Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate two Virginians, Dr. Edward Ayers and Dr. Patty Hale, on their recent selection as Professors of the Year. This award, given by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, is a major accomplishment as only four national awards are given out each year. Dr. Ayers was recognized as Outstanding Doctoral and Research College Professor of the Year, and Dr. Hale was recognized as Outstanding Master's University and College Professor of the Year.

While I have not had the pleasure of meeting with these individuals personally, I have reviewed their qualifications. These two individuals, who have dedicated large portions of their lives to higher learning and to educating tomorrow's leaders, are imminently qualified for these awards. How fortunate we are in Virginia to have two such distinguished professors.

Dr. Edward Ayers is a Professor of History and Dean of Arts and Sciences at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, VA. An expert in Southern history, Dr. Ayers has taught for over 20 years and has authored numerous books. In 2000, he was appointed to the National Council for the Humanities by President Clinton, and in 2002, he was named to the Executive Board of the National Council for History Education. He has also been recognized for excellence in teaching, having received the Arthur Stocker Award for Outstanding Teaching from the ODK Honor Society at U.Va. and the Outstanding Faculty Award from the State Council of Higher Education in Virginia.

In addition, Dr. Ayers has created an innovative online program, the Valley of the South Project, which is a digital archive that allows people from around the world to explore the history of the Civil War. Four million people have visited the Valley of the South Project to explore the issues surrounding the coming, fighting, and aftermath of the Civil War. The Project has also won the critical acclaim of Dr. Ayers' peers, garnering the James Harvey Robinson Prize from the American Historical Association and the E-Lincoln Prize for Best Digital Project.

Dr. Patty Hale is a Professor of Nursing at Lynchburg College, in Lynchburg, VA. At Lynchburg College, she has won several teaching awards, including the State Council of Higher Education Distinguished Faculty Achievement Award.

One of Dr. Hale's most successful ventures has been her collaboration with four of her students on writing two directories of their community's health and social services. These booklets have been distributed free of charge to area residents and health professionals and have enhanced the knowledge and patronage of area health resources.

Her work has earned Dr. Hale great respect and honors in her community, including the James A. Huston Excellence in Scholarship Award. Dr. Hale is committed to serving those less fortunate and has invested countless hours in forging community relationships to help disadvantaged people in her area. She and her students have started programs to provide health services to residents at several area shelters, clinics, and neighborhood health centers, most of which serve inner city low-income populations.

I commend both Dr. Ayers and Dr. Hales for the excellence in education, and am pleased to recognize them as recipients of Professors of the Year.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, I would like to note before the Senate a great professional honor bestowed recently on my constituent, Ronald W. Barton of Arlington: the Chairman's Medal of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

The Safety Board, the Senators will recall, was established by statute in 1988 for the purpose of providing the highest quality of technical oversight of the safe operations of the Nation's nuclear weapons complex--dozens of plants with very high risk radioactive material. To accomplish this very difficult task, the Safety Board has to attract and train the very best technical talent in the nuclear area. Chairman Conway's citation accompanying the award to Mr. Barton says in part:

Mr. Barton joined the Board in 1994, bringing with him more

than 25 years of project management and engineering

experience in the design, construction, and operation of

nuclear reactors for commercial facilities. He became an

indispensable leader for the Board's technical staff, and was

key to the development of more than half a dozen technical

reports, which continue to have an impact on operations in

the defense nuclear complex today.

I have examined Mr. Barton's career, and I certainly agree with Chairman Conway. Mr. Barton not only brought his own expertise to the board, but he trained and developed a generation of young engineers to contribute to the admirable technical performance of the safety board, where a technical staff of about 60 oversees the safe operation of a complex of over 100,000 workers with a budget of over $16 billion. This technical staff is superb, and Ron Barton helped build it, and then led it by example.

Now Ron must retire, much too early, because of his leukemia. We wish he were able to continue to serve, but we are grateful for the contributions he made to safety in the nuclear complex. For instance, Ron was the expert lead on at least six very complex and thorough technical studies, on such diverse areas as: DOE emergency management capabilities, confinement ventilation systems, fire protection, criticality safety, and documented safety analysis. This is an extraordinary list of achievements; these reports still guide the Department of Energy operations of these complex, hazardous facilities. We should be grateful to Ron for these contributions.

Ron Barton is the best of the best, and the Nation will miss his contributions. We wish him good health and a happy retirement.

Mr. President, does the Senator from Washington wish to join?

I think we should reserve it for the other Senator from Washington, too.

Mr. President, I thank our distinguished minority leader for that.

I have a draft in the form of an amendment which I hope to introduce into the Armed Services conference for purposes of incorporation in that bill. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. President, I rise to describe this proposal concerning the administration's request to proceed with the lease of 100 aircraft.

Mr. President, for the past 2 years, this issue has had a rather contentious but serious debate--

Mr. President, for the past few years there has been a sort of contentious but serious and conscientious debate within the administration and the Congress as to how to resolve the problem for the Department of the Air Force.

What I regard as a compromise to the pending understanding would be the following: First, according to my sources, in many ways this has been corroborated by the various Departments which worked with us. It would provide up to perhaps $4 billion in savings. It would give prompt delivery of 100 new tanker aircraft. It would put this program back into the traditional procurement process, put this program back into the traditional budget process, put this program back into the traditional authorization process, and provide the Air Force with title--underline ``title''--ownership of at least 80 of the aircraft under this contract.

Pursuant to section 133 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003, which established guidelines for the congressional review of any tanker lease, the Air Force, on July 10, submitted to the Congressional Defense Committees a new start notification of at least 100 aircraft.

Under section 133 of the Defense Authorization Act of 2003, all four committees must act favorably on this notification for the lease to proceed. Our Senate Armed Services Committee has yet to act. We conducted extensive oversight of this tanker lease program, holding a hearing on September 4.

During this hearing, I first put out my thoughts for public comment on the idea of leasing at that time up to 25 aircraft and purchasing the remainder. I have now modified that to 20 and 80.

Subsequent to this hearing, the committee explored numerous options and requested additional studies from the Congressional Budget Office, the General Accounting Office and the Air Force.

I commend the members of my committee for their careful review of this matter and coming up with this proposal despite the enormous pressure from many sectors to simply adopt the new start reprogramming request.

The proposal amendment to be included in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004 would provide for the approval of a lease for 20 aircraft and authorize a multiyear procurement program for the remaining 80 aircraft. Thus, the Air Force would still obtain 100 tankers, in keeping with the goal of the Administration's tanker lease proposal.

This approach allows the tanker program to get started with no lease payments required until fiscal year 2006 and no purchase payments required until fiscal year 2008, while still permitting the same schedule of deliveries as in the currently negotiated lease contract.

This proposal would also authorize the use of incremental funding for the 80 aircraft purchase. Incremental funding is an approach that should not be taken lightly by Congress, but it is one that has been used for other weapon systems acquisitions where there was a critical need.

I plan to continue to consult with all interested parties and work to get an agreement to include this proposal in the national defense authorization conference report. That action would provide the Air Force the option to immediately execute the program and being production of these 100 aircraft.

I urge the support of my colleagues.

Exhibit I

I reserve the remainder of my time.

I commend my colleague from Michigan. We have been working together some 25 years on this committee now. Last night we studied the final language I crafted with the help of others and my colleague decided to join us.

Senator McCain wishes to follow the two distinguished colleagues from Washington. Again, I commend the Senator. We met last night on the floor. We talked about it. We worked into the evening with our staff. I very much appreciate the expressions the Senator is about to make.

How much time does this Senator have remaining?

Mr. President, first, I commend my two colleagues from Washington. While we only have 2 or 3 minutes to speak about this matter, I would hate to know the number of hours that each of them have expended.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we have 5 minutes allocated to the Senator from----

All right. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 3 minutes be given to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. President, I simply conclude, we are here today because of the efforts of Senator McCain to bring this matter to our attention, and I salute him for that purpose. And I thank all.

I yield back my time so the distinguished chairman can move ahead with the bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Daniel W. McGinty, upon his retirement from the Federal Government after 33 years of distinguished and dedicated service to our Nation and the Department of Defense.

Over the last 10 years, some of us in this Chamber have had dealings with Dan, as he carried out his responsibilities as the director of congressional and public affairs for the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and most recently with the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). His frequent dealings with the staff of the Armed Services Committees of the Senate and House have been a paragon of professionalism, diplomacy, and conscientious service. With integrity and an engaging personal style, Dan consisently exercised a remarkable talent for reconciling divergent points of view, and doing so in a way that resulted in mutually acceptable outcome for all involved, be it in the arena of legislation or constituent services.

Dan's career journey began more than three decades ago. Upon his graduation from Eastern New Mexico University in 1970, he entered the Army as a counterintelligence agent at Ft. Ord, California. Following an honorable discharge in 1973, Dan began his Federal civilian career at Kirtland Air Force Base, NM, progressing through a variety of contract-management positions over the ensuing 10 years.

In the mid-1980s, Dan got his first taste of life in the Nation's Capital, serving as the strategic planning officer on the staff of the Commander, Air Force Systems Command. After 4 years in that position, he returned to Kirtland AFB to head up the resources-planning division. Then in 1989, upon the issuance of Defense Management Review Decision 916, which placed all Defense contract administration under DLA's Defense Contract Management Command, Dan returned to the Washington, DC, area to serve as the director of program and technical support for special programs at DCMC headquarters.

But all that was mere prelude to what Dan will best be remembered for--his proficiency, acumen, and credibility as the congressional affairs impresario for DLA and DCMA, two of the Defense Department's leading combat-support agencies. Since February 1994, he has been a highly effective ambassador to Capitol Hill, articulating agency programs and deftly conveying his agencies' perspective on emerging legislation.

Displaying an enviable blend of affability and sophistication, Dan established and enjoyed a marvelous rapport with Senate and House staff. Always responsive and informed, he consistently met the congressional and media demands placed on him while protecting and promoting the interests of the agencies he represented.

Whether he was contributing to the successful development of a classified weapons systems program, responding to pointed questions from reporters, or explaining contract-management initiatives to congressional staff, Dan McGinty carried out his pressure-packed responsibilities with unwavering diligence, integrity, and competence.

On the occasion of his retirement from Federal service, I offer my congratulations and thanks to this respected resident of northern Virginia, and wish him and his wife, Sue, well in their future pursuits.

Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: Is it in order at this point in time for the Senator to speak as in morning business for about 10 minutes?

The Senator from Virginia simply asked the parliamentary situation, could I proceed as in morning business for 15 minutes?

Madam President, the press have reported comments made by a general officer, General Boykin, and those remarks have been the subject of considerable concern. They are also regrettably a subject of great discussion in the Arab press.

I also am concerned, and I rise to advise my colleagues and others of a recommended course of action. I do so by first reading a letter signed by Senator Levin and myself dated last Friday. We wrote this letter jointly in the course of the debate on this floor in response to the request by the Commander in Chief, the President, for some $87 billion to support our military and to support our reconstruction efforts in Iraq and elsewhere. I was a strong supporter and was happy to vote for it. Fortunately, the measure has passed and is now subject to the conferees.

It is interesting, at the very time that we were passing this legislation, which are taxpayer funds in considerable amounts, the object was to provide freedom and quality of life for the people of Iraq. The people of Iraq largely follow the Muslim religion in teaching, in tenets, and it is dear to their hearts. At the same time, the coverage in the United States is about comments made by a distinguished officer, a man who has shown great personal courage in the profession as a soldier.

Nevertheless, there are allegations with regard to these remarks that have been reported in the press. Senator Levin and I felt it was our duty, as chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, to make a recommendation to the Secretary of Defense.

I am about to read that letter we sent on Friday, because I think it is a very responsible way to deal with a high-profile situation.

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Enclosed are copies of articles that have appeared in the press recently about public statements allegedly made in uniform by LTG William G. Boykin, U.S. Army, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. In matters pertaining to religious beliefs, the practice and expression, the Armed Forces have traditionally permitted as much latitude as possible,

consistent with the requirement of good order and discipline in the military's ability to accomplish its mission. We recognize the right of every American to free speech. However, as is well established, in part--I add, part in law--there are limits on the right of expression for service members. Public statements by a senior military official of an inflammatory, offensive nature that would denigrate another religion and which could be construed as bigotry may easily be exploited by enemies of the United States and contribute to an erosion of support within the Arab world and perhaps--I underline perhaps--increased risk for members of the U.S. Armed Forces serving in Muslim nations. It is the responsibility of the United States Senate to render constitutional ``advice and consent'' with respect to the officer corps. Implicit in this confirmation process is our judgment that officers, especially those of flag and general rank, are persons possessing sound judgment and respect for the rights and beliefs of others. We recommend, therefore, that you refer this matter to the Department of Defense Inspector General for a thorough review of the facts and a determination as to whether or not there has been any inappropriate behavior by Lieutenant General Boykin. Please advise the committee of the results of this review.

I now read from a press account of today, which purportedly carries-- and I have to rely on the authenticity of the press reports. I have no reason to disagree with them--an exchange between Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and members of the press corps. The question: Mr. Secretary, last week here you were referring to Lieutenant General Boykin, you and General Myers said in effect he has the right to freedom of speech and the freedom of expression and yet, as we all know, we are responsible for what we say. How can you keep a man in a senior position on your staff whose views are so diametrically opposed to those of the President and to yours? End of question.

Response by Secretary Rumsfeld: Let me make several hopefully precisely put sentences on this subject. First of all, I appreciate your question because it correctly indicated that the President's views and my views, or the President's views are that this is not a war against a religion. And all I did, despite the columnists and the press reports to the contrary, all I did was precisely state what the President and what I think are--I am having some difficulty reading this but I just have to literally read it as printed. I have not seen General Boykin's comments. I have since seen one of the network tapes and it had a lot of very difficult to understand words and subtitles which I was not able to verify. So I remain inexpert on precisely what he said and I was told he used notes and not text. And so I will stop there.

General Boykin has requested an Inspector General review of this matter, and I have indicated if that is his request, I think it appropriate.

I know that General Pace, who was apparently with the Secretary, has talked to him more recently. You may want to comment as well.

General Pace: Yesterday, Jerry and I were just waiting for a meeting to begin and he just mentioned to me how sad he was that his comments have caused the furor that they have. There is no doubt in my mind, in talking to him, that if he could pick his words more carefully he would. There is also no doubt in my mind that he does not see this battle as a battle between religions. He sees it as a battle between good and evil. He sees it as the evil being the acts of individuals, not the acts of any religion or affiliation with religion. So clearly, in my very short conversation with Jerry, which he instigated, he is sad that this is the way that it is, but he is anxious to have the investigator do the investigator's job.

I commend the Secretary of Defense, and I commend General Boykin. I think Senator Levin and I took the proper step. We had the option to put this letter into the public domain on Friday, but purposely I said to my colleague and to others--by the way, there were a number of others, as Senator Levin and I just discussed, on his side of the aisle and on my side of the aisle who expressed concern and asked of us, as the chairman and the ranking member, what we intended to do. Well, we made this recommendation and we purposely withheld it from public delivery, public release, as a consideration to the Secretary, such that he might take it into consideration as he dealt with this matter. I just presume he saw it and that he did take it into consideration. But I think at this point in time, while we have young men and women patrolling the streets in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other areas of the world, it is best we try to take this matter, hopefully, off the front pages, with the representation to the American public and others that the proper authorities are reviewing it--the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, and I anticipate my committee and indeed perhaps others here in the Senate will review the matter. But in fairness to this distinguished officer, such that he can devote his full time and attention to dealing with this issue, I am recommending-- not calling for, not demanding but recommending, having spent some time in the Department of Defense myself--that without any prejudice this officer be detailed from his present position, a position that deals with the war on terrorism throughout the world, that he be detailed elsewhere temporarily until such time as the Inspector General comes back with his report, at which time we can have further deliberations.

That is in fairness to so many people who are deeply concerned about this issue, and indeed the men and women of the Armed Forces, and indeed the integrity of the military itself. When an officer wears that uniform and he stands before the people of the United States, or wherever he may be, and he makes remarks, people see in that uniform that he has been appointed to that position by the President of the United States of America and confirmed by the Senate of the United States. In that confirmation process we look at the professional credentials, we examine all the material that comes before us, but implicit in our confirmation by this body, the Senate, pursuant to the Constitution, implicit therein is that we feel this individual should be promoted and given the rank to which the President has appointed him because we have confidence in him that he has good, sound judgment--I repeat that: good, sound judgment--in the exercise of his freedom to speak.

That is the question that remains to be answered. He is in a very high-profile position with global responsibilities on the war on terrorism. I think temporarily, without any prejudice whatsoever, asking him to take on another assignment until this matter is fully examined and studied and a report made to the Secretary of Defense and the Senate is in the interests of all concerned and indeed this officer.

I yield the floor.

I thank my colleague because you formerly served as attorney general. You have full comprehension of the importance of being fair to everyone. This recommendation I have is in the sense of fairness. I think it is in the interest of all, and I thank the Senator for his remarks.

Madam President, the Senator is correct, to simply give full and complete opportunity and have him temporarily detailed elsewhere. I think until such time as this thing is resolved factually--what did happen, what didn't happen--as the Secretary of Defense said, he didn't fully have all the facts at his command at this point in time and was asked a question. Although I must say I have read press accounts where the general was trying to explain what he did say, you and I know from experience in public life, when you try to explain what you tried to say, you need time out to do a little study.

I thank my colleague.

Muslims and Christians and people of other faiths all over this world are united in this fight against terrorism. We must make it very clear of our mutual respect for one another's faith.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished chairman. I say with all due deference to our distinguished colleague from New Jersey that on its face there is a very serious flaw. I am opposed to the principle of having a commission at this time examine the subject, but on its face it reads:

There is established a National Commission on Development

and Use of Intelligence Related to Iraq.

Iraq is but one piece of a matrix of nations in that region of the world. You cannot focus on just the narrow Iraq situation without Iran, without looking at the other areas of the world which are being affected by this spread of terrorism. I say to my good friend, his intentions may well have been the best, but personally I think it is inappropriate and ill-advised at this time to usurp in many respects the responsibility of the Congress, certainly not in a way in which you just look at one small area of intelligence unrelated to the broad picture throughout that region.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I, too, have traveled to the region, as has the Senator from Arizona. It was clear to me that there is a direct correlation between the efforts to repair the infrastructure in Iraq and, frankly, lowering what is in the minds of us every day: the danger to the individual men and women of the Armed Forces and the coalition forces. On every vote I cast in connection with this important measure, I have focused and faced that soldier patroling in Iraq and said: Does this help him or her, or not?

I wonder how the Senator from Arizona feels about this amendment in correlation to the infrastructure and the reduction of the risk and danger of those undertaking the military mission.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

I am not asking the Senator to yield the floor, but the other part, in fairness--

I do add the fact that I was present and I recall being somewhat concerned, I say to my distinguished colleague, but they had only been in office several weeks. The head of the electricity board, a magnificent woman, very well-skilled in technical matters, and the head of water and sewage, a gentleman--I was so impressed with them, but they said: We have only been in office 2 or 3 weeks.

We ought to add that fact to the Senator's point. I am somewhat concerned when you say Bremer padded. Do you have any evidence on this?

Will my colleague yield?

Mr. President, I would be happy to yield and enter into a colloquy and questions with the Senator from Delaware and to address my good friend from Arizona.

Mr. President, if I could direct a question to my colleague, first, I hope in the course of this debate we have not impugned in any way the integrity of Ambassador Bremer.

That is an important addition the Senator just made because this is a man who uprooted himself from a difficult situation here at home, volunteered to go over there, and, as the Senator knows, those living conditions are not the best.

The point being, he is on the scene 14 hours a day. He is working.

When the Senator says he has experience and he understands things, I defer to that. I have a great deal of experience, and he does, too. I admire him. He knows that. But my point is we certainly have to have a degree of confidence in those who render their best judgment on the various items.

The Senator raised the question, and I have a document here to refer to. If I could just pose a question, the Senator pointed out the seriousness of these vast ammunition depots. No matter how great Saddam Hussein may have been with his military--from the debriefings, they have no explanation why he put in every corner of Iraq these enormous caches of ammunition. The Senator from Delaware brings out the necessity to go in and eradicate those in various ways as quickly as possible so they do not fall into the hands of those who are acting against us.

The point I wish to make is, in the document and carefully buried in the $67-plus billion for the Department of Defense is the specific item of $300 million for initiatives for battlefield cleanup. It is in there. You don't have to take it out of other portions. That is in addition to $24 billion for the Department of the Army which they are going to expend for those purposes.

Has the Senator examined in detail to know that some of the items he is asking for, such as the cleanup of the battlefields, is already included?

Mr. President, I would simply say, briefly, the Secretary of Defense has issued policy guidance that covers members of the Reserve and Guard, and that guidance says they should not be subject to more than one long deployment every 6 years. That has enabled them to continue their civilian pursuits and their family lifestyles. Of course, that can be waived in times of national emergency, as it is right now. But to impose this management restriction on the President as Commander in Chief I think would severely begin to limit, for planning and other purposes, the utility of the Guard and Reserve.

I remember serving under Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird when the concept of the total force was evolving, and that is that men and women of the Guard are respected and treated with equal effectiveness as those of the regular Active Forces. I think this would be a very serious step backward in what I believe has been an absolutely glorious contribution by the National Guard and the Reserve Forces for some years now in their deployments in the war on terrorism.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Mikulski for joining with me in offering the amendment to address the damage done by Hurricane Isabel to military facilities, and for her help in getting that amendment adopted. I can assure you that I intend the needs of the U.S. Naval Academy and all other military facilities damaged by the storm to be fully met from the funds provided by that amendment.

Mr. President, recently I hosted a luncheon of the American Chemical Society on nanotechnology. It was a pleasure to be in the company of so many brilliant minds, and those concerned with the technological and economic future of our Nation.

Of all the areas of scientific innovation being developed today, none is more profound than nanotechnology. The ability to manipulate individual atoms is unprecedented in human history and could lead to the redesign of

most products we know of today. Some have even said it could lead to the ``Second Industrial Revolution.'' Its scope is nothing other than breathtaking.

In the area of national security, nanotechnology has been identified as one of the most important strategic research areas. Revolutionary applications could include: very lightweight but extremely strong armor, vastly smaller and more powerful computers, microscopic sensor systems, and tiny unmanned vehicles. These could provide vastly increased capabilities for our armed forces. Conversely, to fall behind in these new areas will present us with a critical security risk.

Unfortunately, the United States is no longer the only world leader in many areas of nanoscience, as many countries have recognized its importance and are greatly increasing their funding. With stakes this high, we must pay close attention to the choices we make.

I understand the stakes and stand four-square behind public-private efforts to keep America in the lead in nanotechnology. Just as we led the industrial revolution, America will lead this new scientific revolution for the benefit of generations to come.

Mr. President, I was privileged to attend the retirement ceremony of MG Arnold Punaro from the U.S. Marine Corps on September 19, 2003 at the Marine Barracks here in Washington, DC. General Punaro is known to many here in the Senate from his outstanding service of many years as staff director of the Senate Armed Services Committee and on the personal staff of Senator Sam Nunn. I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the Record, at this point, portions of the remarks made at the ceremony by Gen. James L. Jones, Supreme Allied Commander, Europe and Commander, U.S. European Command.

Will the Chair recount, for the benefit of the Senate, the order that has just been accepted.

I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I purposely desired the clerk to read the short amendment because this affects the interests in 6 States. This tragic hurricane struck North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.

Those are the States that were declared by the President as Federal disaster areas. The technical decision has been made by the appropriate authorities that these States suffered severe damage.

On the 19th of September, the hurricane caused 45 deaths, and approximately $1.7 billion of total damages, of which approximately $450 million was sustained in Virginia and $410 million in Maryland.

I offer this amendment on behalf of colleagues in all of those States. I have listed thus far myself, Senator Allen, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Dole. I expect other Senators from those States will desire to add their names at their own initiative.

Why on this particular bill should this funding be provided? It is a legitimate question.

No. 1, it is taken out of the funds in this bill for the Department of Defense. It is not an add-on or an end run. It is straightforward from the Department of Defense. In consultation with the individual military services, it was relayed to me that the functioning of these military facilities in the States enumerated is essential to the current operations of the United States military.

Senator Allen, members of the Virginia delegation, and I, together with the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security went down to these hard-hit communities. We spent at least 1 day with the Secretary of Homeland Security looking at the damage in the Commonwealth of Virginia; and specifically, to the Langley Air Force Base and NASA facility. It is a relatively modest sum, but the Langley facility has a dual purpose. It serves both for the Department of Air Force and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

We simply couldn't have the construction and repairs eligible for one part of the facility and not the other. Of course, the debate was primarily for the Department of Air Force. That is one very modest and minor technical aspect of this.

But the Department of Defense is willing to take those funds necessary for NASA from the funds I put in here, the reason being you simply cannot take a water line, for example, for a flood-damaged area and stop at the arbitrary line between where NASA operates and where the Department of Air Force operates.

I am hopeful colleagues will not look upon that as any significant departure from the managers' effort to contain this legislation to expenditures related to the military. I really urge colleagues to support this. Our colleagues from these 6 States support it. I cannot speak for those who are not on here. I intend to visit with the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia on this matter in the course of the day as well as the junior Senator from West Virginia. It is my hope this Chamber will accept this amendment.

Again, there was a Presidential designation of areas of destruction, and here in the Nation's Capital some of our military installations suffered damage.

I point out that in the course of my trips--I think I made seven trips back to my State in connection with this very frightful hurricane--I worked with FEMA. I commend FEMA. The FEMA people came in, as well as the Small Business Administration, and helped tremendously. I recall being in Alexandria along with the Small Business Administration people, and we walked in and out of the various places of business--small restaurants and shops where water had come up waist high the previous evening. You can't imagine the despair on the faces and in the minds of a shopkeeper who was there amidst all of this mud, debris, foul-smelling effects of the flood; and then also trying to get briefed on the pathogens that could flow from the mold that will come forward.

But I found the Small Business Administration people, and particularly FEMA, to be very reassuring to those people who were overcome with emotion and dispair. Senator Allen and myself on this particular day, and FEMA and the Small Business Administration people, gave assurance that the Federal Government would give a measure of help: Here are the forms, here is the instruction book, there will be a representative from FEMA and SBA at this location. You can go to that entity and seek assistance.

That all worked quite well in my State. However, SBA or FEMA is not available to provide assistance to the military installations who were damaged. It is left up to the commander of those bases to finance these costs. I spent considerable time with the commander at Langley Air Force Base. I commend him. He stayed throughout the storm even though the base was largely evacuated. It was important to get the military equipment out of the path of the storm and locate that equipment in a remote area so they could continue to function. There was no gap in the fulfillment of the military mission. That commander and indeed the general officer in charge of that base and others are to be commended.

I could recite other bases and installations, including Fort Story, the same thing: The commander and senior officers and enlisted personnel stayed throughout the storm. By and large, they helped save property and lives, no question about it. Had everyone departed and tried to get back--in some instances the roads were severed and

you could not get back and more destruction would occur in that passage of time.

There was considerable bravery from military and civilians on the military installations. FEMA cannot by law step in, nor can the Small Business Administration. Who is to fill the vacuum? The Congress. That is why I am asking the support for this amendment.

Again, this includes six States. I have an evaluation of the various damages assessed by the military department in the several States. As far as I can determine, they are good, hard substantiated figures. There is no padding that I know of nor would I permit it.

For example, in the U.S. Marine Corps, $16.5 million, primarily in North Carolina and right here below the District of Columbia, Quantico; the U.S. Army, $92 million; the Navy, $185 million; and the Air Force, $210 million.

Mr. President, this amendment will provide approximately $500 million to repair and replace military and NASA facilities along the east coast that were damaged by Hurricane Isabel. These are the facilities in which our military personnel and their families live and work. The Air Force alone suffered approximately $210 million, much of that was the result of flooding at Langley Air Force Base. Damage at Naval facilities is estimated to exceed $180 million, while damage at Army and Marine Corps facilities is estimated to exceed $100 million. There was also an estimated $5 million in damage at the NASA facility in Langley.

Make no mistake, this damage will have to be repaired and unless we provide the funding in this bill, it will come at the expense of operations and training.

I am hopeful colleagues will support this amendment.

I will leave it to the managers of the bill to decide how and when this matter is addressed formally, either by voice or recorded vote.

I ask unanimous consent this be the pending business subject to the managers, and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I want to address the sense-of-the-Senate resolution on behalf of men and women in the Armed Forces offered by our distinguished Senator from Kentucky. I ask unanimous consent that I be listed as a cosponsor of the resolution.

Mr. President, I rise to give strong support to this and I want to say against the background--and the other day we had a similar matter before the Senate and I rose to address that. It was a technical problem, primarily, with that resolution. This one, which I have read carefully, in a very straightforward manner, recites the history of personal decorations and theater awards and, in particular, how these matters, throughout the military history of this country, have been actions taken by Presidents upon the recommendation of the senior officers of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and, indeed, the Coast Guard. In this instance, this administration has moved to put in place those recognitions--most deserving, I would say-- of men and women who have gone to the farflung corners of the globe and accepted the risks, together with their families, of going to those areas for the cause of freedom and to protect the security interests of the United States of America.

That region of Iraq is very much in our hearts and minds every day. I have had the privilege, as have many in this body, to go there and visit with our troops. Likewise, I have had the privilege to go and visit with our forces in Afghanistan. Most recently, I went to Liberia, where the strike task force--largely composed of U.S. marines but under the control of a very fine Army officer--performed extraordinary duties on behalf of the people of Liberia, who have suffered a decade-plus of civil war turmoil. I could go on and on, but others are anxious to address this.

The point I wish to make is these decorations are proudly worn on the uniform of the men and women in the Armed Forces. They are coveted items of families for generations. In my office, I have proudly displayed the decoration earned by my father who volunteered as a young Army doctor in World War I to go to France where he served in the trenches. I remember as a young person of his telling stories to me about life in the trenches, the extraordinary devastation he witnessed, the loss of life, and the carnage. But there on the wall was his World War I Victory Medal. It had on it three bars of the three major conflicts. He was proud to wear it on the uniform of the United States when he saw service.

It is a carefully thought through process that we cannot award a separate medal for every conflict. We have to recognize the theater of operations. For example, in World War II, it was the European theater and it was the Pacific theater. There was a medal given to those in the continental limits in training commands. There were three basic theaters of operation, and then stars were awarded for the major conflicts in the theaters of Europe or the Pacific.

It is not a wise course of action to award a separate medal of decoration for each of the many theaters we are engaged in today. Rather, there should be just the principal decoration which, as we say in the final paragraph of this resolution, and I will read that:

It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense

should, on an expedited basis, issue the necessary

regulations to implement these awards and ensure that any

person who renders qualifying service to the Armed Forces in

those phases of the Global War on Terrorism, including

Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and

Operation Noble Eagle should promptly receive these awards.

That is a category of awards given primarily for Iraq and Afghanistan and contiguous areas where the men and women of the Armed Forces are serving actually in the front lines or, indeed, in a support phase.

I strongly urge the Senate adopt this amendment. I hope there are 100 votes in recognition of this course of action.

To those who, with the best of intentions, have recommended specific theaters, specific zones, such as Iraq, we then have to think of Afghanistan, we have to think of Liberia, although, fortunately, that was an operation that was successfully performed in a relatively short period of time. I could go throughout the world.

It is better there be theater-of-operations awards and individuals singled out. I know, for example, if I may say, when I was Secretary of the Navy and heavily involved in the subject of awards, I remember so much working with the father of the distinguished Senator from Arizona who was commander in chief of all military forces in the Pacific, ADM ``Jumpin'' Jack McCain. I remember him well. I learned a lot from him.

The Senator from Arizona will recall from his earlier experience how theater recognition is given and then the star to recognize those engagements in which one participated. That is a process carefully supervised by the senior military, primarily the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

I am quite interested in the views of the distinguished Senator from Arizona on this subject. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. President, the Senator is very correct in the recitation of the facts. I add one other perspective, and that is how well the Senator from Arizona understands with his distinguished career the identification of the families with the serviceperson, and should a special award be made for Iraq, think of the families of those who served in Afghanistan, particularly who lost life and limb. They would think: Why is not the sacrifice of our family in every respect equal to the sacrifice of the other families in the Iraqi situation?

Yesterday, or today, the Senator from Arizona and I took to the floor together in a similar colloquy to urge colleagues to let the system work because it is working and it is working in the traditions of our military.

It is working in a manner that is equitably recognizing the performance in this area.

Mr. President, no. Our committee does have jurisdiction over these matters. It was not brought to the attention of myself.

I saw momentarily the ranking member. I do not see him at the moment. To the best of my knowledge, he did not have knowledge of it aforehand.

I thank my colleague. I also add that, very importantly, one very good development resulted from the debate we had yesterday.

I was under the impression that the two declarations to which the distinguished Senator from Arizona made mention were actually in being. I am perhaps remiss. I thought that by now they were in being, but in fact when I went directly to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and those involved in the process, I found this needed a little congressional incentive. That is the basic reason for this amendment that is laid down today. We have their attention now, and they are going forward with these decorations.

So for that reason, we must say to Senator Bingaman that that was a very fortunate development.

Mr. President, the Senator is correct.

The Senator is absolutely correct. As I said, we have brought this matter and the urgency of it to their attention, and that is one of the very positive results from the efforts of our colleagues on the other side and the initiative taken by the distinguished whip on this side in this amendment.

Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague. I have known the McCain family. I served with the Senator's father and have followed the distinguished Senator's career, and it stands in parallel to the finest careers of those who have served in this body in years past, today, and who will serve in the future, who have worn the uniform of this country. So I value greatly the views of the Senator from Arizona and I thank him.

I do not know. I fail to count the number of years. It is 30 plus. But I thank the Senator for his kind remarks. My career is so inconsequential in the U.S. military compared with his. I do believe I received the good conduct medal. To the best of my knowledge, the Senator never received that; did he?

I do not think the Senator was eligible then and he is not eligible now. I think it is likely the Senator will never be eligible.

Well, maybe we should cease this colloquy at this moment. I see others who perhaps would like to speak.

Again, we commend the distinguished Senator from Kentucky for his initiative on this matter. I was somewhat saddened yesterday that we had to have a division of views on what I believe was the best of intentions by the Senator from New Mexico. I think now this is an opportunity for us to shake hands on both sides and move on and resolve this matter.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, may I say to my colleague from New Mexico, with whom I have had the privilege to serve now for close to two decades in this body, and who was a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and a very valued member, that he has gotten this Senator's attention. I appreciate what he is doing to support the pending amendment, and I urge colleagues to do likewise.

If I might say first, while he was not present in the Chamber when I brought to the attention of the Senate that the debate which followed his amendment the other day did bring about this Senator's personal attention on the status of several decorations, I found that it was not moving along, in my judgment, in an expeditious and timely manner. That debate the other day served a very important service to the men and women of the Armed Forces who are engaged in these particular theaters.

I would like to work with the Senator and with the Department of Defense to pursue his thoughts about perhaps additional recognition for service in the theaters of Iraq Afghanistan. I am just not prepared at this time to give a definitive answer.

This is the course, as proposed by the amendment which is before the Senate, which has been followed for years. So many places in the world today have often no geographic boundaries and have no identity. Yet people who are on guard wearing our uniform, coalition forces and other nations, are subject to loss of life and limb in combating that terrorism.

I am not able at this point in time to come up with some definitive suggestion. But I certainly would like to associate myself with the Senator's remarks that there should be an expression of gratitude to those persons serving in these theaters right now for their service and that given by their families. I thank the Senator.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager, and I commend the Senate for an excellent debate. I rise today to oppose this amendment that would use loans for much needed reconstruction, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Seldom do we have choices before us as fundamental as this one. We can truly help the Iraqi people and secure an important opportunity for change in this part of the world, or we can turn our backs and watch this fledging nation drown in a sea of debt. The second choice would represent failure. There is no choice. Failure is not an option. We must go forward; we must stay the course and help the people of Iraq win the peace without conditions.

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.

Over the July 4, recess, I traveled, along with eight colleagues from the Armed Forces and Intelligence Committees, to Iraq. During the 3 days we spent in Iraq, we met with Coalition Provisional Authority leaders, military leaders, soldiers, and local Iraqi leaders. Their courage, dedication and determination in a very difficult environment was inspiring. We saw the enormity of the task with our own eyes--the antiquated, dilapidated oil infrastructure; the mismanaged irrigation system; the piles of garbage and open sewers; and the cowed and brutalized, but hopeful people of Iraq. These problems will not be fully fixed overnight, or even with this significant infusion of resources. But, it is an important step forward. We must quickly build on the foundation that has been laid by Ambassador Bremer, his international team, and the Iraqi people, to sustain and accelerate the momentum for building a secure, and economically viable, democracy in Iraq.

Over the past few weeks, I have had the opportunity to meet with several Iraqi leaders. Recently, I met members of the Iraqi Governing Council. We noted the tragic absence of Ms. Akila al-Hashimi, a member of the Governing Council who was scheduled to travel to the United States this week but was gunned down last week outside her home in Baghdad, most likely by remnants of the Ba'athist regime intent on intimidating the new Iraqi leaders. She symbolized the courage, hope, and determination of many Iraqis to build a new, democratic Iraq, even in the face of great personal risk. We mourn her loss, along with the people of Iraq, and we must now renew our pledge to help Iraq establish the security, quality of life, and opportunity to enjoy the liberties of a free, democratic nation. Her colleagues on the Iraqi Governing Council are clearly committed to achieving these goals and deserve our support.

Some have suggested that providing $20.3 billion dollars for Iraqi reconstruction is too generous and that full or partial repayment should be formulated. This notion is borne from the belief that Iraq is a potentially prosperous nation, well-endowed with oil reserves, that should be able to pay for its own reconstruction. I respectfully disagree.

The idea of loans for Iraqi reconstruction, instead of grants, would be a terrible mistake. Iraq already has crushing debt, accumulated during Saddam Hussein's brutal, incompetent reign. Estimates of this debt range from $180 billion to almost $400 billion. Additional debt or encumbrances on future earnings now would be economically disastrous, and send the wrong message to Iraqis and, indeed, the world.

General Jay Garner and Ambassador Bremer have both forcefully argued that Iraq must be granted significant debt reduction or forgiveness. The United States will seek to convince the principal holders of Iraqi loans--Russia, France, Germany and Saudi Arabia--to foregive some of all of these loans. To add additional loans, at the same time we are asking others to forgive loans, would be counterproductive and hypocritical.

Later this month, the U.S. will hold a donors' conference in Madrid to solicit contributions from the international community for Iraqi reconstruction. To ask others to make grants to Iraq after we have structured some or all of our contribution to Iraqi reconstruction as loans would undercut our Government's efforts to obtain international support.

In the conversations with Iraqi leaders I mentioned earlier, they were emphatic in their opposition to reconstruction support being structured as loans, especially if these loans were made in the form of ``liens'' against potential Iraqi oil revenues. They rightfully argued that the Iraqi people and the larger Arab and Islamic world would regard such a move negatively

and conclude that their earlier suspicions that the U.S. was more interested in Iraqi oil than Iraqi liberation were true.

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 Easter region, by providing this reconstruction assistance as grants to Iraq. A loan program using Iraqi oil as collateral would 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 fund 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.

Some have compared this supplemental for the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan to the Marshall plan that funded the reconstruction of Europe following World War II. Most would agree that the investment of our Nation in the Marshall plan has been paid back a hundred-fold.

Some have correctly pointed out that the Marshall plan included loans that had to be paid back and the requirement for matching funds by the beneficiary nations, in some cases. The bulk of Marshall plan assistance, however, was in the form of grants. Students of history, of which there are many in this chamber, will recall, also, that while the Marshall plan began in 1948, it was preceded by a series of programs over a number of years, to provide financial support to meet the immediate needs of devastated European nations, including Germany. In today's dollar, the equivalent of over $100 billion in aid was provided by the U.S. to these nations before the Marshall plan went into effect. Included in this aid was over $35 billion in grants to put these nations in a position to help themselves with subsequent assistance.

The situation is similar in Iraq today. This is a nation crippled by multiple wars, mismanagement, and neglect. The Iraqis are not yet in a position to help themselves, but they can be with our help.

Providing loans to Iraq is an idea that may have merit in the future, but not now. By voting overwhelmingly to authorize the use of force in Iraq, we accepted the responsibilities and challenges of subsequent reconstruction. We must not now shrink from that responsibility. We must first provide the unconditional assistance that will lay the foundation for full reconstruction. That is in Iraq's best interest; it is in America's best interest.

Let us join together to provide the resources that will meet the immediate needs of the Iraqi people and best serve our interests in Iraq and the larger Middle East region. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and send a message to the Iraqi people that we are committed to their liberation and reconstruction unconditionally.

I was very deeply influenced and moved by the Senator from Washington, Senator Cantwell. She hit it. What is the message we send forth from this Chamber tonight?

I must admit, in the briefings and so forth that took place today before the Armed Services Committee, I repeatedly heard, we are not getting the message out in that part of the world about what we are trying to do and the successes we have had to date in helping the people. Consequently, a vote that would carry this amendment will just spread through that world and be interpreted by that press. It will undo so much of what we have been able to achieve thus far in trying to convince that world we are there for their own interests, not for oil, not to profit from a loan or give a loan. It will be misinterpreted as a consequence of a very small amount of funding in this whole $87 billion.

I would like to put a question to my good friend, fellow member of the Armed Services Committee, who is a strong supporter of the men and women of the Armed Forces, a simple question: Does this amendment make the streets safer for the men and women of the Armed Forces tonight, tomorrow tonight, and in the days and weeks to come, together with their coalition partners? If somehow you can convince me this will bring about a greater measure of safety--this is the thing that concerns me above all. The sacrifices being made by the men and women of the Armed Forces, their families here at home, people in the villages and towns who watched them march off to take up their stations in this battle for freedom. I cannot fairly discern any basis that this will help to make the streets safer for the uniformed people now serving in the coalition forces.

I ask that most respectfully of my good friend and distinguished member of our committee.

It should not take very long.

I think the Senator has answered the question. I believe we just have an honest difference of opinion. I think the press in that part of the world will be whipped into a frenzy, with those who will be saying ``we are winning, we are winning.'' That troubles me. I think that will endanger the security of our people in uniform when they are trying to carry out this mission. The press will be whipped up, and this will be the most clear symbolism that those who are against----

They will say it is because we are there for oil, and they will say, oh, they are going to make the Iraqis borrow the money. They don't understand the nuances, the technicalities of a loan, and so forth.

What they will understand is that the Senate did not stand in support of the Commander in Chief, and I am fearful that the press will seize upon this and it will endanger the safety of our people. I say that as a friend and most respectfully.

Go right ahead.

Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, I would like to think of myself as the last person to ever take the floor of the Senate and say a man or a woman proudly wearing the uniform of the United States should not receive everything that is offered. But in this instance--I do not oppose this--I simply ask you to examine it in the sense of fairness. What do you say to the widow of someone who lost his life in Afghanistan? What do you say to those who have injured soldiers in the Horn of Africa, Liberia, Philippines, Colombia, and other places, all engaged in the war on terrorism?

I do not understand this. I have read it. I have reread it. It says, for example, to those serving in Iraq, prohibition of concurrent award of Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. They cannot receive it. For what reason, I do not know.

I say to my dear friend, a former member of the Armed Services Committee, this is a matter that requires

close examination. This issue of awarding men and women of the Armed Forces is properly reposed in the chairman and the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They acted in March of this year to create the Medal for the Global War on Terrorism. Our distinguished Senator from South Carolina, while serving in the Army, got a star for the European theater for engagements; those who crossed the Anzio Beach, those in Africa, a star. There was one theater medal with stars given for the various engagements. That is not this situation. That says the one who served in Iraq should get something special the others do not receive. That is not fair, I say to my good friend.

Accordingly, at the appropriate time, I will move to table.

What do you say to the widow of someone who has lost their life in Afghanistan?

Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Correct.

That is correct.

How can you elevate a death or a loss in Iraq over one in Afghanistan?

Mr. President, on October 14, 2003, at Marine Barracks 8th & I, Washington, D.C.--the oldest post in the U.S. Marine Corps--GEN James L. Jones, Supreme Allied Commander Europe and Commander, U.S. European Command and the former Commandant of the Marine Corps will officiate at a retirement ceremony for MG Arnold L. Punaro. GEN Punaro is completing 35 years of superlative commissioned service in the United States Marine Corps and is someone I have worked with both in and out of uniform for over 25 of these years. Contingent on the Senate schedule, I intend to be present and join his many friends in wishing him and his family fair winds and following seas.

Many here will recall Arnold's outstanding 24 year career in the U.S. Senate working for our former Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman, Senator Sam Nunn. He started as an intern in Senator Nunn's office in 1973, and rose to become Staff Director of the Senate Armed Services Committee. During that 24-year period he was involved in every major national security decision and set a standard of excellence and leadership that few others achieve. While he came from Georgia, I am proud to say he has been a Virginia resident for 30 years and someone with whom I worked closely during his years in the Senate.

Simultaneously, he was engaged in a highly successful career in the United States Marine Corps which he entered out of college in 1968. At the peak of the draft, he was a volunteer into a tough outfit that I know well. He was an infantry platoon commander in combat in Vietnam where he was wounded in battle and decorated for heroism.

Following active duty service, he went into the reserves in 1973. Over the next 30 years he would serve with distinction in both command and staff billets to include mobilization for Desert Shield/Desert Storm in 1990. He also was mobilized in 1993 to serve as the Commander of Joint Task Force Provide Promise, Forward, in command of all U.S. troops serving in the former Yugoslavia and in Macedonia. His command was part of a multi-national force and provided much needed stability in that region.

He was promoted to general officer in 1994, and served as Commanding General of several major commands for 5 of his 9 years as a general. Just as he was the longest serving Staff Director of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he had the longest tenure as Commanding General of the 4th Marine Division--one of the legendary divisions of World War II Iwo Jima fame. Today this division has over 20,500 Marines and Sailors located in 105 cities and 38 states. The vast majority fought in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Under his leadership, the 4th Division's warfighting readiness was significantly improved as was demonstrated in Iraq and, upon his departure, he turned over an organization that had achieved the highest readiness ratings that DoD provides.

That does not surprise any of us who worked closely with him over the years because he was known as someone who always had a vision and knew how to get things done--both strategically and tactically. He was direct, forceful, and always focused on reaching the goal.

He was most recently mobilized--for the third time in his reserve career--for Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom as both the U.S. Marine Corps Director of Reserve Affairs and a Special Assistant to the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. During this period the U.S. Marine Corps had the largest call-up of its reserves in their history with a 99 percent show-rate, a rapid deployment to their operational assignments faster than required and great success in combat operations. His experience and leadership were crucial in both the mobilization and demobilization phase.

During this same period his oldest son, Joe Punaro, a 2LT in the Marine Corps was serving as a platoon commander in Iraq in the same Regiment his father served in Vietnam--the 7th Marines of the 1st Marine Division. Joe worked for me as an intern in 2000 and I had the pleasure of visiting with him in Kuwait prior to the invasion. Arnold's daughter Julie is student teaching at Thomas Jefferson High School; daughter Meg is at Mary Washington College and plays on their field hockey team which is in the top ten, and son Daniel is a senior in high school and an aspiring college lacrosse player. His wife Jan has kept them all on this highly successful course.

MG Punaro has now completed two outstanding careers--one in the Senate and one in the Marine Corps. He is a superb leader, thinker and doer. He is now on his third career as a senior executive for a key Virginia company.

On behalf of the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee and Staff as well as the Senate, I want to extend our deepest congratulations and the gratitude of a grateful Nation.

Mr. President, might I answer my colleague's very insightful question as to what the Secretary of State has in mind.

I have just been in consultation with his office, upon learning of my distinguished colleague's amendment. Very shortly there will be a written communication coming to the leadership of the Senate expressing, without any equivocation, that he feels strongly that the Department of State, at this time, should not be given the responsibility. But there will come a time, I say to my distinguished colleague--an appropriate time, and perhaps without further interruption to your opening remarks--I could engage the Senator in a colloquy to discuss perhaps an alternative measure at some future time.

Basically, it would be after the Iraqi Government is in place and the United States would, at that time, indicate an individual to become the U.S. Ambassador, at which time there could be an orderly transition from the Department of Defense to the Department of State.

My concern, I say to my friend, is that it has taken Ambassador Bremer some 3 months now to gain the momentum he has. We have a critical issue before this body at the very moment of whether or not the additional funds will hopefully immediately be forthcoming. That decision will be finally made next week. I strongly support it, to continue that momentum. A shift at this time would result in loss of momentum.

I conclude my few remarks at this moment by saying, throughout the testimony and private discussions with Ambassador Bremer, which I am sure my colleague from Vermont has had, he has constantly said that the danger to the coalition forces--that danger being indelibly impressed on us every day with the announcement of a loss or an injury to members of the uniformed services, and indeed others--David Kay is, at this moment, before committees of the Congress. In conversations with me, he has expressed the danger to his operation daily by their transit down these motorways and otherwise.

The direct correlation of reducing the danger to our troops, to the Iraqi special survey group headed by David Kay, and to others performing NGO operations--this whole panoply of people--there is a direct correlation between the speed and the momentum that the Bremer operation has brought up to replace the infrastructure and the lessening of the personal risks to individuals.

Mr. President, if I could probe my colleague, as I read this, it states very clearly:

Provided further, That beginning not later than 60 days

after enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the

Coalition Provisional Authority shall report to and be under

the direct authority and foreign policy guidance of the

Secretary of State.

As I indicated, the Secretary is very much opposed to this amendment. We will very shortly have that evidence before the Senate. But it is clear from the reading of this that the $21 billion which is before this body right now as a part of the 87--and it remains a part; that issue has been addressed--would now be transferred to the Department of State for, frankly, writing all the checks, working on the allocation of priorities, the coordination with the military structure under the Secretary of Defense and General Abizaid, the CENTCOM commander. The whole thing is lifted and put under the State Department in 60 days after this, should it be enacted. Am I not correct?

Would the Senator be more explicit?

Mr. President, if the Senator would enable me to bring to the attention of the Senate a communication at this point in time from the Department of State, it might be helpful. As I read the amendment, it is clear to me that Bremer would now report to the Secretary of State.

There is no provision that he continues a direct chain to the Secretary of Defense. That structure, from Bremer right on down through his organization, would now be reporting to the Secretary of State. Am I correct in that?

The Senator has made that eminently clear. I think right now we are looking at the coalition operation under Bremer now being transferred in its entirety and reporting to the Secretary of State. That organization, under Bremer at the present time, composes, indeed, contributions of a number of personnel from the Departments of State and Defense. It is sort of a coalition within itself of our Federal departments and agencies. Our coalition partners, primarily Great Britain, are integral participants.

How would they feel if suddenly they awakened and determined that no longer does their deputy to Bremer from Great Britain report to the Secretary of State? This is a very significant and major change that our distinguished colleague is proposing.

In response, the Department of State, through its Assistant Secretary of Legislative Affairs, addressed our colleagues in the Senate by saying the following:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Senator Leahy's

proposed amendment to the FY 2004 Supplemental that would

transfer control of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA)

from the Department of Defense to the Department of State.

While we appreciate Senator Leahy's confidence in the State

Department, we are opposed to the amendment.

That is very clear and unequivocal.

The decision to establish control of Iraq's reconstruction

through the Department of Defense was made because military

operations were and are ongoing in Iraq. The immediate

objective was to establish a secure and safe environment in

Iraq. Restoring basic services and creating conditions for

economic growth could not take place until this environment

was established.

For unity of effort and command, it was judged--and this judgment was from the President on down--

the Department of Defense would be the most appropriate

department in which to place CPA. The State Department fully

expects to resume control of traditional development efforts

in Iraq once the security situation is fully stabilized and

an elected government is in place.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on Senator

Leahy's amendment. We will be pleased to provide any

additional information you might require.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in response to my colleague, the Marshall plan is, in clear terms, a precedent for what the policy decisions of our country are, as embraced in the request for this $21 billion and in the future. But there is a clear distinction. The Marshall plan came in years after the fighting had stopped. As you and I are now in this colloquy on the floor of the Senate, that fighting is going on right now--hundreds of thousands of coalition forces--over a hundred thousand--and many civilians are subjected to the constant threat by this polyglot of former Baathists, former associates of Saddam Hussein, terrorists are moving in.

This is a tough situation and there is daily communication between Ambassador Bremer and the military. They have worked side by side. In fact, you visited there, as I have. Their offices are just across the hall from one another.

(Mr. CORNYN assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, if I might address the comment about letting the State Department do its traditional responsibilities, I am referring to testimony before the House of Representatives on September 30, when the Deputy Secretary of State, Secretary Armitage, appeared. He made the following observations. He said that Ambassador Bremer and Secretary Powell speak to each other on the phone occasionally but they e-mail each other if not every day, pretty close to that.

He was asked what the role is in postwar Iraq. He said: We have 42 officers there now--42 State Department officers. I don't want to make light of it. Both Ambassador Bremer and his second, Clay McManaway, are both State officers. The guy who is running the show with the railroad is Pat Kennedy, one of the administration officers. So the State Department is heavily involved at the current time. The other officers from the Department of State are spread out not only in I&L but we have Mike Felia down in the southeastern region working with the Shia. We have others with the Kurds.

Ambassador Bremer has asked us to come forward with another approximately 60 officers and that we will be able to fill many more of these provinces with State Department officers, the high majority of which will be there with three or four language-speaking capabilities.

I say to my colleague, there is the closest of relationships with the Secretaries of State and Defense and directly between the Secretary of State and Ambassador Bremer. As he points out very clearly here, Deputy Secretary of State Armitage and the principal deputy to Ambassador Bremer are now officers on loan from the Secretary of State to the CPA. I urge my colleagues who are following this debate to think for themselves about the consequences of the loss of reconstruction that this would entail. You cannot make the shift in that point of time, and, to me, it would bring a greater threat personally and endangerment to the life and limb of not only the coalition forces in uniform but thousands of civilians who are working in various capacities to bring about the goals of peace and turning over this nation to the Iraqi people.

Mr. President, if I might again bring to my colleague's attention the momentum that is presently in the CPA and its achievements. CPA is providing funds through military commanders--I want to point that out--military commanders in the field, coalition military commanders to fund projects at the village and municipal level. Approximately $24 million has been spent on over 6,200 projects to date.

Health projects: Saddam Hussein budgeted $13 million for health care in 2002, approximately 50 cents per person. For the second half of 2003, CPA allocated $211 million--I repeat, $211 million--a 3,200 percent increase in health care.

On April 9, only 30 percent of Iraqi hospitals were functioning. CPA is bringing the health care system back to life. Now all 240 hospitals in Iraq are up and running. The CPA has wiped away the old corrupt system for distributing medical supplies and pharmaceuticals. In the past 90 days, 9,000 tons of medical supplies have been delivered, an increase of 700 percent. Because of the CPA, Iraqi children have received 22 million doses of vaccine to cover over 4 million children and nearly a million pregnant women.

Education: Saddam starved the country's schools of cash for more than 20 years. Children were taught pro-regime slogans in classrooms little better than livestock sheds. Enrollment in some areas had dropped to 50 percent of eligible children.

CPA is refurbishing more than 1,000 schools. The schools will have new plumbing instead of raw sewage in the playgrounds, fresh paint, blackboards, pencils, and teaching equipment.

Justice system: Nationwide, 90 percent of the courts are up and running. Criminal courts in Baghdad reopened in May. A central criminal court made up of specially vetted judges and prosecutors has been established to try cases in public. The first trial was held August 25.

I could go on and on. I ask unanimous consent to print these success stories in the Record.

There is enormous momentum.

Mr. President, I recognize that important bit of history. As I say to my friend of a quarter of century, we have had the privilege of serving here--and I see the distinguished acting minority leader on the floor--it would be the intention of the Senator from Virginia to move to table, but I first would like to hear an expression perhaps from others who might like to address the amendment.

Mr. President, every courtesy has been extended, and I might add that I am in consultation with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee on this matter, who likewise is presently on the Senate floor.

Mr. President, I do not detect it. I think the Senator is standing there with full vigor. I believe we have pretty well covered the major issues.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.