that will play out in 
the coming days. But whatever transpires, I believe this Congress, the 
CDC, the FDA,

[[Page S10416]]

and all who are involved in this issue must clearly prioritize vaccine 
distribution first for our very elderly, our very vulnerable, and our 
youngest citizens--those who are the greatest potential victims of this 
tragic illness.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak in 
morning business for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Just the Numbers

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, in this election time we are hearing a 
great deal of discussion about the economy. We are hearing all kinds of 
spin being placed on the economic numbers. I don't come to the floor to 
try to put any spin on the numbers, but I do come to try to list the 
numbers. As I read the various speeches on both sides of the aisle, 
many times they pick out one particular portion of the economy that can 
be used to make a point for or against where their political position 
is. I want to simply outline the numbers and let those who may be 
watching come to their own conclusions as to whether the economy is 
doing well.
  First number: Over the past four quarters the U.S. economy has 
expanded by 4.8 percent. Let's put that in perspective. In that same 
period, Italy has seen its economy expand by 1.2 percent; Germany 2 
percent; 2.8 percent in France; 3.6 percent in Britain; and 4.2 percent 
in Japan. Japan is emerging from a 15-year recession, and they are 
thrilled about their growth at 4.2 percent. In America, we are growing 
at 4.8 percent. Those are the numbers.
  Comparison to our own history: The U.S. growth rate over the past 
year has been nearly a full percentage point above the 3.9 percent 
growth over a comparable period when President Clinton was seeking 
reelection. August's 5.4 unemployment rate, for those who want to focus 
primarily on jobs, is well below the average of the 1970s. The average 
unemployment in the 1970s was 6.2; the 1980s, the average unemployment 
in the 1980s was 7.3; and the 1990s, the average unemployment in the 
1990s was 5.75. Our current unemployment is 5.4.
  The nonfarm business sector productivity growth has averaged 4.6 
percent per year from the beginning of 2002 through the second quarter 
of this year. Unprecedented in the post-World War II period, the 
annualized productivity increases since early 2002 have been nearly 
three times the annual average rate that prevailed from 1994 to 1996. 
Let me repeat that. If you go back to those 2 years from 1994 to 1996, 
again trying to take a comparable period, 2 years before a Presidential 
election, the average annual rate in that period was 1.6 percent. Right 
now our annualized rate is three times as high.
  Consumer price inflation was 3.4 percent in 2000. Since then it has 
averaged 2.4 percent. Inflation is under control. Inflation 
expectations are very well contained.
  So we are having growth higher than we have had. We are having 
productivity higher than we have had. We are having unemployment lower 
than we have had. And inflation and inflation expectations are well 
under control.
  I could go on with additional statistics. Let me cite a few very 
recent numbers to bring people up to date. One of the things about 
economics that many of us forget is that the numbers take a while to be 
accumulated. You will have a number released and then, when the 
economists go back through the data, they come back and say, no, that 
number was wrong. We now know that the average was either higher or 
lower than we had indicated.
  The second quarter GDP growth of this year was originally reported at 
2.8 percent below the numbers I have been talking about, causing some 
people to say, see, the economy has slowed down. They have now been 
revised. The economists have gone back, reexamined the data, and have 
revised that 2.8 percent upward to 3.3 percent, which gives us the 
average for the four quarters that I cited earlier. The economy is 
doing very well. Business investment increased by 12.5 percent and has 
now increased for five consecutive quarters. Export growth was strong 
and the revised second quarter trade deficit was smaller than 
previously reported.

  Residential investment, primarily home building, is now estimated to 
have grown at a stellar 16.5 percent annualized rate. This is the 
second strongest quarterly growth in home building in 8 years. More 
Americans own their home now than at any time in American history. 
Household wealth--which represents for many people the equity in their 
homes--is at a record high. It hit a record high--the highest in 
American history--in the second quarter of 2004.
  For those who talk about squeezes and those who talk about Americans 
who cannot save anything, Americans who cannot acquire any wealth, I 
suggest that you look at the facts. Again, according to the Federal 
Reserve data, U.S. household wealth hit a record high in the second 
quarter of 2004. It will be interesting to see where it goes in the 
third quarter.
  New home sales dropped off for a while. People said maybe the 
recovery was slowing down. New home sales regained their vigor in 
August, with a 9.4-percent annualized rate of increase. Construction 
activity remains on a solid footing. Housing starts were up by a robust 
9 percent in August over the year before. As I said, the home ownership 
rate in the United States is now 69 percent, the highest in American 
history.
  It is interesting that we focus on the percentage, because the growth 
of the population would allow people to say, yes, it is the highest in 
history numerically, but a smaller percentage of Americans are living 
in their own homes. That is not true. It is not only the highest 
numerically; it is the highest percentage of Americans owning their own 
home and living in their own home.
  These are the facts. We will let the politicians in this election 
spin whatever they want to spin, but I hope everybody will ultimately 
come back to the facts.
  If I may put my interpretation on the facts which I believe are very 
defensible, the recovery out of the recent recession has not only taken 
hold, not only gained traction, it is strong, it is growing, and the 
next President of the United States--whomever he may be--will inherit a 
very strong and robust economy. He will take credit for it because it 
will have happened on his watch, but the groundwork for this economy, 
for the next economy, has been laid already. We are seeing the results 
now.
  Economists are looking back and saying 2002 was a better year than we 
thought; 2003 was a stronger year in the last half; and in 2004, the 
economy is growing at a rate at which every other industrialized 
country in the world would be very grateful. America is doing 
economically very well. Those are the facts.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, shortly, I am hopeful we will be able to 
clear three amendments offered by the Senator from Alaska--three 
pending amendments. We have reached compromises due to a lot of hard 
work and good faith on both parts. We have asked the Senator from 
Alaska if he is available to come over to the floor now, and I am 
hopeful we will be able to resolve those three pending amendments this 
evening. In the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Amendment No. 3767 Withdrawn

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, with the authorization of the sponsor 
of the amendment, Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey, I withdraw 
amendment No. 3767 among the pending amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S10417]]

  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                    Amendment No. 3814, As Modified

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment 
No. 3814, previously agreed to, be modified with a change that is at 
the desk. This modification is technical in nature, involving only the 
instruction line of the amendment. It has been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 4, after line 12, of the agreed to language of 
     amendment No. 3942, insert the following:
       (4) regions of specific concern where United States foreign 
     assistance should be targeted to assist governments in 
     efforts to prevent the use of such regions as terrorist 
     sanctuaries are South Asia, Southeast Asia, West Africa, the 
     Horn of Africa, North and North Central Africa, the Arabian 
     peninsula, Central and Eastern Europe, and South America;

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3866

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding 
cloture, the Specter amendment No. 3866 be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as the Senator from Nevada is aware, this 
amendment is not germane to the underlying bill. We are in a 
postcloture situation. There are objections on both sides of the aisle 
to proceeding with this amendment.
  Regretfully, I inform the Senator I must object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am disappointed. However, I understand 
fully. If the Senator from Maine had the ability to make this in order, 
the same as last night, it would have been done. This is a complicated 
bill. But I felt I had to attempt to move forward on this so there will 
be no misunderstanding as to what took place last night on this matter.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________