Floor Statements

Mr. President, I seek recognition to honor a Virginia Soldier, CWO Sharon T. Swartworth, who was tragically killed in action in Iraq on Friday, November 7, 2003. I want to express gratitude, on behalf of the Senate, for her service to our Nation. The American people, I am certain, join me in expressing their prayers and compassion to her family.

CWO Sharon T. Swartworth entered the Army shortly before her eighteenth birthday, her father signing the papers allowing her to enlist early. ``She traveled around the world before she was assigned to the Pentagon.'' She understood the importance of her present assignment and despite the personal risk, wanted to serve the United States and the people of Iraq during this critical time.

A warrant officer of the Judge Advocate General's Corps, she served as the primary adviser to the judge advocate general on all matters concerning legal administrators in the Army. She was temporarily in Iraq to process awards for deserving soldiers and to ensure the legal needs of soldiers were being met.

CWO Sharon T. Swartworth leaves behind: her son, William III; her husband, William, a captain of the Naval Medical Corps; and her father, Bernard Mayo.

I, among many friends and colleagues, attended the ceremony at Arlington Cemetery. Her family, who has borne this tragedy with dignity, are brave souls who have sacrificed so much for this Nation. We owe them and the other families who have lost their loved ones a debt of gratitude.

She was an exceptional woman with a bright future and family in front of her. Her father related, ``She did it all, and we can be proud of her. She was a soldier.'' I can not craft a finer eulogy. The Commonwealth of Virginia and the entire Nation shall mourn her loss.

Mr. President, pursuant to the order of November 14, I ask that the Senate now proceed to executive session to begin consideration of Executive Calendar No. 418, the nomination of Maj. Gen. Robert T. Clark to be Lieutenant General.

Mr. President, there are a number of Senators who desire to speak. I will just say a few words. To accommodate my distinguished colleague from Kentucky, who has been a valiant supporter of this nomination and very persistent over this long period of time, I will yield the floor. He then could be followed by the Senator from Massachusetts and then I would continue my remarks.

I wonder if I just might ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Virginia proceed for not to exceed 3 or 4 minutes, followed by the Senator from Kentucky for about 10 or 12 minutes, followed by the Senator from Massachusetts. How much time does my colleague desire?

Not to exceed a period of about 40 minutes for the Senator from Massachusetts.

I was not able to hear.

The Senator is correct on that.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague.

Major General Clark is a highly qualified officer for promotion to the rank of lieutenant general. I have met with him several times. His proposed assignment by the Secretary of Defense is to be Commander of the Fifth U.S. Army.

He was first nominated for this position in the fall of 2002. He has appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee in executive session on two separate occasions. On both occasions he conducted himself with deference and respect not only for the serious issues at hand but for all persons involved in this tragic sequence of facts which preceded his nomination.

He expressed great respect for the constitutionally-based advise and consent power and the responsibility of the Senate to look into this nomination with great thoroughness. Not surprisingly, General Clark has the full support of the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Schoomaker, and the civilian leadership of the Army for this promotion. Indeed, the Secretary of Defense personally, in a very respectful way, has talked to me about this nomination and his strong support for this nominee.

I will detail at length later on in the course of this debate the very thorough steps taken by the Senate Armed Services Committee. I commend my colleagues on the committee. There were unusual facts associated with this nomination involving tragic loss of life, a strong disciplinary action against those who brought about the direct harm to the victim who gave his life. In the course of that, I and other members of the committee took it upon ourselves to meet with the family members of the deceased victim in this particular case. I wish to commend them. They handled themselves in a manner of great distinction, given the depth of emotion on their part.

I also commend the former Vice Chief of the Army, General Keane. He took it upon himself time and time again, working with the distinguished Under Secretary of the Army, Les Brownlee, to repeatedly go back and reinvestigate certain aspects of this case, I hope to the satisfaction of all Members, certainly to this Senator and generally members of the committee.

Mr. President, I yield the floor to accommodate my colleague. I again thank him for his strong tenacity in supporting this nomination throughout.

Mr. President, may I express appreciation to my colleague from Kentucky again for his taking long hours to personally look into this case in a very objective way and in reaching his conclusions.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I was going to reply to some of the points my colleague from Massachusetts made. As you well know, the General----

Yes.

Mr. President, parliamentary question: We are on this nomination with 2 hours of debate and 1 hour each divided equally. I manage this side and Senator Kennedy manages that side. If the Senator wishes to go on to another matter, I am not sure how the Senator wishes to handle this.

Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Massachusetts will accommodate the Senator from Virginia. I would like to make some comments with respect to his important remarks while they are fresh in the minds of the listeners. I think it is appropriate that I take a little time. Then, as far as I am concerned, we will both yield back our time and the Senator from Massachusetts can take some time on another matter, if he wishes. Is that helpful?

I will summarize my comments in about 5 or 6 minutes, at the conclusion of which we could both yield our time.

That is under the order. I didn't realize he just walked in the Chamber. I am trying to do the best I can to accommodate everybody and manage the time efficiently. But I do desire at this point in time an opportunity to reply to my colleague from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, the Senate had a comparison between how General Keane and General Clark handled problems within their respective commands. General Clark was the convening authority, and the tragedy that occurred to which the Senator referred, and which is the subject of some comments here today, came up through the military command, was handled by the military courts and the military authorities, and adjudicated. As the convening authority, I think he took some prudent steps to make certain that in no way could he be accused of command influence. The tragedy in General Keane's command was tried in the civilian courts, and as such he was not the convening authority. He then had the opportunity to do some things which I believe General Clark did not.

Out of this tragedy, there were lessons learned in the Army. I think some important new policy matters were put into the regulations. Otherwise, not all was lost in this tragic situation.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Army Inspector General's Report on Fort Campbell at the conclusion of my remarks. That is the first section of it that addresses a number of points that are raised by the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, I believe from reading this report--not in the words of the Senator from Massachusetts that no one was trying to stop these tragic situations--that it was generally a positive command climate. There were some isolated instances of harassment, sexual in nature. I concede that is in the Record. But the total quantity of these incidents, in my judgment, was not indicative of a breakdown in the command responsibilities under General Clark.

General Clark, as I said, came to the committee on two occasions and subjected himself quite willingly--indeed, under oath; I put him under oath at the second hearing--and he responded to the cross-examination, much of which the distinguished colleague from Massachusetts has raised today.

In conclusion, he has an extremely impressive record of military service stretching back to 1970. Much of that has been covered by my colleague from Kentucky.

Mind you, Fort Campbell is an installation that can at times host a daily population of 24,000 military personnel and over 200 company- sized units.

In July of 1999, this brutal murder was committed at Fort Campbell by an intoxicated 18-year-old soldier who used frightful force against PFC Barry Winchell. This resulted in his death, allegedly while he was sleeping. No one underestimates the seriousness of this crime.

Senator Levin and I met in May of this year with the parents of Private First Class Winchell. Like General Clark, we extended our sympathy and sorrow for their loss. The committee listened very closely to the assertions they made about a lack of appropriate treatment by General Clark and shortfalls in discipline and a secure environment at Fort Campbell during the time their son was stationed there.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Senator Levin and I asked Private First Class Winchell's parents to put the questions and concerns they had raised with us at that meeting in a letter, and we would obtain answers from the Department of Defense--specifically, the Department of the Army--and share those answers with them. That we did. The parents sent us a letter and Senator Levin and I forwarded these questions to the Department. In September, the Department responded to questions and expressed continued support for Major General Clark's nomination.

I ask unanimous consent that all of these matters be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

Mr. President, not only the steps taken by the Armed Services Committee, together with my distinguished colleague Senator Levin, but indeed by the Department of the Army into other areas overall reflect, I think, that our committee carefully looked into this matter and that the Department of the Army was responsive to the questions raised by my colleagues.

Mr. President, MG Clark is highly qualified for promotion to the rank of lieutenant general assignment as Commander of the Fifth United States Army. He was first nominated for this position in the fall of 2002. He has appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee in executive session on two separate occasions, and, on both occasions conducted himself with deferrence and respect for the members of the committee, and with appreciation for the Constitutionally-based advise and consent power--and responsibility--of the Senate. Not surprisingly, General Clark has the full support of the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Schoomaker, and the civilian leadership of the Army for this promotion.

General Clark has an extremely impressive record of military service stretching back to his commissioning in 1970. General Clark's military record includes combat service in Viet Nam for which he was awarded the Bronze Star with Combat ``V.'' He has served as a Battalion Commander and a Brigade Commander with the renowned ``Screaming Eagles'' of the 101st Airborne Division. In this capacity, he participated in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Major General Clark later served as Chief of Staff for the 101st Airborne Division, and from 1998 through 2000 as Commanding General of the 101st Airborne Division and Fort Campbell, KY.

Fort Campbell is an installation that can, at times, host a daily population of over 24,000 military personnel and over 200 company sized units. In July 1999, a brutal murder was committed at Fort Campbell by a drunken, 18-year-old soldier who bludgeoned Private First Class Barry Winchell to death in his sleep. This tragic and senseless crime was not foreseeable--not foreseeable by PFC Winchell's company commander and certainly not foreseeable by Major General Clark. General Clark capably and competently fulfilled his responsibility as General court-Martial convening authority in this murder trial and took steps necessary to ensure that the perpetrator of this crime and an accomplice were brought to justice. This was accomplished and the soldier who murdered PFC Winchell is serving a life sentence.

Senator Levin and I met in May of this year with the parents of PFC Winchell. We, like General Clark, extended our sympathy and sorrow for their loss. As leaders of the committee, we listened very closely to the assertions they made about a lack of appropriate treatment by General Clark, and shortfalls in discipline and a secure environment at Fort Campbell during the time their son was stationed there.

At the conclusion of our meeting, Senator Levin and I asked PFC Winchell's parents to put the questions and concerns that they had raised with us in a letter, and we would obtain answers from the department and share those answer with them. The parents did so, and we sent their questions to the department in June.

In late September, the department responded to the questions, and expressed continued support for Major General Clark's nomination. The Army undertook to conduct inquiries through the Army Inspector General in response to the questions raised by the parents, and, I believe, did respond fully to the issues that were raised.

In late September, Senator Levin and I forwarded the Department's response to PFC Winchell's parents inviting them to respond. They did so on October 8th. On October 10, Senator Levin and I forwarded their letter to the department together with additional questions from Senator Kennedy requesting comment. We received a response from secretary Abell and Acting Secretary Brownlee on October 21st and, shortly thereafter, we conducted our second executive session.

The committee compiled a very thorough record about all the issues raised by Senator Kennedy and others. I will not go into specific details, but it is important to note that the Army Inspector General conducted an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the July 1999 death of PFC Winchell after the court-martial was completed, and the IG found no basis to support accusations of dereliction of duty and failure of leadership by General Clark. To the contrary, the investigation found a positive command climate at Fort Campbell and refuted the assertions that Major General Clark should have done more or could have prevented this tragedy.

I am very concerned about ensuring accountability of military officers, and I have insisted at looking very closely at the actions of military leaders who are entrusted with command. I am satisfied that General Clark did not fail in his command responsibility and is fully deserving of promotion. I urge my colleagues to support this nomination.

Exhibit I

executive summary

Background

On 5 July 1999, Private First Class (PFC) Barry Winchell, D

Company, 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, Fort

Campbell, Kentucky, was murdered by a fellow soldier.

Following this incident, and amid claims that PFC Winchell

was murdered because he was or was perceived to be a

homosexual, allegations arose concerning the command climate

at Fort Campbell particularly as it related to the command's

enforcement of the Department of Defense (DOD) Homosexual

Conduct Policy [hereinafter the Policy]. The Army pledged

early on to assess the command climate and investigate the

alleged violations of the Policy; however, to avoid

interfering in the individual judicial proceedings underway,

the Army could not begin that effort until the conclusion of

the two courts-martial arising out of PFC Winchell's death.

On 10 January 2000, the Secretary of the Army (SA) directed

that the Department of the Army Inspector General (DAIG)

conduct an investigation into the facts and circumstances

surrounding the death of PFC Winchell as it related to the

Policy (enclosed) [hereinafter referred to as directive]. In

addition, the DAIG was tasked to conduct an assessment of the

command climate then existing in PFC Winchell's unit prior to

his death and an overall assessment of the command climate

existing at Fort Campbell prior to PFC Winchell's death,

specifically as it related to the Policy. Finally, the DAIG

was directed to provide an overall assessment of the

Department of the Army's (DA) implementation of the Policy.

The Fort Campbell assessment provided the initial data for

the Army assessment of the Policy. The Army IG will continue

to assess these issues as part of their continuing inspection

program.

Task Force Composition, Training, and Methodology

A Task Force of 27 individuals was established to conduct

the investigation and assessment in accordance with the

directive. The Task Force was composed of inspectors general

(IGs), one legal advisor, and subject matter experts. During

early February, the Task Force received training from the

subject matter experts in the areas of the Policy itself,

Equal Opportunity (EO), interview techniques, and group

dynamics. Further, the Task Force conducted mock individual

interviews and group sensing sessions in order to validate

the assessment strategy. Finally, at the request of the

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), key leaders of

the Task Force met with representatives of the SLDN to

identify specific concerns of the organization. The SLDN is a

national legal aid organization that assists soldiers

affected by the Policy.

The scope of the assessment included the following:

Interviews with the commanding general, 101st Airborne

Division (Air Assault), both assistant division commanders

who were occupying those positions in July 1999, and

interviews with 47 brigade and battalion-level commanders

from both divisional and nondivisional tenant units.

In addition, the Task Force conducted 68 sensing sessions

composed of soldiers randomly-selected by utilizing the

last two digits of the social security number. In these

sessions, 568 soldiers were interviewed and 1,385 command

climate surveys were administered throughout Fort

Campbell. With respect to the sensing sessions, it should

be noted that all of these soldiers were assigned to Fort

Campbell from the period of April 1999 through February

2000. In addition, participants who completed a command

climate survey were informed that the responses would be

anonymous.

In addition to interviews conducted on Fort Campbell, the

investigation team conducted on-site interviews at Fort

Benning and Fort Leonard Wood, as well as telephonic

interviews with soldiers assigned to Korea, Fort Drum, Fort

Knox, Fort Jackson and the United States Military Academy.

Civilian members of the Fort Campbell community as well as

former members of the Army were also interviewed by the

investigation team.

Finally, Task Force members gathered relevant data through

on-site inspections and additional periodic spot checks of

unit recreation centers, public use areas, and barracks

living areas. Finally, the Task Force secured information by

directly observing on-post soldier events to include physical

fitness training sessions.

History and Background of the Policy

On 29 January 1993, the President directed the Secretary of

Defense (SecDef) to review DOD policy on homosexuals in the

military. On 19 July 1993, the SecDef directed the following:

applicants for military service as well as current

servicemembers would not be asked nor required to reveal

their sexual orientation; sexual orientation would not be a

bar to entry into the service or continued service unless

manifested by homosexual conduct; and commanders and

investigating agencies would not initiate investigation

solely to determine a member's sexual orientation. On 30

November 1993, Congress enacted 10 United States Code (USC),

Section 654, policy concerning homosexuality in the armed

forces.

Assessment Results

Finding 1

Objective: Examine alleged violations of the DOD Homosexual

Conduct Policy during the period preceding PFC Winchell's

death.

Findings: 1. A preponderance of evidence indicated that two

noncommissioned officers (NCOs) in PFC Winchell's chain of

command and a fellow private (PVT) inquired into PFC

Winchell's sexual orientation. In addition, at least one NCO

referred to PFC Winchell as a ``faggot.''

2. In spite of this, however, the evidence gathered

demonstrated that the chain of command was proactive in

terminating the sporadic incidents of derogatory or offensive

cadences during unit marches and physical training (PT)

formations.

Summary: Evidence obtained from Fort Campbell indicated

that in late May 1999 PFC Winchell asked an NCO from his

unit, D Company, 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment,

``What would happen if a guy in the military was gay?'' In

responding to that question, the NCO asked PFC Winchell if he

was a homosexual. Testimony revealed that the NCO asked the

question in an effort to offer assistance to PFC Winchell in

getting professional guidance or assistance in addressing the

issue.

Evidence gathered indicated that an NCO in PFC Winchell's

unit referred to PFC Winchell as well as other members of the

unit as ``faggots'' in describing those who failed to perform

to his standards. On one occasion, the NCO referred to PFC

Winchell as a ``faggot'' after PFC Winchell reported to work

in what appeared to be an intoxicated state.

The preponderance of evidence demonstrated that PFC

Winchell's chain of command did not condone demeaning or

derogatory cadences made during the conduct of unit PT. In

those instances where inappropriate remarks were made,

company leaders made on-the-spot corrections.

Finding 2

Objective: Determine whether the local IG's office

responded appropriately to any complaints of violations of

the DOD Policy it may have received prior to PFC Winchell's

death.

Finding: The Fort Campbell IG office properly responded to

the only known complaint of a violation of the Policy prior

to 5 July 1999 when they followed standard Army IG guidance

by recommending PFC Winchell provide his commanders the

opportunity to resolve his complaint prior to direct IG

intervention with the command.

Summary: Immediately after the NCO called PFC Winchell a

``faggot,'' another NCO escorted PFC Winchell to the IG

office to file a complaint. Upon being advised that he should

provide his commander the first opportunity to address the

issue, PFC Winchell was then escorted to his company

commander. Evidence obtained indicated that the company

commander counseled the NCO regarding his inappropriate

remarks.

Finding 3

Objectives: 1. Conduct an overall assessment of the command

climate existing at Fort Campbell prior to 5 July 1999,

specifically as it relates to the application and enforcement

of the DOD Policy.

2. Assess the degree to which PFC Winchell's chain of

command understood the application and enforcement of the DOD

Policy.

3. Conduct sensing sessions with randomly-selected members

at Fort Campbell to determine the degree to which members

felt they understood the Policy and the degree to which the

Policy was being enforced.

4. Assess the command climate of D Company, 2nd Battalion,

502nd Infantry Regiment before 5 July 1999.

Findings: 1. Through sensing sessions, interviews, and

surveys across Fort Campbell, it was determined that the

command climate at Fort Campbell before 5 July 1999 was a

positive environment with exceptions related to medical

support, on- and off-post housing, after-duty-hours

recreation, and shortages of personnel in authorized grades.

Most soldiers indicated satisfaction with their mission,

training, and organizational leadership.

2. With respect to the Policy, it was clear that the chain

of command, from commanding general (CG) through company

leaders, responded appropriately to matters with respect to

enforcement of the Policy.

3. The specific assessment of D Company, 2nd Battalion,

502nd Infantry Regiment's command climate prior to 5 July

1999 was determined to be poor due primarily to leadership

failure of a senior NCO, perceptions pertaining to underage

drinking, and other factors beyond the direct control of the

company, such as shortages of personnel in authorized grades

and quality of life (QOL) issues.

Summary: In evaluating the overall command climate at Fort

Campbell, personnel were asked to compare the command climate

as it existed in February 2000 with the command climate the

year prior. Overall, personnel indicated that the command

climate was favorable. The majority of personnel questioned

believed that the leadership at Fort Campbell was effective

and concerned and treated personnel favorably. In addition,

the majority of personnel questioned felt that the chain of

command responded appropriately to issues presented to them.

Finally, personnel believed that the leadership led by

example.

QOL issues contributed to low morale at Fort Campbell.

Specifically, issues relating to the conditions in the

barracks, problems associated with medical care at Fort

Campbell, and treatment received by soldiers from the

civilian employees and individuals in the surrounding

civilian communities were the major areas of concern to those

questioned.

In general, the application and enforcement of the Policy

did not appear to be a problem at Fort Campbell. Most leaders

took appropriate action in instances where application of the

Policy was warranted and appeared to be operating well within

the confines of the Policy. Soldiers acknowledged, however,

that the joking and bantering that had occurred prior to July

1999 on a regular basis could be viewed as harassment.

Following training on the Policy and Consideration of Others

(COO), soldiers are now more apt to reconsider uttering

phrases that would likely be considered harassment.

However, the command climate of D Company, 2nd Battalion,

502nd Infantry Regiment, in the period prior to PFC

Winchell's murder was poor. In addition to the QOL issues

identified above, soldiers in PFC Winchell's unit believed

that personnel shortages and underage drinking in the

barracks to the poor command climate. The most significant

factor contributing to the poor command climate, however, was

the presence of an abusive NCO in a leadership position in

the unit.

Finding 4

Objective: Review and resolve allegations by Private Second

Class (PV2) Javier Torres and others of specific violations

of the Policy.

Summary of Findings: The preponderance of evidence did not

support PV2 Torres' allegation that he was personally

harassed at Fort Campbell; however, evidence does support his

allegation of routine personal harassment at Fort Benning and

occasional personal harassment at Fort Knox. The

preponderance of evidence supported PV2 Torres' allegations

that during initial entry training (IET) at Fort Benning, one

drill sergeant improperly addressed or referred to him as a

homosexual, and another PVT provoked a fight with him by

routinely taunting him and referring to him as a homosexual.

The evidence also supported PV2 Torres' allegation that at

Fort Campbell a senior NCO improperly used terms derogatory

to homosexuals while trying to motivate male soldiers to

perform to standard and two NCOs improperly used terms

derogatory to homosexuals while singing cadences during a

physical training run. It did not support his allegations

that an NCO in his unit at Fort Campbell improperly used

anti-homosexual language while conducting training on the

Homosexual Conduct Policy, that a soldier at Fort Knox

improperly inquired into his sexual orientation, and that an

NCO in his unit at Fort Campbell improperly inquired into his

sexual orientation.

The preponderance of evidence supported allegations that an

NCO at Fort Campbell read a joke to soldiers that was

demeaning to homosexuals; anti-homosexual graffiti was

present on a wall of a latrine in a unit area, a latrine

in a public recreation area, and a latrine in a work area

at Fort Campbell; and a nongovernmental civilian, not a

soldier, sent an e-mail containing anti-homosexual

language to a former soldier at Fort Campbell. The

preponderance of evidence did not support allegations that

anti-homosexual comments made by soldiers at Fort Campbell

were the ``norm,'' soldiers made threatening and

inappropriate comments during training on the Policy, an

e-mail with a sound wave file attached that contained

language demeaning to homosexuals was circulated at Fort

Campbell, and an NCO's chain of command improperly

inquired into his sexual orientation.

Finding 5

Objectives: 1. Assess the degree to which PFC Winchell's

chain of command understood the application and enforcement

of the Policy.

2. Conduct an overall assessment of the command climate

that existed then at Fort Campbell, specifically as it

relates to the application, enforcement, and training

conducted on the Homosexual Conduct Policy.

3. Conduct sensing sessions with randomly-selected military

members at Fort Campbell to determine the degree to which

members felt they understood the Policy and the degree to

which they believed the Policy was being enforced.

Finding: There was no sustainment training conducted at

Fort Campbell on the Policy before 5 July 1999 because there

was no clearly articulated requirement on how often personnel

were to be trained and who was to receive the training. The

published guidance indicated: ``All officers and enlisted

personnel of the Active Army and Reserve Components will

receive briefings upon entry and periodically thereafter.''

Institutional training of personnel on the implementation and

enforcement of the Policy was ineffective. Most officers,

NCOs, and soldiers at Fort Campbell lacked an understanding

and working knowledge of the Policy prior to 5 July 1999.

Summary: Nearly all soldiers, NCOs, and officers at Fort

Campbell had received training on the Policy at some point in

their military career. The training that was conducted,

however, did not contribute meaningfully to an understanding

or working knowledge of the Policy.

As a result, most personnel did not demonstrate a clear

understanding of their responsibilities under the Policy and

the standards contained within the Policy.

Finding 6

Objective: Assess whether current training materials

adequately convey the substance of the Policy.

Findings: 1. Currently, commanders, leaders, and soldiers

at Fort Campbell do not have a clear understanding of the

Policy because training and informational materials do not

adequately convey the substance of the Policy.

2. Training and informational guidance contain key words

(Don't Ask, Don't Tell) that are not defined in doctrine.

Summary: Based on interviews with commanders, leaders, and

soldiers, the results of the command climate survey, and a

review of records and files at Fort Campbell, it was

determined that the training provided on the Policy is not

clearly written, not tailored to specific audiences based on

rank and duty positions, fails to adequately convey the

substance of the Policy, and is presented in a format which

does not foster open and meaningful discussion on the issues.

Informational materials distributed to Army personnel, to

include a Hot Topics pullout in Soldiers Magazine and a

trifold pamphlet, suffered from the same defects according to

personnel. The use of the terms ``Don't Ask'' and ``Don't

Tell'' in the informational materials without providing

definitions to explain these phrases created a large amount

of anxiety and confusion.

Finding 7

Objective: Provide an overall assessment of the DA's

implementation of the DOD Policy by assessing:

1. Whether the Policy is being fairly applied within units.

2. Whether there are currently any other perceived

deficiencies in the Policy which preclude effective training,

application, and enforcement of the Policy.

Findings: 1. The Policy is being fairly applied at Fort

Campbell; however, the Policy with respect to discharges and

substantial investigations is not being implemented as

intended because commanders perceive an unacceptable risk to

the unit and soldier by retaining soldiers who make

admissions of homosexuality.

2. Commanders have difficulty in balancing their

responsibility to maintain morale, unit cohesion, good order,

and discipline while enforcing the Policy. They perceive that

the current implementing instructions restrain their latitude

to conduct inquiries and preclude them from exercising

reasonable discretion in initiating inquiries.

3. AR 600-20 and subsequent Army guidance and messages

regarding the reporting of harassment based on homosexual

orientation do not adequately advise soldiers where or how to

report harassment, and do not adequately advise commanders

and agencies how to process these complaints.

Summary: The Task Force determined that the Policy was

being fairly applied by commanders at Fort Campbell. The

soldiers discharged under Chapter 15 were overall satisfied

with their treatment during the process. The Fort Campbell

commanders expressed concern in complying with the Policy.

They believe it places them in a professional dilemma by

requiring them to choose between retention of a soldier who

declares a propensity for homosexual conduct and discharge

when the truthfulness of his statement of homosexuality is

suspect. They are

reluctant to conduct inquiries of the truthfulness of an

admission because of the perceived risk to both the unit and

the individual soldier.

Commanders stated to the Task Force that they had

difficulty in balancing the enforcement of the Policy and the

requirement to maintain morale, unit cohesion, good order,

and discipline. Commanders expressed concerns that the Policy

precludes them from conducting an inquiry when presented with

credible information of behavior that demonstrates a soldier

may have a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct. They

believe the Policy precludes them from exercising reasonable

discretion in determining the necessity to conduct an

inquiry.

Information gathered by the Task Force determined that

guidance on reporting harassment based on sexual orientation

by soldiers and investigation into such harassment by leaders

is unclear and confusing. Soldiers and leaders expressed

frustration with knowing how and to whom to report harassment

and how to handle incidents of this type of harassment. They

expressed the belief that all harassment should be dealt with

uniformly.

In summary commanders and leaders at all levels have an

inherent responsibility for establishing a command climate

that promotes good order and discipline essential to

accomplishing the Army's mission. This responsibility

includes promoting unit cohesion by identifying and

eliminating harassment before it occurs or results in reports

of violations of Army Standards.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a remarkable man, Mr. Mortimer M. Caplin, on his outstanding legal career as an academic, public servant and distinguished practitioner. Through the years, Mr. Caplin, has been an inspiration to us all and a shining example of what hard work, dedication and perseverance can accomplish.

I feel a special connection with Mr. Caplin as we both graduated from University of Virginia School of Law and both served our country proudly during World War II in the United States Navy. As a undergraduate and law student at the University of Virginia, Mr. Caplin earned a reputation as a hard working student who always had time to lend a helping hand. During his undergraduate career at Mr. Jefferson's University, Mr. Caplin was elected to Phi Beta Kappa while becoming a standout on Johnny LaRowe's great boxing teams of the mid'30's.

After earning his Bachelor of Science degree, Mr. Caplin went on to the University's law school where he continued his excellent academic career and his affiliation with the University's boxing team. As coach of the First Year team, Mr Caplin instilled in the newly arrived First Years the value of a well rounded education. He also managed to find the time to be selected and serve as Editor-in-Chief of the Virginia Law Review in 1940.

Upon graduation in 1940, Mr. Caplin clerked for Judge Armistead M. Dobie

on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond. Upon completing his clerkship, he joined the New York law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison as an associate but, like so many of us during this era, interrupted his career to defend this country and the freedom we all enjoy. Mr. Caplin joined the Navy and on June 6, 1944, came ashore on Omaha Beach as a member of the initial landing force where he served as U.S. Navy beachmaster.

After the war, Caplin returned to the legal profession and eventually made his way back to the University of Virginia in 1950 where he became a law professor concentrating on tax and corporate law. From 1950 to1962, he taught countless students the value of a legal education until he was again called into public service by President John F. Kennedy to head the Internal Revenue Service.

After retiring from the post in 1964, Mr. Caplin received the Alexander Hamilton Award, the highest honor bestowed by the Treasury Department. Thereafter, he founded Caplin & Drysdale which became, and remains today, one of the leading tax firms in the United States. Mr. Caplin was the 2001 recipient of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation Medal in Law which is awarded to individuals that exemplify the Jeffersonian ideal of the lawyer as public citizen. He truly embodies this ideal and it is right to honor his accomplishments.

On May 18, 2003, Mr. Caplin was invited to address the University of Virginia's 2003 graduating class. His words about the importance of public service are an inspiration to us all. As a tribute to his achievements and his contributions, I ask that his remarks be entered into the Record at this time.

The remarks follow.

A Debt of Service

I must confess, in trying to recall who spoke and what was

said at my own college graduation--``The Great Class of

1937''--my mind remains a blank.

The one commencement I do remember was here at my law

graduation in 1940. The speaker was the president of the

United States--Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He came to the

University to attend the law graduation of his son, Franklin

Jr., one of our classmates.

The Nazi armies of Adolph Hitler were then overrunning

Europe and threatening the freedom of the entire world. On

that very morning, Mussolini's fascist forces--joining

Hitler--had invaded their neighbor France. Soon, every member

of our class would be required to register under the

vigorously debated Selective Service Act, the first peacetime

military draft in our nation's history.

In Memorial Gymnasium, the president delivered a historic

speech--the most sensitive part inserted by him during his

train ride from Washington, contrary to the State

Department's specific pleas that America's neutrality would

be compromised.

FDR dramatically declared: ``On this tenth day of June

1940, the hand that held the dagger has struck it into the

back of its neighbor. On this tenth day of June 1940, in this

University founded by the first great American teacher of

democracy, we send forth our prayers and our hopes to those

beyond the seas who are maintaining with magnificent valor

their battle for freedom.''

Remember, in 1940 there was no television, no cell phones,

no Internet. Until then, we heard President Roosevelt only on

the radio. To have the president of the United States before

us in person, delivering to the world his famous ``dagger-in-

the-back'' speech, is a moment I will never forget.

That day, he also gave us a glimpse into what lay before us

when he solemnly committed, for the first time and without

congressional approval, to ``extend . . . the material

resources of this nation'' to the embattled democracies.

First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt later said: ``Franklin's

address was not just a commencement address, it was a speech

to the nation . . . that brought us one step nearer to total

war.''

For us, World War II had begun. It was not at all what we

graduates had been planning.

As a law student, I spent many hours thinking about my

postgraduation career and dreams. I had already accepted a

legal clerkship with Judge Armistead Mason Dobie, our former

Law School dean and, at that time, a U.S. Circuit Court of

Appeals judge. Next, I would go to New York to begin the

practice of law. With two U.Va. degrees in hand, I felt

prepared to face and perhaps conquer the world. But on Dec.

7, 1941, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and all our lives

changed.

I had hardly begun my Wall Street law practice, when I

found myself in uniform, commissioned an ensign. U.S. Naval

Reserve. When my training was completed, I said goodbye to

Ruth, my wife of just one year, and set sail for duty as a

beachmaster on Omaha Beach on June 6, 1944, for the D-Day

landing on the Normandy coast of France.

World War II and the Navy did teach me a number of

important life skills--many still of help in my private

career. Two, in particular, are worth remembering. First,

avoid fixed and rigid plans. Instead, allow for

flexibility, innovation and possible change--but always

hold true to your personal values. Second, be willing to

accept risk when necessary as you move forward toward your

goals.

Philosopher William James acutely observed: ``It is only by

risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at

all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified

result is the only thing that makes the result come true.''

Simply put, have faith in your choices, and be at the ready

to risk challenge as well as change. You will grow in

strength as you do.

We've heard a great deal of late about those involved in

what has been dubbed ``The Greatest Generation''--glorifying

our ordinary citizens who, through hard work, courage and

sacrifice, successfully confronted the Great Depression and

World War II. Let me confess, though--as a duly designated

member of that body--I find the anointment somewhat overdone.

Countless generations, both before and after--including

today--have also faced challenging times and national crises.

And, in each case, everyday Americans have always

demonstrated equal patriotism, equal devotion, equal

courage--all inherently part of our national culture,

traditions and training.

What may we expect of your generation? A former U. Va. Law

School student of mine--who later became attorney general of

the United States--Robert F. Kennedy, offered an answer in

his 1966 Capetown University speech: ``Few will have the

greatness to bend history; but each of us can work to change

a small portion of events, and in the total of all these acts

will be written the history of this generation.''

Mr. Jefferson consistently laid stress on, not just the

rights of citizens of this country, but also on the

responsibilities. Writing in 1796--shortly before he assumed

the unhappy post of vice president--he stated strongly:

``There is a debt of service due from every man to his

country, proportioned to the bounties which nature and

fortune have measured to him.''

Madam President, the distinguished minority leader is correct that the time has been extended. The vote is to occur, I understand, at 2:45. The 30 minutes intervening is under the control equally of the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, and myself.

Madam President, I encourage any and all Senators who desire to address this bill to avail themselves of the opportunity. To the extent that I have control over the 15 minutes, I am happy to accommodate Senators as they come to the floor.

I yield such time as the distinguished Senator may require. I hope it will be around 5 or 6 minutes.

Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague for his steadfast service on our committee these many years, and particularly in this past year when we were confronted with a number of very serious issues. And I recognize the consideration of this conference report coincides with his markup in the Environment and Public Works Committee on which I am privileged to serve with him. But, I say to the Senator, you manage to do both quite well.

I would be happy to yield to my friend.

I thank the Senator for his question. The answer is no. It was not the intent of the conference committee to make any modification to Title 10 Sec. 2460, Sec. 2464, and Sec. 2466 which address the requirements for the Department of Defense to maintain an organic core logistics capability and ensure that at least 50 percent of depot level maintenance is performed by employees of the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense must still abide by these statutory provisions when they make any decision or action provided for in section 336.

The Senator from Arizona's understanding is correct. By providing for the lease of only 20 planes, and by putting the bulk of this acquisition back into the traditional budget, procurement and authorization process, this compromise is estimated to save taxpayers over $4 billion.

I would like to take this opportunity to correct the legislative record. In a colloquy in the House among Chairman Hunter and Congressmen Dicks and Tiahrt, it was stated that this compromise codified an agreement with the administration as set forth in a November 5, 2003, letter to me from Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. For the record, the compromise does not endorse or codify any such agreement. The compromise is intended to ensure that Defense Department acquires tankers in a manner that meets its own needs, but also the needs and interests of taxpayers. While the Air Force maintained that its original lease proposal achieved this goal, it clearly did not. I fully expect the Defense Department to execute the terms of this compromise in a manner that fully protects American taxpayers' interests.

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

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

Madam President, between now and the hour of 2:45, I yield such time as I have to the distinguished Senator from Nevada.

Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague for his remarks and, more importantly, his active participation in our committee's work throughout this year.

Madam President, I thank our colleague for his kind remarks. I simply say, spoken like the true son of a great United States Senator, with whom I was privileged to serve and who emulated all of the characteristics the Senator from Arkansas has bestowed on me, undeserving as they may be, one David Pryor.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, first, may I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

I thank the Presiding Officer and I thank the distinguished chairman of our Judiciary Committee.

I say to my colleague from Virginia how proud we are to be from the Commonwealth of Virginia from whence so many Framers of the Constitution came. I compliment you on your remarks tonight. I am privileged to serve with you because you represent, in my judgment, all the fine things about the Commonwealth. I try, in my humble way these 25 years, to do the same.

The Senator referred to this Constitution. The question I have to our distinguished chairman is very simple. I want to go back to the hot summer of 1787, when 55 individuals had gathered from the Colonies to work from May 25 to September 17 to frame this precious document. It was a long, hot summer. Tireless trips from their homes to Philadelphia. As a consequence, today, our form of government is the oldest continuously functioning government on Earth today. I have been challenged on it. But almost every other government in existence at the time this Constitution was written have fallen into the dustbin of history. Someone challenged me about Switzerland. Yes, Napoleon crossed the Alps and ceased that government for a period of time. This is a government that has continued to function.

As the delegates emerged on the final day, September 17, Ben Franklin walked down the steps and was met by a reporter. I thought of that little history tonight when a reporter asked me, what is it that you are doing tonight in the Senate? Mr. Franklin answered that question on September 17, 1787. He said to that reporter: We have given you a Republic, if you can keep it.

This Constitution explicitly gives to the President of the United States the power to appoint the judges. In Section 2, it explicitly gives to the Senate, not the Congress, but to the Senate, the responsibility of advice and consent.

Three coequal branches of the Government and the judiciary perform that critical function of keeping the power of each of the other two, executive and legislative, in balance. That is what we are doing tonight. I ask the distinguished chairman, are we not, in the immortal words of Ben Franklin, here tonight for one sole purpose, to keep our Republic?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I have had the privilege of leaving the floor and talking with a number of visitors. It is remarkable how many people have come from all across the country to be here. They have asked me, in a very straightforward manner: Senator, we have followed this debate and we cannot understand how one side says there is no filibuster and the other side says there is a filibuster.

So, Mr. President, I would hope we could enter into a colloquy and allow the colleagues here--the former attorney general of Alabama, who is on the Judiciary Committee, and the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, who has taken such a leadership role--to see whether or not in colloquy we can provide some clarity to those trying to follow this very important debate on this highly technical use of the word ``filibuster.''

So I am just wondering if you would state what your understanding is, and then my colleagues on this side will state their understanding.

So, Mr. President, you have your chance. So let's go.

In the nature of a question, first, I ask the Presiding Officer to inquire of the Parliamentarian if the word ``filibuster'' appears in any of the rules of the Senate. My understanding is that it does not.

So the word ``filibuster'' is not in the rules. I want to clarify that. I have done a lot of study on this question, and I think I can work our way through it. It is not in the rules. Let's go to Webster's Dictionary. It is rather interesting, the word has been used throughout history in many ways.

Filibuster--the first definition: ``An irregular military adventurer; an American engaged in fomenting insurrections in Latin America in the mid-19th century.'' But then we get to the last definition, and herein I think is some guidance: ``a: the use of extreme dilatory tactics in an attempt to delay or prevent action, esp. in a legislative assembly. b: an instance of this practice.''

I think somewhere in between lies the truth. So perhaps with this background and the assurance it isn't in the rules, the Senator from Alabama can continue to educate the Senate as to his perspective, and the Senator from New York can continue to educate the Senate from his perspective, and let us hope we have brought some light on this issue.

Mr. President, if I can add one more thing, there is a very fine book issued by the Library of Congress. I ask the Presiding Officer the title of that book. The Parliamentarian knows of it.

Yes, I have studied that, and it is issued by the Library of Congress; am I not correct in that?

For those who want to pursue this in great depth. I thank my colleague for this colloquy, and I hope perhaps we got some clarity to the issue.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Can the distinguished Senator from Iowa--we were told to come here at certain times, and if he were to take as much as he wishes, that would preclude any other Senator speaking in the time period.

I withdraw my parliamentary inquiry.

I will sit down. The Senator may go ahead.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend, my colleague from Iowa.

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation, and what time remains under the control of my distinguished colleague from Iowa who is managing this set of debates at this time?

So we have 10 minutes remaining.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I commend my good friend from Iowa for a very statesmanlike coverage of the responsibilities of the Judiciary Committee on which he has served these many years.

I turn to the following. If we look back in history in the summer of 1787, 55 individuals gathered in Philadelphia to write our Constitution. It was a very hot summer, and it was a long and arduous debate, many drafts back and forth, but careful consideration was

given. Finally, in mid September, it was over. It was a monumental achievement. But the Framers did not know at that time what a great achievement they had made, one that would enable the United States, today, these 200-plus years later, to become the oldest continuously surviving Republic form of government on Earth today.

Almost every other government in existence at the time of the Constitutional Convention has fallen into the dustbin of history. So we must ask ourselves, why? It is very clear to this humble Senator that it was due, in part, to the wisdom of the Framers to have three coequal branches of the Government. I view this debate as one to determine the survivability of the coequal stature of the three branches.

I am not going to argue about all the things that have taken place back and forth, but just go to this magnificent document--the Constitution. The Presiding Officer has placed a copy of it on every desk in the Senate chamber, and many of us daily carry it in our pocket. The Constitution very clearly states that a simple majority vote is the regular order of business, with the exception of a few instances specifically enumerated in the Constitution that require super-majority votes. Had the Framers decided that we should require 60 votes for the confirmation process of the Senate, they would have explicitly written in such a requirement.

It is quite interesting to note that:

Two-thirds of the Senate must vote to ratify a treaty; two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict on an article of impeachment; two- thirds of a House of Congress must vote to expel a Member of that body; two-thirds of each House of Congress must vote to override a President's veto; and two-thirds of each House must vote to propose an amendment to the Constitution. With regard to the advice and consent, clearly enunciated in the Constitution, and given to only one body of Congress, the Senate, there is no mention of a higher than simple majority vote. It is there to protect, again, the checks and balances. It is there to protect against an executive branch nominee which, in the fair judgment of the Senate, does not meet the high standards to become a member of the judicial branch.

The case here is very simple: Are we going to abide by what the Framers laid out, what has kept this great Nation together these 200- plus years? Or are we going to devise and contrive in our own words some system by which to prevent a simple vote up and down on a judicial nominee?

The Constitution does not include that super-majority. If the bar is to remain at 60 votes, as my colleagues on the other side have so vehemently argued in favor of, I say then the Senate would have far more power on questions of judicial nominees than was intended by the Framers. The checks and balances concept of our Constitution would be changed. And how would that affect our Republic?

Well, when the Constitutional Convention was over in September 1787, Benjamin Franklin emerged and was greeted by a crowd, some were reporters. He was questioned, ``what have the Framers wrought?'' He replied, ``a Republic, if you can keep it.''

And that is what we are doing here in this historic debate. We are determining the rules by which we keep that Republic.

Throughout this historic debate, this Chamber has resonated with the use of the word ``filibuster.'' I ask: Can any Senator point to use of that word in any of the rules of the U.S. Senate? In every desk, every Senator has their book on the rules of the Senate and procedures of the Senate. You can't find the word ``filibuster'' in that book because it is not there. But, should I be wrong, parliamentary inquiry to the Presiding Officer, can the Parliamentarian find the word ``filibuster'' in the rules of the Senate or any definition in the rules of the Senate?

I thank the Presiding Officer. It is not in the rules. Where do you go to look for it? Webster's Dictionary. This dictionary has been in my office these 25 years since I have been privileged to serve in this body. And I use it often. I say to my colleagues, this is an interesting bit of history. The dictionary defines ``filibuster'' as, ``An irregular military adventure especially one in quest of plunder, a free-booter, applied to buccaneers infesting the Spanish American coast, later an organizer or member of a hostile expedition to some country or countries with which his own is at peace in contravention of international law.''

Go all the way down to the last definition, and you will find a reference that is most appropriate to this debate. I read:

A member of a legislative or deliberative body who, in

opposition to the proposed action of the majority, obstructs

or prevents action by the extreme use of dilatory tactics

such as speaking merely to consume time and so forth.

It is about the fifth definitional use of this word.

I say, most respectfully, that it is a word that is a slang word. It probably has been used to cover many types of procedures that both sides have followed under the rules for many years.

I went back and did some research in this wonderful book. It is entitled ``Senate Cloture Rule, Limitation of Debate in the Congress of the United States, Legislative History of Paragraph 2 of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the United States Senate.''

I do not find in this excellent treatise, put out in 1985 by the Library of Congress, printed by the direction of the Rules Committee and Administration of the United States Senate, any instance in which the situation we are faced with today with these nominees is covered. They do refer to the use of the word ``filibuster,'' but loosely.

Ultimately, with all of the confusion surrounding the word ``filibuster,'' I think you have to come down to what it was the Framers intended, what is in this book--the Constitution, which has held this Nation together these 200-plus years, this great Republic of our's.

I say to my colleagues, as Ben Franklin said, we have a Republic, and this debate is determining the ground rules by which we can or cannot keep it.

Clearly, the President has the authority to nominate. Clearly, this body has the authority of advice and consent. But remember, it is to be in a balance of powers between the executive and the legislature. I say if we are to set a precedent here that it requires 60 votes to act upon a nominee, three nominees--

I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

If we were to set a precedent that nominees reported out of the Judiciary Committee were subjected to a 60 vote requirement, this precedent would disrupt the carefully crafted system of checks and balances embedded in our Constitution by giving the Senate far more power in the judicial selection process than the Executive Branch, the President. These nominees deserve a simple up-or-down vote as provided in the Constitution by the absence of any reference to a supermajority or a 60 vote requirement.

I listened carefully as our distinguished chairman was referring to other nominees who have been acted upon by the distinguished members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I have been studying extensively the very impressive record of achievement of a number of these individuals who are awaiting action on the floor.

You mentioned Justice Janice Rogers Brown, a distinguished jurist of 25 years on the California Supreme Court. The record shows that she was born to very proud parents but ones of modest means. Sharecropping was their profession.

This distinguished, hard-working young person worked her way through college, worked her way through law school, and has now served the people of California for a quarter of a century, including the last 7 years as a California Supreme Court justice. That is remarkable.

Further, we heard that she was elected or reelected to the California Supreme Court. I think the chairman should explain the distinction between our Supreme Court, which is subject to the process we have been discussing these several days. But in a number of States, they do have a State election. All of us in this Chamber are here by virtue of the support of people in elections. But how many of us have been elected to the Senate with 76 percent? I don't think my distinguished junior colleague from the State of Virginia got that.

Well, I was pretty close to it, I mention to the Senator. But I don't claim 76 percent. That is quite a record. We have heard that she has ruled for the plaintiffs in many civil rights and consumer protection cases. She is supported by her colleagues in California, those who know her best.

But could the distinguished chairman advise the Senate with regard to his opinion with respect to the nomination as it is hopefully brought before the whole Senate?

That is a dream of millions of students all across this country, to have that opportunity to

come up through our system, to gain their degrees, to take their place in society, to stand for the cause of freedom in this great country, and some few do manage to get on the judiciary of the States. I know that Presidents look to the jurists in States, because they have a proven record, to select them for the Federal judiciary.

I do hope this distinguished nominee will fare well and be treated with fairness when that name is brought before the Senate.

She is proud of her African-American heritage. I hope the Senate gives her fair treatment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 12, 2003, at 4 p.m., in closed session to receive a classified operations/intelligence briefing regarding ongoing military operations and areas of key concern around the world.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, November 12, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., on ``Tobacco: State Use of Settlement Funds.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Wednesday, November 12, at 9:15 a.m., to conduct a business meeting to consider S. 1072, a bill to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes, and the nomination of Rixio E. Medina to be a member of the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.

The hearing will take place in SD-406 (Hearing Room).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, November 12, 2003, immediately following a 2 p.m., nomination hearing, for a hearing titled ``S. 1358, the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act: Amendments to the Whistleblower Protection Act.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, November 12, 2003, at 2 p.m., for hearing to consider the nomination of Scott J. Bloch to be Special Counsel, Office of Special Counsel.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, November 12, 2003, at 10 a.m., on ``Judicial Nominations,'' in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness List

Panel I: Senators.

Panel II: Judith C. Herrera to be United States District Judge for the District of New Mexico; F. Dennis Saylor to be United States District Judge for the District of Massachusetts; and Sandra L. Townes to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York.

Panel III: Domingo S. Herraiz to be Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance United States Department of Justice.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Securities and Investment of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 12, 2003, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing on ``The Financial Accounting Standards Board and Small Business Growth.''

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues on this magnificent day which we set aside for the veterans of all of our wars.

As I was presiding at the time we took a moment of silence, I reflected back to 1918 when the guns fell silent at 11 o'clock across the trenches in Europe. There was a young doctor there who had been wounded, who had been decorated, but he was still at his post in the trenches when that hour arrived. That was my father.

I read a poem in his honor and in honor of all veterans which reflects my understanding and my deep belief and gratitude to veterans. It is called ``In Flanders Fields'':

In Flanders fields the poppies blow

Between the crosses, row on row.

That mark our place; and in the sky

The larks, still bravely singing, fly

Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago

We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

Loved and were loved, and now we lie

In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:

To you from failing hands we throw

The torch; be yours to hold it high.

If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders fields.

I wear one of those poppies on this Veterans Day. It is issued by the veterans organizations all across America in reverence to those who have gone before us to make it possible today to exercise free speech.

My distinguished colleague, Senator Stevens, my friend of these 25 years in the Senate, just mentioned that there are five of us who are here who served in World War II. My record pales against his record, Senator Hollings, Senator Inouye, and others. But I was privileged as a very young 17-year-old to volunteer and take up my responsibilities, as did all in my generation in those days. Yet the heavy lifting, the heavy work, the heavy losses had been done that went before us, and in 1945, when I was simply in a training command, the war ended.

I say that only because had it not been for what the U.S. military has done for me in these 58 years that I have been privileged to be associated, I would not be here in the Senate. That is why I labor with others, primarily those on the Armed Services Committee, to do what we can for today's veterans and, most importantly, for those who are still in uniform and those who will follow in uniform in the generations to come, together with their families.

I speak in gratitude from my heart to all the veterans and, indeed, for what the military did for this humble soul to make it possible through the GI bill twice. I received it once for World War II and once for brief service again in Korea. Again, my heart is filled with gratitude, and it is such a magnificent day to rise and reflect.

Back in World War II, I remember on our block, when our neighbors were lost in battle, a gold star went on their door to remind all of the sacrifices of that family. And on the other doors were a little decal which said: We proudly have our son in the Army, the Navy, the Air Corps, the Marines, the Coast Guard.

Those were days when there was absolute sacrifice all across the Nation. Today, this Nation again is united. We stand strong behind our men and women of the Armed Forces, as it should be. So by the grace of God, by the sacrifices of all who have gone before us, we stand humbly today and express our gratitude to them and their families.

I ask unanimous consent that a list of United States service personnel casualties be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Senator Stevens told me he would be back here at about 6:30.

As chairman of the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, together with my distinguished colleague from Michigan, the ranking member, we are proud to bring a conference report on national defense authorization for fiscal year 2004 for final passage.

It is fitting that we consider this important legislation on Veterans Day, a day when our Nation pauses to honor those who serve in the Armed Forces, their families, and those who have gone before them, proudly defending our Nation's freedom.

I was deeply moved earlier today by the number of Senators on both sides of the aisle who spoke out with a sense of reverence and respect on this Veterans Day, November 11, 2003.

This bill provides much needed benefits to those now serving, and their families, in the Armed Forces, as well as addressing longstanding needs of military retirees and veterans. This has been an unusually interesting and somewhat lengthy conference. In my 25 years, I think Senator Levin and I

would indicate that it was quite a challenge, but I commend the distinguished chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Hunter, his colleague, the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Skelton, and above all my own partner of these 25 years, Senator Levin.

We had many challenging issues to resolve. Among them, of course, the base closure issues commonly referred to as BRAC; another category of provisions with regard to trade commonly referred to as Buy America, and the concurrent receipt issue which was pioneered in the Senate both last year and again this year.

We did resolve these issues. I say ``we,'' because, again, it was a partnership of the four of us working together for these several months. I am proud that we achieved our goals of concluding a conference which sent a strong message of support to our men and women in uniform and their families, wherever they are in the world today.

An undertaking of this magnitude is ultimately a bipartisan effort. I am proud in my many years on the committee, together with Senator Levin we have carried on the tradition of our predecessors, Senators Nunn and Tower and Goldwater and Stennis and Jackson. These were men of enormous distinction. We are proud to have that reputation as a committee. It prevails to this day and I hope on into the future.

I especially thank those who worked with me, all the members of the committee, not only my distinguished ranking member but the chairmen of the subcommittees and their ranking members. They all put in tireless efforts to make this bill possible. It is probably one of the largest, if not the largest money bill passed by the Senate, in terms of authorization. I readily salute and thank them for their many hours of work to make it possible.

No committees succeed without a dedicated professional staff. I think the staff of the Armed Services Committee is envied throughout the Senate, again, for its bipartisanship, for its long hours and, in many instances, for its original thinking which Members accept and incorporate into their legislative creations.

I especially want to recognize the efforts of the staff director of the Armed Services Committee, Mrs. Judy Ansley, and the Democratic staff director, Richard DeBobes, veterans of many years on the staff of Armed Services. Mrs. Ansley was my staff director when I was ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. She is an extraordinarily accomplished woman who proudly but humbly holds the title of the first woman in the history of the Senate to be the chief of staff of the Armed Services Committee. They have led a great staff of their subordinates, all of whom deserve--I wouldn't say equal credit, but nearly equal credit to the staff director and the Democratic staff director.

This staff worked long hours and helped Members reach the agreements that are contained in the conference report before us. It is always a challenge to the staff when it comes to conference. They are always ready to step up and accept that challenge and help us produce this conference report.

I believe it is a strongly bipartisan bill that serves the best interests of the men and women of our armed services and of our Nation today. I urge its swift passage to my colleagues.

As we stand here today beginning this conference report debate, hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, active and reserve, guard, and countless civilians who have worked for many years in the Department of Defense and who support the troops--they collectively are serving bravely around the world, from the Persian Gulf region in Afghanistan, to Europe, North Korea, and on down as far as Australia, New Zealand, and that part of the world. All Americans are justifiably proud of what the U.S. Armed Forces and their coalition partners have accomplished in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the global war on terrorism. It is far from over. But never let it be said those in uniform and their civilian counterparts have not done their duty.

We are ever mindful the defense of our homeland begins on the distant battlefields. To the extent that we can contain the threats on those battlefields or those areas which are not battlefields but are potential battlefields, the less likely that we would experience a problem here at home--as we reverently refer to 9/11 in our history.

As we begin this debate, we must pause and remember that military success is not achieved without sacrifice. Thankfully, Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom were remarkably swift in terms of days, weeks, and months. But no matter how well conducted those operations were, and are continuing, military victory does not come without sacrifice and loss. We extend our heartfelt sympathies to the families and loved ones of those who have lost their lives in these operations and in other military operations to make America and the world safe.

I also pause to say we think foremost about those who have given their lives, but many have given their limbs. They have bodies which have been wounded. Those wounds, in some instances, are carried for the rest of their lives. So let us keep in mind those who suffer the scars of war and those families which lovingly nourish and care for them and will in the years to come.

We mourn the loss of all of our soldiers and resolve to forever remember their service. In this month of Thanksgiving it is especially appropriate that we give thanks to those who serve and have served their Nation with distinction throughout its history.

I wear the poppy in my lapel today. It is now distributed all across America for veterans organizations. It reflects on the sacrifices of World War I--the enormity of the casualties this Nation suffered in that war. I am always especially proud of my father, a young doctor who served in that conflict in France, in the trenches, and cared for the wounded.

We are blessed to have this new generation of great Americans, so committed to American traditions, values, and ideals, carrying on the traditions of those who preceded them, with equal dedication, with equal valor. Without a doubt, the U.S. military is the most capable military force in the world today. We don't say that boastfully; we say it factually. It is a model of excellence and the standard by which others are measured. The provisions in this conference report sustain and improve on that excellence.

Throughout its history, America has never gone forward from our shores, in harm's way, to try to take the land, the possessions from others. There have been instances where we have had to occupy for a period. But by and large, we have always gone, and most certainly in two of these conflicts today, the two principal ones--Iraq and Afghanistan--we are there solely in the cause of freedom.

We must send a strong message of support to these men and women in uniform serving on the distant posts throughout the world, indeed the battlefields. They are bravely protecting our Nation here at home. By passing this important legislation today, we send that message. This conference report contains much deserved pay and benefits for military personnel and families, much needed increases in family housing and quality of life projects on military installations, as well as prudent investments in the equipment and technology our military needs to successfully counter future threats. We must always be looking, not 1 year, not 2, but decades in the future, to try as best we can to ascertain what is the threat to freedom here at home, to freedom abroad, and to fashion those weapons to enable the Armed Forces of the United States, together with coalition forces with which we have fought in World War I and World War II and on the battlefields of Korea and in the battlefields today, to give those weapons to those brave persons to use them in the cause of freedom.

The conference report also makes significant improvements in the benefits for disabled veterans, as well as an important new benefit for members of the Reserve component who play such an important role in our national security.

When I use the word ``Reserve,'' I include the reservists equally as the National Guard. Sometimes it is a confusing term for those who are listening. By no means do I exclude either the Guard or Reserve. It is a total force.

I remember so well when I was privileged to serve in the Pentagon as Navy Secretary when Melvin Laird, the Secretary of Defense at that time, coined

the idea of having a ``total force'' and to discontinue the draft. It was a calculated risk, but we did it. It succeeded largely because there are many men and women of the Armed Forces today who are proud to say, ``We are volunteers'', or ``all volunteers.'' Fortunately, the National Guard and the Reserve have established themselves as a strong and equal partner in this total force concept.

This conference report endorses the President's budget request for defense in fiscal year 2004. And I wish to commend the President and the Secretary of Defense and all of those who prepared this budget that came to the Congress. It is largely incorporated in the conference report before us today. That report continues the momentum of recent years in making real increases in defense spending to sustain readiness, enhance the quality of life of our military personnel and their families, modernize and transform the U.S. Armed Forces to meet current and future threats, and take care of our retirees and veterans.

The conference report before us provides $401.3 billion for defense, including $74.2 billion for procurement, $63.4 billion for research and development, and $114.4 billion for current readiness. This is in addition to the $65.5 billion for the Department of Defense contained in the supplemental we just passed to sustain our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world during fiscal year 2004. This conference report will authorize the Department's portion of the supplemental.

I once again commend the very brave and courageous and determined President of the United States in going to the American people and saying these funds are necessary not only to protect our freedom but the freedom of peoples throughout the world wherever we can work with our coalition partners in achieving those goals.

There are many provisions of this report that are important and of which I am very proud. I want to highlight just a few.

First and foremost is the 4.1 percent pay raise for the men and women in uniform, and the extension of special imminent danger pay, family separation allowances, and other benefits for those in harm's way. We are asking a lot of our men and women in uniform and their families in these challenging times, and they have never failed to respond. Their pay raise and extension of combat benefits contained in this conference report signal our strong support to those troops and their families.

For years, we here in Congress have been grappling with how to resolve the problem with concurrent receipts--an inequity that many use in our compensation system for disabled military retirees. By law, military retirees are prohibited from collecting both their hard-earned military pay and their disability pay. Last year, we were able to establish a new form of special compensation for military retirees with combat-related disabilities--so-called Purple Heart Plus. It was really conceived right in this very Chamber by a number of individuals, including Senator Levin, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, Senator McCain, and a number of other veterans who recognized that this was needed and that it was time. That was a start. We called it a beachhead. I am very pleased we have been able to expand on that beachhead in this conference report by extending the special compensation for combat- related disabilities to military retirees with disabling conditions due to combat or combat-related operations, and by phasing in full concurrent receipt over 10 years for those retirees with disabilities rated at 50 percent or greater. This is a major step forward.

I remember the day when there were three Senators standing right there in the well--Senator Reid of Nevada, my distinguished ranking member, Senator Levin, and myself--and at that time the Senate bill had a concurrent receipt provision in it; the House bill did not. By voice vote, we passed that amendment and put it in this bill. By virtue of that action--not just the three of us; I happened to be here at that moment, but many others who had worked this issue--that was the beginning, that was the engine that finally drew this train out of the barn and down the tracks to where we are today. I think it is a successful achievement. And many in this Chamber made it possible. The Senate had that provision in its bill.

With respect to the controversial ``Buy America'' provisions, I believe the conferees reached a balanced compromise that shows our support for a strong U.S. industrial base without undermining our important defense cooperation and defense trade relationships with our allies.

The conference agreement also removes several unnecessary barriers to defense trade which are contained in current law. The ``Buy America'' provisions have the full support of all relevant agencies and the administration. The final version went through many iterations.

I commend the Director of the Office of Management and Budget who, working with the Chief of Staff of the White House, put this bill together in final form at the request of myself and others. With the President's goals clearly in mind, this revision was incorporated in this conference report.

My colleagues and the distinguished chairman of the House Armed Services Committee did a great deal of work on this provision. He was tenacious in his desire to see that this bill contained provisions important to the preservation of our industrial base, and those goals were achieved at the same time in a manner that is consistent with our goals as a nation of free trade.

A part of this conference report of which I am particularly proud is the provision which authorizes a program to begin replacing our aerial tanker fleet with new aircraft through a lease of no more than 20 KC- 767 aircraft and a multi-year procurement of an additional 80 aircraft. Extensive analysis by the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office indicated the multi-year lease pilot program proposed by the Air Force would be significantly more expensive than a traditional procurement. After a hearing before the Committee in September 2003, the Department was asked to examine alternatives where a fewer number of aircraft were leased, with the rest of the 100 aircraft purchased under a multi-year procurement program. This examination confirmed that the fewer aircraft leased and the more aircraft purchased, the greater the savings. These findings have resulted in a conference agreement that will give the Armed Forces the modern equipment they need, but will save the American taxpayer over $4.0 billion over original proposals. This is a win for the Air Force and a win for the American people.

The civilian personnel system of the Department of Defense has been in need of reform for some time. The Secretary of Defense had the vision to determine that this had to be revised subsequent to the just earth-shaking, dramatic event of 9/11. He made a very strong personal effort to achieve it, and I think this bill reflects upon his great credit and tenaciousness and those of his colleagues.

We have included provisions in the conference report that will provide expansive new civilian personnel authorities for the Department of Defense. I am pleased we were able to provide the Secretary of Defense with the increased flexibility necessary to allow the DOD to respond to the new threats of the new century and the demands of the war on terrorism. While providing the new authorities, the conferees were sensitive to the concerns and the rights of the vital civilian employees of the Department of Defense. I have spoken on this floor many times, and rarely if ever have I omitted direct reference, because they are teammates--full teammates and partners--to the men and women who serve in uniform.

The establishment of a national security personnel system which is authorized in this conference report gives the Secretary of Defense the flexibility he needs to manage the current civilian workforce and to transform--and I underline the word ``transform''; it is essential. The Secretary of Defense has been unfailing in his efforts to look into the future and to transform the Department of Defense to meet those changing threats that are on the rise and needs to do so to manage his workforce for the future while providing appropriate protections and appeals processes for the employees.

I recognize the very hard work of my colleague, Senator Collins, my long-time friend in the House, Congressman Tom Davis, and indeed Senator Levin, who, together with Senator Collins in

the Governmental Affairs Committee, crafted a piece of legislation which was largely drawn as a model to follow in this instance. We did not measure up to all the goals in the Collins-Levin bill, but, in fact, we in large measure achieved a number of the goals of that piece of legislation.

Balancing the readiness needs of the Armed Forces with the critical need to protect the environment is always a challenge and a risk. We have included provisions in the conference report to make modifications to both the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act which ensure realistic training opportunities for our military without unnecessarily endangering environmentally sensitive areas.

There are many other important items in the conference report that deserve mention, from enhanced access to TRICARE for certain Reserve component members, and I particularly thank the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, who is a leader on this issue. We needed increased spending for our special operation forces to continue investment in important homeland defense initiatives.

The bottom line is this conference report is an extremely important piece of legislation that provides the resources to continue the global war on terrorism while safeguarding Americans here at home. It sustains the current readiness of the Armed Forces and provides resources to prepare them for the future.

This conference report sends a clear signal to our citizens throughout the world, to nations all over, that the United States is committed to a strong national defense and to the freedom so richly deserved by nations throughout the world. More importantly, it sends a clear signal to our men and women in uniform, from the newest private to the most senior flag and general officer, that they have the support of the Congress and of the American people.

I urge my colleagues to support this conference report legislation that upholds the President's fundamental national security priorities and makes the right investments in future capabilities. It is imperative we send our President, our fellow citizens, and the world a message of resolve from the Congress--a national defense authorization conference report that provides authority to our Nation's leaders and our Armed Forces to protect our Nation and our vital interests around the world. It takes care of the troops, their families, and our veterans, who have all served so well in the defense of freedom.

I yield the floor.

I readily accede to the request of my full partner in working on these matters for these 25 years. We will do that and that will accommodate colleagues who are waiting to speak, if you do not mind that the chairman was rather lengthy in his remarks. It was important that be done.

Madam President, will the Senator indulge the manager for a moment to make an inquiry?

To accommodate other Senators, I ask the Senator about how much time he wishes to speak.

Ten minutes.

We may have differences of views, but it is important.

Madam President, I listened carefully to my colleague. I have the privilege of having served on the Environment and Public Works Committee for many years. The Senator referred to action taken by the committee when this issue was before it. Could he be more specific? I don't recall. He said the committee took certain actions. I am having difficulty recalling that the committee took an action.

We had a hearing. I remember consulting with my colleague about the essential need to have the Vice Chiefs of Staff of all the three military departments which came before the Environment and Public Works Committee. And to the individual, they were consistent in their urging that the Endangered Species Act be changed in such a way to permit--and this is the key--only this amendment to apply to Government-owned land on military reservations. I remember that. But does he recall the committee having taken action?

I think if you look back through your words, I listened very carefully.

I thank my friend.

I listened to the ranking member, the Senator from Vermont. The ranking member said that the committee decided thus and so. I don't recall an action having been taken by the committee on which I am privileged to serve with my distinguished colleague.

Madam President, he has offered to clarify the record. I believe at this time if we go from side to side, would that be agreeable to the Senator from Illinois? Could I inquire of the Senator from Texas the amount of time he desires to speak.

Then I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Texas have 10 minutes and the Senator from Illinois have 10 minutes, and that is to be followed by the Senator from Colorado for 10 minutes.

Absolutely.

Madam President, I compliment the Senator from the Lone Star State, Texas, who rightfully can take pride in his services on the Armed Services Committee. He was most eloquent on behalf of the men and women of the Armed Forces, and indeed I appreciate his comments. I thank the Senator.

I believe we are under an order to proceed to the Senator from Illinois.

Madam President, first, may I say to the Senator that he has been working with me on a rather serious problem in the military regarding a helicopter. I commend him on taking those initiatives.

Madam President, I certainly want to accommodate our colleague from Delaware. He has been a stalwart on defense. He was a naval aviator when I was privileged to be Secretary of the Navy. I am happy to accommodate him, I say to my Senator from Michigan.

Madam President, I inquire of my colleague from Delaware, how much time does he desire?

Take up to 5 minutes.

I thank our distinguished and very valued colleague of the committee, Senator Allard, for his remarks and his work on this bill.

Mr. President, the distinguished ranking member and I are trying to work out accommodations for a number of Senators. The Senator from Hawaii will speak next, followed by the Senator from Maine.

Let me suggest the following. I will not ask for unanimous consent.

I suggest our leadership, together with the managers of the bill, consider that, following Senator Collins, then we could go into a period of morning business and give Mr. Byrd the time he is seeking, and then Senators could come over as in morning business, speak on behalf of the bill, and ask their statements be printed in the colloquy prior to the unanimous consent request.

I have been notified Senator Sessions is on the way to bring his important contribution to this bill.

At this time I ask those Senators anxious to work with this tentative agreement to so advise the managers.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia, first, for his work throughout the year on this bill. I listened very carefully. He reflects a lot of hard work in his comments. I thank him for his service on this committee.

We are basically rotating. The distinguished ranking member has yielded his slot at this time to the distinguished Senator from Alabama. But after that, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Michigan be recognized for such time as he desires to complete his comments on this bill.

Mr. President, before the Senator starts, we urge any other Senators to kindly contact the managers because in consultation with the leadership, we are proceeding to conclude this debate.

I thank my colleague. I know of an additional Senator, the Senator from North Carolina, who I believe will be coming over very shortly. That will be three Senators we know of desiring to make remarks. I thank my colleague.

On this side, the Senator from North Carolina will soon be in the Chamber to take up a position in the queue.

I think we see the distinguished leader wishing to comment. Before we close out on that UC----

Mr. President, I will simply add to my colleague's accurate description that there was some mention you didn't particularly like the way it was written in conference. In fact, it was not. It was provisions adopted by the House. There were just a few words of modification in the conference.

Mr. President, I appreciate the expressions of the distinguished assistant minority leader. But he is so accurate about the veterans groups. They are all experienced lobbyists. Somehow I don't look upon them exactly as lobbyists. They are by and large all veterans. They very conscientiously reflect what is felt by Americans in their hearts with regard to veterans. They translate that feeling into legislation.

This was a long, long trail across rough terrain over many years. But I must say to my good friend from Nevada that had it not been for his steadfast and always unheralded leadership we would not be here tonight with this provision in this bill. I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, if I may simply add, if the Senator will indulge me, because this is a very important point about the work that was done on concurrent receipt. In the final analysis, the administration came to fully support it and worked with us.

I also salute Senator McCain who was tireless in his efforts on this very legislation through the many years I have worked on it with him and others.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I express my appreciation to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota for his work on our committee throughout the year. He volunteered to travel to Iraq with our CODEL, and he is ready to pick up the burdens at any time he is requested. I thank him also for the respectful way in which he referred to our former colleague whose seat he proudly holds today.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, it certainly was his leadership on those issues, the CTR, the expansion. Truly, I joined you, and felt strongly about them. We were steadfast when the four of us finally got into the conference and settled those points.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I take note that Peter Levine is here and he has been referred to on our side as the damage control expert, and he is very effective in these areas.

I must inquire of my distinguished colleague, was the long hand of David Lyles felt in this program, the former staff director of Senator Levin for these many years? I somehow see the fine hand of David Lyles.

It is a big plus to us, also. I take this opportunity to thank all of the staff members listed by my good friend and colleague, Senator Levin.

Mr. President, I want to reach across the aisle, while nobody is looking, and shake hands with my colleague. We have worked together these 25 years and we are a pretty good team. It is a sheer joy to work with him.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I commend our distinguished leader for addressing this matter which is of extraordinary importance to the institution and indeed the United States.

I humbly say I have been privileged to serve in this body for 25 years. I have been a member of the Intelligence Committee in years past, 8 years; the last 2 of those years serving as the ranking member with Senator DeConcini, who is now retired from the Senate. I speak now as a former member of the committee and draw on those 25 years of my own experience.

I have never seen an incident of the level of seriousness to our very vital security interests in this country as this particular memo presents. I think our leader, in a very fair and balanced way, has addressed the challenges. I commend the distinguished chairman, Senator Roberts, with whom I have served these many years in the Congress and the Senate.

I conclude by saying, speaking for myself and I think many Senators,

with everything we do in this body today, I keep in mind the young men and women of the Armed Forces, wherever they are in the world today, serving valiantly, most particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq, and how the actions we as an institution take hopefully are in their best interest.

I thank the Chair and the distinguished leader.

Mr. President, I wish to address the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee on both sides of the aisle. The House of Representatives is remaining in session until the wee hours of the night in the hopes they can receive from the Senate a conference report with sufficient signatures on it by which we can get the bill passed early next week. I am working with my distinguished ranking member, Senator Levin, and others. To those who can sign it at this point in time, I would greatly appreciate it.

I ask Senator Levin be given a chance to reply.

The Senator is correct. Given that this could well mean many Senators will leave, I just wish to put them on notice we have this one shot to get it done so we can have it on the calendar next week.

I thank the Chair.

Amendment No. 2135

Mr. President, I seek recognition to honor a Virginia soldier, Captain John Robert Teal, who was tragically killed in action in Iraq on Thursday, October 23, 2003. I want to express gratitude, on behalf of the Senate, for his service to our Nation. The American people, I am certain, join me in expressing their prayers and compassion to his family.

Captain John Robert Teal followed his father Joseph, a retired firefighter, into public service. He understood the importance of his present assignment and despite the personal risk, wanted to serve the United States and the people of Iraq during this critical time.

A medical officer attached to the Army's 4th Infantry Division, he was a dedicated and compassionate young man who, according to news reports, spent his final days helping sick children.

Captain Teal leaves behind his father Joseph; his mother Emmie; and his sister Elizabeth Kormanyos.

His parents, Joseph and Emmie, with whom I have had the pleasure to speak, albeit under tragic circumstances, are brave souls who have sacrificed so much for this Nation. We owe them and the other families who have lost their loved ones a debt of gratitude.

John was a 1990 graduate of Benedictine High School. Upon graduating from Benedictine, he attended the Virginia Military Institute from which he graduated in 1994 and received a commission in the United States Army.

He was an exceptional young man with a bright future in front of him. He was known as a wonderful person and according to friends, the kind of individual that no one could say anything bad about. The Commonwealth of Virginia and the entire Nation shall mourn his loss.

I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I wish to commend him, Senator Byrd, Senator Inouye, and others, and our distinguished colleague from Vermont, for working on this.

As we debate passage of this important emergency supplemental spending bill, I want to pause for a moment to acknowledge the tragic losses our forces in Iraq suffered this weekend. I extend my heartfelt sympathies to the families and loved ones of those who died and those who were injured. Indeed, we must pause to remember all who have perished, American, coalition partners, and Iraqis military and civilian, who are fighting for freedom in Iraq and around the world in the Global War on Terrorism. We are fortunate as a Nation to have these dedicated citizens who willingly make such great sacrifices to defend liberty and extend the cause of freedom.

I rise today in support of the conference report on emergency supplemental funding for Iraq and Afghanistan for Fiscal Year 2004, and urge my colleagues to do the same. Seldom do we have choices before us as fundamental as this one. Our choices are to go forward, stand still, or quit. Two of these choices would represent failure. There is no choice--failure is not an option. We must go forward; we must stay the course and win the peace for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as for our own enduring interests in the Global War on Terrorism.

The timeliness and importance of this support for Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be overstated. The stakes in Iraq and Afghanistan are enormous. The military victories achieved by our Armed Forces, together with their coalition partners, must be secured.

We have achieved extraordinary success, in a relatively short period in Iraq. Saddam Hussein and the threat he posed are gone; the future is hopeful for the Iraqi people. We must send a strong message of resolve to our fellow countrymen, to our troops, to our coalition partners, and to the rest of the world, that we will see this through to completion-- to win the peace.

We have had an unprecedented amount of debate on this funding request. General John Abizaid captured the essence and urgency of this supplemental request when he stated, ``We can fight the terrorists her [in Iraq and Afghanistan], or we can fight them at home.'' I think we all prefer to fight them there and get the job done.

In recent weeks, I have had the opportunity to meet with several Iraqi leaders, including members of the Iraqi Governing Council and recently appointed ministers. They are clearly committed to achieving democracy, security and opportunity for the Iraqi people and deserve our support. The ministers are technically very well qualified and committed to building a new Iraq as soon as possible. These are not people who have assumed positions of responsibility through tribal affiliations, nepotism and greed, as has been past practice in Iraq. These are highly qualified public servants--17 of 25 ministers have PhDs in technical fields--who have subordinated their own personal aspirations and accepted considerable personal risk to assume positions of high visibility, to build a new Iraq. Many have left lucrative careers, comfort and families in other countries to return to their homeland and lend their skills to this endeavor. I salute their courage, their patriotism and their selflessness. They are an inspiration to all Iraqis and they deserve our full support.

Some of our colleagues have passionately argued that some of this funding should be in the form of loans, to be forgiven if other debtor nations reduce or forgive old loans to Iraq. I understand why some have arrived at this conclusion, but additional debt now would be economically disastrous, and send the wrong message to Iraqis and, indeed, the world. At some point in the not too distant future, loans will be appropriate, but we must help establish those conditions now.

The United States will seek to convince the principal holders of Iraqi loans--Russia, France, Germany and Saudi Arabia--to forgive some or all of these loans.

We have an opportunity before us to send a message of full commitment to Iraq and of a balanced, fair U.S. foreign policy in the larger Middle Eastern region, by providing this reconstruction assistance to Iraq. Less than overwhelming support will be viewed as just the opposite, and would be counterproductive to our larger goals and interests in this important region.

There is a perception, I fear, that this supplemental will fully fund Iraq's reconstruction. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reconstruction needs of Iraq are enormous--not because of war damage, but because of three-plus decades of neglect, mismanagement and greed by Saddam Hussein's regime. The funds included in this supplemental will only begin to address these daunting needs, but adoption of this package will put the Iraqis in a much better position to help themselves in the future. The Iraqi leaders I spoke with want nothing more than to do just that, but they need our help for now, not with crippling conditions attached.

When U.S. troops entered Baghdad in early April, they were, indeed, greeted as liberators. The image of Iraqis celebrating in the streets-- helping U.S. soldiers topple a statue of Saddam Hussein--will long be with us.

Despite the pockets of resistance in Iraq today, that feeling of gratitude and good will toward the United States remains. Recent polling found that most Iraqis believe that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth the hardships

they have endured since the invasion, and two-thirds think Iraq will be in better condition 5 years from now than before the invasion.

We must build on this good will and seize this historic opportunity to show our overwhelming support and commitment to help build a thriving democracy and ally against terror in Iraq.

American forces and coalition partners have already done a remarkable job of restoring basic services, rebuilding schools and hospitals, preventing ethnic violence and creating an environment where reconstruction can succeed. Many Members of this Chamber have seen this with their own eyes, and the response of most who have been to Iraq is concern that the good things that are taking place in Iraq are not being fully reported to the American people.

This reconstruction work is being done in a difficult environment of harsh conditions and significant personal risk, as those who have been removed from power in Iraq seek to delay their inevitable defeat, and as terrorists lash out at the loss of another haven. We are ever mindful of the risks our troops face, every day, and the sacrifices made by the families and communities that support them.

It is imperative that we give our President and our troops the resources they need to complete their missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The faster the money gets to these countries, the faster conditions will improve, and the faster our troops will come home. As Ambassador Bremer stated before the Armed Services Committee last week:

Every day that goes by where we are not speeding up the

Iraqi Army, speeding up the civil defense corps, speeding up

the training of police, is a day when our soldiers, men and

women, are not being substituted by Iraqis. Every day that

Iraqis do not get electricity, do not get water, do not have

proper sewage, is a day when their quality of life is such

that they are less likely to view us as liberators, more

inclined to view us as occupiers, and that also increases the

danger to our men and women.

Lasting peace and security in Iraq will be achieved when we establish the environment for a democratic, economically viable Iraq. The first steps to democracy have been taken and a fledgling government is preparing itself to assume the responsibilities of sovereignty.

Let us join together in a clear message of resolve to provide the resources that will meet the immediate needs of the Iraqi people and best serve our interest in Iraq and the larger Middle East region. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report and send a message of overwhelming support to our troops, to their families, and to the newly liberated people of Iraq and Afghanistan. We must do what is necessary to secure this important victory in the war on terrorism.

Mr. President, again, I express my tremendous commendation for the managers of this bill and, particularly, for their wisdom and insight into the needs of the men and women in the Armed Forces, and the ability to step up and get TRICARE for the Reserve and the Guard.

The Reserve and the Guard have performed magnificently, and not just in this most recent conflict in Iraq but beginning back in the days of Bosnia, Kosovo, and all the way through. Those of us who went into Sarajevo years ago remember that it was the National Guard planes that would take us in during that period of combat and strife in the Balkans. Of course, they performed magnificently in connection with the Afghanistan campaign, and then again during the course of the campaign in Iraq, the freedom of the Iraqi people being their goal.

So I commend the leadership of the Appropriations Committee for doing the TRICARE and addressing those pay provisions, which were due to expire. We have been addressing that in the Armed Services Committee, where we have original jurisdiction over these matters. But the plain fact is that we have not reached a resolution of our conference report as of this time. Therefore, often the Appropriations Committee needs to step forward and do these things which must be done, and done promptly. So I commend our distinguished members of the Appropriations Committee.

Over the weekend we suffered this tremendous tragedy, the loss of the helicopter with so many brave individuals on board. I and others have expressed our compassion to their families, their loved ones, and to their fellow colleagues and comrades all throughout the region. Each one of them feels the loss of one of their own when it happens--whether it is on the streets or in an aircraft that unfortunately comes down.

Those of us--many in this Chamber--who have had the opportunity to visit in Iraq, and particularly Baghdad and other areas, got a clear perception and feeling of the extraordinary risks being undertaken night and day by these young men and women not only of the Armed Forces of the United States but the coalition forces.

I am proud of the way our President stood up today before the world. He stated these words, which time and time again should be considered by the American people as spoken from the heart of the President. Imagine the sadness in his heart and that of the First Lady and others, because the buck stops on the President's desk.

When the news broke of that helicopter going down, I fully appreciate what he went through, and indeed the Secretary of Defense, this weekend. He addressed the Nation on three public television shows about this tragedy of the loss of the helicopter. But both the President and the Secretary of Defense are absolutely steadfast in their resolve to continue their role as leaders. The President said:

The enemy in Iraq believes America will run.

The President said:

That is why they are willing to kill innocent civilians,

relief workers, and our coalition troops.

He finished by saying: America will never run.

I commend both the President and Secretary of Defense. At one time, I was in the Pentagon during Vietnam for some 5 years as Navy Secretary. I remember awakening in the night and the morning to receive those reports about exceptional losses, such as this one, and then often go, as we had planned, before the media the next day trying to interpret it and explain it for the American people and for the people throughout the world. It is not an easy task, but our President and others in authority are stepping up to it and being absolutely unflinching in their resolve, as this Senator is, to see this through.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 3 minutes.

Mr. President, tomorrow I hope to attend the funeral service for a brave Army captain, a VMI graduate. I happened to go to the neighboring school of Washington and Lee. His family called me and talked with me and I talked with them. They asked if at all possible could I attend. I said I would do that irrespective of what is going on in the Senate. The mother said to me: We feel deeply the loss of our son, but, Senator, I want you to come and say to me that you and others will stay the course so that his life is not given in vain. I have made that commitment to his family, as I will to many other families.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks a letter to the editor published in the Saturday Washington Post by Dr. David Kay who is responsible for the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Mr. President, this letter to the editor is very worthy of our colleagues who, like me, are concerned about how thus far we are still trying to find the weapons, if they exist, but he covers very well one aspect of this, and it is deserving of the estimate. I commend Dr. Kay for his work and his continuing effort. Part of this bill has the funds necessary for him to continue this effort to resolve this very puzzling mystery about the weapons of mass destruction.

I thank the Chair, and I thank my distinguished colleague and commend him once again.

[From the Washington Post, Nov. 1, 2003]

The Hunt for Iraq's Weapons

The Oct. 26 front-page article ``Search in Iraq Fails to

Find Nuclear Threat'' is wildly off the mark. Your reporter,

Barton

Gellman, bases much of his analysis on what he says was told

to him by an Australian brigadier, Stephen D. Meekin. Gellman

describes Meekin as someone ``who commands the Joint Captured

Materiel Exploitation Center, the largest of a half-dozen

units that report to [David] Kay.''

Meekin does not report, nor has he ever reported, to me in

any individual capacity or as commander of the exploitation

center. The work of the center did not form a part of my

first interim report, which was delivered last month, nor do

I direct what Meekin's organization does. The center's

mission has never involved weapons of mass destruction, nor

does it have any WMD expertise.

Gellman's description of information provided by Mahdi

Obeidi, chief of Iraq's pre-1991 centrifuge program, relies

on an unnamed ``U.S. official'' who, by the reporter's own

admission, read only one reporting cable. How Gellman's

source was able to describe reporting that covered four

months is a mystery to me. Furthermore, the source

mischaracterized our views on the reliability of Obeidi's

information.

With regard to Obeidi's move to the United States, Gellman

writes, ``By summer's end, under unknown circumstances,

Obeidi received permission to bring his family to an East

Coast suburb in the United States.'' The reader is left with

the impression that this move involved something manipulative

or sinister. The ``unknown circumstances'' are called Public

Law 110. This mechanism was created during the Cold War to

give the director of central intelligence the authority to

resettle those who help provide valuable intelligence

information. Nothing unusual or mysterious here.

When the article moves to describe the actual work of the

nuclear team, Gellman states that ``frustrated members of the

nuclear search team by late spring began calling themselves

the `book of the month club.' '' But he fails to note that

this was before the establishment of the Iraq Survey Group.

In fact, the team's frustration with the pace of the work is

what led President Bush to shift the responsibility for the

WMD search to the director of central intelligence and to

send me to Baghdad.

One would believe from what Gellman writes that I have sent

home the two leaders of my nuclear team, William Domke and

Jeffrey Bedell, and abandoned all attempts to determine the

state of Iraq's nuclear activities. Wrong again. Domke's

assignment had been twice extended well beyond what the

Department of Energy had agree to. He and Bedell were

replaced with a much larger contingent of experts from DOE's

National Labs.

Finally, with regard to the aluminum tubes, the tubes were

certainly being imported and were being used for rockets. The

question that continues to occupy us is whether similar

tubes, with higher specifications, had other uses,

specifically in nuclear centrifuges. Why anyone would think

that we should want to confiscate the thousands of aluminum

tubes of the lower specification is unclear. Our

investigation is focused on whether a nuclear centrifuge

program was either underway or in the planning stages, what

design and components were being contemplated or used in such

a program if it existed and the reason for the constant

raising of the specifications of the tubes the Iraqis were

importing clandestinely.

We have much work left to do before any conclusions can be

reached on the state of possible Iraqi nuclear weapons

program efforts. Your story gives the false impression that

conclusions can already be drawn.

David Kay.