Floor Statements

Madam President, listening to my chairman reminded me of my days of youth. During World War II, when I was a young man, I had the high honor of serving as platoon leader of 40 men. It was a small part of the war. But if someone had come up to me, say, my colonel, and said: How many men will you lose in the next 30 days? How many rounds of ammo will you use during the next 12 months? How many grenades will you explode during the next 12 months?--my answer would have had to have been: I don't know. There is no way of knowing how many men I will lose in this battle or the next battle. I have no idea how many rounds we will fire or how many grenades we will throw. We will do our best to maintain our force.

But to require any commander to come forth with even a good guess as to what one can anticipate--who in his right mind could have predicted what Midway would turn out to be like or the battle of Guadalcanal? No one had any idea. We had contingency plans as to how we should cope with the enemy if it came from the northern slope or the southern slope, but as for the outcome, we went into a battle once that lasted 5 days and we thought we would come through with minimal casualties. In those 5 days, we incurred 800 casualties in my little regiment, 300 dead--in a battle we thought we could resolve in 3 days. But we had no idea the opposing forces were three times our size.

I realize my colleagues are very eager to know what the costs of this war will be. Senator Stevens and I would like to know that also because we are in charge of bringing forth to this body our recommendations on what to spend. Frankly, we have no way of knowing. We can make a calculated guess. We tried to do that the last time, and we did not succeed. So we have called upon the administration to do their best. And when the time comes they need supplemental appropriations, we will consider that, and we will inspect and just look over every account. Keep in mind, if it is going to be a calculated guess, we have no way of conducting oversight. So I hope my colleagues will be a bit more patient with us.

I realize that it may pay political dividends in some cases. But in this case we are dealing with the lives of men and women. I hope that in dealing with the lives of men and women, we will make certain that we conduct the affair in the best way possible.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Madam President, the committee has been advised, No. 1, that the procedure and process employed in Guantanamo and other places of detention meet the requirements set forth by the Geneva Convention.

No. 2, the matter is being represented by counsel and presently in court. As our chairman indicated, it would not be appropriate for this committee to be intervening while a court case is pending.

No. 3, I think we should keep in mind that this is not a war. This is an experience that this Nation has not had in its past history. This is a war on terrorism. It is not the uniformed enemy to which we are always accustomed where we know who their commanders are, we know where they are coming from, they wear a different type of uniform. In this war, we have no idea who the terrorists are. It could be this young lady here, for all I know.

Having said that, if we follow provisions of this amendment and the Defense Department and the Department of Justice are required to give out the names, the rank, the charges, et cetera, and to give an indication as to when one can expect this prisoner to be released, I think we may be working right into the hands of the organization we are trying to combat: al-Qaida.

If I were in charge of the al-Qaida operations, I would like to know what is happening to those below me. And if I new Mr. One is coming out next August or Mr. Two is coming out in September, I can make plans accordingly.

As I pointed out, this is a war that none of us have experienced in the past. The chairman and I could speak of World War II and the Hump, the Japanese, the Germans, the camps and such.

On this matter, we have never experienced anything like this. So I hope as long as Guantanamo is open to inspection--and the chairman and I have gone there. It has been always open to Members of Congress if they wish to go there for themselves to look over the conditions, to taste their food, and in fact talk to them to see if they are being tortured, as some would suggest. I think my colleagues will find that as Americans we have treated our detainees in an humane fashion.

Now, no one would want to be detained even for an hour, but in this

wartime condition and terrorist condition I think there is a necessity. We have done our duty in a way that Americans need not be embarrassed and ashamed. So I hope my colleagues will not look favorably upon this amendment and wait for another day.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1268

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, it was not my intention to participate in this debate.

As it is well known in this Chamber, I was one of the few who voted against the resolution to grant the President of the United States authority to carry out the strike. So my views are rather well known here.

But on matters that are being discussed today, in war it is almost impossible to predict what will happen tomorrow. As I indicated earlier, as a young lieutenant in charge of 40 men, if someone should have asked me how many men I thought I would lose today in battle, my response would be that I hope none. But who can predict that?

Like many of my colleagues here, I have seen too many men killed. I have sensed the anger of war, and I have tasted the hatred involved.

I say these things not to criticize my dear friend. In fact, I commend him for bringing these matters up for discussion. But one in war cannot make predictions, much as you want to.

Equally as important, in the world of diplomacy--and in this case pointed out very astutely by my chairman, the Senator from Alaska--the President of the United States is in charge of the foreign policy of this Nation. In the world of diplomacy, when one sits down with another diplomat, one doesn't tell the world, I am going to tell that person that I want this or I want that or I am going to do this if you do not do that. It is just not done that way. Most of the conversations between heads of state are in private. That is the way it should be. We are not here to embarrass the head of state of some country by telling the Senate that, in my discussions with prime minister such-and-such, he said this and he is reneging now. That is not the way it is done.

Equally as important, whatever disclosures our Commander in Chief makes, they impinge upon the future of the men on the front line. I would not want any sort of activity that would place our men and women in jeopardy. I think if we force the President of the United States to do what is required in this resolution, we may be placing our men and women in jeopardy.

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.

Vote on Amendment No. 1270

Yes.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, if I may continue, on behalf of Mr. Miller, the Senator from Georgia, I have sent to the desk an amendment to make available from amounts available for research, development, test, and evaluation for the Navy, $1 million for the Trouble Reports Information Data Warehouse; and for the Senators from Florida, Mr. Graham and Mr. Nelson, an amendment to make available from amounts available for operation and maintenance, Navy, $2 million for night vision goggles in advanced helicopter training. I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be considered en bloc and passed.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I just want to say I support my chairman on this matter. I congratulate Senator Byrd for bringing this to our attention because it is an important matter that concerns all Americans. I hope this proposal by Chairman Stevens will be acceptable to all Members of the Senate.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 1257 Through 1259, En Bloc

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 1260 Through 1263, En Bloc

Mr. President, I have four amendments I ask to have

considered en bloc. The first is submitted by Senators Bingaman and

Domenici providing for $3,500,000 for the National Consortia on MASINT

research; the second by Senator Conrad for research, development, test,

and evaluation for the Army, $3,500,000 for the Medical Vanguard

Project; third, submitted by Senator Breaux to make available from

amounts available for research, development, test, and evaluation,

$800,000 for the Tulane Center for Missile Defense, Louisiana; and the

final and fourth from Senator Reed of Rhode Island to make available

from amounts available for Defense Production Act purchases $3,000,000

for a flexible aerogel material supplier initiative.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading

of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I agree with the chairman and will join him in reviewing

this matter for conference.

digitization of department of defense manuals

Mr. President, beginning in fiscal year 2003 and

continuing this year, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee has

included funds for the digitization of Department of Defense, DoD,

manuals and has directed that the work be performed by information

technology firms owned and operated by Native Americans located in

impoverished Native communities. These Native firms came together and

formed a corporation, the Intertribal Information Technology

Corporation, that could serve as the prime contractor in an effort to

facilitate the contracting relationship with the Department of Defense.

This consortium of firms has been working with mentoring information

technology companies who already have existing contracts with the

Department of Defense. I have had two briefings on the progress that is

being made by the Native firms and their mentoring companies on

existing DoD contract work, and have been advised that the performance

of the Native firms is both exemplary and highly efficient. A few

months ago, I had the opportunity to attend the dedication of the

Native Hawaiian information technology firm that is part of this

consortium, and was further impressed with the capacity of these Native

firms to carry out the digitization work.

As the Senator knows, the ten Native-owned firms that

came together to establish a new Small Business Act 8(a) firm is

composed of American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian

information technology companies. To my knowledge, this is the first

business enterprise to be jointly owned by the three indigenous

populations of the United States.

This new jointly-owned firm was established so that DoD would only

have to award a single contract rather than having to award ten

separate contracts to each of the ten participating firms. In

establishing the jointly-owned firm, it was well understood that the

jointly-owned firm would subcontract the digitization work to the ten

participating Native-owned firms, and that the jointly-owned firm would

assume administrative responsibilities and provide technical support to

the ten Native Firms to ensure the highest quality production.

This innovative approach reflects the intent of the Congress that the

digitization work be performed by Native firms that can not only

produce quality products for the Government, but that in the process of

doing so, can also generate jobs in the economically-disadvantaged

communities that they serve.

Yes, that is my understanding as well. I am advised that

the exception can be applied while still assuring full compliance with

all procurement requirements. So I would ask, is it the intent and

directive of the Appropriations Committee that the Department of

Defense employ all legal measures available under the law to accomplish

the intent of the Congress in having the digitization work performed by

the ten participating Native-owned firms through a single DoD contract

with the jointly-owned firms?

I ask unanimous consent that Stephen Tela, a legislative

fellow assigned to Senator Kennedy's office, be accorded floor

privileges during today's consideration of H.R. 2658.

Mr. President, I rise to express my very strong support for this measure. The committee has produced a bipartisan bill which reflects well on the committee and on the Senate.

It has often been said that foreign policy debates should stop at the water's edge. This bill holds true to that principle. This bill provides for our Nation's defense without letting politics drive the recommendations.

I commend our chairman, the Senator from Alaska, for the bill being brought to the Senate this afternoon. This important measure provides the spending necessary for the Defense Department for fiscal year 2004. The total in the bill is about $369 billion, as noted by the chairman. It is $3.2 billion below the amount requested by the President, but it is the same as the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.

Mr. President, I don't intend to reiterate all of the details the chairman has outlined. Suffice it to say that the bill fully funds our military personnel programs, including the authorized pay raise. It provides sufficient funding to meet our readiness requirements for the coming year, and it also increases funding for DOD's critical transformation programs.

I wish to inform all of my colleagues that consistent with the administration's request, no funds are included in this bill for the ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

A portion of the fiscal year 2003 supplemental funds provided this year will remain available in the coming year to help offset these needs. But I believe it

should be made clear that an additional supplemental funding will most likely be required in the next fiscal year. Only a dramatic improvement in the situation in Iraq and in Afghanistan would obviate the need for additional funding for these purposes.

I want to offer my personal thanks to the chairman for increasing funding in support of the Army's Stryker brigades and the C-17. These two programs are critical to the military's transformation plans. The added funding will greatly assist DOD in meeting its goals.

The Chairman has presented us with a very good bill, and I encourage all of you to support it wholeheartedly.

I wish to join my chairman and the Members of the Senate in extending our gratitude and admiration for the men and women who are serving us this day. I hope this measure in some small way will indicate to them our gratitude and our great admiration.

I thank the Chair.

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 Ms. Kathleen Pierce, a legislative fellow assigned to my office, be afforded floor privileges during the consideration of this measure.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, our distinguished colleague, the Honorable Ted Stevens, was presented with the Arleigh Burke Award on June 11, 2003, by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The award, named after the famed Admiral, who was the longest serving Chief of Naval Operations, recognizes Senator Stevens's leadership in the fields of strategy, resources, and maritime affairs, as well as his hard work and selfless dedication to promote public service and the ideals of freedom.

When Senator Stevens accepted the Burke Award, he delivered a thoughtful speech that underscored Admiral Burke's conviction that duty to country is more important than duty to the Commander-in-Chief, and that we should oppose the concentration of power.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Stevens's speech be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, Senator Akaka and I are introducing legislation that would provide for 100 percent coverage under Medicaid for the payment of health services rendered to Native Hawaiians by either Federally qualified health centers or Native Hawaiian health care systems. This provision would treat our State's Native Hawaiians comparably with Alaskan Natives and American Indians under the current Medicaid law. We purposely focused upon Federally qualified health centers and Native Hawaiian health care systems, because they are highly cost effective ways of providing these extraordinarily necessary primary care and preventative services.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, Senator Akaka and I are introducing legislation that would provide for 100 percent coverage under Medicaid for the payment of health services rendered to Native Hawaiians by either Federally qualified health centers or Native Hawaiian health care systems. This provision would treat our State's Native Hawaiians comparably with Alaskan Natives and American Indians under the current Medicaid law. We purposely focused upon Federally qualified health centers and Native Hawaiian health care systems, because they are highly cost effective ways of providing these extraordinarily necessary primary care and preventative services.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, on June 11, 2003, I had the honor and privilege of attending the retirement ceremony at Fort Myer, VA, for GEN Eric Shinseki, who served with distinction during his 4 years as Army Chief of Staff. A native of Hawaii who rose through the ranks while devoting 38 years of his life to defending our Nation, General Shinseki ended his career as the highest ranking Asian-American in the history of the United States military.

His farewell speech was a message of thanks, a reminder of the need for shared values, and an underscoring of the importance of inspired leadership and the dangers of arrogance.

I ask that General Shinseki's speech, as well as the remarks that Acting Secretary of the Army Les Brownlee made during General Shinseki's retirement ceremony, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise this moment to speak in favor of an amendment proposed by my dear friend from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman.

I find it rather uncomfortable and sad that my remarks may be counter to that of my colleague from New Mexico, my dear friend, Mr. Domenici, and my colleague, the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee.

Mr. President, as you know, there is a longstanding relationship between the United States and the sovereign Indian nations that won exercise, exclusive dominion, and control over lands that now comprise our great country.

The large body of Federal Indian law is known as trust responsibility, and it was first given expression by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Marshall, in 1832. This relationship is premised upon the sovereignty of the Indian nations, a sovereignty that existed well before the U.S. Government was formed, and it is memorialized in the United States Constitution.

This trust relationship that has always formed the course of dealings between the U.S. and Indian tribes is well understood and beyond debate. The United States holds legal title to lands that it held in trust for Indian tribes. Accordingly, activities affecting Indian lands and resources have always been subject to approval by the Secretary of the Interior Department, acting as the principal agent for the United States. That is the law of the land.

In the Congress, we have always understood the United States trust responsibility as being derived from treaties, statutes, regulations, executive orders, rulings, and agreements between the Federal Government and Indian tribal governments. We have legislated on this basis. The courts have issued rulings on this basis. And until recently the executive branch has premised policy on this basis and promulgated regulations on this fundamental principle of law.

However, in the arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year, the Government took the position that the duties of the U.S., as trustee for Indian lands and resources, exist only as they may be spelled out in statute, and are legally enforceable only if a statute provides a remedy for any breach of the trust.

The Supreme Court accepted the Government's argument that the duties of the trustee must be spelled out in statute, but ruled that as long as the Government had complete management control over the trust land or trust resources at issue, then the trustee's duties could be legally enforced and there could be a damage remedy for a breach of the Government's trust duties.

Tribal governments are also paying keen attention to the arguments that are being advanced by the Government in pending legislation over the management of funds which are held in trust by the United States for individual Indians and Indian tribes. Most of us have heard of the assertions in this case in which it maintained that the Government is unable to account for more than $2 billion in Indian trust funds.

With the Government's advocacy for a new perspective on the United States trust responsibility, it is readily apparent why the eyes of Indian country are sharply focused on the tribal provisions of this bill and the amendments that are the subject of our discussion today.

Native America wants to see what position the Congress will adopt as it relates to the ongoing viability of the trust relationship. They are closely scrutinizing our words and our actions in the context of this measure to determine whether they signal a departure from the traditional and well-established principles of the United States trust responsibility.

That is why I believe it is incumbent upon us to make sure we understand what is at stake in this debate. There has always been, and likely always will be, a tension between a greater measure of tribal control and a diminished Federal presence in Indian country, one that has to be reconciled in each distinct area. But the reality is that as long as the United States holds legal title to Indian lands, the Federal Government and tribal governments will have to work together on these matters.

Not all tribal governments have managed their resources, and not all of those who do seek to develop those resources. But for those that do, we well understand that they would want to reduce the amount of time that is customarily involved in securing the Secretary's approval of leases of tribal land and grants of right of way over Indian lands.

Can this be accomplished without altering or diminishing the trust relationship? I believe it can. The tribal industry resource agreements that are authorized, the amendment that we consider today, can serve as an instrument for defining and adapting this relationship to accommodate the unique circumstances of each tribe's energy resource development objectives.

But should the United States trust responsibility for Indian lands and resources be waived? I am not aware of any tribal government that supports an unlimited waiver of the United States trust responsibility. Certainly, one of the largest land-based tribes in the United States, the Navajo Nation, has made it clear that it will not countenance such a waiver.

Indian country has a long history and a long memory. That history documents the sad reality that there have been too many times in the past when those who did not have the best interests of Indian country in mind have exploited tribal lands and resources and then walked away.

In those instances, tribal governments and the United States shared a common interest in addressing the damage to tribal lands and in pursuing those who caused the damage.

Mr. President, I think it is clear that the provisions of this title as currently formulated, and if not further amended, will foreclose the cause of action when there is damage to tribal lands. So I join my colleague, Senator Bingaman, in sponsoring this amendment because I believe strongly in Federal Indian responsibility for Indian lands, and the resources must be maintained and strengthened, not diminished.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I introduce the United States Military Cancer Institute Center of Excellence Research Collaborative Act of 2003. This legislation seeks to formally establish the United States Military Cancer Institute, Center of Excellence and seeks support for the collaborative augmentation of research efforts in cancer epidemiology, prevention, and control. The mission of the Institute is to provide for the maintenance of health in the military by enhancing cancer research and treatment, and to study the epidemiological causes of cancer among various ethnic groups. By formally establishing the USMCI as a Center of Excellence it will better unite military research efforts with other cancer research centers.

Cancer prevention and treatment for the military population is a significant issue, thus the USMCI was organized to coordinate the military cancer assets already established. The USMCI has a comprehensive database on its beneficiary population of 9 million people. The military's nationwide tumor registry, the Automated Central Tumor Registry, has acquired more than 180,000 cases in the last 14 years, and a serum repository of 30 million specimens from military personnel collected sequentially since 1987. This population is predominantly Caucasian, African-American, and Hispanic.

The Director of the USMCI, Dr. John Potter, is also a Professor of Surgery at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, USUHS. A highly talented cancer epidemiologist, Dr. Kangmin Zhu, has also been recruited to lead the USMCI Prevention and Control Programs.

The USMCI currently functions in the Washington, D.C. area, and its components are located at the National Naval Medical Center, the Malcolm Grow Medical Center, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, and the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute. Currently there are more than 70 research workers, both active duty and Department of Defense civilian scientists, in the USMCI.

The USMCI intends to expand its research activities to military medical centers across the Nation. Special emphasis will be placed on the study of genetic and environmental factors in carcinogenesis among the entire population including Asian, Causasian, African-American and Hispanic populations.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the United States Military Cancer Institute Center of Excellence Research Collaborative Act of 2003. This legislation seeks to formally establish the United States Military Cancer Institute, Center of Excellence and seeks support for the collaborative augmentation of research efforts in cancer epidemiology, prevention, and control. The mission of the Institute is to provide for the maintenance of health in the military by enhancing cancer research and treatment, and to study the epidemiological causes of cancer among various ethnic groups. By formally establishing the USMCI as a Center of Excellence it will better unite military research efforts with other cancer research centers.

Cancer prevention and treatment for the military population is a significant issue, thus the USMCI was organized to coordinate the military cancer assets already established. The USMCI has a comprehensive database on its beneficiary population of 9 million people. The military's nationwide tumor registry, the Automated Central Tumor Registry, has acquired more than 180,000 cases in the last 14 years, and a serum repository of 30 million specimens from military personnel collected sequentially since 1987. This population is predominantly Caucasian, African-American, and Hispanic.

The Director of the USMCI, Dr. John Potter, is also a Professor of Surgery at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, USUHS. A highly talented cancer epidemiologist, Dr. Kangmin Zhu, has also been recruited to lead the USMCI Prevention and Control Programs.

The USMCI currently functions in the Washington, D.C. area, and its components are located at the National Naval Medical Center, the Malcolm Grow Medical Center, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, and the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute. Currently there are more than 70 research workers, both active duty and Department of Defense civilian scientists, in the USMCI.

The USMCI intends to expand its research activities to military medical centers across the Nation. Special emphasis will be placed on the study of genetic and environmental factors in carcinogenesis among the entire population including Asian, Causasian, African-American and Hispanic populations.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Registered Nurses' Safe Staffing Act of 2003. I'm introducing this bill on behalf of the American Nurses Association's Chief Executive Officer and President Linda Stierle, MSN, RN, CNAA and Barbara A. Blakeney, MS, APRN, BC, ANP respectively. For over 4 decades I have been a committed supporter of nurses and the delivery of safe patient care. While enforceable regulations will help to ensure patient safety, the complexity and variability of today's hospitals require that staffing patterns be determined at the hospital and unit level, with the professional input of registered nurses. More than a decade of research demonstrates that nurse staff levels and the skill mix of nursing staff directly affect the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients. Studies show that when there are more registered nurses, there are lower mortality rates, shorter lengths of stay, reduced costs, and fewer complications.

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that the risks of patient mortality rose by 7 percent for every additional patient added to the average nurse's workload. In the midst of a nursing shortage and increasing financial pressures, hospitals often find it difficult to maintain adequate staffing. While nursing research indicates that adequate registered nurse staffing is vital to the health and safety of patients, there are no standardized, public reporting or the enforcement of adequate staffing plans. The only regulations addressing nursing staff exists vaguely in Medicare Conditions of Participation which states: ``The nursing service must have an adequate number of licensed registered nurses, licensed practice, vocational, nurse, and other personnel to provide nursing care to all patients as needed''.

This bill will require Medicare Participating Hospitals to develop and maintain reliable and valid systems to determine sufficient registered nurse staffing. Given, the demands that the healthcare industry faces today, it is our responsibility to ensure that patients have access to adequate nursing care. However, we must ensure that the decisions in which to provide this care are made by the clinical experts, the registered nurses caring for these patients. Support of this bill supports our nation's nurses during a critical shortage, but more importantly, works to ensure the safety of their patients.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.