Floor Statements

Mr. President, the Committee on Armed Services met today and adopted its rules for the 109th Congress. In accordance with the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that these rules be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, the chairman, for his great leadership in handling this nomination. That leadership is consistent with what I have observed these many years, now being in my 27th year in the Senate, my colleague being a year or 2 senior to me. But on behalf of the Senate and on behalf of the country, we thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I must say, I think your ranking member, in large measure, has been supportive. I am anxious to see how this works out tomorrow. But well done to you, sir, from one old sailor to another.

I am privileged to join my colleagues today in this very important debate with regard to the nomination of perhaps the most important member of any President's Cabinet, that of Secretary of State.

Before referring to Dr. Rice, I would like to pause and express my heartfelt appreciation to Secretaries Powell and Armitage. I have been privileged to have known them and worked with them for many years.

When I was Secretary of the Navy, while I did not know him at that time, during the war in Vietnam, Secretary Powell was on the very front lines of that war. And to this day, in his heart and in other ways, he carries the heavy burdens of that conflict. I have always been so impressed with him. I have worked with him as he rose through the ranks.

I first met him as a colonel and followed his career all the way through being a four star general, particularly when I was actively working with him and he was the executive military assistant to Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. And by his side he wisely chose to put Secretary Rich Armitage, another Vietnam veteran who bears the scars of that war. They were a magnificent team on behalf of the United States of America, and they both quietly have stepped down in the manner in which they have always conducted their lives. I want to be among the many to pay their respects to those two fine public servants on the eve of confirming the successor to Secretary Powell.

I have also known, through the years, the nominee to take Secretary Armitage's place, and he is an excellent choice. The President is to be commended.

I must refer to history. I love this institution I think as much as anyone; not more than anyone, but as much. I respect the heritage and traditions of this Chamber. It is quite interesting, if you go back, the Presidents of the United States--certainly I would yield to the chairman; I have the history of these here--Presidents have always had the Senate confirm their Secretary of State on the day of the inauguration. It goes quite a ways back in history.

I expressed at that time that I regret this Chamber could not act, and I continue to express that. I think this debate is an important one. I do not in any way suggest that this debate not take place, but I think it could have taken place in the ensuing days and weeks following that. But that is history. I did not want this tradition of the Senate to be overlooked in the context of these remarks.

It is clear from the exhaustive nomination hearings conducted by the Foreign Relations Committee over the course of 2 days that Dr. Rice is extraordinarily capable and qualified. She is as capable and qualified a candidate as has ever been appointed in my lifetime to this position. She stands with the finest because of her extraordinary record of achievements. I say to the chairman, she was reported out of your committee by a vote of 16 to 2. To me, that is a resounding affirmation by bipartisan members of that committee.

The personal attacks on her character and integrity, we have now witnessed them. I find them somewhat astonishing, the level of the attack, particularly as it relates to her lifetime dedication to what we call here in the Senate the standards for truthfulness.

And I was delayed, Mr. Chairman, because I had been trying through the day to reach former Secretary of State George Shultz, with whom you and I and many others have had so many years of warm and excellent relations--sometimes not so warm, maybe a little heated on occasion, I recall. But Secretary Shultz reminded me that Dr. Rice first met President Bush in his living room. And the relationship goes way back.

So I wrote down just a few of the remarks by that distinguished Secretary because it goes to the very heart of the critics who challenge her integrity. He said, without any reservation whatsoever, she was absolutely honest in her convictions and a woman of impeccable loyalty and integrity.

He said loyalty, of course. But truthfulness will always prevail over any degree of loyalty.

I found that important, and I wanted to share it with my colleagues. She, in

his judgment, will rise to the occasion and in due course, if not already, she will receive the trust and confidence of the people of this country, and that her record, as she works through her challenges, will be one that they, the United States of America and its citizens, can be proud of.

I thank Secretary Shultz for his remarks.

I also thought to myself, the chairman and I have paralleled our careers. One of my Commanders in Chief, actually two times--for a brief period at the end of World War II and then Korea--was Harry Truman. Harry Truman very often had directed at him some remarks which didn't exactly reflect with great resounding in his heart. He came out with that priceless statement: If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Well, the most profound thing that I may say today is this Secretary of State can take the heat, and she will remain in that kitchen. In my judgment, in the vote by the Senate tomorrow, you will find by virtue of the size of that vote a statement by this Senate reflecting their trust and their confidence in this distinguished American's record of achievement over her lifetime, her entire lifetime, not just that in public office recently.

Going back to some of the comments that were leveled at her, the essence of the criticism was that she has been less than truthful. It turned in large measure on this issue of weapons of mass destruction. That is an issue that I take a back seat to no one on. I tried in every respect with others to be in the very forefront of that debate.

I remember one hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Director Tenet was before the committee. I asked him a question. This was before we had engaged in active military operations to liberate the people of Iraq. The President was there in the final moments of his decisionmaking. I was one of four who worked up a bipartisan resolution that the Senate worked up. Seventy-seven Senators voted for that resolution.

I said to Director Tenet, the issue of weapons that can bring about such destruction is important in this debate and this decision process. I used the phrase such as ``should we be compelled,'' as the President was, in my judgment, rightfully, to go in and use military power, and at such time as the battles have reached a position where the television cameras of the world can come in and photograph what is there, will those photographs, the television pictures, carry clearly evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction. And his acknowledgment was: Without a doubt.

Now that testimony reflects the best judgment within our Government of the situation with regard to weapons of mass destruction. Hussein had defied 17 or 18 United Nations resolutions. Literally because of his defiance and inaction, it propelled this Nation into this war. And because of his past history with the use of such weapons and the clear documentation following the 1991 conflict that they were there in some measure, there was every reason to attach considerable credibility to the prevailing thinking at that time, not only within our Government but many other governments of the world, that these weapons did exist in the hands of a despot and in one way or another they could be released either by him or by surrogates on free nations elsewhere in the world. That is a statement of fact. I question anybody who wants to take me up on that.

Against that background, this criticism is made of this distinguished public servant. But it is clear to me that the actions taken by the President were the correct ones in light of the facts that were known to the best of our judgment at that time. It was a strong case to utilize force to back up the diplomacy. I mention that ``force to back up diplomacy.'' Diplomacy, throughout the history of mankind, can be no stronger than the commitment to enforce it, to back it up in the event it fails. I think throughout this process we followed that time-honored tradition of world powers. We did everything we could to withhold the use of force and to allow diplomacy to work its will. The rest is history.

From the time of Iraq's defeat in the first Persian Gulf war in 1991, and following his brutal invasion of Kuwait, Hussein followed a pattern of deceit, manipulation, and defiance of the international community. He continued to brutally repress his own citizens. He continued to support terrorist organizations in Palestine and elsewhere. He made a mockery of the U.N. sanctions and the U.N. Security Council resolutions, as he pursued banned weapons and technologies of mass destruction. He systematically robbed the coffers of the humanitarian programs established to ensure that Iraqi citizens received sufficient medicines and food and other nourishment.

Over the course of the next 12 years, since 1991, the Hussein regime defied the will of the international community. Every conceivable diplomatic effort has been expended in an attempt to require him to destroy and account for the weapons of mass destruction he clearly possessed in 1991, to account for missing Kuwaiti nationals, and to comply with at least 17 U.N. Security Council resolutions.

Prior to 9/11, Saddam Hussein's conduct was of grave concern to the United States and, indeed, the larger international community. Based on his repressive treatment of his own citizens in defiance of U.N. weapons inspectors, it became the policy of the United States, as embodied in the Iraq Liberation Act in October of 1998, to actively seek regime change in Iraq.

In a statement to the Nation shortly after ordering United States armed forces to strike Iraq in December 1998, after Saddam Hussein had expelled U.N. weapons inspectors, President Clinton stated the following--I might add a personal note. I remember so well our former colleague and dear friend Bill Cohen was Secretary of Defense at that time. I was chairman of the committee.

He invited me over several hours before the order was executed to utilize force. We sat in that office of the Secretary of Defense which I had been in so many times over the years, and he went through very carefully the reason why President Clinton decided to use force. I remember saying to him: Well, Mr. Secretary--I obviously said Bill--it is on the eve of Christmas. Could not this matter be delayed for a brief period. Let's face it, the world is celebrating one of the great religious and historic precedents. He said: No. We are going to launch it.

Well, the President said the following as he launched that strike:

Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike

military and security targets in Iraq. Their mission is to

attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons

programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have

no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use

these terrible weapons again . . . The hard fact is that so

long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, he threatens the

well-being of his own people, the peace of the region, and

the security of the world. And, mark my words; he will

develop weapons of mass destruction. He did deploy them and

he will use them.

I don't know what additional needs to be said. To me that is very clear. It is understandable. It is explicit. It was a proper use of Presidential power. Even though he made, I think, at that point a very courageous and proper decision, it did not deter Saddam Hussein.

In the post-9/11 world, the thought of a rogue tyrant--one who had used weapons of mass destruction in the past--joining forces with terrorists was even more unsettling. As the Congress debated the resolution to authorize the President to use force in Iraq in October 2002, our colleague Senator Kerry made the following statement:

When I vote to give the President of the United States the

authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam

Hussein, [it is] because I believe that a deadly arsenal of

weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave

threat to our security. . . .''

In a speech 3 months later at Georgetown University, Senator Kerry stated:

Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a

brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He

presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so

consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is

miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and

his consistent grasp of weapons of mass destruction. So the

threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is

real.

Is anyone taking the floor today to suggest that President Clinton and others who spoke out so forcibly at that time were untruthful? I hear a silence.

I believe that we should give consideration to this fine public servant who is stepping up to become Secretary of State and consider the environment, the state of the knowledge, the statements made by a former President, and statements made by colleagues in the context of the issue of weapons of mass destruction, and I suggest that I do not find any disloyalty or any lack of truthfulness in her remarks publicly and throughout this process as it related to the earlier base of knowledge on weapons of mass destruction.

As a member of the Intelligence Committee in the last Congress, I went through a very careful set of hearings with other members of that committee, and we issued a report that I think helped explain how the mistakes were made with regard to the judgments on weapons of mass destruction, on which I certainly do not find any basis to challenge Dr. Rice's truthfulness.

In retrospect, we were wrong as a Nation, together with other countries, in our assumptions about Saddam Hussein's stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. This shortcoming in our intelligence estimates has been the subject of exhaustive investigations by the Congress and independent commissions, and it continues with other commissions that are looking at it. We were not alone in those assessments. The best estimates of most foreign intelligence agencies, including those of Britain, Italy, Germany, Russia, and those of the U.N., were that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. How can the critics possibly say that Dr. Rice and others in the administration would intentionally deceive the American people and the world?

Hindsight has also revealed several other interesting facts. Saddam Hussein's strategy of ignoring sanctions and eroding support for them over time was clearly working. International will to continue sanctions was waning. What is clear in the findings of the Iraq Survey Group is that it was Saddam Hussein's intent to revive a weapons of mass destruction program, including a nuclear program, once sanctions were removed or sufficiently eroded and the attention of the world was diverted elsewhere. That comes out of that survey group. Our committee had a great deal of work with that group, and I have high respect for their findings.

It is true that we did not find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That is a fact. But, we did find clear evidence of Saddam Hussein's intent to reconstitute those programs in the future. Such a finding has to be viewed in the context of Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime. Saddam Hussein, his repressive policies, his regional ambitions, and his weapons of mass destruction had killed hundreds of thousands of people over three decades. His relationship with terrorists--and his direct role as the head of a state that sponsors terrorism and engaged in terrorist operations--contributed to death and destruction in Israel and elsewhere. The ultimate intent of his terrorist ties was unclear, but very unsettling, in the post 9/11 world.

Considering the compelling factual case, assembled over many years, our President made the right decision. In a bipartisan vote, 77 Members of this body agreed.

Iraq was a grave and gathering threat, to its own citizens, to the region, and to the world. The issue of weapons of mass destruction was a factor, but by no means the only reason for considering the use of military force against Iraq--it was one among many concerns.

Courageously, our President did act, with the support of the Congress, the voice of the American people. It was the right decision. The world is a safer place today and Iraq and the entire Middle Eastern region is a better place without Saddam Hussein. We owe a timeless debt of gratitude to those of our military and to other nations whose uniformed personnel have borne the brunt of battle, together with their families.

Dr. Rice has often, in my visits and consultations with her, expressed her concern for those who bear the brunt of war and, indeed, also the tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens who regrettably at this very moment are suffering from the internal strife in that nation on the eve of these historic elections, which will go forward this weekend.

We have before us an extraordinarily well-qualified nominee to be Secretary of State--an educator, a manager, a public servant, a proven leader of international renown. Dr. Rice is enormously talented and we are fortunate, as a Nation, to have someone of her caliber so willing to serve.

I strongly support the nomination of Dr. Rice to be Secretary of State and urge my colleagues to confirm her appointment quickly and overwhelmingly.

Mr. President, I today pay tribute to my friend, Howard Liebengood, who died earlier this month. Howard's most recent service to the Senate was as Senator Bill Frist's Chief of Staff. I was privileged to meet Howard when I came to the Senate 27 years ago, when he was our Sergeant at Arms. Howard was a treasured and invaluable member of the Senate family who will be greatly missed.

As I reflect on the privilege of serving my State and working with so many able and dedicated Senate staffers, Howard Liebengood stands out as one of the most effective members of our Senate staff whose exemplary career is testimony of his dedication to public service.

Howard's hallmark was his ever-present smile and vast knowledge of Senate practices and procedures.

His air of calm pervaded hot debates on tough issues as he reminded us that more challenging issues had been resolved with less acrimony in days past.

His outstanding record of service will stand as an everlasting manual from which present and future generations of Senate staffers can learn. Howard made the Senate a better place to work and our Nation a better place to live. His enormous contributions over his lengthy career will be remembered and cherished by his colleagues.

My staff joins me in sending our deepest sympathy to the Liebengood family.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his thoughtful remarks. I so commit to do that.

Madam President, might I inquire of the distinguished managers as to the recognition of speakers that meets the desire of the two managers? The Senator from Virginia has indicated a desire to speak, and I believe I am on the list. I will be happy to take whatever position is available. I can follow my distinguished colleague from West Virginia. I am here to listen and learn.

Madam President, the senior Senator from West Virginia indicated to me that in all probability he might not use that time. To facilitate matters, I can be on short notice to come after should he not use 2 hours.

Madam President, I thank my colleague. As we discussed, I would like to have the benefit of the remarks which he is going to deliver to the Senate prior to my speaking. If we just leave it, I will be available whenever the managers wish to indicate I can speak, I will do so.

Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague. History will have to reflect, once this is adopted into law, and I intend to support it, upon certain provisions that I had some role in preparing, working with the distinguished managers of the bill and my counterpart in the House, the distinguished chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Duncan Hunter, who has been a very forceful and committed individual to achieve the common goals Congressman Hunter and I shared.

I might add to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, there were at least four or five others in the Chamber who consulted with me, worked with me, and provided ideas, and I want to thank them, although I shall not take the time at this time to mention their names.

I will be available whenever the managers wish to put in a call to me.

On another subject, I say to my distinguished colleague from West Virginia, the Christmas tree that is now gracing the west lawn of the Capitol grew on the border between Highland County and West Virginia, and my understanding is that some of the roots penetrated into West Virginia. So while the trunk may have been in our State, it really drew on the wisdom of West Virginia and Virginia, and I think my colleague and I are very appreciative that this tree was selected.

Mr. President, I do not understand. I ask the Presiding Officer to advise the Senate with regard to the current parliamentary situation. When I left the floor earlier today, there was an informal arrangement that Senator Stevens and Senator Warner would follow Senator Byrd. That is my recollection. I yield to the managers.

Mr. President, I ask the Presiding Officer to advise me when there is but 5 minutes remaining on my time such that I can allow that time to be used by another Senator, and I would hope the managers would yield to Senator Cornyn, if that is possible.

Before my distinguished colleague from Alaska departs the floor, I associate myself with his goals in this forthcoming legislation and would like to cosponsor that with him. I think that is very much needed. I do not join or do that in any criticism of the distinguished work done by the managers of this bill. They certainly were given a daunting challenge to perform in a very short period of time, but I hope the managers and others recognize the need for oversight, perhaps in some respect by my committee, the Intelligence Committee, and the Governmental Affairs Committee, because of the enormity of the power that this one individual has.

As it relates to my specific concerns, that is of the chain of command and the operation of the new Director to involve himself in some way in those decision processes, as that order comes down from the President through the JCS to the combatant commanders, we have to watch the execution of those powers very carefully.

So I commend my distinguished colleague, and I wish to thank our distinguished majority leader for the very openminded and fair manner in which he dealt with those of us who had some concerns about this throughout. He was joined, I think in some respects, by the Democratic leader. Together with Senator Stevens, Senator Byrd, Senator Sessions, Senator Kyl, Senator Allard, Senator Cornyn, and Senator Burns, and I will let them speak for themselves, but I thought their contributions to this Senator, and I think from the conversations with the Senator from Alaska, were very helpful as I began to work my way through what I perceived as my responsibility with regard to this legislation in the capacity as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

On Monday this week, I joined, at his invitation, Chairman Duncan Hunter of the House Armed Services Committee, indicating that I planned to support this conference report, and that was predicated largely on the achievements of Chairman Hunter and, to some extent, myself and others working with the managers in providing a deletion of certain words in the conference report and in their place providing others that, in my judgment, give a greater degree of protection to the time- tested concept of chain of command within our military forces.

Again, I have been working, and I think it is important for the legislative history to set forth a chronology, on the chain of command language over several months. I am particularly grateful to the Vice President, with whom I had consultations, and his staff, with whom I had continued conversations, for their guidance and assistance on this vital issue as I worked with Chairman Duncan Hunter. The issue was of great importance. I believe, as a matter of fact, it was critical that a clear record be laid out of the chronology of events that led to this new language.

Back in August and September of this year, when intelligence reform legislation was being developed, the White House, on September 16, provided draft legislation to the Congress. The process was somewhat informal. I mean some of the processes throughout this legislative consideration were somewhat unusual. But, anyway, they provided draft legislation. It suggested legislation contain--and I refer to section 6 on preservation of authority. That is another definition of chain of command. This legislation would ensure the protection of the chain of command as proposed by the President. The bottom line is Cabinet officers remain responsible for managing their departments and would remain accountable for the actions of their departments.

I was advised at that time that this preservation of authority section was drafted, indeed, with the personal involvement of the President and that he had expressed to his immediate associates the importance of this concept to the President.

Legislation reported to the Senate by the Government Affairs Committee did not include this section. That, of course, was the chronology that the managers can provide if they deem necessary.

The administration felt strongly enough to appeal for the inclusion of this provision of preservation of authority language during the Senate floor consideration of the bill. And in

the Statement of Administration Policy, dated September 28, 2004, the administration urged the Senate to include section 6 of their proposed legislation in the Senate bill.

On October 1, 2004, I introduced an amendment during the floor debate to accomplish this very purpose, as established by the administration in their communications. Unfortunately, after lengthy discussions with the floor managers and the administration, I was just not able to effect what I believed was a compromise that would meet the goals that I had set out and, if I may say, I felt the goals that the administration had set out. Consequently, the amendment was not considered and was withdrawn.

I remained concerned about preserving the authority of Cabinet officers to manage their departments and to remain accountable for the performance of their departments as well as protecting the integrity of the chain of command, from the President to the Secretary of Defense to battlefield commanders.

In a statement on the Senate floor on October 4, 2004, during the course of that debate, before final passage, I clearly indicated I would vote for the bill, but I had sufficient confidence that the process would once again take into consideration the positions of the Senate and the House on the position of chain of command, and that the conferees would see the wisdom of incorporating that provision as desired by the administration and along the lines of the amendment that I had considered.

Clearly, this chain of command issue has been of significant concern over the past few weeks. It was one of the reasons the House of Representatives was not able to reach a decision to proceed with a vote on this conference report prior to Thanksgiving. The record reflects with clarity that it was important that this issue should be resolved. It was not a trivial matter--I repeat, it was not a trivial matter, as has been suggested in press reports, attributing those quotes to others.

Each time our President sends the U.S. Armed Forces into harm's way to defend our Nation, a series of events happens, including specific orders to our combat support agencies, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, to provide very specific supports to combatant commanders at specific times and places.

This support is critical to the success of virtually all military operations, and those decisions often have to be made on a real time, instantaneous basis. There can be no ambiguity in the statutory framework or regulations about these orders and the ability to execute them. And there can be no conflicting directions to the implementers of that intelligence to provide it and provide it expeditiously for the men and women of the Armed Forces. The lives of our uniformed personnel are at risk, and the success of our military efforts can often hang in the balance.

The language contained in the November 20 draft conference report potentially inserted the newly created Director of National Intelligence into this chain of command with the authority to direct military intelligence assets to what the DNI--that is the acronym for the Director of National Intelligence--considered higher priorities, thereby possibly putting him in conflict with the Secretary of Defense and the combatant commanders. Such a situation would clearly, I judged, violate the time-tested principle of continuity, of unity of command.

The new law, however, as now redrafted, will presumably go forward for many years. Although soldiers will come and go, personalities will be different. Consequently, these potential ambiguities are best removed now. I think the new language achieves, in large measure, that goal.

Our Armed Forces are the finest in the world and one of the reasons for their excellence is an unambiguous, time-tested chain of command. Consequently, I was very concerned, as was my friend and colleague Duncan Hunter of the House Armed Services Committee, that the draft conference report, if it became law, would not be drafted in such a way as to disrupt the integrity of our chain of command, or even possibly have the ambiguity that gave rise to the ability for such disruption.

Chairman Hunter exhibited strong, determined leadership as a House conferee on this issue, and I was privileged to work with him. We have shared such responsibilities, the two of us working together, over more than two decades of service in our respective memberships on the committees of the armed services of the Senate and the House.

On Monday this week, after consultations with the White House, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chairman Hunter, and several conferees, an agreement was reached on the language that protects the integrity of this chain of command, in my estimate, and preserves the authority of heads of government departments to effectively manage their departments and remain accountable for the performance of all elements of their departments. The final language is a significant change, which allays concerns of the Members, which I expressed publicly on December 3 in a press statement.

Other colleagues had approached me with the same basic concerns. I think, and I have assured them in conversations, that they have largely been met and that this proposed conference report, which will eventually become statutory law, has been greatly improved.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the preservation of authority provision for the November 20 draft conference report, as well as the final version be printed in the Record.

It has been clear, especially after the July report issued by the Senate Intelligence Committee under the leadership of Chairman Roberts and Chairman Rockefeller, about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the valuable contribution of the 9/11 Commission and the comments and thoughts of many others, that led to the impetus for the United States to have had major reform of our national intelligence system. That was needed.

The Governmental Affairs Committee was given this challenge and accepted it. They have worked to the best of their ability, and their final work product brings us to this point today where I presume there will be a strong vote to endorse that workmanship.

It has been my position during this process, however, to ensure that we do no harm to the immeasurably improved intelligence system that has been built for our battlefield commanders over the past 15 years since shortcomings were identified during and after the Persian Gulf war. Senator Stevens commented on that. That is one of the reasons we were associated in working on this language change. A much improved system exists today, and it will continually evolve in becoming more improved.

It has been the goal of the Senate Armed Services Committee, working with other committees of the Senate during this deliberative process on this intelligence reform, to ensure that intelligence support to the President, the Congress, senior policymakers, and tactical commanders is enhanced. The agreement we reached on Monday is crucial in accomplishing that goal.

The new language in the conference report before us today is a substantial improvement. President Bush, in his letter to the Congress on December 6, 2004, stated that it is his intention to develop guidelines and regulations using the statutory guidance provided in this provision ``to ensure that the principles of unity of command and authority are fully protected.''

With this agreement, it is now time to move forward to approval of this bill, and I shall vote for it. Earlier today, the distinguished majority leader made reference to this bill as ``not a perfect bill.'' I associate myself with his opinion because there are several issues about which I remain concerned; namely, the authorities of the Director of National Intelligence to establish personnel policy for military personnel and transfer them within the National Intelligence Program; the ability of the Director of National Intelligence to transfer and reprogram funds; the role of the Director of National Intelligence in major intelligence acquisition programs managed largely by the Department of Defense; and the relationship between the DNI and the Director of the CIA, and between the DNI and the Director of the National counterterrorism Center.

At this point, I say thanks to Senator Stevens. I have worked closely with the Central Intelligence Agency and the Directors of that organization for these many years. The principal headquarters is in my State. I am privileged to have had a long series of close personal relationships with not only the Directors but many of the associate directors and others--indeed, the employees. I think overall they have stood the test of time and done their very best to provide America with the best intelligence, and most particularly the men and women of the Armed Forces.

Consequently, I will join others in this Chamber to carefully monitor oversight implementation of this legislation over the coming months, and will, if deemed necessary, offer such legislation, an example being what the distinguished Senator from Alaska just mentioned, when appropriate to further strengthen this law to alleviate any unintended consequences of this legislation.

Again, I congratulate the managers of this bill. I look forward to working with them as we implement these reforms and build an intelligence system that provides the best possible support for our national decisionmakers, and most particularly to those in uniform serving on the distant battlefields and ramparts of the world.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a working document on the chain of command issue which Chairman Hunter and I used during our deliberations on this issue, and in response to questions that were directed to us, as well as a chronology of events associated with consideration of chain of command language during deliberations of this bill.

Madam President, I yield the floor. Again, I yield such time as I might have remaining to Senator Cornyn.

Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate Virginia's role as the 2004 provider of the annual U.S. Capitol Holiday Tree, selected each year from America's national forests.

In recent decades, the traditional Christmas tree has moved beyond its place as solely a religious symbol in the homes of hundreds of millions of Americans. Although the Christmas tree will always, and rightfully, have a special meaning in Christian homes, today all Americans await the annual tree-trimming to signal the beginning of the year-end religious and holiday season.

It is with great pleasure that I join my colleagues from the Virginia congressional delegation in recognizing the first-ever contribution from the Commonwealth of Virginia to this fine tradition. This year, our State, the home of the first English-speaking colony in the Americas, and home to our first President, George Washington, and eight of his successors, will make America proud as the home of the Nation's holiday tree for the first time since this tradition began 40 years ago.

The poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote of friendship as a ``sheltering

tree.'' And this year, thousands of Virginians--from all ages and from all across the Commonwealth--have extended the right hand of friendship to their fellow Americans by providing this great tree for display in our Nation's capital.

At five o'clock on the evening of December 9, the Speaker of the House of Representatives will mark the official beginning of America's holiday season by lighting 10,000 small lights on a 79-year-old Virginia red spruce that, until last month, stood as one of Virginia's finest. Without question, it has lived through a remarkable period in our Nation's history.

That flip of a switch will culminate over a year of activity by ordinary Virginians, park rangers, State officials, schoolchildren and countless others in selecting, preparing and decorating this wonderful, 82-foot tree from Warm Springs Ranger District of the George Washington National Forest in Highland County.

All Virginians rightfully take pride that this 7,500 pound tree will remain lit each evening on the National Mall until the 2nd of January, welcoming the Christmas and Holiday season for citizens across this great land. Since the day last month that the tree was airlifted from its place in the George Washington National Forest, Virginians from every corner of the Commonwealth have played a part in getting this wonderful tree ready for primetime. Beginning on November 13, the spruce visited 33 communities in our State on its way to the National Mall: Monterey, Winchester, Leesburg, Culpeper, King George County, Westmoreland County, Henrico County, Petersburg, Charles City, Hampton, Onancock, Cape Charles, Virginia Beach, Norfolk, Suffolk, Emporia, South Boston, Chatham, Damascus, Smyth County/Marion, Wise, Tazewell, Wytheville, Clifton Forge, New Market, Staunton, New Castle, Roanoke, Orange, Amherst, Farmville, Manassas, Alexandria, and Vienna.

In addition to the thousands of Virginians who greeted the tree on its way to Washington, thousands of other school children, scouts, State and Federal officials, police departments, members of 4-H clubs, and citizen volunteers also took part in crafting and preparing some 10,000 original ornaments for the tree. Approximately 5,000 of these will hang on the holiday tree, and the rest will decorate 70 smaller companion trees in the Nation's capital.

As the time-intensive, individual contributions of tens of thousands of Virginians demonstrate, our State is proud to take a lead role this year in welcoming in the Christmas and holiday season for our fellow Americans. On a personal note, one of my longest-serving and hardest- working staff members, Ms. Doriene Steeves, has played a key organizing role in putting together this wonderful event for the benefit of our State and our Nation. I salute her and those other Virginians whose hard work and creativity have brought this magnificent tree to the Nation's doorstep for all to see and appreciate through the holidays.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the President's nomination of Dr. Francis J. Harvey to be Secretary of the U.S. Army. Dr. Harvey was nominated by the President to be Secretary of the Army on September 15, this year. The Armed Services Committee conducted a hearing on Dr. Harvey's nomination on October 6. The committee voted favorably on the nomination on October 7. At that meeting there was some expression in opposition by members of the committee, but the majority of the committee voted in favor.

At the hearing, there was a fair exchange of viewpoints, recognizing that Dr. Harvey is coming to this position from outside of the Department of Defense and has, during the course of his distinguished career, not a specific opportunity to form opinions about some of the key issues that confront the U.S. Army today.

No one should underestimate the challenges that have been faced by the Army and in large measure have been met by the Army under the distinguished leadership of the Acting Secretary of the Army and the current Chief of Staff of the Army. I commend both of them, who are daily meeting the new challenges as they arise.

There will be today in the course of this debate, and I shall await other Members coming to the floor, expressions of opinion different from what I am providing the Senate today so I will wait until such time as they may appear and then seek under my time the opportunity to rebut their views.

At the hearing of the committee on October 6, I indicated that Dr. Harvey has had an extraordinary career--and I underline very extraordinary career--as a business executive with extensive experience leading and managing very large corporate enterprises, particularly program-based organizations involved in the development and deployment of technology and systems.

As the Army goes through its transformation, he will have the opportunity to provide unique decisionmaking ability given his experience in those areas.

Dr. Harvey has a solid record of achievement in the private sector in areas related to transformation, financial management, and contracting which, as I said, will serve him very well if confirmed by the Senate as Secretary of the Army.

At the nomination hearing, as those in attendance will recall, I went to some length to emphasize that there is another side to the Army and that is the human side. I was privileged at one time in my lifetime to be in the Department of Defense and to be Secretary of the Navy. It is not all contracts and negotiations and things of that nature; there is a very strong family side to each of the military departments. I referred to it in that hearing as the human side. That reflects the hopes and aspirations and patriotism of soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and their families.

The family today has an ever increasing role in the life of the uniformed member of that family, be he male or female. Families now are instrumental in the decision process by which members of the military at the time they are up for consideration elect continuing service, to retire, or otherwise step aside and join the private sector. It is often the decision of the family that controls that sailor, airman, marine, as he or she makes that decision.

I urged Dr. Harvey to travel as soon as possible to Iraq, Afghanistan, the Republic of Korea, in order to gain firsthand appreciation for the sacrifice being made by the soldiers and the stress being placed upon them and their families. Soldiers must be confident that the civilian leader of the department he represents is truly aware of their specific meanings and the emphasis on the family role.

The Army is facing a great challenge today for which there are few precedents in a long, distinguished history. Dr. Harvey assured the committee on October 6 he would undertake this mission of familiarizing himself with the people who make up the Regular Army, the Army Reserve, and the National Guard. It is extraordinary, with over 400,000 who have been in this particular cycle of conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq from the Guard and Reserve.

At the hearing, Dr. Harvey committed that he would put people first. He emphasized that even as the Army carries out its responsibilities in the near term, it must also develop a future force that is better able to meet the challenges of this dangerous security environment by implementing the key element of defense strategy. He is committed to this transformation that has been laid down in the years previous by the Secretary of Defense, whom I commend for his undertaking and transforming the Army, and the Chief of Staff who currently serves and, indeed, the accomplishments to date by the distinguished Acting Secretary, Secretary Brownlee.

Before I yield, I will say a few words about Secretary Brownlee. I was privileged to have the services of Secretary Brownlee on my personal staff and as a member of the committee staff. I note that he served as the senior member of the Armed Services Committee staff, chief of that staff, at the time our distinguished late colleague Strom Thurmond was chairman. He was a superb combat soldier. He brought to his work on behalf of the Senate an extraordinary record of a highly decorated officer. He had a tremendous inner confidence in his ability to understand the men and women in the Armed Forces and to understand particularly those who are experiencing the stress of combat, wherever that may be in the world--an extraordinary man: Two Silver Stars, three Bronze Stars, and the Purple Heart. He was a marvelous staff director not only for Senator Thurmond but to me. He is highly revered and respected and always will be by the Senate as a whole.

Many colleagues came up to me during the course of the vacancy at the Secretary of the Army position in expressing hopes that he would be considered. Indeed, I talked to the Secretary of Defense on several occasions about it. On behalf of myself, most particularly, and other colleagues, I advocated consideration be given to him, but the Secretary and the President made a decision. I am urging the Senate to go forward with that decision today and to confirm the nomination of Dr. Harvey.

I will yield the floor as I see the presence of my distinguished ranking member and the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. President, I will yield the floor momentarily, but I do thank my colleague for his comments with regard to Les Brownlee.

I remember the privilege I had introducing him at the confirmation hearing before our committee as Under Secretary of the Army. I went back and reread that introduction. I said he represented a tower of strength, dedication, and expertise that few could match. And, indeed, he has shown that in his exemplary manner in handling

the very difficult challenges that have been presented by the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. I thank my colleague for those remarks.

Mr. President, the distinguished ranking member and I are trying to advise our leadership with regard to a procedural matter. So at this time, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that it be charged to both sides equally.

Mr. President, in the interest of accuracy, I wonder if the Senator will yield?

I know you want to be accurate. You are known on the committee as being a very accurate person, but you know the Secretary of Defense did forward the name of Secretary Roche, Secretary of the Air Force, to the Senate. Therein we discovered other situations that dictated in good, common sense that nomination should be withdrawn. But it did show action by the Secretary, and I wanted that part of the record.

Will the Senator yield? He brings up a subject of great importance to the committee. Indeed, I commend the committee as a whole for the manner in which it pursued its look into this situation. We are awaiting what is described as maybe the final report--the Senator is aware of that--which is to be a compendium analysis of previous reports and such other factors deemed relevant.

There is also an outstanding request that I put to General Kern and his group in the course of the hearing that we would like to have them, once again, assess the full meaning of accountability as they use that.

I thank the Senator for raising the question. I assure him it is something I will continue as chairman in the coming Congress. This is a matter which the committee will once again address.

I thank the distinguished Senator. The ranking member was a full working partner, together with all Members of the committee.

Mr. President, before recognizing the distinguished Senator from Colorado, I would like to respond to two issues raised by our colleague from Rhode Island in the course of what I think has been a very constructive debate today.

The first is on the issue of end strength.

Senator Reed has argued that the Regular Army--the active duty force--needs to be larger, and I would agree with him.

In the Ronald Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005, signed by the President on October 28, Congress required that the Army increase its active-duty strength by 20,000 soldiers over fiscal year 2004 levels.

The conference report, while noting that in a time of national emergency the President may direct even higher levels, specifically authorized an increase of 30,000 soldiers between 2005 and 2009.

These increased numbers reflect the recommendations of General Peter Schoomaker, the Chief of Staff of the Army, who is a great soldier. He has proven to be a superb Chief of Staff of the Army.

In the committee hearing on General Schoomaker's nomination last year, I recall very well the questions asked of him as to whether he thought that the Army needed to have more soldiers. General Schoomaker responded candidly that his intuition told him that he thought the Army needed to be larger.

He was right. Following his confirmation and appointment in August 2003, he has testified on several occasions about the end strength issues and communicated his views about what needs to be done to ensure the Army is prepared and ready in all respects for its current missions.

The Army laid out a plan to temporarily increase end strength by 30,000 over the next 5 years as it was transforming to ``modular units of action.''

General Schoomaker, for example, testified on November 19, 2003, in a full committee hearing on ``Current Army Issues.'' I questioned him about the force level of the Army, asking General Schoomaker about whether we need additional troops.

His response was that as a result of stop-loss and stop-movement, which currently serves to ensure unit manning and cohesion, the Army was operating with 20,000 more soldiers in the regular Army than in 2002. He went on to emphasize that

the greatest move we can make is to get the proper

utilization of the soldiers within the Army that we have

authorized and we are paying for right now. This is going to

require significant active-Guard and Reserve rebalancing and

significant restructuring of policies that will give us

access to more of the force that we are paying for and

have on hand right now.

General Schoomaker reiterated this point in February 2004 when he testified with the Secretary of Defense on the President's fiscal year 2005 budget. General Schoomaker shared his ``rain barrel'' and ``spigot'' analogy with us in which he noted that because of the Army's current organization and composition, the Army cannot make use of the bulk of its manpower.

General Schoomaker has called for transformational changes in Army personnel planning, such as conversion of billets from military to civilian employees; he has advocated rebalancing of reserve and active skills to improve readiness; he has called for greater numbers of soldiers with essential occupational skills, and implementation of new technology. In doing so, he consistently has argued throughout the past year that precipitous increases in end strength were not the answer to the Army's readiness challenges.

In a recent interview last month, General Schoomaker stated:

We all agree the Army should grow. The issue is how to pay

for it. Right now we have supplemental funding to increase

numbers we're bringing in and retaining. . . . We are growing

through increased accessions and retention. We have grown to

495,000 on active duty, up from 480,000 last year. We are

making the Army as big as we can, as fast as we can. But

paying for it is another issue.

In summary then, three points need to be made:

First, the Army is increasing in size. The Army active-duty strength on September 30 of this year was 499,530. That was about 17,000 above the authorized end strength for fiscal year 2004. The Army is projecting that it will meet the requirement to expand by 20,000 soldiers by the end of fiscal year 2005.

Second, while all agree that the Army is stretched, the Department of Defense has been clear that if the combatant commander in U.S. Central Command calls for more troops, he will receive them.

And, third, the cost of 10,000 additional active-duty soldiers has been estimated to be $1.2 billion. It is essential that budgeting realities be taken into account and that the Army not be required to absorb additional soldiers ``out of hide.'' To do otherwise would undermine General Schoomaker's critically important transformational vision.

I draw to my colleagues' attention that General Schoomaker, the current Chief of Staff of the Army, has addressed this issue. I questioned him in the course of the hearing on November 19 about the force level of the Army. I asked him how he felt about the need for additional troops. His response was that as a result of the stop-loss and

stop-movement which currently serves to ensure unit manning and cohesion, the Army was operating with 20,000 more soldiers in the Regular Army than in 2002.

In a subsequent interview last month, he stated:

We all agree that the Army should grow. The issue is how to

pay for it.

The Senator from Rhode Island raised that point.

General Schoomaker went on to say:

Right now we have supplemental funding to increase numbers

we're brining in and retaining. . . .

I think he has looked at this in a very responsible way, recognizing that the supplemental, hopefully, has cared for the immediate needs of the Army and will provide funds to implement the legislation the committee incorporated in the Ronald Reagan Defense Act of 2004 that we put through.

Also, the Senator raised a question about General Shinseki, and that is one in which I have been increasingly interested through the years. And actually, on this floor, I stated to the Senate that so much has been said about this distinguished officer's career and how he concluded, which I always thought was the regular way, that the Chief of Staff would step down at the conclusion of his term. But others have views about that, and I am not going to get into that.

I would like to put in the Record the colloquy between Senator Levin and General Shinseki on February 25, 2003, when he addressed this question of the forces that could be used or required. It is interesting to go back and read it because I think people have seized on this so often to refer to it as a basis for their observations. But here is what he said. Senator Levin asked the question:

General Shinseki, could you give us some idea as to the

Army's force requirement for an occupation of Iraq following

the successful completion of the war?

Bear in mind, the operation had not even started at that time, and this question was put to General Shinseki after all the chiefs had made opening statements. General Shinseki had put into the record his full statement and then testified in open session to most of that statement.

General Shinseki said: ``In specific number, I would have to rely on combatant commanders' exact requirements,'' which is much what the President and the Secretary of Defense have said each time this issue is up. If the combatant commanders made requests, indeed he, the President, would consider it and, in all probability, meet those requests.

Then he went on. It is very interesting. He is a most distinguished officer, and I share the Senator's views about him. There are moments in our Senate career that we never forget, but I remember in the course of the confirmation of General Shinseki, our distinguished colleague from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, rose and gave one of the most magnificent speeches on the floor of the Senate I have ever heard about any individual in the 26 years I have been privileged to serve here. I share in the full respect for this officer.

Here is what he said again to Senator Levin:

I would say that what has been mobilized to this point,

something in the order of several hundred thousand

soldiers, is probably a figure that would be required.

In other words, it was not a finite statement. It was more or less a generalized statement. He continued:

We are talking about post-hostilities control over a piece

of geography that is fairly significant with the ethnic

tensions that could lead to other problems.

That is showing a lot of foresight.

It takes a significant ground presence to maintain a safe

and secure environment to make sure that people are fed, that

water is distributed, all with the responsibilities that go

along with administering a situation like this.

But he makes no reference at that point that he ever anticipated the level of insurgency, the infiltration of these terrorists from other nations to come in and fuel this fight.

In fairness to him, I think the exact text that he responded to that question, which, again, was referred to by my distinguished colleague, the ranking member, and myself today should be made a part of this Record.

I inquire of the Presiding Officer as to the time remaining under the control of the Senator from Virginia.

And the distinguished ranking member, I believe, has roughly an hour.

I notice the presence on the floor momentarily of our distinguished colleague from South Carolina and, indeed, the current junior Senator from South Carolina. I know the Senate is anxious to hear from both our colleagues with regard to the forthcoming retirement of our distinguished colleague, Senator Hollings.

I also see my colleague from Colorado who desires to speak to the matter before the Senate. I say to the Senate that I think this debate and discussion among the members of the committee as relating to the nomination is about to come to a close, and subject to the ranking member's views, which I ask he provide the Senate at this time, I would like to give--how much time would the Senator from Colorado desire?

I think the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, wants about 5 minutes. Perhaps 15 minutes on this side, I say to my colleagues, is the remainder of the time we would seek on this nomination.

I certainly would not impose any objection to a colleague wishing to expand the remarks.

Mr. President, I call to the attention of my colleague that this issue of General Shinseki's remarks has been and perhaps will continue to be debated and discussed.

But actually, on the floor of the Senate--and my recollection is it was last fall from this fall in connection with the conference report-- I said to the Senate that I had asked repeatedly of the Army, of members of the Army: Was there any staff work done on this issue of the troop levels required in a post-conflict situation, either in the Department of the Army or in the joint staff? I urged that that be forthcoming and that information be given to the committee.

To the best of my knowledge, no one has come forward to show any staff workup that provided the basis for the General's reply. As I point out, the General did not, in the course of these opening remarks, in a prepared statement, make any reference to that. As a matter of fact, he was supportive of the figure that was in the budget.

Yes.

You address this thing in a very broad context, which you are free to do. I was very specific. When he said several hundred thousand, I inquired as to whether there is any document, either in the Department of the Army or the joint staff, which supported that several hundred thousand individuals would be needed in a post-conflict situation.

Mr. President, at this point I further ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record testimony by General Franks in response to questioning by Senator Levin on this issue.

That concludes the debate at this point. I wonder if Senator Allard and Senator Inhofe--I see Senator Sessions--we are trying, if I might, to acquaint my colleagues who have arrived on the floor--the distinguished senior Senator from South Carolina desires to speak to his forthcoming retirement. The senior Senator wishes to speak to that. Yet this issue has been fully debated by those who have been on the floor. I judge my colleagues here wish to take some time.

If my colleague could indicate that to me, I would like to allocate the time you would like to have.

First, Senator Allard.

Other Senators?

Let's say 5. He is the chairman on the subcommittee for the Army and I think that is important.

I say to the Senator from Oklahoma----

I will leave that to the Senator's judgment. For the moment I will say 7 minutes. Is that agreeable?

Does the Senator from Colorado wish to allow our distinguished colleague from Alabama to proceed?

For that purpose, I ask unanimous consent for the Senator from Alabama, to be followed by the Senator from Colorado, followed by the Senator from Oklahoma, to address the Senate in the confines of the time allocated.

Mr. President, does the Senator from Oklahoma desire additional time?

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator 3 more minutes.

Mr. President, I wish to conclude this debate on the nominee. The nomination will be voted on, I am told, at 5:15, subject to modifications at that time.

I say in conclusion that I think we have had a very good debate on this nomination and also the serious issues affecting the Department of the Army. I think it has been helpful in many respects.

I am prepared to yield back all the remaining time which I have in the debate. I understand the distinguished ranking member is prepared to do likewise.

Mr. President, in that case, I yield the floor with the understanding that the distinguished colleague from South Carolina can now proceed as he desires with regard to a very important set of remarks the Senate is anxious to receive. I say that in all sincerity.

I thank colleagues for their participation in this debate. I strongly urge Members of the Senate to vote for confirmation of the nominee. This particular individual who is nominated to be Assistant Secretary of Defense came before the Armed Services Committee. He was reported out favorably to the floor and had been waiting for some period of time for confirmation to that position. The Secretary of Defense made the decision to resubmit his name in connection with the Secretary of the Army.

I strongly urge colleagues to support this nominee. This is the nomination of the President of the United States.

I yield the floor.

I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I commend an outstanding Virginian, Mr. Wendell L. Johnson, whose work has adorned the walls of many members of the House of Representatives. The ``Member of Congress'' seal designed by Mr. Johnson has been used numerous times by our federal legislators over the years, and he deserves the acknowledgment of this chamber for his service to the United States.

As a young man of 18 years, Mr. Johnson enlisted in the Army to help his country during World War II. Rising to the rank of Sergeant, he earned a Good Conduct Medal before being honorably discharged in December 1945. Continuing a career of public service, Mr. Johnson joined the staff of United States Representative Alvin E. O'Konski of Wisconsin. While assisting the congressman in preparation for a televised speech in 1958, Mr. Johnson astutely realized that the viewing audience, who soon would be tuning in with this new medium, might not be able to identify Representative O'Konski at first sight. Understanding correctly the value of the congressman's image on television, Mr. Johnson hurried to the hardware store for the tools and supplies necessary to create a logo dignified enough to appear with a member of the United States Congress. By the time that the good people of Wisconsin had turned on their RCAs and Zeniths, Representative O'Konski spoke proudly from behind a podium bearing Johnson's exceptional ``Member of Congress'' seal.

While not the official seal of either the House of Representatives or the Senate, Mr. Johnson's noble design represented the first insignia and plaque used for an individual member of the United States Congress. In the decade following its first use, his handiwork became very popular among Representative O'Konski's colleagues in the House. Mr. Johnson was thrilled to see orders for his product from the House Stationery Clerk, and he made a hobby of providing plaques to a host of members, including Harold Ostertag, Louis Wyman, Bill Brock, Dan Rostenkowski, and Donald Rumsfeld.

Mr. Johnson's artistry expertly reflects the dignity and honor of the legislative branch. Featuring a proud eagle under a field of fourteen stars, the circular plaque bears the words ``Member of Congress'' above the name of our nation. A banner of ``E Pluribus Unum'' is clutched in the beak of the eagle, which holds in its talons a branch of olives and three arrows. Mr. Johnson's design has earned the esteem of many, as it has appeared on Congressional stationery, the official oil portrait of two committee chairmen, and even a number of gravestones.

I thank you for the opportunity today to give Mr. Wendell L. Johnson the recognition that he so rightly deserves for his service to Congress.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee be authorized to meet on Tuesday, November 16, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., on Global Climate Change: Arctic Climate Global Assessment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, November 16, 2004, at 9 a.m., on ``Judicial Nominations'' in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness list

Panel I: Senators.

Panel II: Thomas B. Griffith, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia.

Panel III: Paul A. Crotty, to be a U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York; and J. Michael Seabright, to be a U.S. District Judge for the District of Hawaii.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet today, Tuesday, November 16, 2004, from 2:30 p.m.-4:30 p.m. in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Financial Management,

the Budget, and International Security be authorized to meet on Tuesday, November 16, 2004, at 10:30 a.m., for a hearing entitled, ``Oversight Hearing on Insurance Brokerage Practices, Including Potential Conflicts of Interest and the Adequacy of the Current Regulatory Framework.''

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I was very pleased with the total cooperation on both sides of the aisle. We passed yesterday the annual authorization act in honor, by the way, of Ronald Reagan. We named it in his honor. However, it was a stack about three times the size of this when it reached the Senate.

I saw my distinguished colleague from Louisiana, who, incidentally, served on the Armed Services Committee with great distinction. She does have a keen knowledge of the needs of the military people. I respect that greatly.

In that bill we have made some progress this year on a very delicate package of benefit increases for the Guard and Reserve and made inroads to the TRICARE situation and made an impression on that in this bill. It is a balance we constantly have to watch between the active service--that individual, he or she, 365 days a year on call, their families likewise--and then the contribution of the Guard and Reserve, which has absolutely been extraordinary, as the distinguished colleague from Louisiana points out.

I can speak from some personal experience. Never before has the United States relied so heavily on the Guard and Reserve since, the Senator pointed out, World War II. I see my distinguished colleague here from Alaska. He had a very heroic career in World War II, and I had a far less distinguished career. I was 17. We did what we had to do. I saw it swelled to 16 million men and women in the Armed Forces. The chart also showed how we are down to a level of 1941. The reason for that is the spectrum of threats against this country--the standing armies and navies of other nations don't anywhere near approach what we have, and the weapons are so different. One ship today can do the work of four ships we had during World War II. So there is a reason for that leveling off.

The point I wish to make in conclusion is every time a pay in benefit is brought up for any one of the Active or the Reserve, it goes through enormous formulations in the Department of Defense by people who spend their total careers trying to maintain a fair and equitable balance between the Guard and Reserve and to meet their needs and to have that standing Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force that is required for 365 days of the year, and then proudly to have the Guard and Reserve, which can respond in time of need.

So with all due respect to my colleague from Louisiana, I would hope this type of legislation again would be analyzed in the normal course of the authorization and appropriations bills. I say to the Senator, you were so active as a member of our committee. That way, we can have access to that tremendous infrastructure within the Department of Defense and elsewhere that has the knowledge as to how best to structure the benefit package for the Active as well as the Reserve Forces.

Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on the bill (H.R. 4200) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, on behalf of the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Levin, and myself, I now ask unanimous consent that the conference report be adopted and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, all with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, this conference report represents the hard work of many, many individuals. I first thank my distinguished ranking member, Mr. Levin of Michigan, together with our subcommittee chairmen and all members of the committee. This was truly a bipartisan effort from start to finish. We achieved an extraordinary piece of legislation. I am proud to say, at the request of the chairman, myself, the bill is named the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005.

We do that in honor of our late President's extraordinary contributions to the men and women of the Armed Forces in his capacity as President and in his role as Commander in Chief at that time.

This conference report provides $420.6 billion for defense, an increase of $19.3 billion above the amount authorized by Congress last year. The report also authorizes an additional $25 billion for war- related costs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I am proud to bring the conference report for the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 before the Senate for final passage. I thank my ranking member and partner for these 26 years, the senior Senator from Michigan, Carl Levin, for his consistently constructive help and leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor. I would also like to thank our subcommittee chairman and ranking members, and all committee members for their hard work on this conference report. I am pleased that this legislation report has the unanimous support of the members of the committee.

I also want to thank Chairman Duncan Hunter and Congressman Skelton for their leadership and teamwork in producing this conference agreement.

No committee succeeds without a dedicated, professional staff, and I believe our committee has one of the finest on Capitol Hill. I particularly want to recognize the efforts of the Committee Staff Director, Judy Ansley and the Democratic Staff Director, Rick DeBobes in bringing this process to a successful conclusion. They have led a great staff, all of whom deserve great credit and recognition. This dedicated professional staff worked very long hours and helped the members reach the agreements that are contained in the conference report before us. I ask that the names of all members of the committee staff be printed in the record following my remarks.

The Senator from Arizona is correct. Section 133 specifically revokes the authority previously granted under Section 8159 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002, to the Air Force to lease aircraft for use as tankers. The conferees expressed their intent very strongly on this issue in eliminating all references to leasing aircraft throughout Section 135.

Section 133 bars the Air Force from executing a contract for the multiyear purchase of aircraft specified under Section 8159, that is, general purpose Boeing 767 aircraft that would be modified as an aerial refueling aircraft. Section 8159 would have precluded full and open competition.

The Senator from Arizona is correct. I thank him for that clarification.

Yes, we have. The Congressional Budget Office would score this provision as a traditional procurement program which would expressly require the Air Force to pay for each tanker in the year it is purchased.

I thank the Senator from Arizona for his steadfast leadership and vigilance on this critical issue. There could be no doubt as to the gentleman's sincerity in always protecting the interests of taxpayers and the warfighter.

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. President, it is reprehensible that the GOP House leadership demanded the removal of the hate crimes provision from the Defense Authorization Act.

The provision had solid support in both the Senate and the House. Under the leadership of Senator Warner and Senator Gordon Smith, the Senate approved it as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill in July by the nearly 2-to-1 bipartisan majority of 65 to 33. Eighteen Republicans joined all the Democrats in approving this measure. Last week, by a vote of 213 to 186, the House instructed its conferees to support this provision in the conference report on the bill.

The hate crimes provision is an essential response to a serious problem which continues to plague the nation. Since the September 11 attacks, we've had a shameful increase in the number of hate crimes committed in our country against Arabs and Muslims--murders, beatings, arson, attacks on mosques, shootings, and other assaults. In 2001, anti-Muslim incidents were the second highest-reported hate crimes based on religion--second only to anti-Jewish hate crimes.

Nevertheless, under current law, the Justice Department has to fight these vicious crimes with one hand tied behind its back. Outdated pre- 9/11 restrictions limit Federal jurisdiction in hate crimes based on religion. Hate crimes based on sexual orientation are not even covered by the law. How can House Republican leaders say they're fighting a war on terrorism, when they're not prepared to fight it here at home?

Clearly, President Bush is worried about his right-wing base in the coming election, and the implication is obvious that the White House sent word to its Republican allies in the House--block the hate crimes provision, even if blocking it denies the clear will of the majority.

The carefully selected White House candidate for the Senate in Florida used the hate crimes issue to smear his opponent in the Republican primary in August. Former Congressman Bill McCollum, a respected law-and-order Republican, was smeared as ``anti-family'' and ``the new darling of the homosexual extremists'' and lost the primary-- because he supported the hate crimes legislation. There is nothing ``anti-family'' or divisive about the hate crimes bill. It protects all victims of hate-motivated violence: citizens of all races, all religions, all sexual orientations. No one is left out.

Sadly, the despicable smear against Congressman McCollum in Florida is only one example of the vicious campaign tactics used by Republicans this year. In West Virginia and Arkansas, the Republican National Committee has sent out flyers suggesting that ``liberals'' want to ban the Bible. My colleague Senator Robert Byrd aptly described it as a ``desperation tactic'' and ``an insult to the intelligence of voters'' in his State.

In Oklahoma, the National Republican Senate Campaign is running a race-baiting advertisement on television attacking Democratic Senate candidate Brad Carson's record on immigration by showing images of Hispanic farm workers and African Americans receiving welfare dollars. We've seen such campaign appeals to racism and bigotry before in this country. Most of us hoped we would never see them again.

When President Bush condones outrageous tactics like these, how can he claim with a straight face that he's lived up to his campaign promise to be a uniter, not a divider?

The administration is wrong to have ordered its allies in the House to block our bipartisan hate crimes provision. However, this is not the end of our battle. We will be back again and again, and we will continue to bring this legislation up every opportunity we can until it is signed into law. It's heartening to know that we may soon have a President who will sign it--a President who is honestly committed to uniting, not dividing, the country.

Mr. President, I join in that. Senator Harkin was actually a Naval aviator. We have discussed that distinguished part of his career many times.

I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Nevada. He very quietly works on issues. I can remember a year ago we stood in this well when we weren't able to achieve that goal, the distinguished Senator from Nevada himself--I think Senator McCain was very active and Senator Levin. We said: All right. This year we can't get it, but next year we will. Through the Senator's absolute resolute determination that was accomplished. He did it for a category of veterans who are well deserved of this recognition by the Congress and the American people for their services.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I believe this has been cleared on both sides.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 514, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the concurrent resolution be printed in the Record.

I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.