[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 16988-17001]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]





               financial solicitations on military bases

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

                                                  U.S. Senate,

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

  Mrs. CLINTON. I have also written to and spoken to both Chairman 
Warner and Ranking Member Levin from the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services, to ask for hearings on this issue when we return in 
September. However, I was alerted yesterday that there is a provision 
in the Department of Defense conference report that would prohibit the 
Department of Defense from taking immediate action to address these 
financial abuses on our military installations.
  Specifically, section 8133 of the conference report does not allow 
any changes to the Department of Defense Directive 1344.7, entitled 
``Personal Commercial Solicitation on DOD Installations,'' until 90 
days after a report containing the results of an investigation 
regarding insurance premium allotment processing is submitted to the 
House Committee on Government Reform and the Senate Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.
  With that investigation still ongoing, it could be months--maybe 
years, for all we know--until any changes are made to these abusive 
practices. During that time, more of our young men and women will fall 
prey to these unscrupulous agents who sell them financial products they 
do not need and they barely understand.
  Yesterday, I sent a letter to Senators Stevens and Byrd, the 
distinguished chair and ranking member of the Senate Committee on 
Appropriations, as well as to Senator Inouye, the ranking member of the 
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, to express my concern 
about the inclusion of this provision in the conference report of the 
DOD appropriations bill and to urge them to take action to remove this 
rider.
  I understand a similar provision, with an even longer delay before 
DOD can take action, was included in the House Defense authorization 
bill. I am a conferee in the House-Senate conference on the Defense 
authorization

[[Page 16989]]

bill, and I intend to do everything I can to include language that will 
allow the Department of Defense to immediately address this troubling 
issue without having to wait several months while our men and women in 
uniform continue to be fleeced.
  I hope I will have the support of my colleagues who are also 
conferees on the Department of Defense authorization bill. I look 
forward to working with Senators on the Committee on Appropriations to 
figure out the best way to address this issue.
  The problem of financial advisers taking advantage of our service men 
and women is one that requires immediate action. It is almost hard to 
believe, as the two articles in the New York Times so poignantly point 
out, that young men and women, who have a lot on their minds--such as 
leaving their families; oftentimes worrying about young wives left 
alone, taking care of children; or parents who are worried about their 
safety; trying to get the training they need; trying to get prepared 
for the dangerous missions they will face in Afghanistan, Iraq, and 
elsewhere--would be required, in many instances, to attend these 
meetings, which could do a lot to help educate them.
  In fact, in my letter to Secretary Rumsfeld I ask there be financial 
education provided to these young men and women and oftentimes, if 
possible, where there are large bases, to the spouses who are left 
behind. I have visited bases where particularly young wives--often as 
young as 17, 18, 19 years old--are seeing their husbands leave for 
overseas deployments. They do not know how to keep a checkbook. They do 
not know how to pay bills. They have gone literally from their parents' 
home into a new, young marriage, oftentimes under the pressure of an 
impending deployment--usually of their husbands--and now, all of a 
sudden, they are left to try to deal with the financial demands of 
running a household. They should be given help. They should not be 
taken advantage of.
  It strikes me as just regrettable that we would permit the 
solicitation for questionable financial schemes at the very military 
installations where these young men and women live prior to asking them 
to go into harm's way.
  There certainly is a role for additional insurance, for other kinds 
of investment information to be provided, but not in a situation where 
the people doing the presentations are often former military officers 
or high-ranking noncommissioned officers, who purport to and present 
themselves as people in authority, and often lay the groundwork for a 
very rushed and somewhat coercive atmosphere, where these young men and 
women sign things they do not understand. It is somewhat reminiscent of 
many of our college students, who are in comparable age and group 
settings, who are given the hard sells for credit cards and insurance 
policies they do not understand. So I think there is a tremendous 
opportunity for legitimate financial education and for helping our 
military service members know what their needs are, and then to meet 
those needs.
  I am looking forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee 
on Armed Services, as well as Senators on the Committee on 
Appropriations, to find a solution to this problem. I regret these 
riders were injected into the DOD appropriations subcommittee 
conference report that we will vote up or down this afternoon.
  I will certainly support the appropriations bill because there are 
much-needed resources in it for our military and other ongoing needs 
that are within the purview of the Department of Defense that we need 
to be funding.


                     Report of the 9/11 Commission

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

[[Page 16990]]

the Department of Defense, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
the Department of Homeland Security. There are many recommendations 
that go to the administration, that go to the executive branch, that 
regardless of who is our President after November, that President will 
have to address. But that does not let the Congress off the hook. We 
have not fulfilled our responsibilities of oversight, and we now must 
take seriously the recommendations of these patriotic, hard-working, 
thoughtful Commissioners.
  This report cannot be allowed to sit on a shelf somewhere. I hope we 
will take it in the spirit it is offered, as not just a bipartisan but, 
frankly, nonpartisan report; that we will immediately, under the 
leadership we have in this Senate, begin to figure out how we will 
fulfill the hope this Commission offers us; that we will be better 
prepared, better organized to play our part in the struggle against 
terrorism. I certainly will look forward to working with my colleagues 
in order to do that. I trust and hope that I can afford to be 
optimistic and that we will be able to prove our former colleague and 
one of the Commissioners, Senator Kerrey, wrong to a limited extent, 
that we can be both hopeful and optimistic that the Senate, the 
Congress, and our Government will live up to the obligations this 
report lays out so clearly.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to talk about what 
so many Americans are thinking about as they turn on their television 
today, and that is the 9/11 Commission report that is being issued by 
many of our former colleagues and partners in trying to address the 
security needs of our Nation. I am sure many Americans are going to 
want to know from this 9/11 report, is it going to result in us getting 
off our orange alert? Is it going to help us in providing better 
security across America?
  One of the things we have to think about is the fact that this report 
now needs to be put into legislative action by this body. I thank the 
Commission, including Governor Keane, former Congressman Hamilton, and 
former Senator Slade Gorton, for their contribution to this report and 
their hard work. The voluminous report has a lot of recommendations, 
but I would like to call out two or three of those recommendations that 
are particularly important for us as a body to address when we return 
in September.
  First and foremost is the need for us to focus on international 
cooperation. We in the Northwest learned that lesson very well when 
Ahmed Ressam came across the Canadian border with a car full of 
explosives on his way to LAX Airport. Many people in America know that 
story and know that a good customs agent was able to stop Ressam and 
confiscate those goods, and that act was never perpetrated on American 
soil. We also know after that, 9/11 did happen. So the question for us 
in America is, What are we going to do to make sure we have good 
international cooperation?
  What is interesting about the Ressam case is Mr. Ressam started his 
efforts in Algiers, was successful in getting into France, then 
successful in creating a new identity and getting into Canada. Even 
though that was an illegal entry into Canada, he was able to remain in 
Canada and then create a Canadian passport and birth certificate and 
try to gain access to the United States.
  As I said, the route he took through several countries to try to get 
to Port Angeles, WA, to start his journey shows the need we have in 
this country for international cooperation as it relates to our visa 
program and our visa standards. This is something we have seen a delay 
in in the last several years and something we need to pay particular 
attention to in the Senate to make sure this visa standard program gets 
implemented and gets implemented as soon as possible.
  While we in the United States can have a visa entry program based on 
a biometric standard, that standard will only be as good as the 
standard that is then adopted by Canada and Mexico, our European 
partners, our Middle East allies, and various other countries around 
the world. By that, I mean if Mr. Ressam had entered France on a 
biometric standard which showed, perhaps with fingerprints or facial 
recognition, who Ahmed Ressam was, the various times he tried to 
perpetrate a false identity to get into the United States, we would be 
able to track that individual.
  We know this is very important because we know that of the hijackers 
on 9/11, many of them had various trips back and forth to the United 
States. While we want to continue to have good international commerce 
with many countries and have people travel to the United States, we 
need a better security system with our visa standard, and we should 
make a top priority of getting such international cooperation based on 
biometrics.
  I can say the same for international cooperation on port security. 
Washington State, being the home to many ports, needs to focus on the 
fact that cargo containers come in every day into the ports of Seattle, 
Tacoma, Vancouver, and various parts of Washington State. What we need 
is not to wait until the last minute for cargo containers to get into 
the Seattle area to find out whether they have explosives or whether 
the containers have been tampered with, but to have point of origin 
cooperation with countries all over the world to make sure that 
security system is deployed at the time the cargo leaves its port.
  Here are two examples, one of human deployment of people coming to 
the United States and another of goods and services in which 
international cooperation is essential. That is why I take to heart the 
recommendation on page 20 of the 9/11 Commission report, the executive 
summary saying that:

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

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

[[Page 16991]]

we are keeping a flat organization. That flat organization is about 
getting access to as much information as possible.
  Just as the Intelligence Committee report released by my colleagues 
in the last 10 days showed and just as this 9/11 report shows, the 
third thing we need to do is make sure we use the information we 
acquire and put much more focus and analysis behind that. While that 
sounds simple and it sounds like something that can be easily 
forgotten, I remind my colleagues that in 1998, ADM David Jeremiah, 
under a CIA governance order study, was asked the question: Why did the 
CIA miss India's testing of a nuclear bomb? Why did we as a country not 
really understand that was happening? Well, the No. 1 recommendation 
from that report was not enough analysis, and we had a culture that was 
not really assessing the 21st century threats to our country.
  That is a report that was done in 1998 about a particular part of 
intelligence, in a particular part of the world, that missed something. 
We had a report that basically is saying the same things the 9/11 
report is saying today, that information and analysis are critical to 
our success on international efforts at understanding information and 
potential threats or use of weapons of mass destruction.
  To me, it is very important that we take to heart the fact that we 
need more analysts, and how that analyst structure is going to work. We 
live in an information age. You can say that terrorists, in their 
decentralized structure, are going to create much more information 
about their prospects, their attention to different projects, their 
communication with cells across the globe. It is this information that 
we need to acquire, put together, and have analysts working on, on an 
ongoing basis.
  It is safe to say we need a dramatic increase in the number of 
analysts that we need to recruit into Government, new processes to put 
this information into a network, and access and assess it on an ongoing 
basis. I believe this is going to be a very hard challenge for us in 
Congress because we will see it as something that an agency is assigned 
to do, and we will forget about the challenges that face each of these 
agencies as they change their culture and change their structure.
  We must keep in mind we are facing a threat of a very decentralized 
nature. To face a threat of a very decentralized nature we must build 
organizations and teams of people, including analysts, who also think 
in a decentralized way.
  The report also talks about technology and the role that technology 
can play. I am a big proponent of technology in this information age. 
Something like a biometric standard on fingerprints and identification 
can be helpful. The report goes into a great deal of detail about 
implementing those at borders, at airports, at various other 
facilities. Yes, I want to expedite the speed and flow of individuals 
in and out of the country and have the United States continue to remain 
a great place where people want to visit. But in adopting these 
technology solutions, we need to work hard, as the 9/11 report says, to 
make sure the civil liberties and privacy rights of individuals are 
protected.
  The United States has its privileges. The right to privacy is one of 
those. So we need to work on this recommendation in the report with 
that in mind. I think the structure within the FBI and Homeland 
Security needs to have someone, as these recommendations are 
implemented, who can--as databases are created, as information is 
assessed--help create the safeguards that are necessary.
  But that should not impede us from working on an international basis 
to make sure that information about terrorist threats is shared through 
numerous countries in the world, and shared on a systematic database 
form with the United States. That is where I believe we have been 
lacking since 9/11. We have had a visa program and standard that we set 
in the PATRIOT Act and other bills as an objective. Yet we have failed 
to execute those. We should use this report today to continue our 
sharpened focus on getting that standard implemented so we can be sure 
the same people, like the 9/11 attackers, are not moving in and out of 
the country.
  This report is so critical for us now to join together on these 
specific recommendations. We must not continue to focus on the past but 
focus on what we can do to get off of orange alert. It is important 
that we look at international cooperation, organizations, resources for 
analysts, new technology, and protecting civil liberties. But as I 
think about this issue, I think about the significant threats we face 
from those asymmetrical forms. Yet the results of those could be very 
catastrophic. That is why we need to get this program implemented.
  I look to my colleagues, when we return in September, to keep away 
from what now has been an analysis of the past and look forward to 
implementing these solutions as quickly as possible, giving Americans 
better security in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Troubling Trends

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

               [From the Washington Post, July 22, 2004]

                FAA Faces Exodus of Traffic Controllers

                          (By Karin Brulliard)

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

[[Page 16992]]

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

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

               [From the Washington Post, July 22, 2004]

                     War Funds Dwindling, GAO Warns

                         (By Jonathan Weisman)

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

[[Page 16993]]

       But the GAO report warned that there will be a serious 
     downside to that approach, especially the deferral of 
     maintenance and refurbishing plans until next year.
       ``We believe that the deferral of these activities will add 
     to the requirements that will need to be funded in fiscal 
     year 2005 and potentially later years and could result in a 
     `bow wave' effect in future years,'' the report cautioned. 
     ``Activities that are deferred also run the risk of costing 
     more in future years.''
       A ``bow wave'' refers to a time when deferred costs 
     confront Congress all at once, making it impossible to meet 
     the demands.

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

               [From the Washington Post, July 22, 2004]

                       D.C. Gap in Wealth Growing


                  Uneducated Suffer Most, Study Shows

                            (By D'Vera Cohn)

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

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

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. If you look at the chart and see what has happened in 
terms of the difference in the wage scales, it is atrocious.
  The wage scale gap at the top of the ladder goes up $186,000 and the 
people at the bottom of the ladder are at $6,000. Once again, we see a 
failure of responsibility.
  I see on television a message that says, ``My name is George W. Bush 
and I approve of this message.'' We see talk about the number of votes 
John Kerry has missed but we don't see in the same message what John 
Kerry did when he was in Vietnam. Even though he disagreed with the 
war, he went there and served bravely. He got three Purple Hearts, a 
Bronze Star, and a Silver Star--medals of bravery. One of the instances 
that got him that medal was pulling out of the water one of his 
colleagues who was practically drowning as bullets were flying 
overhead. He stopped that boat he was in command of and pulled his 
friend and subordinate out of the water. We don't see that. Instead, it 
says John Kerry missed these votes.
  Yes. John Kerry is a man who is always devoted to duty. Right now 
what he is doing is important. All of us think the votes are very 
important here, but very often these votes are already predetermined by 
the numbers in the majority and the numbers in the minority--not that 
we should miss votes. But he has a more important task. He has a task 
of changing the leadership in this country and making sure we are 
paying attention to our responsibilities to the community at large and 
not just to a particular moment in time but, rather, in the total 
picture of leadership.
  In my view, it is not how one runs government. What we see is a 
question of leadership in the administration--the question of 
leadership of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. If you look at 
their prior leadership positions, you will see similar problems.

[[Page 16994]]

  For instance, take Vice President Cheney's recent leadership of 
Halliburton. How did he transform that company?
  My experience in the corporate world was a very good experience. I, 
with two other fellows--all three of us coming from poor homes, two 
brothers--started a business over 50 years ago. It was a very small 
business in its beginning days. We had a few dollars of borrowed 
money--not much. We started a business that never looked like it was 
going to mature. It took us 12 years to get to the stage where we could 
apply computer technology to our business. Today that company we 
started--three poor kids with no resources to begin with--has over 
40,000 employees and the longest growth record of any company in 
America, a growth of 10 percent each and every year for 42 years in a 
row. We grew at 10-percent earnings each and every year. It is 
remarkable.
  I give that background not to boast but, rather, to try to make a 
point, the point being that there is a culture associated with our 
company--a culture, I am proud to say, has never been challenged in 
over 50 years of business, a culture that says whatever we do we have 
to be honest with our customers, honest with our employees, honest with 
our shareholders, and honest with the public at large. That sets the 
corporate culture. It tells you how we want that company to operate.
  A CEO has an impact on a company that should endure beyond his or her 
years of service. I want to use that example to reflect on what has 
happened with Halliburton, one of America's largest companies.
  In the wake of early leadership, Halliburton has been associated with 
bribes, kickbacks, violating terrorist sanctions laws, and sweetheart, 
no-bid Government deals. It doesn't sound very pretty, and it is not.
  To make matters worse, Vice President Cheney still receives salary 
checks from Halliburton for well over $150,000 each and every year. It 
has been 4 years now, somewhere around $700,000. He still holds over 
400,000 unexercised Halliburton stock options. They are exercisable to 
2009. He left the company 4 years ago. If the administration continues 
its service, he will have 4 more years. That is 2008, by my count. But 
the options exercise in 2009.
  It is unconscionable that he would have a financial association with 
this company that disgraced corporate leadership in a time of war.
  When I was in the Army a long time ago, I enlisted in 1942. I was 18 
years old. During that period of time that America was fighting for its 
life, it was unthinkable that a company could profiteer while a war was 
going on; unthinkable. It would have been considered traitorous 
behavior.
  But here we are in a session where the Vice President is undermining 
our Nation's ethical credibility here and abroad.
  On September 14, 2003, the Vice President was asked about his 
relationship with Halliburton and the no-bid contracts on ``Meet the 
Press.'' This is what triggered my interest. I listened very carefully, 
because I have respect for the office, and I think Dick Cheney is 
someone who wants to do the right thing but it has hasn't come out that 
way. Vice President Cheney told Tim Russert:

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

  There is a problem with that statement. When he said it, he held over 
400,000 Halliburton stock options and continued to receive a deferred 
salary from the company.
  In fairness, the Vice President has said, well, this is insured 
income, took out an insurance policy not dependent on the operating 
results of Halliburton. I take him at his word. He said he is going to 
give profits away from the stock option exercise to charitable 
institutions, philanthropic institutions.
  But it is better for him if the company does well. He has these 
options, and even if he wants to give away the profits, the more 
profits the better if you look at the institutes he is giving the 
profits to. But he does hold 433,000 unexercised Halliburton stock 
options. Even though most of the exercise prices are above the current 
market price, the majority of the options, as I mentioned earlier, 
extend to 2009.
  Any optionholder has to hope that the stock price will surge relative 
to the value of the options in excess. One way it can happen is to be 
sure that lucrative contracts keep coming from whatever source, whoever 
the customer is. In this case, the customer is the U.S. Government, and 
it is happening.
  In the first quarter of 2004, Halliburton's revenues were up 80 
percent from the first quarter of 2003. Why? Wall Street analysts point 
to one simple factor--the company's massive Government contracts in 
Iraq.
  In addition, as I said, to the stock options, Vice President Cheney 
continues to receive a deferred salary. Halliburton has paid the Vice 
President a salary of at least $150,000 a year since he has been Vice 
President of the United States. I think it is wrong and it ought to 
stop.
  I heard the Vice President's defense: The deal was locked in in 1999; 
there was no way for him to get out of his deferred salary deal. That 
is not so. A little checking of the facts shows otherwise. I have 
obtained the terms of Vice President Cheney's deferred salary contract 
with Halliburton. The bottom line is that the deferred salary agreement 
was not set in stone.
  In fact, one need only look at the ethics agreement of Treasury 
Secretary Snow to see what the Vice President should have done in order 
to avoid taking the salary from a private corporation while in public 
office. Secretary Snow took six different deferred compensation 
packages as a lump sum upon taking office. The Vice President is not a 
victim of Halliburton's generosity. He could have attempted to take the 
deferred salary as a lump sum.
  In the meantime, what has happened to Vice President Cheney's former 
company? For starters, Halliburton overcharged the Pentagon a $27.4 
million fee for meals served to troops abroad. The company billed 
taxpayers for meals never served to our troops. This is not Senator 
Lautenberg's concoction. These are the facts printed in news media, 
printed in contract agreements, printed in Pentagon papers.
  Another Pentagon investigation is continuing after an audit found 
Halliburton overcharged the Army by $61 million for gasoline delivered 
to Iraq as part of its no-bid contract to operate Iraq's oil industry.
  Now whistleblowers, former Halliburton employees, have revealed 
Halliburton employees would abandon $85,000 trucks because of flat 
tires--do not bother to fix them, get rid of it--or the need for an oil 
change. Dump the truck; we can bill the taxpayers. The whistleblowers 
also said Halliburton spent $45 for 30 canned cases of soda when local 
Kuwaiti supermarkets charged about $7. Halliburton has a cost-plus 
contract so they get reimbursed for their spending plus a calculated 
percentage of profit. That system is being heartily abused and is 
costing taxpayers a lot of money.
  In my view, Halliburton is a company that suffers from failures in 
leadership, the same type of leadership that continues.
  These overcharges are confirmed when the Pentagon, the Department of 
Defense, is refusing to pay bills of $160 million comprised of the 
elements I talked about. The auditors at the Pentagon said, Don't pay 
them; we do not owe that kind of money.
  Those are overcharges, Mr. President.
  In the meanwhile, we see the attack on Senator Kerry, our colleague. 
They are saying he has misplaced priorities; he missed votes in the 
Senate. What they are unwilling to admit is Senator Kerry and all of us 
are on a critical mission such as those he took on in Vietnam. What he 
is doing is not purposeless, it is not something to be made fun of. He 
is working for a safer, stronger America at home and respect for us 
across the world.
  I wish President Bush would talk about the things he did or failed to 
do and that he would want to correct, such as protecting the purchasing 
power of working families, eliminating

[[Page 16995]]

the creation of larger and larger deficits, protecting the solvency of 
Medicare, now estimated to be insolvent in 2019.
  How about the costs of gasoline to the average person in this country 
since this administration has taken over? And $2.40 a gallon is not 
unusual for high test; $2.19 for regular gas is not unusual. I don't 
hear the President saying he wants to correct that problem.
  No, he would rather try to say John Kerry deserted his 
responsibilities, he is soft on defense. He received three Purple 
Hearts. Citizens do not get Purple Hearts for nothing. They even wanted 
to challenge the depth of one wound to see whether it was deserving of 
a Purple Heart.
  Look at the cost of prescription drugs. Where are we going with that 
if drug prices go higher and higher? But we do not hear any protest. As 
a matter of fact, we had a Medicare bill that says within its content 
that Medicare is forbidden to negotiate with the drug companies to try 
to get a lower price because of the huge volume of purchasing for 
Medicare beneficiaries. The VA negotiates drug prices and it brings the 
prices way down, much lower, 20, 30 percent lower than those the 
Medicare beneficiaries pay.
  How about improving the job market? We see what is happening in the 
stock market. If that is to be a barometer of where we are going, it is 
a terrible indication. The market has been reeling from shock and in an 
awesome decline from where it was. This market that was supposed to be 
making everybody, the pensioners and the mutual funds and the 
investors, happy is not doing so.
  We should be hearing from President Bush about what he is going to do 
to correct the problems so worrisome to American families today: 
whether they can afford their mortgage, whether they can afford to 
educate their kids, whether they can afford to take care of a 
grandparent, if necessary, whether they could guarantee that someone 
who can learn can get an education. Those are the things we would like 
to hear.
  Stop this insidious criticism, personal criticism, of Senator John 
Kerry. Look at John Kerry's record and look at the record of this 
administration. What a comparison that is. The Nation is tired of 
hearing this negative stuff. Talk about positive things. Talk about 
what you are going to do for America, not about what the other guy 
failed to do. Talk about what you failed to do and are ready to 
correct.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Unanimous-Consent Request--S. 1039

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


                         9/11 Commission Report

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to comment about the 9/
11 Commission report. I think it is an excellent report. Its 
recommendations ought to be implemented and they ought to be 
implemented soon by the Congress. Given the fact that we are near 
gridlock in an election season and it is very unlikely in September 
when we come back from the August recess we will get anything done, I 
think we ought to consider coming back after the election and 
implementing the recommendations of the report. Why? Because the only 
way we protect ourselves from the enemies whom we call terrorists is to 
have accurate and timely information.
  The terrorist uses surprise and stealth, and the only way to defeat 
that is by having accurate and timely intelligence.
  So whatever we need to do to avoid the colossal intelligence failure 
we had on September 11 and the colossal intelligence failure we had 
again prior to going into Iraq, we best get about the job of correcting 
that information gathering, information flow, and information analysis 
so we can try to continue to thwart the attempts at doing damage to us.
  Is it not interesting what the 9/11 Commission report said? It 
specifically defined the terrorist as someone who is usually an 
Islamist fundamentalist who has warped the teachings of Islam so that 
it becomes a passion of hatred, and out of that wanting to do damage to 
the free world. Of course, we being the superpower are the target of 
that.
  It was also noteworthy in the Commission's report, as they are 
suggesting how to restructure the intelligence apparatus, they have 
suggested having a national intelligence director and that the 
counterterrorism center would be a compendium that would report to him. 
It is also interesting that they still wanted to keep the 
administration of intelligence gathering and analysis from direct 
political involvement. So the Commission did not recommend the new 
intelligence chief be a member of the President's Cabinet but rather be 
what they have defined as the National Intelligence Director. Then in 
all of these subdepartments that have a

[[Page 16996]]

myriad of filling out a flow chart, an organizational chart, it is 
interesting how all of the different components of intelligence, the 
CIA, the DIA, the FBI, would then fit together into this new apparatus.
  We only have to remember that about a month ago we had another major 
information failure, and this was at the time of President Reagan's 
funeral. We had the Governor of Kentucky on his State airplane, having 
been given clearance by the FAA to come in and land at Washington 
National Airport, and his transponder was not working. He had been 
given clearance by the FAA, but the FAA was not communicating with the 
military. So the military, seeing a blip on the radar moving to the 
center of Washington, without a transponder, sent out the alert and, of 
course, everybody in this U.S. Capitol building and in all of those 
office buildings off to the side of this building got the emergency 
evacuate order, so much so that the Capitol Police, bless their hearts, 
were shouting at the top of their lungs, get out of the building, run, 
there is an inbound aircraft.
  So how many more of these do we need to have before we come to the 
commonsense reality that we are not collating and coordinating all of 
this information like we ought to? So, we best get on the process of 
reforming the system.
  Now we have a good blueprint with which to do it. We have an 
opportunity to make America safer--and, with our allies, quite a bit.
  That leads me to the next subject I want to talk about, our allies. 
The 9/11 Commission report also says something that many of us in this 
Chamber have been saying for some period of time: You can't go out and 
be successful in the war on terror until you can bring in a lot of 
colleagues, a lot of allies, in a coordinated and planned effort so you 
internationalize the effort. We did that brilliantly 13 years ago in 
the gulf war. We did that again brilliantly in Afghanistan when we 
started going after bin Laden. But we didn't do that in Iraq. 
Especially, we didn't do it in Iraq after a brilliant military victory. 
We didn't do it in the occupation.
  What the 9/11 Commission is pointing out is that if you want to 
improve the intelligence-gathering mechanism and analysis, then you 
have to internationalize the effort. That stands to reason.
  Fortunately, through Interpol and direct one-to-one relationships 
with other countries' intelligence services, we get a lot of that 
information. But as the 9/11 Commission said, we have to do a lot more.
  The 9/11 Commission also told us something that we didn't know. It 
said the country of Iran may have facilitated al-Qaida. It did not 
suggest that Iran's Government knew anything about the planning for the 
September 11 attack, but it suggested that some of those operatives 
passed through Iran.
  There have been a number of us in this body who have been talking 
about Iran; that after September 11, and the importance of going after 
al-Qaida, that the next imminent threat to the interest of the United 
States were the countries of Iran and North Korea. Why? Because they 
are trying to acquire or already are building nuclear capability. 
Therefore, I think it is very important that we get our act together 
and implement this Commission report for many reasons. That is just one 
additional reason.
  I see the esteemed chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee 
has come into the Chamber. I want to say in his presence, as he knows, 
as one of the members of his committee, on a completely different 
subject, I have spoken out time and time again about the plight and the 
determination to find some evidence about CAPT Scott Speicher, the Navy 
pilot who was shot down on the first night of the gulf war in 1991.
  There is a report in the Washington Times--and I will make reference 
directly only to what is reported in today's Washington Times--and what 
the Washington Times says is that a Speicher team has left and has 
given up the search. I hope that is not true. The family who lives in 
my State, in Jacksonville, FL, deserves to have closure. The family has 
been through a trauma like hardly any of us could believe. The 
Washington Times gives a great deal of detail. I don't know if it is 
true or not, but if it is, then what this country owes to that family 
is to keep searching. If a team has been returned, as the Washington 
Times has stated, then it is important that whatever the size of that 
team, that we have a presence. As long as the U.S. military is located 
there, a fallen flier in the future will always have the confidence to 
know we are not going to leave him or her there alone, and we are 
coming to get you. We didn't do that with Scott Speicher.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I am delighted to yield.
  Mr. WARNER. First and foremost, I can't comment on the Washington 
Times article. But yesterday, in the course of an Armed Services 
Committee briefing by General Dayton, who at this point in time is also 
briefing the Senate Intelligence Committee--and I just left the 
Intelligence Committee meeting to come to the floor--the matter was 
discussed. That much I will confirm, as appropriate. As a member of the 
Committee of the Armed Services, my able friend knows that at every 
juncture our committee, largely through yourself and Senator Roberts 
most often, brings up a current report on that.
  I will not say, other than it was a matter that was discussed, and 
General Dayton shared with us his views. But I wish to point out, in 
discussing it with General Dayton, he finds that whatever was carried 
today, reflects it as his views, and he simply wants to say the final 
decision rests with the Secretary of the Navy, not General Dayton, as 
to the course of this investigation. So that much I will say. Beyond 
that, I believe, regrettably, it was a top secret briefing, but 
nevertheless information might well have gotten out. That is 
regrettable.
  I thank the Senator for bringing it up. I, too, join you in fervently 
wishing and praying for Scott Speicher. The Senator has to be commended 
for the amount of time he has spent on this situation.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank my colleague, my esteemed chairman. I 
am a devoted member of his committee, under his leadership. I thank the 
Senator from Virginia for all the personal encouragement he has given 
to me as we have relentlessly kept after this, trying to find some 
evidence.
  I do want to say, since my colleague mentioned General Dayton, I 
think he performed magnificently. He, of course, had many other 
responsibilities other than just the search for CAPT Speicher. He had 
all the responsibilities of the search for weapons of mass destruction. 
But he had a special team that was led by Major Eames, who has now been 
promoted to lieutenant colonel. That young officer was as devoted as 
any that I could ever imagine in the search, when I visited with him in 
his headquarters in Baghdad. At the time we had actually gone to one of 
the cells where we thought maybe it was Scott Speicher's initials on 
the wall, having been scratched into the stucco: MSS.
  All those leads did not pan out. But there are other leads they need 
to follow. It is my hope the U.S. military will continue to do that, 
even though General Dayton is not in Iraq anymore, and he deserves to 
be home. Even though Colonel Eames is not in Iraq.
  If those leads would be continued, Colonel Eames would, in fact, be 
back in Iraq in a heartbeat, following up that new information.
  I want to take the occasion of reminding the Senate that this Senator 
will continue to speak out on this issue, to remind the U.S. military 
of its obligation to continue to search for evidence so the case of 
Scott Speicher can be brought to closure.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend my colleague. He has worked very 
hard on the Speicher case and undoubtedly his commitment will carry 
forward. I suggest, based on what was said yesterday, that he will be 
in consultation with the Secretary of the Navy. He has the authority to 
make disclosures as he sees fit about this

[[Page 16997]]

case, but I believe General Dayton, in a very professional and 
conscientious way, will discharge his duties.


                       The 9/11 Commission Report

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to provide this Senator's 
observations, very preliminary though they may be, with regard to the 
report of the 9/11 Commission which was made public today.
  Yesterday I joined about a dozen or so Senators, the distinguished 
majority leader, and others to receive a brief private briefing. That 
was our first official glimpse of this report. I have not had the 
opportunity to, of course, go through this rather prodigious volume--
each Member received a copy--but I do intend to do so because I think 
it is a very important contribution by this Commission. I think many 
parts of it can provide a roadmap for things that must be done.
  It has been my privilege to serve in the Senate--this is my 26th 
year, and I commit to work with other colleagues, all colleagues, to 
see what we can do to strengthen our ability, not only in intelligence, 
but across the board in all areas of national security.
  As privileged as I am to be the chairman of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, I am prepared to listen to how the responsibilities of that 
committee should be changed for the better. I will not participate in 
any obstruction simply because of turf. I have been here too long. 
Also, this changed world in which we live is so very different than 
when I came to this institution a quarter of a century ago, and most 
particularly in the aftermath of the tragedy of 9/11.
  So I think it is incumbent upon all of us in the Congress and, 
indeed, the executive branch to have a strong self-examination of the 
areas covered by this report; to use this report, along with input from 
other commissions, groups, and individuals, as a sort of roadmap to 
guide us into those areas which need to be carefully reviewed.
  Out of that process, which I hope is a carefully thought through, not 
rushed, deliberative process, I hope will evolve such changes as we, 
Congress, deem necessary to strengthen our capability to deter and, if 
necessary, engage further in this war against terrorism. So, therefore, 
I say with respect, I welcome the recommendations of the Commission. I 
commit to study them and commit to work with my colleagues.
  Yesterday a specific question was put to the two cochairmen of the 9/
11 Commission: Is America safer today? And their unhesitating 
acknowledgment was it is safer today, and I agree it is. Is it as safe 
as we need? None of us believe that. But I think conscientious efforts 
have been made all along the way to make this a safer Nation, and we 
have, in large measure, succeeded with the goals within the timetable 
we have had.
  I am disappointed, however, that there was not more thorough dialog 
between the 9/11 Commission and Members of the Congress. I do not take 
that personally. I did have an opportunity to visit in my office some 2 
weeks ago--a very pleasant visit--with one member, at which time we 
exchanged views. Somehow I do not feel that was the type of 
consultation that enabled us to get into the report and make 
constructive contributions. I do not suggest all 535 Members of 
Congress troop up before the 9/11 Commission. We do not have time to do 
that. Somehow it seems to me a better balance could have been struck 
between the knowledge and the ideas we have in the institution of the 
legislative branch of our Government that could have been shared with 
this Commission. After all, the Commission was, in many respects, 
created as a consequence of the actions of Congress.
  Having said that, I am going to take some specific issue with this 
rather sweeping indictment that we have been dysfunctional in our 
oversight.
  All throughout my public service, I have been privileged to have a 
number of jobs, and I am very humble about it, but I am far from 
perfect, and I have always welcomed constructive advice and criticism. 
But this time this dysfunctional brush that was wiped across struck me 
as not fair to certain things I personally have a knowledge of that 
were done by this body, the Senate.
  I will start back some years ago in 1987 when, as a member of the 
Armed Services Committee, we structured the Goldwater-Nichols 
legislation which had sweeping ramifications in our overall defense 
setup. It has been hailed since that period of time as a landmark 
achievement by the Congress to begin to transform our military from the 
cold war era to the era of the threats today which are so diverse and 
so different as compared to those we confronted during World War II and 
in the immediate aftermath of the cold war.
  That was quite an accomplishment and, in large measure, is owing to 
Senator Goldwater and Congressman Nichols. Again, I had the privilege 
to serve with those two men for many years, long before we started the 
Goldwater-Nichols Act.
  As a member of the Armed Services Committee--and I say with humility 
and personal pride, I was a close personal friend of Senator Goldwater. 
I admired him so much and looked forward to the times we worked 
together and traveled together. I remember Congressman Nichols bore the 
scars of World War II, having been a very courageous serviceperson in 
that war. He was extremely conscientious about his duties on the House 
Armed Services Committee. These two giants in the way of thinking got 
together and relentlessly drove this legislation through both bodies of 
the Congress, and it has withstood the test of time.
  Contemporaneous with this, I remember my dear friend with whom I came 
to the Senate, Senator Cohen, who later became, after he resigned from 
the Senate, Secretary of Defense. We worked together as a team with 
others to carve out of the Department of Defense, taking from the Army, 
the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marines some of the best and the 
brightest to create the Special Operations Command.
  While today most colleagues have seen their magnificent performance 
worldwide, particularly as a front line against terrorism, I remind 
them it was a tough and long struggle, vigorously resisted by the 
Department of Defense, to create this new entity and to give them their 
dedicated assets of modest naval vessels, modest number of airplanes, 
and other equipment which was their own. But we succeeded. Today those 
forces have established themselves in the contemporary military history 
of this country as an essential part of our military structure, much 
admired by all, much envied by all, and their performance record is 
second to none. I do not mean to suggest by that they have outpaced or 
outperformed the basic elements, particularly combat-committed elements 
of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. No, it is that the whole 
military looks with a sense of pride toward their accomplishments. I am 
proud to have been a part of establishing this important part of our 
armed forces.
  Then in 1999, when I was privileged for the first time to become 
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I went in there and I 
changed basically a structure that had been in place for decades, the 
subcommittee structure. Again, I carved out a new subcommittee called 
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities. This is 1999. This 
is not in the aftermath of 9/11. This is 1999.
  I must say, I have had the constructive support of the members of the 
committee, and by pure coincidence--I am speaking of the Subcommittee 
on Emerging Threats and Capabilities--the first chairman of that 
subcommittee, the distinguished Senator from Kansas, Mr. Roberts, just 
walked into the Chamber, and perhaps he will have a word or two about 
the functions of that subcommittee.
  Mr. President, I say to my distinguished colleague, I was saying the 
9/11 Commission has brushed the Congress as being sort of 
dysfunctional, and I was going back in history. The Senator from Kansas 
was one of my principal supporters on establishing the Subcommittee on 
Emerging Threats and Capabilities. He has been ranking member or 
chairman of that subcommittee, and under his leadership and that of the 
full committee, we have achieved a great deal, and have helped

[[Page 16998]]

the Department of Defense move forward in the areas of joint 
experimentation, homeland defense, counterter-
rorism, and future technologies and concepts that will be needed to 
confront future threats.
  That subcommittee was directed to look forward a decade and determine 
what are the threats that are going to face the United States of 
America and how best our Department of Defense needs to transform 
itself and allocate assets and men and women to take up the positions 
of responsibility to meet those threats.
  That subcommittee has done its work and done it admirably and has 
measurably enhanced the overall strength of our military today.
  My distinguished colleague, Senator Roberts from Kansas, is chairman 
of the Intelligence Committee. I am privileged to serve on that 
committee today. In years past, I was privileged to serve 8 years. We 
have this rotation in the Senate, and this is my second tour on that 
committee. When I was vice chairman, together with other members of 
that committee, we fought hard against the cuts in intelligence.
  I ask unanimous consent that portions of the minority view report be 
printed into the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

       The U.S. faced grave security risks during the Cold War, 
     but it faced them in an international environment that was 
     comparatively stable and predictable. With the end of the 
     Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union and its 
     Warsaw Pact military alliance, the U.S. had hoped for a ``New 
     World Order'' with stable and steady progress toward greater 
     democracy, freedom and free enterprise. What the U.S. faces 
     in the post-Cold War era, however, is a more chaotic 
     environment with multitude challenges to U.S.

[[Page 16999]]

     interests that complicate the efforts of the U.S. and 
     cooperating nations to achieve the desired progress. In an 
     unstable world of diverse and increasing challenges, the need 
     for robust and reliable U.S. intelligence capabilities has 
     grown rather than diminished. America faces a world in which: 
     Ethnic, religious and social tensions spawn regional 
     conflicts; a number of nations possess nuclear weapons and 
     the means to deliver them on a target; other nations seek 
     nuclear, chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction 
     and the means to deliver them; terrorist organizations 
     continue to operate and attack U.S. interests (including here 
     at home, as the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York 
     reflects)--

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

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

  I shall not read further because I will put it in the Record.
  This is not dysfunctional action by legislators; this is legislators 
looking into the future and seeing much of what is occurring today. I 
only wish we had the opportunity to advise the 9/11 Commission of this 
and other contributions by many others in this Chamber at that period 
of time who were in the service of the Senate and their States. This 
was not dysfunctional.
  In the days ahead, we do need to look at how best to organize the 
intelligence elements of our national security structure, along with 
many other components. We must not, however, do anything precipitously.
  In the specific area of intelligence, our intelligence services, even 
with the flaws that have been recently pointed out, are the best in the 
world, by far. They are not perfect, and their business is, by 
definition, one of uncertainty--best judgments made with the 
information that is currently in hand. Any changes we make must be 
carefully constructed to preserve existing excellence, while improving 
other functions.
  As we consider any changes, we must remember that intelligence is an 
integral part of military operations. Recent military operations by our 
forces in Afghanistan and Iraq have been extraordinarily successful, in 
large part because of excellent intelligence, and because of the close 
relationship between military operations and intelligence that has been 
so carefully built over the years. Intelligence is part of a whole 
Department of Defense, as well as part of a larger intelligence 
community. Moving defense intelligence functions under the authority of 
another cabinet-level official could have unintended consequences--we 
must move with careful deliberation.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                         Tribute To Tom Diemer

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


                         Transportation Safety

  Mr. President, I would like to turn to the issue of highway safety. 
Over 43,000 people lost their lives on our Nation's highways last year. 
That is one death every 12 minutes or the equivalent of two Boeing 747-
400s filled to capacity going down every week with no survivors.
  This past May, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
NHTSA, released its 2003 traffic safety report, which details when, 
where, and why so many Americans lose their lives on our roads. This 
information gives us an idea of how effective our efforts are at the 
local, State, and national levels and where we need to focus resources 
in the future to help save lives. Based on the preliminary 2003 data, 
we have, tragically, a long way to go.
  Overall, fatalities increased 1 percent, from 42,815 in 2002 to 
43,220 in the year 2003. This is the fourth consecutive increase in 
annual traffic fatalities. This is truly bad news, particularly in 
light of the progress we made throughout the 1990s, when the norm was a 
reduction in fatalities each year. On the other hand, the number of 
deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled stayed constant at 1.5 
from 2002 to 2003. While not an increase, this figure does show how 
difficult it will be to reach the Secretary of Transportation's very 
aggressive goal of reaching 1.0 fatalities per 100 million vehicle 
miles traveled by the year 2008.
  The 2003 report also includes a number of other findings that shed 
light on the direction our country is taking as far as highway safety. 
Among other things, the report states the following:

[[Page 17000]]

  Standard passenger car fatalities are down but deaths in sports 
utility vehicles, SUVs, are up in the past year, with most of the 
increase coming from rollover crashes. NHTSA estimates this trend may 
continue as SUVs grow as a share of sales volume.
  Motorcycle crash deaths are up 11 percent from last year, now 
totaling 3,592. Further, drunk driving death rates are essentially 
unchanged from 2002, with 40 percent of crash fatalities involving 
alcohol in the year 2003.
  Further, the number of fatal crashes involving young drivers, those 
between 16 and 20, declined by 3.7 percent, from 7,738 in 2002 to 7,542 
in the year 2003.
  While the report does bring welcome news with regard to young drivers 
who are much more vulnerable while driving than adults, it is also 
clear that progress needs to be made in a host of other areas, 
particularly rollover crashes and drunk driving. I have been working in 
the Senate, along with others, to see that we do just that through 
safety issues we have added and that the Senate added to the 6-year 
highway bill currently under consideration by the joint House-Senate 
conference committee.
  These initiatives are designed to advance our ability to test 
vehicles for passenger protection and rollover crashes, get consumers 
vital crash test information when they need it most, and increase 
seatbelt use and reduce drunk driving through nationwide high-
visibility traffic safety enforcement campaigns. Combined with 
increased seatbelt use, something that in my State of Ohio, Ohio State 
Senator Jeff Armbruster is working diligently to enforce in Columbus, 
better driver education, which the Ohio Department of Public Safety is 
focusing on, and responsible practices, such as using a designated 
driver, can in fact make a real difference.
  These initiatives are contained in the Senate-passed bill that is 
currently being considered by the House-Senate conference committee. It 
is vitally important that they remain in this conference committee. 
They will, in fact, save many lives.
  Traffic safety affects all of us. We all have a role to play in 
making sure that when the 2004 numbers come out early next year, they 
are headed in the right direction.
  In a related matter, I would also like to discuss a very important 
development in the effort to make our Nation's roads safer. Earlier 
this month, Delaware became the 50th and last U.S. State to adopt a .08 
blood-alcohol content per se drunk driving standard. Now every State in 
the Union has that standard.
  This development constitutes the culmination of many years of work 
here in the Senate to get tough, uniform drunk driving laws on the 
books across our country. In 2000, the Senate took decisive action to 
help stop drunk driving by implementing mandatory sanctions for States 
that do not adopt a .08 per-se standard. Now we are finally seeing the 
full realization of this effort, as all 50 States now have .08 laws.
  This is so important from a safety perspective because the fact is 
that a person with a .08 blood-alcohol concentration level is seriously 
impaired. When a person reaches .08, his or her vision, balance, 
reaction time, hearing, judgment, and self-control are severely 
impaired. Additionally, critical driving tasks, such as concentrated 
attention, speed control, braking, steering, gear-changing and lane-
tracking, are negatively impacted at .08.
  Beyond these facts, there are other scientifically sound reasons to 
have a national .08 standard. First, the risk of being in a crash 
increases gradually with each blood-alcohol level, but then rises 
rapidly after a driver reaches or exceeds .08 compared to drivers with 
no alcohol in their systems. The National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration reports that in single-vehicle crashes, the relative 
fatality risk for drivers with blood alcohol levels between .05 and .09 
is over eleven times greater than for drivers with blood alcohol levels 
of zero.
  Second, .08 blood alcohol laws have proven results in reducing 
crashes and fatalities. Some studies have found that .08 laws reduce 
the overall incidence of alcohol fatalities by 16 percent and also 
reduced fatalities at higher blood alcohol levels. Now that all 50 
States have a .08 law, we will have the opportunity to see its effects 
on a much larger scale.
  The reduction in alcohol-related fatalities since the 1970s is not 
attributable to one single law or program. Rather, it is the result of 
a whole series of actions taken by State and Federal Government and the 
tireless efforts of many organizations, such as Mothers Against Drunk 
Driving, Students Against Drunk Driving, Advocates for Highway and Auto 
Safety, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the Alliance of 
Auto Manufacturers, and many others.
  I thank my friend from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, for his 
continued dedication to fighting drunk driving. His hard work and 
perseverance have made the nationwide .08 standard possible. Mr. 
President, .08 was definitely a legislative effort worth fighting for, 
and now that all 50 States have a companion law in effect, I believe we 
will see why.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Job Growth: Good Jobs

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

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

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

       No.

  More recently, the University of Pennsylvania's nonpartisan Annenberg 
Public Policy Center supported research found that after analyzing data 
over the last year from the Bureau of

[[Page 17001]]

Labor Statistics, there was ``solid growth in employment in relatively 
higher paying occupations,'' including construction workers, health 
care professionals, business managers, and teachers, and virtually no 
growth in relatively lower paying occupations, such as office clerks 
and assembly line workers.
  Factually, the study concluded that we have seen ``good evidence that 
job quality has increased over the past year or more.''
  I asked my staff to similarly analyze the data since the most recent 
job growth began last August. Using the current population survey data 
distributed by 11 industries broken down by 14 occupations, 154 
categories of workers, there were in these 154 categories 1.8 million 
jobs created and 110,000 jobs lost since last August.
  The median weekly earnings for these 154 categories in 2003 was $541. 
Of the gross 1.8 million jobs created since last August, 1.4 million 
were in categories where their weekly wage exceeded the median wage of 
all workers in 2003. In other words, 77 percent of all the jobs created 
since last August have been in occupations with weekly earnings above 
the median.
  Of the 1.8 jobs created since last August, 461,000 were in 
occupations with weekly earnings below the median, or 27 percent of the 
jobs created were in those below median earnings jobs. Only about 
110,000 jobs created since last August have been in occupations at the 
median.
  The conclusion, supported by other objective analyses, higher paying 
jobs are growing faster than other jobs in this recovery.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle who are looking hard to 
find a way to spread pessimism across the political landscape of this 
election year are simply wrong in saying the quality of jobs being 
created is low.
  Chairman Greenspan just simply disagrees. The nonpartisan Annenberg 
Public Policy Center-supported research disagrees, and hard data from 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics disagree.
  Economic growth is on track, job growth is good, and the quality of 
those jobs is high. I hope my Democratic friends could at least try to 
get their facts correct, and when they do they will find this latest 
attempt to discredit the progress made is a canard.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in executive session.
  Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Dodd pertaining to the introduction of S. 2755 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________