Floor Statements

Mr. President, on July 11, the 15th Annual International AIDS Conference began in Bangkok, Thailand. The theme of this year's conference is ``Access for All,'' meaning access to lifesaving medications. As

many of my colleagues know, the current AIDS pandemic threatens approximately 38 million people worldwide. Last year, 5 million more became infected. Sixty percent of all cases are in sub-Saharan Africa, but the virus is spreading almost unchecked in Asia and Eastern Europe. Twenty million people world-wide have died since the first case was diagnosed in 1981.

Unfortunately, the theme of the Bangkok conference--``Access for All''--is a hope and aspiration that bears little resemblance to the harsh reality we confront today. In reality, most newly infected people will not receive anti-retroviral drugs in time to do any good.

There are many barriers to progress: developing countries lack the trained physicians, nurses, or support staff to properly distribute anti-retroviral drugs and to monitor patients' progress. In addition, contributions to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS are not sufficient. Some countries are falling far short of what is needed.

And on July 1, the Wall Street Journal reported another big reason why drug distribution has been difficult. Simply put, the United States government will not purchase effective generic drugs; it insists on brand-name pharmaceuticals. Let me give you an example of why this matters.

On April 6, The Washington Post reported on pricing agreements negotiated by the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation with pharmaceutical companies that produce generic drugs. These agreements, in cooperation with the Global Fund, the World Bank, and UNICEF, will provide access to affordable AIDS drugs in 100 developing nations around the world. As a result, as many as 3 million additional people will be tested and treated for AIDS than before.

Under negotiated pricing agreements with five generic-drug companies--four in India and one in South Africa--the Foundation will reduce the cost of fixed-dose generic AIDS drugs by as much as half. Fixed-dosage drugs combine several drugs in one pill. This makes the treatments simpler to take. Research tells us that simplified treatment programs have more successful outcomes. The cost to test and treat a patient will drop from more than $500 per year down to $200 per year. The drugs themselves will cost only $140 per person, per year.

These are significant savings. And the savings have positive results. More people can be tested and treated than with existing programs. This is progress. These negotiated agreements will save lives.

In his 2003 State of the Union Address, President Bush announced a $15 billion plan to combat HIV/AIDS worldwide. Certainly, this was an admirable initiative. Authorizing legislation passed overwhelmingly in the House and Senate.

But, the administration has taken a different approach in implementing this plan than the Clinton Foundation has with their negotiated pricing agreements. I am concerned the $15 billion AIDS policy the President is pursuing is not nearly as effective as these negotiated agreements. Why? Because instead of negotiating for the most effective drugs for the lowest cost, the administration purchases brand-name pharmaceuticals from western countries at twice the cost.

For example, at a hospital in Zimbabwe, the Centers for Disease Control will soon implement a program that calls for patients to take six pills per day, from a variety of brand-name manufacturers, at a cost of $562 per patient, per year. Yet at the very same hospital, using the very same procedures, Doctors Without Borders purchases fixed-dosage retroviral drugs --two pills per day--from an Indian generic manufacturer. The treatment program costs $244 per patient per year--$318 less than the price the CDC pays. The programs have the same goals, at the same hospital, but the program sponsored by the U.S. Government costs more than twice as much.

This is not the most effective use of taxpayer money. The administration could use fixed-dosage, generic drugs, but won't. Instead it chooses to purchase multiple brand-name drugs, and implement a more complicated treatment regimen at more than twice the price. If the goal is to treat the AIDS epidemic, then why are we spending twice- as-much money on more complicated, less effective treatment? Where is the outrage about waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government-- not to mention plain old-fashioned stupidity?

Unfortunately, the answer is all too familiar. The administration has chosen to side with the brand-name pharmaceutical industry-- despite the cost, and despite the efficacy. We have seen this behavior before.

This brings us back to the Clinton Foundation's negotiated agreements with generic firms. My colleagues will be interested to know the man in charge of the Bush administration's AIDS initiative is Eli Lilly's former Chief Executive Officer, Randall Tobias. Recently, Mr. Tobias told Congress he had doubts about the quality of cheaper generic AIDS drugs made in India--the same drugs which the Clinton Foundation negotiated the pricing agreements. But, the World Health Organization approved the drugs and has an approval process similar to our own Food and Drug Administration. In fact, WHO's approval process was borrowed from the FDA. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 7, Dr. LuLu Oguda of Doctors Without Borders stated that she was ``bewildered by the debate'' about the use of generic fixed-dosage drugs to combat AIDS in Africa. She noted that the generics used were not ``substandard'' as claimed by the Bush Administration. Rather, they were made in some of the same facilities as generic drugs sold every day in the United States. As a volunteer in Malawi, a country where one fifth of the population lives with HIV, she knows the value of these quality generics.

I am left to conclude that the Bush administration has made a conscious choice. Cheaper, effective drugs are put aside in order to purchase more complex treatments from domestic pharmaceutical manufacturers. Fewer HIV/AIDS patients are treated, and more inefficiently. This is no different than refusing to support negotiation authority for Medicare beneficiaries. Fewer drugs can be purchased because prices remain high.

Beyond the burden to taxpayers, these policies have grave human consequences. People's lives are at stake. Prescription drugs are not like other consumer products. They are not optional or discretionary. For people with HIV/AIDS, lack of access to drugs can mean debilitating illness and even death. It's not like buying a car--the customer can't walk away from the deal with his or her health in tact. So the choices that we make here in Washington, the choices that the pharmaceutical industry makes, are fateful choices. And let's be clear, the pricing practices favored by the administration and the pharmaceutical industry will cost countless lives in Africa and here at home.

I fully appreciate the need to preserve the pharmaceutical industry's ability to perform research and development. The Federal Government already supports this through rich tax incentives. Likewise, I certainly do not dispute the industry's right to make a profit. But we are quickly coming to the point where the pursuit of reasonable profits turns into flat out profiteering. Diseases are viewed as marketing opportunities, not as scourges to be eliminated as rapidly and as cost- effectively as possible.

There is no question in my mind that we need to reopen the issue of how we negotiate drug prices in the program to combat HIV/AIDS worldwide. If we take the Clinton Foundation's approach, we can reach roughly twice as many patients. It is also time for us to reopen the issue of negotiations with pharmaceutical companies in our own country. It is time for our choices to put people ahead of profits.

I ask unanimous consent that an article from this morning's Washington Post and a transcript of a recent radio program on the International AIDS Conference in Bangkok be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. President, last week I noted here in the Senate that it has been almost a year since the identity of a covert CIA agent was revealed in print by a columnist, Robert Novak. It has now been 365 days, 1 year, and yet we still don't know who blew her cover, who leaked her name, who in the NSC, National Security Council, CIA, gave this information to people in the White House. It is clear that Valerie Plame's cover was blown as part of an effort at that time to discredit and retaliate against critics of the administration, especially anyone who dared to suggest that some of the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq was fraud or fabricated.

If the administration were to try to continue this campaign of vengeance today, I suppose they would have to go after the entire Senate Intelligence Committee. I believe its report that it just put out verifies the fact that this was done in a vengeful manner.

As we all know, Ms. Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was sent by the CIA on a factfinding mission to Niger early in 2002 to examine claims that Saddam Hussein had sought to purchase uranium from Niger. Wilson said he found the claims lacked credibility. The Intelligence Committee report provides an interesting new perspective on these events. It indicates that in October of 2002, CIA Director Tenet called the Deputy National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, to express the CIA's serious concerns about references to uranium and Africa in a speech the President was going to give in Cincinnati.

Guess what. The references were removed.

Then in December of 2002, the State Department officials advised that the documents underlying the claim were likely forgeries. That is in December. However, the President comes before a joint session in January and says that the ``British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.''

One thing that remains unclear throughout this series of events is exactly how and why the same NSC officials--National Security Council officials--who heard Director Tenet's concerns in October, who removed that language from the speech the President was giving in Cincinnati, who also knew the State Department in December had said these were probably forgeries, how did they allow this back into the State of the Union Message in January 2003?

We still don't have a full picture of how the administration manipulated intelligence on Iraq. The Intelligence Committee report stops short of that inquiry. But it is clear that the intelligence community felt a great deal of pressure to conform its views to the administration's public characterizations of certainty about Iraqi production of weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's connections to terrorism.

The minority views of the report note that former Director Tenet confirmed that agency staff raised with him the matter of ``repetitive tasking'' and the pressure that it created. The CIA ombudsman told the committee that he believed ``the `hammering' of the Bush administration on Iraq intelligence was harder than he had previously witnessed in his 32-year career.''

The minority views went on to say:

By the time American troops had been deployed overseas and

were poised to attack Iraq, the administration had skillfully

manipulated and cowed the intelligence community into

approving public statements that conveyed a level of

conviction and certainty that was not supported by an

objective reading of the underlying intelligence reporting.

That was the fundamental point that Ambassador Wilson made in his op- ed in the New York Times: Intelligence was stretched to fit a predetermined course of action.

One year later--365 days later--we still don't know who was involved in leaking this name and exposing a covert CIA agent. We don't know who gave this classified information to the leakers in the White House.

The disclosure of Ms. Plame's identity was malicious and probably criminal. Mr. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, has been conducting a thorough investigation but with very little assistance from the person who could easily get to the bottom of it--the President of the United States.

I believe the President has been too cavalier, too dismissive of the situation. He has made only one statement on this issue. Here is what he said:

This is a town that likes to leak. I do not know if we are

going to find out the senior administration official. Now

this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior

officials. I don't have any idea.

That is the President of the United States.

Where is his outrage?

What about the Vice President? We know he can be relentless when he is on a quest for information to justify the war in Iraq. Vice President Cheney personally journeyed to CIA headquarters repeatedly--I have heard up to eight or nine times--to meet directly with analysts on Iraq. I am further told that was unheard of before, that Vice Presidents have never done this before.

Here is Vice President Cheney personally going to CIA headquarters across the river eight or nine times to sit down with analysts to tell them to get their story straight.

Where is that kind of determination when it comes to finding the people who committed treasonous acts against this country and leaked Ms. Plame's identity?

This administration has used the power of the Presidency to bend facts to fit predetermined views and then to suppress dissent.

That is why so much rests on the outcome of Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation. We need to send a clear message to any President that sacrificing intelligence assets and breaching national security is wrong and it is against the law.

We should be as vigorous and determined and unrelenting in finding these perpetrators, finding those who broke this law, finding those who undermined the security of our country as we are in going after any drug pusher or drug dealer anywhere in the United States.

This President, President Bush--yes, President Bush--has got to come out and help the special prosecutor. Quit hiding behind executive privilege. Quit hiding behind the fact that this is a large administration, and maybe we will never find out who did it. It is time for the President to come clean, and for the Vice President to come clean; otherwise, I fear for the future of our intelligence community and what kind of freedom they will have to give correct analysis to future Presidents of the United States.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tim Castelli and Carolina Gutierrez of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor during today's session.

Mr. President, today I want to take a few minutes to remember Ronald R. Mazik and pay tribute to the many contributions he has made to his community, to his profession, and to this country.

Ron played many roles and achieved much in his lifetime. As an athlete, engineer and businessman, he excelled in a wide array of endeavors. Of his many achievements, one is particularly deserving of mention: as a pioneer in the field of telehealth.

Ron conceptualized and initiated innovations in the use of video and advanced communication systems, which are revolutionizing the way health services are provided to people with exceptional needs. His seminal work in interactive video promises to improve both the accessibility and quality of supports to those with developmental, mental and physical challenges, and brings us closer to our dream of insuring that all citizens lead a full and healthy life. The intellect and energy that Ron applied toward that goal must be regarded as an olympic performance.

Of Ron's contributions to the field of telehealth and to society, those close to him knew that he most valued his role as a father to his sons, Ron and Ken. With his many accomplishments, he unfailingly looked to his sons as his greatest source of pride and of joy.

It is an honor to recognize Ronald R. Mazik for his contributions to all of our lives.

Mr. President, as a Member of the Senate who has worked in the area of medical research and health care, I draw the attention of the Congress--and Nation--to the retirement of a truly outstanding civil servant: Kent A. Smith. For the past quarter century, Mr. Smith, as deputy director, has managed the day-to-day operation of the National Library of Medicine, a part of the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The National Library of Medicine is the largest medical library in the world, and it serves as the indispensable hub of national and international scientific medical communication.

The administrative and managerial astuteness of Mr. Smith has converted the vision of the Library's directors, Donald A.B. Lindberg, M.D., and his predecessor, Martin M. Cummings, M.D., into outstanding operational programs. There are many examples. One of the great success stories at the Library and the National Institutes of Health in the last decade is the National Center for Biotechnology Information. This institution, which serves as the collector and disseminator of molecular sequence data resulting from the Human Genome Program, is absolutely indispensable to the conduct of 21st century biomedical science. Its various web services are used almost a billion times each year by people around the globe. Mr. Smith provided invaluable support to members of the House and Senate, and their staff, in developing the legislation that created the center.

He has also been closely associated with the amazingly successful entry of the National Library of Medicine into the world of web-based consumer health information relied on by millions of Americans. His skill at managing people and budgets has allowed the Library to move beyond its traditional emphasis on serving exclusively scientists and health professionals. Today, such heavily used consumer information services as MedlinePlus, ClinicalTrials.gov, NIHSeniorHealth.gov, and the Household Products Database are testimony to his success in administering such a diverse institution as the Library now is.

Kent Smith, trained in mathematics, economics, and management, is known to medical librarians around the world. In our country he has had close ties to the 5,000 member institutions of the National Network of Libraries of Medicine, and he has championed their cause in many venues. His leadership and tireless efforts have had great impact on the development of federal information policies that ensure broad public access to an expanding universe of electronic government health information resources.

He is also known for his strong leadership of national and international organizations in the information field. He has served as President of the National Federation of Abstracting and Indexing Services, President of the International Council of Scientific and Technical Information, Chair of the Policy Group of the Federal Library and Information Center Committee, Vice President of the UNESCO General Information Program, and Chairman of CENDI, a group of federal scientific and technical information and technology managers.

I am aware that there are many far-sighted and dedicated managers serving the people of the United States. It is a pleasure for me to honor one with whom I am personally acquainted and who, on the occasion of his retirement, richly deserves our thanks for a job well done.

Mr. President, in recognition of the 50th anniversary of the Food for Peace and concessional credit programs established in the Agricultural Trade and Development Act of 1954 enacted on July 10, 1954, Senator Cochran and I are submitting a Senate Resolution to honor those programs' many achievements over the past half century.

The 83rd Congress, working with the Eisenhower administration, recognized that the productive capacity of the U.S. agricultural sector was outstripping the food and feed needs of our domestic economy and that citizens of many war-torn countries had need for our food but could not afford to pay for it. They saw that the abundance of food available in the United States could be utilized as an instrument in building a durable peace after the Second World War.

Through the past 50 years, the various programs established under the Agricultural Trade and Development

Act of 1954, known as P.L. 480, have helped billions of people in developing countries. According to USDA estimates, the Title I program, which provides concessional credit to developing countries to purchase U.S. agricultural commodities, has enabled the sale of $30 billion worth of commodities to nearly 100 countries. In addition, the Food for Peace program, authorized under the provisions of Title II of the Act, has helped an estimated 3.4 billion people through 2003. These figures represent accomplishments we should be proud of.

Behind these figures lie many years of commitment and hard work by employees of the U.S. Agency for International Development, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and their partners in private voluntary organizations and intergovernmental organizations such as Catholic Relief Services, CARE, World Vision, and the UN's World Food Program. Their crucial efforts include delivering food and development projects on the ground in developing countries, assembling and shipping commodities from the United States under the program, and evaluating project requests and monitoring the programs in Washington, DC. The successful implementation of the programs also requires the cooperation of governments and non-governmental organizations in the developing countries in which the projects occur.

With such a record of achievement in the past half century, it is crucial that Members of Congress and the administration do all they can to make sure these programs remain vigorous over the next half century and beyond.

Is this Senator allotted a certain amount of time?

Madam President, yesterday I stood before the Senate and noted that it had been almost a full year since the identity of a covert CIA agent was revealed in print by the columnist Robert Novak. It has been 360 days and counting. Next Wednesday, it will be 1 full year. It is time to ask, Why hasn't the White House cleared this up?

Madam President, 360 days have gone by since a CIA agent's name was revealed by top White House officials. We know how agent Valerie Plame's coverage was blown. Back in September, the Washington Post reported that two senior White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity of a covert CIA agent.

It has also become fairly clear why the agent's cover was blown. It was part of an ongoing effort to discredit and retaliate against critics of this administration, especially those who revealed that intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq was flawed or fabricated. Now Ms. Plame, as we know now, is married to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Ambassador Wilson was sent on a factfinding mission to Niger to examine claims that Saddam Hussein had sought to purchase uranium from that nation. He found no evidence to support the claim. But President Bush, nonetheless, made that claim in his State of the Union Address.

How those famous 16 words read by the President to the listening Nation about the efforts by Saddam Hussein to purchase uranium from Niger made it into the State of the Union Address remains a great literary mystery. Who lied in President Bush's State of the Union speech? We still don't know. We do know that Ambassador Wilson published an article disputing the uranium claim in the New York Times. Apparently to discredit and punish Mr. Wilson, senior White House officials leaked the identity of Wilson's wife and the fact that she was a CIA operative.

One day Ms. Plame was a valued human intelligence asset; the next day she was political cannon fodder. What we still don't know almost 1 year later is who the senior White House officials responsible for this destructive leak were. We still don't know who it was that gave this classified information to the White House, to the leakers. Was it someone at the NSC? Was it someone at the CIA? Was it the same person who made the decision to include the

false claims about uranium from Niger in the State of the Union Message?

Madam President, 20 years of training and experience and millions of dollars were invested in this agent. Leaking her identity violated the law and constituted a betrayal of this country. Yet, for all we know, the person responsible for this betrayal could at this very moment still be exercising a senior decisionmaking role in this administration. This apparently is an administration where the buck never stops, an administration where abuses occur, but no one at the top is ever forced to accept responsibility.

In her 20-year career, Valerie Plame operated with unofficial cover, which means she had no diplomatic immunity. Effectively, her only defense was a painstakingly created and maintained cover. She worked closely with undercover operatives and a network of contacts. All were potentially placed in jeopardy and exposed to danger by the disclosure of her status.

Last November, we heard testimony from three former CIA experts. They all agreed on the far-reaching damage this disclosure represented for Ms. Plame's broader network of contacts and for the intelligence community as a whole. After all, what guarantee does any intelligence agent now have that they could not be the next victim of some administration's smear campaign?

Vincent Cannistraro, former chief of operations and analysis at the CIA Counterterrorism Center, said of the Plame disclosure:

The consequences are much greater than Valerie Plame's job

as a clandestine CIA employee--they include the damage to the

lives and livelihoods of many foreign nationals with whom she

was connected and it has destroyed a clandestine cover

mechanism that may have been used to protect other CIA

nonofficial cover officers.

James Marcinkowski, a former CIA operations officer, seconded this by saying:

The deliberate exposure and identification of Ambassador

Wilson's wife, by our government, was unprecedented,

unnecessary, harmful and dangerous.

Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and State Department employee, said:

For this administration to run on a security platform and

allow people in the administration to compromise the security

of intelligence assets, I think is unconscionable.

No one in this Chamber, after listening to these three men, could have any doubts about the damage this act has done to the relationship between the intelligence community and the administration. From all reports, the special prosecutor, finally appointed the day before New Year's, Mr. Fitzgerald, has been conducting a very aggressive investigation. He has issued subpoenas, called witnesses before a grand jury, and interviewed the President and Vice President.

I inquired as to whether the President or Vice President were put under oath. I am informed they were not. Now I find this more than passing strange that the previous President of the United States, President Clinton, when he was being questioned about his relationship with a White House intern, was put under oath and filmed, and yet this President and this Vice President, the head of an administration where people leaked the identity in clear violation of the law of a CIA operative, are interviewed; they are not put under oath; they are not filmed. Would someone please explain the priorities?

In fact, the President has been kind of cavalier and dismissive of this entire situation. In his only public statement about the leak, he told reporters, and this is a direct quote from President Bush:

. . . I don't know if we are going to find out the senior

administration official. Now, this is a large administration,

and there's a lot of senior officials. I don't have any idea.

That is what George Bush said on October 7, 2003.

What I would like to know is, where is the President's outrage? Where is the recognition that this is not the same as leaking promising numbers on the economy? Where is the President's fury that one of his own valuable intelligence assets has been destroyed? And what about the Vice President? We know he can be relentless when he is on a quest for information to justify the case for the war in Iraq. Where is his determination to find the people who have destroyed the confidence of the intelligence community in this administration?

All we hear from the President and the Vice President is silence on this issue, as if they do not want to know who leaked this information, or they know and they do not want to be held accountable. In either case, it is inexcusable for the President or Vice President.

The disclosure of Ms. Plame's identity represents an extremely damaging breach of national security. She worked gathering human intelligence, exactly the type of intelligence we have heard over and over again since September 11, 2001 that is so critical to our fighting terrorism.

Only 2 days ago, National Public Radio reported on the fact that there is a growing consensus on the need to improve our human intelligence capacity. There is a recognition that after years of increasing reliance on intercepts and satellite imagery, only solid human intelligence can help us deal with the type of insurgency we face in Iraq in effectively fighting al-Qaida.

The other critical point that was made is that sending troops to a training course on intelligence gathering is not enough. According to one CIA agent, he said it takes 10 years to season somebody as a case officer in order to judge the information and the people they are dealing with, check on bona fides. That is the kind of asset Valerie Plame used to be, and, as Mr. Cannistraro pointed out, the damage that was done was not only to her but to her network and potentially to all CIA human intelligence operatives.

One publication reported after reading of her own blown cover, Ms. Plame immediately sat down to make a list of all of her contacts and associates who could be in jeopardy. I can only hope when we find out the identity of this leaker or leakers, that person is forced to see this list and be confronted with the full extent of their betrayal of this country and our citizens.

Usually when the cover of agents like Valerie Plame is blown and their contacts placed in jeopardy, it is a result of espionage. The perpetrators, when convicted, face life in prison or even death. In many ways, it is almost worse that this was done as an act of political revenge. The disclosure of Ms. Plame's identity was unquestionably a vicious act of political intimidation and retribution, but it is much more than that. It is part of a clear pattern of coverup, concealment, and contempt for the truth. That is why so much rests on the outcome of Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation.

We need to identify and prosecute those responsible for this damaging episode, and in so doing we need to send a clear message to the President and the Vice President that sacrificing intelligence assets and breaching national security is too high a price to pay for maintaining the issue of deceit that was used to justify the war in Iraq to the American people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Sam Kang and Ryan Ball for the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, on a matter of utmost importance to the national security of the United States, I want to point out that it has now been almost a full year since the identity of a covert CIA agent was revealed in print by columnist Robert Novak. In fact, it has been 359 days, 1 week short of a year. Next Wednesday will be 1 year exactly. It has been 10 months, exactly 285 days, since the Washington Post reported that a senior administration official said that two ``senior White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity of a covert CIA agent.''

We still do not know the identity of those ``senior White House officials'' responsible for this destructive leak. It is simply astounding to me that as I stand here, the person or persons responsible for destroying the 20 years and millions of dollars invested in this agent and for jeopardizing the lives of other agents in the field could at this very moment still be exercising a senior decision making role in this administration.

In late December, I welcomed the appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney for Illinois, as a special prosecutor to investigate this matter. I don't understand why it took almost 6 months for this appointment to be made, but from all reports I have heard, Mr. Fitzgerald has been conducting a very aggressive investigation over the past 190 days. But what I still don't understand is how this administration can claim to be cooperating with this investigation when the only public statement the President has made on this matter was to say:

I don't know if we're going to find out [who] the senior

administration official [is].

Of course, that statement was an obvious wink and a nod to the leaker or leakers. The subtle message seems to be, don't worry. Sit tight. We can stonewall this and get it behind us.

So while I welcome the investigation of the special prosecutor, I find it hard to believe that the President and the administration are serious about getting to the bottom of this grave breach of national security. If they were serious, they would have resolved this matter immediately, without the aid of a grand jury, subpoenas, experienced prosecutors, polygraphs, and, most likely by now, millions of dollars of expense.

The President has never demanded answers from his White House staff. I remind my colleagues that the pivotal Washington Post article was published on a Sunday in late September. On Monday morning, the President could have, and should have, demanded answers from his staff. He could have, and should have, called his senior staff members into the Oval Office, put them under oath, and asked them one by one if they were involved in the leak of the CIA agent's name to the media. He could have, and should have, laid down the law and resolved this matter immediately. Indeed, that is exactly the way a President who truly wanted to identify the leakers would have acted. But President Bush took no such action.

Instead, the President joked about the leak with reporters. Judging from his statements, he doesn't seem all that eager to find and punish the people responsible. He said he has no idea whether the leakers will ever be identified.

The disclosure of the identity of the agent, Valerie Plame, as a covert CIA operative represents an extremely damaging breach of national security. In her 20-year career, we now know, she operated with ``nonofficial cover,'' meaning she had no diplomatic immunity. Effectively, her only defense was a painstakingly created and maintained cover. She worked gathering human intelligence, the kind of intelligence we have heard over and over since September 11, 2001, is so critical to fighting terrorism. She ran agents and worked closely with other undercover operatives and contacts. These people were also potentially placed in jeopardy and exposed to danger by the disclosure.

One publication reported that after reading of her own blown cover, Ms. Plame immediately had to make a list of all of the contacts and associates of hers who could be in jeopardy. I only hope when Mr. Fitzgerald discovers the identity of the leaker, that person is forced to see this list and be confronted with the full extent of their betrayal--yes, betrayal--of this country and its citizens. That is what it is.

More important, Mr. Fitzgerald needs to discover how the information on Ms. Plame's status came into the hands of these leakers, or senior White House officials. Is someone in the CIA responsible for identifying Ms. Plame as a means of discrediting her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson? Is someone in the National Security Council responsible?

We cannot stop at identifying the individual or individuals who leaked her identity and her status to the press. We also need to identify the person or persons who gave this classified information to the leakers in the first place. This is about discovering those in our Government who have so little respect for the value of our intelligence assets that they are willing to use those assets as political weapons.

Both the President and the Vice President have been questioned by the special prosecutor's office in this matter, but almost a year after the leak we still don't know who is responsible.

Valerie Plame was a seasoned covert operator, we are told. She performed the kind of human intelligence gathering that is crucial to our national security. So why was her identity compromised? Why was the identity of a valuable intelligence asset treated so cavalierly and recklessly by senior officials in the White House? Was it done as part of an ongoing effort to discredit and retaliate against critics of the administration--especially anyone who dared to suggest that the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq ranged from flawed to fabricated?

Let me recap. Since 2002, the administration's top officials, including Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, National Security Adviser Rice, and the President himself, have all claimed Saddam Hussein was actively developing weapons of mass destruction, and that he tried to buy uranium from the nation of Niger. These claims persisted despite conflicting intelligence reports, including one by Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Ambassador Wilson, we later learned, is Valerie Plame's husband.

Ambassador Wilson was sent on a fact finding mission by the CIA to Niger. After an investigation, he found no evidence to support the claim that Niger had sold uranium to Iraq.

Still, the President made the Niger claim in his State of the Union message. A few months later, the New York Times published Mr. Wilson's op-ed piece, which questioned the President's assertion and indeed refuted the President's assertion that Niger had sold uranium to Iraq. It was after that--at least in this Senator's opinion--that in order to discredit and punish Wilson, two senior White House officials leaked to the press the identity of Wilson's wife and the fact that she was a covert CIA operative. In doing so they broke the law and undercut our national security in time of war.

One day Ms. Plame was a valued human intelligence asset; the next day she was political fodder.

What guarantees does any other intelligence agent have he or she could not be next? It is not enough to find out who leaked the names; we have to find out how senior White House officials were given the classified information about Valerie Plame's status as a covert CIA agent. Who did this dastardly deed? Who betrayed our country and our intelligence asset?

It is not only Ms. Plame, it is all of the other CIA agents we have who do not have diplomatic immunity and are operating undercover, collecting human intelligence for the safety of

our country. What is there to give them assurance they are not the next Valerie Plame? What is there to give them the assurance they won't be fingered at some time in the future?

What happened here is not only confined to Ms. Plame, bad enough as that is. It sends all of the wrong signals to our CIA operatives that they could be next. Some future administration could finger them if they disagree or if their husband or wife, brother or sister, or maybe a friend, disagreed with official administration policy; they could be outted.

And what does it say to all of the contacts these people we have developed and nurtured over years and years, in countries where their lives would be at risk if they were identified as giving intelligence to our CIA people? What assurance do these networks have they won't be uncovered similarly at some time in the future?

I have waited, and we have all waited to get answers; 359 days is too long. One year is too long for this to drag on. It is time for the administration to come clean. It is time for those who leaked Ms. Plame's identity to be identified and to suffer the consequences. It is also time to find out who gave them this highly classified information, how it was they came to have the name of Ms. Plame.

Only a thorough airing of this, only prosecuting those who were involved, finding out who gave this name to these people in the White House, making sure they no longer have positions, wherever they are, in the National Security Council or in the CIA--only then will we send a clear signal we are not going to let this happen again. We must send a clear signal to those who would betray this country in order to get political retribution against somebody who disagreed with an administration's position. Only then will we be able to send a clear signal that these kinds of actions will never be tolerated.

Yes.

I thank the Senator for his question.

Succinctly, what was done and what more could be done--Ms. Plame had a number of assets and contacts, people in other parts of the world who were giving her information valuable to our national security. These people have been put at risk.

That is correct. As I understand it, she operated----

Absolutely. Their lives would be at risk, and their lives are at risk, I believe. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Nevada, that is the damage that has been done. But think about the damage that will be done in the future if we do not resolve this matter. Because other CIA operatives who operate without diplomatic immunity, like Valerie Plame, will have this cloud hanging over them. They will fear that they, too, could be outed in the future; that their name could be made public if their husband or wife or someone such as that disagreed with official administration policy.

To me, that is the real damage. The leak has undermined the human intelligence assets we have developed over years and years. I am told it takes over 10 years of CIA training to develop a good covert operative such as Ms. Plame. There are over 10 years of training and seasoning and intelligence gathering before they are a solid source of intelligence. So when we think of that, we think about all of this thrown away because someone had a vendetta against Mr. Wilson, her husband.

I say to my friend from Nevada, it was a vicious act, political intimidation and retribution, and I think it is a clear pattern that we have seen over 359 days of coverup, concealment, and contempt for the truth by this administration. It is time to resolve this issue.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Amanda Samuelson and Amanda Smith from my staff be granted the privileges of the floor for today's session.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Department of Defense, DOD, Peer Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program. Almost 12 years ago, when I looked into the issue of breast cancer research, I discovered that barely $90 million in Federal funds was spent on breast cancer research. So I joined with Senator Alfonse D'Amato, R-NY, on legislation to dedicate specific money from the DOD budget for breast cancer research. The legislation passed and overnight it doubled Federal funding for breast cancer research. Since then, funding for breast cancer research has been included in the Defense Department budget every year.

Unfortunately, the language in the Senate Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005 threatens both the existing funding and the current structure of the Breast Cancer Peer Reviewed Research Program. The Senate bill combines all of the congressionally directed cancer research programs into one account and then reduces the total funding available. This will inevitably lead to a major cut in funding for this important program.

The DOD Peer Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program has been an unqualified success in providing innovative approaches to breast cancer prevention, detection and treatment. Over the past several years, we have made a great deal of progress against breast cancer, but there is still a long way to go.

More than 258,000 women are expected to be diagnosed with breast cancer and another 40,000 deaths are likely to result from this deadly cancer. Now is not the time to jeopardize a successful program that is critical to winning the battle against breast cancer.

As the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005 goes to conference, I plan to work to preserve the current structure and funding for this critical breast cancer research program. I urge my colleagues to support the language passed in the House and support a $150 million earmark for the DOD Peer Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program for fiscal year 2005.

Mr. President, I ask the United States Senate to join me in tribute to Mattie Stepanek, a young man who accomplished so much, and sadly, was taken from us this past Tuesday, June 22 at the age of 13 years. Like his three older siblings, Mattie died from complications of a rare form of muscular dystrophy.

As anyone can testify who has seen Mattie on television, he was one brilliant person, and he had a big heart to match. At the age of three, he began writing poetry to cope with the death of his brother, writing messages of hope and inspiration, and selling millions of books. Mattie quickly became one of the most widely read poets in recent memory, and three of his volumes were on the New York Times' best-seller list.

I would like to share one of Mattie's most inspirational poems. It is titled, ``On Being a Champion.''

``A champion is a winner,

A hero . . .

Someone who never gives up

Even when the going gets rough.

A champion is a member of

A winning team . . .

Someone who overcomes challenges

Even when it requires creative solutions

A champion is an optimist,

A hopeful spirit . . .

Someone who plays the game,

Even when the game is called life . . .

Especially when the game is called life.

There can be a champion in each of us,

If we live as a winner,

If we live as a member of the team,

If we live with a hopeful spirit,

For life.''

Mattie was a champion in every sense of the word and his poetry won the hearts of many admirers, from Oprah Winfrey to former President Carter. But famous or not, it seemed to matter little to Mattie, who said, ``It's our inner beauty, our message, the songs in our hearts.''

Mattie embodied the unlimited potential within all of us, and I hope that Mattie's mother, Judi Stepanek, will find some strength in knowing that Mattie inspired and touched so many people. We offer Judi a special place in our hearts, knowing there is nothing harder than losing a child. And we pray that she be given the strength, courage and wisdom needed to get through this difficult time.

Mattie believed his mission in life was to ``spread peace in the world.'' And, today, I say to Mattie and to all who loved him: Mission accomplished.

Mr. President, today I want to remember Ken Robinson, a long time friend and community leader. Ken passed away on Friday, April 30, 2004 at the age of 89 years. I would like to pay tribute to the many contributions he has made to his community, to his profession, and to this country.

I have known Ken and his wife Mary Louise, both as personal friends and as the owners of the Bayard News, the Bagley Gazette, as well as several other Iowa newspapers. In 1940, he was one of the founders of the Bayard News which merged with the Bagley Gazette in 1973 to become the Bayard News Gazette. They received many awards over the years for their publishing including the National Newspaper Association's Amos Award which is given to a person who is considered to have done the most for the newspaper industry as well as for his own community.

When is came to being an advocate for publishers of newspapers in rural areas, Ken was the best. He was fearless, and nothing deterred him from approaching public officials, including the Post Master General or the President of the United States, to bring to their attention problems experienced by his newspaper readers due to delayed rural delivery service or postage price increases. He was a crusader in the best sense of the word when there was an issue that needed to be fixed.

He came to Washington, DC every year to participate in the annual conference sponsored by the National Newspaper Association. Ken was the one to ask the hard questions of the officials who would speak at the conference, holding their feet to the fire to follow up on commitments. At one association conference session at the White House, Iowa Newspaper Association Director Bill Monroe remembers worrying about Ken and why he had not shown up in time for the meeting. Just before the meeting began, Ken came out of the Oval Office just before President Reagan came out to meet the group. He had been in the office promoting Bayard's sesquicentennial and had sold President Reagan a raffle ticket.

Ken also served as mayor of Bayard for 24 years, as a State representative, and was active in many organizations, including the League of Iowa Municipalities, the Democratic Party, the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, and the board of Iowa Public Television. He was an active and loyal alumnus of Drake University from where he graduated with a major in economics. During his college years, he was managing editor of the Drake Times Delphic where he primarily wrote sports articles.

Ken was born near Panora, IA in 1914. In his junior year of high school, he was stricken with polio. As a person with a disability, long before the ADA was passed, Ken found ways to overcome barriers to achieve his long-time dream of owning and publishing a newspaper. He not only achieved his dream, but with his passion for justice and his impatience with inaction, he became a strong voice for common sense and fairness. As a civic leader, he had the kind of ``can-do'' attitude that motivates others to get involved to get things done. Who knows what Ken might have achieved if the ADA had been implemented while he was involved in so many aspects of community life. In this spirit, Ken was the first recipient of the Easter Seals of America Award to honor a person with a disability who had provided outstanding service to government and to community.

Ken and Mary Louise have been great friends to me and I will never forget them. People such as Ken and Mary are an inspiration to us all. They are among the leaders who are the fabric that gives shape and color to our rural communities. They have spent their life making their community, State, and Nation better places to live, work and raise families. And for that, we are forever grateful.