Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to address the question of intelligence reform and the future of our national security establishment.

I believe this is the single most important issue to be addressed by the Congress this year. Today, the Senate is considering legislation which would overturn the current structure of the intelligence community, primarily in response to the recommendations of the Commission established to review the tragedy of 9/11.

While I agree that improvements are needed, I urge all of my colleagues to approach this matter very cautiously. We live in interesting and very dangerous times. Many felt that with the collapse of the Soviet Union we had entered into a new era of world peace. I think most of us here recall that we, the President and the Congress, immediately proceeded to claim a peace dividend, and we sought to reap its benefits by cutting back on national security spending. Perhaps it was the right thing, in a world that had indeed fundamentally changed, to reduce our national security spending. Important programs in both defense and intelligence were curtailed.

In hindsight, some now question why certain areas of the budget were reduced. As the Cold War ended, it was clear we needed to review our national security programs. For 45 years, our defense and intelligence capabilities had keenly focused on the Soviet Union. We had devised weapons systems, strategies, and intelligence capabilities, all designed to counter that threat. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, our leaders have been working to adjust the focus of our national security apparatus to de-emphasize certain elements of our strategy and accentuate others. These changes have taken a long time and some have met resistance. Those of you who know the military history might recall that during World War I, with the advent of tanks and other motor vehicles, it became apparent that the horse cavalry was obsolete; it simply had no place on the 20th century battlefield. Yet while that war ended in 1917, it took until the 1930s for the Army to completely eliminate the horse cavalry from its ranks.

In his highly acclaimed account of the Cuban missile crisis, ``The Essence of Decision,'' Graham Allison explains how President Kennedy was surprised when Khrushchev wanted to negotiate the removal of our missiles from Turkey, while he removed missiles from

Cuba, but President Kennedy had already directed that the Turkish missiles be removed.

After 42 years in the Senate, I am aware of how frustrating it can be to change the massive national security bureaucracy. It has frustrated the reformers in those agencies who recognize what needs to be done. Each Secretary of Defense and CIA Director since 1990 has worked to change the emphasis of these agencies from a Cold War focus, and they are succeeding, albeit very slowly.

The Congress can legislate changes, but that is only half the battle. As President Kennedy discovered, those who have to implement these changes must do so. We should not be fooled into thinking this bill will be fully implemented, unless it does right by the agency it seeks to change and is supported by them. As written, I do not believe this bill meets that test.

It is clearly our responsibility to make constructive recommendations that can lead to improvements in our national security bureaucracy. That is what the people expect of us. We must be sure that the bill we pass is in fact constructive and will not create greater problems than it solves. If we pass legislation that fundamentally alters the current intelligence structure, we can ensure that it will lead to a period of several years during which the new intelligence community will experience growing pains.

Furthermore, if, in our attempt to strengthen the control of the head of intelligence, we disenfranchise those it is supposed to support, the impact of this bill will clearly be adverse. I understand the frustrations of my colleagues and of all Americans who suffered because of 9/11--those who lost loved ones in particular, but in reality all Americans because our lives were changed by that tragedy.

Every Member of Congress wants to improve our defenses against any further terrorist attack. I say to each of my colleagues again, what is most important, what is absolutely critical is that we make changes that are positive, that improve our national security structure, and that do not have unintended consequences that could jeopardize our security.

We all recognize that we face a new enemy, one that knows no borders and operates beyond the norms of civilized society, but we also know that we have 130,000 troops standing in harm's way, who face a threat significantly different than the one we face here at home.

The new national security system we create must allow us to meet both of these challenges, as it must be able to protect us from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and from the threats of nations that might seek to harm us, our allies, or our interests around the world.

I often remark that we have the greatest military in the world, perhaps in the history of mankind. Our young men and women who put on the uniform of this country serve us magnificently. Let me remind you that it is only 1 percent of our citizens who serve in our Armed Forces to protect the remaining 99 percent of us. We are truly in their debt.

It is for them that I strongly support a robust budget to strengthen defense every year. It is also for them that we must ensure we do nothing to weaken the support they get from the intelligence community.

I would like to note that, in addition to our military, our Nation is lucky to be served by the men and women in our intelligence community.

They represent the best in public service. There are those who have criticized our intelligence community since 9/11, but the men and women in this field are truly dedicated, patriotic Americans. In seeking to change how we manage intelligence we must be sure that we remember those who serve in both of these communities.

We are focusing on intelligence reform in this bill because there is need for further improvement. The tragedy of 9/11 and the faulty intelligence which had many believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction demonstrate that our system is not perfect. It was exactly these problems which led the 9/11 Commission and many others to call for reforming intelligence.

Like all Americans I commend the Commission for its work. It did a masterful job of reviewing the facts, combing through the massive data, and presenting the results in clear and concise prose. Their report provides a great reconstruction of the events of 9/11 and why it occurred. However, some not that the conclusions they draw may not be fully justified by the facts they uncovered.

Last week, the Appropriations Committee received testimony from several expert witnesses. We heard from a distinguished jurist, Judge Richard Posner, who studied the 9/11 Commission report and was disturbed by its recommendations. He concluded that the Commission went way beyond the evidence presented.

The Commission contends that we had an intelligence failure, that it was a systemic problem as opposed to several mistakes being made by our intelligence community. They blame it on a failure to connect the dots and a lack of imagination.

In their analysis, and also cited by the Committee, for example, they note that several terrorists met in Malaysia and that a few proceeded from there to the United States and took part in the attack on 9/11. They conclude with hindsight that the CIA should have recognized that these terrorists were linked to the bombing of the USS Cole and should have informed the FBI and the State Department about the meeting.

It is this type of evidence which the Commission and the Governmental Affairs Committee both cite as the justification for an overhaul of our intelligence infrastructure.

We all wish that our analysts would have been prescient enough to recognize the relationship among these terrorists, and their connection to the Cole bombing, and the importance of the Malaysian meeting.

We all wish that these same analysts would have made that information available to the FBI and State Department where there exists a possibility that it would have triggered an investigation of their movements here. But I for one believe it would have taken a lot of luck for that to have happened--more than simply connecting the dots or having better imagination.

Consider this point. It has been more than 3 years since the attack on our Nation. In that time, we have devoted billions of dollars and we have sacrificed many young lives in the war on terrorism, but as far as we know, Osama bin Laden remains hidden from view directing the farflung al-Qaida network.

Would anyone seriously claim that we have not worked hard enough to connect the dots since 9/11?

Intelligence is a tough business. Like me, many of our colleagues have been involved in intelligence oversight for the Congress. I am not telling them something new.

We have witnessed advances in communications and in command and control and other technologies which have revolutionized intelligence. But, with all the highly sophisticated tools in our arsenal, we still can not find Osama.

Earlier this year, former CIA Director Tenet testified to the Congress that it would take another 5 years before we had successfully rebuilt an inadequate human intelligence capability in the war on terror. Some immediately held up the Director's statement as an indication that we have not addressed human intelligence requirements. And that is simply not the case.

For 50 years we promoted human intelligence, but our focus was on defeating international communism in places where it was taking root, primarily in Europe, Asia, and Latin America. In some cases it takes a generation to build a human intelligence network. When we took our peace dividend, we set back the efforts to refocus human intelligence on newer threats.

When the Director says it will take another 5 years, it is not because we haven't been responsive since the rise of al-Qaida. Should we have been working on this more vigilantly? Maybe. But I ask you: Who among us knew at the end of the Cold War that the greatest challenge we were likely to face in the future would come from the son of a Saudi construction magnate?

Had we known that at the time of Desert Storm, could we have convinced all of our colleagues that there should be no peace dividend because we needed to prepare for al-Qaida? We all know the answer to that.

So I ask you: How will changing the intelligence structure solve this dilemma? Will it allow us to grow our human intelligence capability overnight? Obviously not, but it could distort the working relationship among the various agencies so that intelligence support is harder for the agencies, such as the Defense Department, to get.

That could lead agencies with the financial wherewithal to provide that capability internally. That outcome would be expensive and very harmful.

The Commission looks at this issue only through the lens of terrorism, and seeks to ensure better coordination within the community.

In so doing, it fails to consider the varied responsibilities and needs of all the actors which depend on intelligence.

As you know, as ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I have access to virtually all of our Nation's secrets, including those in the Defense Department and in intelligence programs as well.

Over the past 3 years our Committee has been informed of multiple threats, most of which have never been publicized. The intelligence community must treat each warning with utmost care. They must research and investigate each one to determine its veracity, and then respond appropriately to those incidents which are deemed credible.

In many cases what some call connecting the dots is really like searching for a needle in a haystack. And, just to make it more difficult, there are many hay stacks to examine and in some cases the needle looks exactly like hay. Sure the needles are there and theoretically they could be found, but should we really expect our analysts to find them every time?

Furthermore, I want everyone to realize that we are not standing still. We have come a long way in improving intelligence cooperation.

We created the Terrorist Threat Integration Center to bring analysts from various parts of the community to work together.

The enactment of the PATRIOT Act brought down a wall which had previously blocked information sharing between various parts of the intelligence community and the FBI. Our defense and intelligence leaders are working to break stovepipes and to ensure that information sharing is working.

Certainly more improvements are needed in intelligence cooperation and in new technology to improve information sharing.

Our Nation has the finest national security apparatus--defense and intelligence--in the world. It is not perfect and it never will be. Some areas can be improved. But it is a critical capability.

Our warfighters--our young men and women who, as we speak, are serving in harm's way--depend on seamless intelligence. It is our solemn duty to ensure that we can continue to provide them the best. We must make sure that we do not inadvertently take actions which could sever the link between our defense capabilities and intelligence support.

We cannot take the Secretary of Defense out of the loop simply because we seek to strengthen the head of the intelligence community.

So what changes shall we make to improve the intelligence capability of this country?

First, I would suggest, as recommended by the Commission and the Governmental Affairs Committee, that we establish a national counterterrorism center.

The one real failing of the intelligence community in preparing for 9/11, be it in the FBI, the CIA, the NSA or other organizations was the inability or unwillingness to share terrorist intelligence and analysis completely and seamlessly among the disparate parts of this community.

Many improvements have already been made, but the one reform that truly can respond to the cries from the families of 9/11 victims is to address this issue, and to address it now. This is the most critical change that needs to be legislated and our Intelligence and Armed Services Committees need to follow up to make sure it is implemented and is effective in conducting it mission.

That center needs to be the clearing house for all intelligence on counter-terrorism, both foreign and domestic. It needs to work across disciplines and agencies, and it needs to have the support of all of the intelligence community. It needs to be the analytical capability for the community in the field of counterterrorism.

We need to join foreign and domestic analysis together to be sure that we get the full intelligence picture. However, because this Nation believes that foreign and domestic intelligence programs must be separated to ensure that civil liberties and the rights of all Americans are safeguarded, I would urge my colleagues not to give this organization any operational role.

It certainly should conduct analysis and strategic planning, but operational planning and operations should continue to be handled as they are today through other parts of the intelligence community working with the Defense Department overseas and the FBI working here at home in conjunction with other relevant domestic agencies.

I believe that as we establish this new organization, the national intelligence director's charter should ensure that this national counterterrorism center receives the resources it needs and that the director should focus his efforts on this one challenge in its first year of existence.

I agree with the managers of the bill that other intelligence centers may need to be created, but I believe the decision to do so should come from the President based on the recommendation of the national intelligence director with the concurrence of the National Security Council and the Congress.

Most important, we have to make sure we come up with the right solutions for the rest of the intelligence community. What may be right for counterterrorism may not be the solution that best serves our intelligence needs for weapons proliferation or for our military. For those reasons, I am not comfortable with rushing this process.

Some criticize the community for a ``group think'' outlook. They say that the analysis that indicated that in all probability Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction is an example of group think. I am one who questioned the results of that analysis.

With hindsight, I speculate that the community failed because it tried to provide policy makers the answer they wanted rather than a fair interpretation of the facts. Nonetheless, if group think was a problem, how will that be improved by greater centralization of the analytical capabilities in the community? Won't that only exacerbate that problem?

And by creating a more powerful intelligence director with a closer tie to policy making, won't that likely lead to more attempts to sway analysts to reach politically acceptable conclusions?

These are the troubling facts that were not addressed by the 9/11 Commission and are not adequately considered in this bill.

Last week, the Appropriations Committee received testimony from seven witnesses, all of whom are experts in the field of national security and counterterrorism. Included among them were Dr. Henry Kissinger, the current head of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and former Deputy Secretary of Defense, Dr. John Hamre.

I do not believe I would be overstating their views to say they were quite concerned with the legislation being proposed by the Governmental Affairs Committee.

Their counsel was to be cautious. Dr. Kissinger recommended that Congress study this issue more carefully.

He urged us to take another 6 months before we moved forward on what is the most significant Government overhaul since the National Security Act of 1947.

Last week, noted experts in national security, including former Secretary of State George Shultz, former CIA Director William Gates, former Secretaries of Defense Bill Cohen and Frank Carlucci, and former Senators Nunn, Hart, Bradley, Rudman and Boren, all recommended that the Congress proceed cautiously. They urged all of us to remember the old medical adage: First, do no harm.

This is a most important debate and a most important issue. I know some of my colleagues worry that if we do not

act now we will lose the opportunity for significant change. I recognize this concern. But enacting bad legislation in haste because there is a popular demand to act is not the proper way for this body to respond.

The Senate was created to cool the passions of the people. Our history, our culture, even our rules are all deeply instilled with the concept of proceeding cautiously.

I urge my colleagues to agree with those of us who recommend beginning the process of reform by establishing a new central authority for intelligence, a national intelligence director, any by responding to the specific challenges raised by the events of 9/11 with the creation of a national counterterrorism center.

But I believe we need to give a new administration and Congress more time to determine how the rest of the national security apparatus will be structured. Let us use the coming year to determine how we balance the additional responsibilities and share power among the various components of our national security agencies.

This matter is too important to rush through in 2 weeks in the heat of a Presidential campaign. Please let us act responsibly.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Kate Kaufer, a detailee with the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, during consideration of this legislation.

Mr. President, on rollcall No. 178, I was present and voted aye. The Official record has me listed as absent. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the official record be corrected to accurately reflect my vote.

This will in no way change the outcome of the vote.

The ACTING PRESIDING pro tempore. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)

Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from Mississippi yield for a clarification?

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the House version of the Homeland Security appropriations bill has language that clarifies this point. I would like to express my hope that the House language be preserved in the final version of the bill.

flood assistance

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to commend RESOLVE, the National Infertility Association, on its three decades of accomplishment and for the many activities it has planned to observe National Infertility Awareness Week, which will be celebrated this year during the week of September 26 to October 2, 2004.

For 30 years, RESOLVE has compassionately and effectively served the needs of the nearly seven million Americans comprising our Nation's infertile community, and has been a leading force in efforts to educate the broader public about this devastating condition. Infertility is recognized as a disease and medical condition that has devastating physical, social and psychological consequences.

RESOLVE, the National Infertility Association, was incorporated by Barbara Eck Menning, in 1974, to aid and support individuals with infertility. RESOLVE is a nonprofit organization, governed by a volunteer board of directors, many of whom are individuals with first- hand personal experience with the physical, emotional, and social challenges accompanying infertility. They are citizens who have overcome these challenges through assisted reproductive technologies and adoption or determined that their lives would be childless. Regardless of their resolution, RESOLVE helped them to reach it with information, education, and support. RESOLVE's leaders are also members of the professional community who address these issues including National Institutes of Health funded researchers, attorneys, physicians, nurses, and other representatives from the health care industry and related businesses. RESOLVE has a database of more than 40,000 individuals and providers, and a network of more than 40 chapters providing support services, information and grassroots advocacy in local communities nationwide.

National Infertility Awareness Week focuses attention on the fact that infertility affects approximately 6.6 million people in the United States, a figure which represents 1 in 10 couples in which the woman is of reproductive age. These are only the reported cases. Millions go unreported because of the stigma attached to infertility and recent surveys suggest that nearly three-quarters of those who can be helped do not seek medical or other assistance because of, among other things, their fears and lack of awareness of the resources available to them and the limited insurance coverage to assist them. The National Institutes of Health, most particularly the National Institute for Child Health and Development, spends approximately $300 million a year on biomedical research focused on reproductive health, treatments, and cures of reproductive disorders. This important research will advance our understanding of infertility-associated diseases and the availability of more effective and affordable treatments that will be respected by insurers and employers as a routine benefit for all those insured.

I am proud that my state of Hawaii and 14 other states have enacted laws that require insurance companies to provide some level of coverage for infertility treatment. Like the thousands of individuals working as part of the RESOLVE network, a dedicated community of Americans, I am committed to helping to ensure that those struggling with the multiple challenges of infertility have regular access to appropriate and affordable health care coverage to address their health care needs.

I applaud the work of RESOLVE, The National Infertility Association, and commend the many ongoing efforts and special activities throughout the country aimed to educate and inform the public about the issue of infertility, during National Infertility Awareness Week, September 26 to October 2, 2004.

``FOUR TRIALS''

Mr. President, I rise today to address the Defense appropriations conference report that passed the House earlier today.

First, I wish to commend my chairman, Senator Stevens, and his capable staff for this agreement.

The proposals provided by the conference report represent a careful balance between the recommendations of each body. Moreover, it provides what the Defense Department needs for the coming year.

This is a good bill. It represents a fair compromise. It is the product of a lot of hard work by the chairman and members of the committee. I recommend all my colleagues support it.

Let me highlight just a couple of key items in this measure.

In meeting the conference committee priorities, the bill supports the men and women in uniform. It approves a 3.5 percent pay raise for them. It funds health care requirements to include benefits that are authorized for our guard and reserve forces. And, most important in this very challenging time, it provides significant increases for force protection--specifically up armored ``humvees'', body armor, better helmets, armor plating for other vehicles and new technology to try and counter improvised explosive devices.

The bill provides substantial resources to enhance investment programs in the Defense Department to support key programs like the V- 22, the F-22, the new DDX destroyer, the littoral combat ship, missile defense and significant increases in Army equipment for Stryker combat vehicles, trucks, and helicopters.

But, I want to inform my colleagues that this bill does not rubber stamp the administration's desires. It reduces many programs for which insufficient justification has been provided. While we recognize that the country needs to continue to enhance its space capabilities, members of the Appropriations Committee have learned the hard way that improvements must be developed prudently. It is a waste of resources to try and accelerate complex new technologies in the manner recommended by civilian officials in the Defense Department.

The bill also provides $25 billion in emergency spending, the amount requested, but it allocates the funds to meet the priorities and needs of the individual military departments, not the

blank check sought by the administration. It provides adequate safeguards on these funds to ensure proper congressional oversight and requires stringent reporting requirements on its use.

I point out also that there are a few items in here that do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Defense Subcommittee. I will defer to others to speak to those.

This is a good bill. It represents a fair compromise. It is the product of a lot of hard work by the Chairman and Members of the committee. I encourage all my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Ellen Forster during consideration of this legislation.

Mr. President. Today I would like to recognize women in technology. While gender equity is not found on the agenda when discussing homeland security, it certainly is a key strategy for maintaining our Nation's preeminent status in science and technical innovation. The last 30 years have seen women make great strides in education and employment. Women are receiving more than 50 percent of the bachelor degrees conferred and are close to reaching parity in the once male-dominated fields, such as law. Unfortunately, these gains have not been uniform in all fields. Women continue to be persistently underrepresented in high-demand, high-wage science, technology, engineering and math, STEM, education and employment. While women make up 46 percent of the American labor force, they are less than 25 percent of the total science and engineering workforce, and have not been able to break through a 10 percent ceiling in engineering.

At a time when we face a shortage of skilled STEM workers who are U.S. citizens, women provide an untapped national resource to fill the workforce pipeline. Recent studies from the National Science Foundation and the Department of Commerce confirm these conclusions, including the September 2000 Report of the Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology, which concludes that, ``Unless the STEM labor market becomes more representative of the general U.S. workforce, the nation may likely face severe shortages in [STEM] workers and thus risks undermining its global competitiveness.''

We are at a serendipitous time, when our Nation's economic and security imperatives are aligned with social justice. We must leverage this opportunity to build the requisite partnerships with stakeholders in government, academia, and industry to recruit, train, and retain women and underrepresented minorities in STEM fields. Not only is it a strategy that will ensure our global competitiveness and national security, but it is the right thing to do to ensure that all our citizens have equal access to the education and training needed to succeed.

In 1999, when I recognized that the jobs at the Maui High Performance Computer Center and other related research and development contract activities were being filled by males recruited from the mainland, I secured Department of Labor funding to launch the Women in Technology project designed to bring Hawaii's women into these emerging STEM fields. The island of Maui reflects the characteristics of many rural American communities: professional isolationism, limited access to higher education, overdependence on a single economic engine, and perceived limited career opportunities for its young people. These conditions uniquely position Maui to pilot workforce development programming that can be exported to other rural communities.

The Women in Technology, WIT, project is administered by the Maui Economic Development Board, a private nonprofit organization well respected for its leadership in helping to diversify the economy through high technology industry development. The board of directors, comprised of community leaders in industry, academia, business, and government gave the project access to key partners. Interviews, focus groups, and roundtable discussions helped establish the workforce challenges and skill sets needed to sustain industry growth projections. Workshops were designed to provide tools to educators and industry on how to overcome the barriers that had created the chilly climate for women. Buy-in was established that even though teachers and employers had no

intent to track girls and women into different fields than boys and men, long-established cultural stereotypes of gender roles were imbedded throughout society and insidious messages of what were appropriate female jobs versus male jobs were very strong. The WIT project provides ongoing technical assistance to educators, guidance counselors, and industry partners on recruitment and retention skills to overcome these societal barriers.

We must start young. By middle school our girls lose interest in math and science, unless proactive efforts are exerted. In a survey of Maui students, boys were five times more likely than girls to express interest in careers in computer science and engineering. Despite the fact that girls outperformed boys academically in math and science, their personal esteem in these areas was significantly lower and they did not self-select into the physical sciences. After compiling a database of female industry role models, WIT has developed a multitrack program to keep girls engaged in the STEM pipeline. Job shadowing programs, career days, science camps, and mentoring are anchor events in the program designed to influence career intent.

Attrition has been another factor in keeping the number of women in STEM low. Mentoring has been identified as the most successful intervention strategy. WIT successfully negotiated with MentorNet, a Presidential award winning program that has been deployed at elite engineering research universities. Maui Community College was accepted into MentorNet's first community college cohort and the program has significantly reduced the female attrition from its STEM courses.

The Women in Technology project continues to work with local industry to develop internship and apprenticeship programs. Four years later, the number of women in technical employment at the Maui Research & Technical Park has gone from 0 percent in November 1999 to 23 percent in June 2004. This is the direct result of a local industry and education commitment to build a qualified resident workforce that reflects the diverse demographics of its community, including gender balance.

We must use this time when both our Nation's security and its economic strength are dependent on producing more citizens trained in STEM fields, to assure that we do not perpetuate the climate which has precluded women and minorities from entering these fields. Gender equity in science, technology, engineering, math, education, and employment equals homeland security.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to James A. Zimble, President of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, USUHS. On August 3, 2004, this remarkable individual will mark the end of his 46-year career in Federal service.

Dr. Zimble, Vice Admiral, Medical Corps, United States Navy (Retired), and 30th Surgeon General of the United States Navy, was born on October 12, 1933, in Philadelphia, PA. He served as a senior medical student and ensign in the Navy Reserve Program from 1958 through 1959, earning a Medical Degree from the University of Pennsylvania, School of Medicine (SOM). Thus commenced a career dedicated to service to his nation, medical readiness, and force health protection.

Dr. Zimble's 33-year career in the Navy began with his internship and residency at the Naval Hospital in St. Albans, New York. By 1969, he was board certified by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. From 1972 through 1987 he served with distinction in a series of assignments directing clinical services and strategic planning. His Navy career culminated with his selection to serve as Surgeon General of the Navy, from 1987 through 1991. Vice Admiral Zimble earned multiple honors and awards during his

Navy career, including the Department of Defense Distinguished Service, Superior Service, and Meritorious Service Medals, the Department of Navy Legion of Merit, the Naval Reserve Association Distinguished Service Award, and the Association of Military Surgeons of the United States Founder's Medal.

Dr. Zimble was selected by the Secretary of Defense to serve as the President of USUHS in 1991. He was first to initiate strategic planning and assessment processes, which focused on mission accomplishment and the annual achievements of the 1,824 members of the USUHS community. Today, the University provides a comprehensive, performance-based annual report to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD).

In 1996, under Dr. Zimble's leadership, the Graduate School of Nursing was established and officially recognized by OSD, thereby, providing uniquely qualified advanced practice nurses for the military. In December of 2000, the OSD Joint Meritorious Unit Award was presented to Dr. Zimble and the University, which officially recognized the multiple products and services of USUHS and their generation of cost avoidance for the Department. In addition, research conducted at USUHS was recognized in Science as one of the top ten scientific breakthroughs of 2002. In 2003, the University received the maximum term of ten years of accreditation with commendation from the Middle States Commission on Higher Education. Today, the USUHS School of Medicine Graduate Education Programs in Public Health rank sixth in the Nation according to U.S. News & World Report's 2004 Rankings of America's Best Graduate Schools on the list of the top 10 community health master or doctoral programs. The American Medical Association has recognized that USUHS not only educates its own graduates, but also provides a significant national service through its continuing medical education courses for military physicians in combat casualty care, tropical medicine, combat stress, disaster medicine, and medical responses to terrorism, courses not available through civilian medical schools. Significantly, the Emerging Infectious Diseases Graduate Education Program provides courses on the agents and effects of bioterrorism and is the only graduate program in the Nation to offer formal training in these critical areas. Over the past 13 years, USUHS has gained recognition and evolved into the Academic Center for Military Medicine.

During his tenure, Dr. Zimble remained focused on the medical readiness and force health protection requirements of the Uniformed Services. Today, USUHS prepares its career-oriented physicians, advanced practice nurses, and scientists for the practice of health care in contingency environments. USUHS alumni possess the essential knowledge, skills, and attitudes required during Joint Service deployments. Relevant knowledge in the psychological stresses of combat and trauma and the medical effects of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and extreme environments have been integrated throughout the USUHS educational programs. USUHS' internationally recognized operational exercises, Operations Kerkesner and Bushmaster, ensure flexibility in meeting the ever-evolving requirements of medical readiness. Dr. Zimble's meticulous focus has secured recognition for USUHS throughout the uniformed and civilian health care communities for providing uniformed physicians, advanced practice nurses and scientists with a better understanding of, commitment to, and preparation for the practice of health care in the military. Such accomplishments were recognized in 2000, when the Surgeon General of the United States awarded Dr. Zimble the Public Health Service Surgeon General's Medallion. In December of 1998 and 2001, the Association of American Medical Colleges confirmed the critical role of USUHS in national security by recognizing the USUHS is the one place where physicians of tomorrow, obtain today, thorough preparation to deal with many contingencies, including the medical aspects of chemical and biological terrorism. As of April 2004, the USUHS SOM alumni averaged approximately 20 years of active duty service and represent 22.2 percent of the 11,901 physicians on active duty. The Center for Navy Analysis has reported that where the median length of non-obligated service for physician specialists is 2.9 years, the median length of non-obligated service for USUHS SOM alumni is 9 years, making USUHS the most cost-effective and recommended accession source for leadership positions and ensuring continuity in the military health system. Today, USUHS alumni are globally deployed and providing essential care for our Armed Forces in every theater of operation.

Dr. Zimble provided visionary leadership in the establishment of the National Capital Area Medical Simulation Center and the immersive Computer-Aided Virtual Environment. Both projects serve as a template for civilian entities to model and participate in similar training scenarios.

Dr. Zimble's extraordinary contributions are respected and admired throughout the Joint Services and within the Federal and civilian health care communities. Our Nation is proud of Dr. Zimble's long and distinguished career and his devotion to the health of the Armed Forces and that of all citizens. I take this opportunity to thank him for his tremendous dedication and love for our country. I wish him fair winds and following seas.

Mr. President, I fully support the measure before us. I would like to say how proud I am to serve with my colleague from Alaska.

Once again, he has demonstrated to all of us his extraordinary legislative skill in pressing his case. I can assure my colleagues in the Senate, as I assure my chairman, that I will do my very best to see that his decision is carried out.

This bill provides $383.8 billion in new discretionary budget authority, consistent with the subcommittee's target, and another $25 billion in emergency budget authority to cover a portion of the anticipated costs for the on-going wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The bill provides the necessary funds to support our men and women in uniform and their families--to include our Guard and Reserves. It recommends funding for a 3.5 percent pay raise for all service members and a 20,000 increase in army end strength as authorized by the Senate.

The bill supports the critical modernization programs requested by the Defense Department including the Navy's DDX Destroyer, the Army's Stryker vehicles and the Air Force's F-22 fighter. It scales back those programs that DoD is trying to advance before the technology is mature and those that are experiencing delays or technical problems.

The bill increases spending on research and development by nearly $1 billion with significant growth in medical programs, particularly those that directly impact warfighters in the current conflict. These include increased spending on amputee care, new technology bandages, and leishmaniasis.

Health care programs are fully funded in this measure. In addition, the committee recommends increases for Walter Reed, Madigan, Tripler, and other military hospitals and research facilities.

The Committee has made a significant effort to see that this bill is consistent with the decisions which have been made by the Senate on the Defense authorization bill. Many of my colleagues' amendments that have been adopted on the floor receive funding in this bill, such as the end strength increase which I already addressed. The committee has also included enhanced Guard and Reserve benefits as authorized and other proposals approved by the Senate.

This bill provides the support essential for the coming year and also provides $25 billion which DoD will require to cover its costs next fall and winter for its on-going efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am pleased to report to the Senate that the committee has very carefully earmarked the funding for Iraq and Afghanistan to direct funding for the priorities of the military departments. We have also restricted the authorities sought by the administration to ensure proper congressional oversight of executive actions.

In recent years, the executive Branch has often argued that, as Commander

in Chief, the President has almost unlimited powers in the conduct of day-to-day defense matters. It is clear that the Constitution provided the Congress the power of the purse. In drafting this measure the Committee has safeguarded its responsibilities and expects that the Defense Department will recognize the constitutional authority of the Congress to determine how funding will be utilized in executing this budget. We fully expect that the Defense Department will only fund activities that have been approved by the Congress, and in no case will funding be used to support programs which have been rejected by the legislative branch.

I am pleased to have worked with my good friend, our Chairman, Senator Stevens on crafting this legislation. It is a very good bill and I would encourage all my colleagues to support it.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3499

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3500

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3501

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

No objection.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3504

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3506

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Yes, I believe that the program is important to future innovations for the MASINT community.

Yes, I would.

I would agree with the Senator from New Mexico, and I commend him for his hard work in support of this program.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3530

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3531

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3532

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3533

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3535

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3536

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3537

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3538

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3539

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3540

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3520, as Modified

I wish to associate myself with the statement of the Senator from Alaska.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3544

Mr. President, I send to the desk a technical amendment on behalf of Senator Byron Dorgan and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, this is to correct certain errors that were in the original bill.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

This amendment is to earmark some of the $2.5 million for research and development for the Department of Defense. It has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the courageous men and women of military medicine, whose efforts to preserve life on the battlefield must not go unnoticed. Since World War II, I have followed the advances in personal protection and combat casualty care which have changed the fate of thousands of our military men and women.

The improvements in battlefield protection have given our military the lowest levels of combat deaths in history. While there is still regrettable loss of life in Iraq and Afghanistan, the fact that we are savings hundreds of lives which could not have been saved in past operations is proof that these advances are paying off.

Historically, 20 percent of all war casualties resulted in death. Today, that rate has been cut in half. Additionally, the rate of total battlefield casualties has also declined by half.

Many advances have led to these decreases. Improved body armor, the placement of forward surgical teams, improved medical training and evacuations, in theatre assessments of unforeseen medical complications, and superior medical technology are just a few of the changes I want to address.

As we read about casualties in the press, one might not realize that much has changed. We read about injury or death by mortar or improvised explosive device. And, as in the past, when soldiers are injured, the first person they call out for is not their mother, not their sweetheart, or even God, but for a medic. But circumstances are different when that medic arrives today. Training of our medics has improved drastically. Today every medic is certified as an emergency medical technician. They are provided with improved medical kits with state-of-the-art medical equipment. The military unit on the ground has these additional capabilities and life saving techniques to improve combat care from the moment of injury.

A second major development in treating battlefield injuries is the placement of forward surgical teams closer to the front lines. These teams target the 15-20 percent of wounded who, without care within the first hour after wounding, would die before seeing the inside of a combat support hospital. Uncontrollable hemorrhage has been a major cause of death in previous wars. Today, the forward surgical teams are well equipped to identify and stop bleeding using a hand held ultrasound machine to identify internal bleeding. Advances in hemorrhage control dressings have also had a substantial impact on saving lives.

Circumstances were definitely a little different when I served during

World War II. After I was injured, it took 9 hours to get to a field hospital where they performed military trauma surgery and over 3 months before I made it back to the United States. I spent 11 months in a hospital that was essentially a converted hotel in Atlantic City waiting for my final surgery and another 9 months in a rehabilitation facility in Battle Creek, MI. All told, it was almost 2 years from the time I was injured until I was able to return home to Hawaii.

Today, military personnel injured on the battlefield can be transported from theatre to a military hospital in Europe in a matter of hours. Depending on the extent of the wounds, they can be flown back to the United States within days. The rapid, sophisticated treatment on the battlefield and expedited transfer to safety are two of the most striking differences between military medicine today and World War II.

The story of Private Jessica Lynch is an excellent example. Following her rescue from the Iraqi hospital, Army medics, Air Force aeromedical evacuation troops and Special Operations forces transported her thousands of miles, used three different aircraft, and provided care during her entire journey, until she reached the safety of an Army hospital in Landstuhl, Germany. This was all accomplished in fewer than 15 hours. This same approach has saved the lives of many other courageous, young heroes.

What remains a mystery is how to treat the unexpected. Many deaths are the result of disease or non-battle injuries. In March 2004, there were 595 evacuations from Iraq for disease or other non-battlefield injuries. The Army Medical Department has deployed special teams with expertise in areas such as leishmaniasis, pneumonia, mental health and environmental surveillance to respond to these types of injuries. Having their critical assessments and recommendations while our troops are still in theatre will hopefully enable the command to decrease these illnesses.

The good news is that we have already improved our rates on this front. In the Civil War, twice as many people died of disease than of battle wounds. In World War I, about 56,000 U.S. soldiers died of disease, 14,000 during World War II, but only 930 during the Vietnam War. And we continue to make progress.

Press reports have highlighted the suicide rates of our troops serving overseas, but little acknowledgement has surfaced on how the military is addressing this concern. In July 2003, the Army sent a team of mental health experts to study the issues facing our troops in Iraq. This team was assembled to assess the increase in suicides in Operation Iraqi Freedom, evaluate the patient flow of mental health patients from theater, and analyze the stress-related issues Soldiers experience in combat.

This was the first time a mental health assessment was ever conducted with soldiers in combat. I cannot stress the importance of the collection and analysis of this data and its potential to help the military address these issues at the earliest stages.

We have also learned a great deal about providing better protection to our forces. We are now experiencing less than half of the theatre evacuations for chest and abdomen wounds than was seen during World War II, Korea, and Vietnam because of body armor.

The 1991 Gulf War was the first major conflict in which all U.S. troops were provided body armor. At that time, the vests were made of Kevlar. They were capable of stopping shell and grenade fragments, but were a heavy 25 pounds to carry. The lighter interceptor body armor now used in Afghanistan and Iraq weighs only sixteen pounds and stops grenade fragments, 9mm slugs, and some rifle ammunition. The efforts placed in these advancements have paid off and should continue with renewed commitment.

But while these advances have drastically improved our casualty rates, injuries to the limbs are increasing. Historically, 3 percent of those wounded in action required some amputation. Today that rate has jumped to 6 percent in Iraq. This requires our attention. We must focus on technology to reverse this trend.

These are just a few of the advances in medical technology and treatment that are responsible for saving the lives of our military.

As we think about today's improvements, we should remember the men and women that served before this conflict. Nearly half a million men were permanently disabled by wounds during the Civil War. Their sacrifices led others to develop improvements in orthopedic surgery and the design of prosthetic limbs. It is important that we recognize these sacrifices and contributions and continue our commitment to further advances.

It is said that my generation was the greatest generation. But I have spent a great deal of time visiting our military personnel and must say that this generation is surpassing us by far. These men and women in uniform display the courage, strength, and devotion of our armed forces.

I thank the Chair for allowing me to recognize the men and women of our military and to pay particular attention to lesser known positive data coming from the Global War on Terrorism.

Mr. President, we all learned recently that an outstanding public servant, the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, has decided to step down. I am personally saddened by this announcement because I believe the country has been well served by Mr. Tenet.

George Tenet started his career in public service as part of the Senate family working for the late Republican Senator John Heinz. He served on the professional staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee rising to become the committee staff director for my good friend Senator David Boren.

I was the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee during that period. Our committee works closely with the Intelligence Committee in determining the funding for our classified programs. So I believe I can speak with some authority in saying that George was a top-notch staff director. And, I believe his tenure in the Senate prepared him well for the position of Director of Central Intelligence.

I have known every CIA Director since Allen Dulles. I have worked closely with each Director for the past 30 years. All of them have been honorable men, well-meaning and decent public servants, but none was a better Director of Central Intelligence than George Tenet.

Intelligence is a critical part of our national security. Obviously it does not get the public scrutiny that most Government functions receive. To do so would jeopardize the lives of countless agents and analysts who serve this Nation. We limit the number of people

who receive sensitive information to lessen the chance that it will be inadvertently disclosed and harm our national security. As such, much of the good news in intelligence is never brought to light.

When the CIA breaks up a terrorist cell in Albania or Egypt it cannot be disclosed. When critical information is discovered by our intelligence community about weapons trafficking on the high seas, the weapons can be confiscated, but the American people are not told.

Unfortunately, only the operations that fail become public. So our CIA Directors are generally not known for their successes, only for their failures.

It is an historical fact that there has been great temptation to use intelligence operations and analysis to achieve political objectives.

As most of my colleagues know, the Senate established the Select Committee on Intelligence in the mid-1970s to review intelligence activities in response to improprieties which occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. During that period, I was fortunate to serve as the first Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

There have been other unfortunate incidents when individuals in the executive branch have circumvented the law to further their objectives. We all remember the Iran-contra scandal when rogue elements ran an extra legal operation out of the White House.

Some have suggested that intelligence was recently politicized to justify the war on Iraq.

It is my view, and I think history will one day prove that any politization of intelligence that might have occurred on Iraq did not come from George Tenet.

Those who are charged with oversight of intelligence for the Congress have a difficult task. We must review intelligence activities and practices, but the universe is truly enormous. There are not enough hours of the day for us to know all the details of intelligence. We could never amass enough staff to monitor every action of the intelligence community. Therefore, we need to be able to trust our intelligence leaders.

The Senate could trust George Tenet to tell the truth and be forthright with this institution. Perhaps it was because of his background as a Senate staff member, but George was always eager to inform and consult with the Senate to share important information regardless how sensitive it might have been.

My experience with the CIA has been that many past Directors were reluctant to provide detailed information to the Congress. Perhaps it was the ingrained culture that protects secrets, or perhaps it was the lack of trust between the executive and legislative bodies, but for whatever reason, they didn't want to tell the Congress any more than they had to.

With George it was different. He would take time to explain controversial and highly classified issues in detail. At times he would direct his associates in the community to be more forthright in their responses when he felt they might be holding back.

George Tenet trusted the Congress with the Nation's secrets as partners in national security, not adversaries or impediments.

I know the Director has his critics, but they do not come from the Defense Subcommittee. I think I can speak for my chairman when I tell you we both had the utmost confidence in George Tenet. And, no one in the Senate or the House has spent more years overseeing the intelligence community than Ted and I.

George Tenet is depicted today by some as the Director of Intelligence who failed to stop the tragedy of 9/11 and criticized for the description by author Bob Woodward that the case for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was a ``slam dunk.'' Both of those miss the point.

George Tenet should be remembered as one of the finest Directors in the history of Central Intelligence. He should be remembered as the most honest and forthright of any CIA Director. He should be thought of as the Director who took an agency from the cold war mentality and started to reshape it for the 21st century. I know he will be remembered by the thousands of CIA employees as a great leader who did his very best to support them and the entire intelligence community.

I will remember him as a tremendous public servant who served honorably, effectively and tirelessly.

Mr. President, someday when the records are declassified and the analysis is completed, historians will likely remember George with great regard. It is my view that he should not have to wait. We should all thank him for his dedication to duty and his service to our country.

Mr. President, I am pleased to submit a resolution to designate January first of each year as Global Family Day.

More than 30 years ago, a small group of inner-city children conceived of a holiday devoted to peace and understanding amongst the global community. They envisioned a day to celebrate life and extend hands in friendship, rather than in violence, in an effort to overcome world events that have produced fear, hate, and grief.

In the years leading up to the turn of the new millennium, this small group of children and their mothers petitioned Congress and the United Nations for the establishment of a one-day peaceful celebration. As a result of their efforts, ``One Day of Peace January 1, 2000'' was officially designated by the United Nations General Assembly and supported by more than 1,000 organizations, more than 100 governments, and 25 U.S. Governors. ``One Day of Peace January 1, 2000'' was a 24- hour period during which the people of the world united for a virtually violence-free day devoted to positive interactions amongst different races and cultures.

The U.S. Congress unanimously approved a resolution recognizing ``One Day of Peace January 1, 2000.''

The resolution I am submitting today will give our nation's citizens an opportunity to renew the teachings of ``One Day of Peace January 1, 2000'' by designating January first of each year as Global Family Day. Congressional recognition of Global Family Day will provide an opportunity for Americans to discuss and educate themselves on how to end inter-cultural fear, mistrust and alienation.

I invite my colleagues to join me in support of Global Family Day and the designation of January first of every year as a day to appreciate and learn about other cultures and communities, in an effort to bring people all over the world closer together.

Madam President, I rise with deep humility and honor. The words of my colleagues and friends have touched me greatly. I am most grateful. But in listening to their words, I must suggest that wars are not won by soldiers alone. It takes a united nation to do that.

The war that we were privileged and honored to serve in was a war that a united America carried out. Husbands went to war, but their wives stayed home and worked in the factories. Some worked in the fields. There were mothers who were in anguish every day while their sons were away, but they gave us hope. They gave us courage. Little kids went around collecting pennies to buy bonds.

Yes, it took a nation to win this war. The memorial testifies to that. It does not just honor those who served in battle, but it honors those wives and sweethearts who worked in the factories, the little students who collected scrap metal and pennies.

Yes, we were young. But we knew what was going on. I have been asked many times: If given the chance, would I do it again? I think I speak for all of my colleagues: Certainly, because it was the right thing to do. It was the American thing to do. And what we did I am certain all other Americans would have done.

We all received medals. It is unfortunate that all Americans could not receive those medals. Well, I can tell you that my mother deserved a medal. She had to look at the little flag that flew over her window. There were three stars on it. My two brothers served in the Korean war. It must have been a difficult time for her. I am certain that all mothers have gone through this.

So I thank all of my colleagues.