Floor Statements

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues and our leadership on both sides of the aisle to find a way for us to work together to address some of the critical issues facing this country. We have in conference now on a highway bill, a transportation bill that is important for economic development, for the creation of jobs, and for safety. I hope the conference will not become so obsessed with achieving the highest possible funding level that we wind up not getting a bill. It takes leadership and courage. It also takes being willing to accept what you can get, and get a conclusion that is good for everybody and move forward.

We need an energy bill. The very idea that we still do not have a national energy policy is indefensible. Yet we continue to labor over how do we get an energy bill, what is in the package, and how are we going to get back to the floor of the Senate. We need to find a way to do that.

The very idea that there is an effort to block the FSC/ETI JOBS growth bill, which involves a ruling by the WTO which has led to American products being hit with a penalty in Europe, and that we are not going to go to conference until we get some guarantee of what the result will be or that one Senator will be able to decide the conference report, what have we come to? We should get this bill in conference and get a result. Does it need to be changed? Yes. Has it become bloated? Absolutely. But if we don't deal with this, American products are going to wind up facing a penalty of 12 percent or more before we get a chance to address it again. It could go up to 17 percent. We are not going to deal with the job growth provisions in this legislation. We need to find a way to get it done.

I hope our leaders will find a way to get these conferences going or get us into conference and get a result, because we need to get this done for the American people. I know it is a political season-- Presidential campaigns, Senate races, and congressional. I still maintain, as I always have, that the best politics is results. Get things done for the people. There is plenty of credit to go around.

If we stand here and find a way to question each other's motives and block and obstruct and confuse, we are going to pay a price as an institution. I worry about that.

Mr. President, on the Select Committee on Intelligence report, I emphasize again, this was a unanimous bipartisan vote. There are problems with the intelligence community. We did not get what we needed before we went to war in Iraq. It was flawed and misleading and inaccurate. We should acknowledge that. But all the effort that is going on now to find a way to fix political blame is a mistake. We should be working together to produce results. That is why I am working with Senator Feinstein of California on some proposals. That is why I am working with Senator Wyden on some proposals.

We have 1 minute remaining?

I think I have 1 minute left.

Mr. President, we need to find a way to deal with the problem.

The point I want to make is, Congress is now like somebody that has been at the scene of an accident. We saw it happen, but now we are pretending we weren't there. Congress is a part of this problem. For 20 years we have underfunded, we have limited human intelligence. We have improperly funded the intelligence community. We have allowed a situation where 80 percent of the money for the intelligence community is under the Department of Defense, not the CIA.

Let me give some numbers. During the 1990s, the number of CIA stations declined by 30 percent. The number of agents declined by 40 percent. The volume of intelligence reports decreased by 50 percent.

The intelligence community connected the dots, and got it wrong. It was not just our intelligence community that got it wrong--there was a global breakdown in intelligence analysis. The report is not an indictment of the hard-working and dedicated men and women who put their lives on the line, and are charged with connecting the dots. It is a criticism of the process and community at large, and demonstrative of a lack of leadership, oversight, and insufficient investment.

The breakdown in intelligence capability evolved over several years. It was recognized in 1976 by a 5-volume report by the Church committee. Our intelligence gathering and analysis capability--especially human intelligence and linguists--was gutted in the 20 years that followed, particularly in the 1990s, when the Congress did not adequately fund the intelligence community.

President Clinton relied on this same analysis of the Iraqi threat when he signed the Iraqi Liberation Act. The Congress relied on this same intelligence when we passed several resolutions regarding Iraq; President Bush relied on this intelligence when making his decisions as well. Many have asked whether I want to change my vote given today's assessment of pre-war intelligence--I do not.

Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer who used weapons of mass destruction on his own people; supported terrorism and trained terrorists; provided ``bonuses'' to the families of terrorists; a destabilizing factor in the Mideast.

Let's not play armchair quarterback by asking ``what would have happened if.'' The country would be much better served if the Congress and the President took action as soon as possible to fix the organization, leadership, and oversight problems that we have with our intelligence community.

When the American people read the Intelligence Committee's report, they will see some fundamental things that need to be changed in the intelligence community. First and foremost it is evident that the Director of Central Intelligence does not really control all aspects of the intelligence community. In fact, as I have said, 80 percent of intelligence dollars go to the Department of Defense, not the CIA. Moreover, many of people that lead the 15 agencies that comprise the intelligence community work for the Department of Defense, not the Director of Central Intelligence.

To fix this problem, Senator Feinstein and I are about to propose legislation that will establish a Director of National Intelligence--or DNI. The DNI will be a Cabinet-level position that will lead the intelligence community, and be responsible for aggregating intelligence for the President.

As for the specific processes that cry out for reform, the report focuses on two in particular. One, layering of uncertain conclusions-- judgments were layered upon other judgments, and specific concerns and uncertainties were simply lost; two, group think--because we knew Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and used them on his people, any data that appeared to support this continued behavior was viewed favorably, and dissenting data was discounted or underreported.

Those ``process'' types of deficiencies quickly lead one to ask: How can the intelligence community provide better oversight and supervision of ``expert'' analysts; and how can the Congress provide more effective oversight of the intelligence community? There are clearly process reforms needed within the intelligence community, and Congress's oversight of that community.

I know that Chairman Roberts and Vice Chairman Rockefeller, are very concerned that our intelligence community is broken, and are committed to taking action in the coming weeks and month to address many of the most critical deficiencies.

With particular regard to congressional oversight, I believe that there are some fundamental things that need to be changed such as term limits of committee members. Currently, members can only serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee for 8 years. That means that when they know enough to be conversant in the intelligence business, they need to rotate off of the committee. We need intelligence committee members who can speak the lingo and understand the processes. Consequently, term limits need to be eliminated.

Also, the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Committee regarding classified matter is sometimes muddied due to overlap with the Armed Services Committee. I submit that a simplified approach to jurisdiction could enhance oversight and accountability.

The process of document classification and redaction also needs to be reviewed. When the Intelligence Committee first prepared this report, the CIA recommended that about half of it be redacted. I understand the need to protect the names of sources and intelligence methods. But I can tell you that most of those redactions were not of that nature; they were everyday, unclassified words.

The report you see today is less than 20 percent redacted, and the Intelligence Committee is still working with the CIA to release more of the report.

Notwithstanding, it is my belief that in matters such as these, the CIA is too close to the intelligence process to provide an objective view of what really needs to be classified. Consequently, I am working with Senator Wyden to propose legislation that will establish a small independent group under the President that will review documents such as this report to ensure that classification decisions are independent and objective. In addition, I urge the President to nominate as soon as possible a candidate to serve as the Director for Central Intelligence.

This is a critical time of this Nation as we fight the global war on terrorism, and we need to have effective leadership in-place at the CIA as soon as possible. As we make progress in fixing the intelligence community, I repeat my call to both sides of the aisle to not politicize the issues or the prospective remedies. We owe it to the American people and to the members of the intelligence community to fix the fundamental problems outlined in this report, and create an intelligence community that can best serve the national security interests of the United States.

We are part of the problem. Let's find the solution.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Texas for his leadership on this issue and for his comments. To have a former State attorney general of the State of Texas and a former member of the Texas Supreme Court speak on this subject as an enlightened judge and as an authority, in my opinion, on the Constitution, is a very important part of this process. So I look forward to hearing more of his thoughts on this subject as he has talked about the case law, the legal precedents, and what is at stake with this amendment.

I know others have done it, but let me take a moment to read the amendment we are proposing to the Constitution, because there has been a lot of discussion about what we should do. I have seen a number of different amendments or language being proposed, many of them a couple of paragraphs, quite long or complicated. This one is very simple, direct, right to the point and I think does what needs to be done. Some people would say it does not go far enough, but I think this is the careful way the Constitution should be amended.

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the

union of a man and a woman.

Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any

State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the

legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other

than the union of a man and a woman.

It is quite simple and direct. Will it lead to some court consideration in the future? Surely. But what has caused this problem is the aggressive actions of the activist courts to take decisions in Massachusetts and in other places that have left us no alternative. So I rise today in strong support of S.J. Res. 40, the Federal marriage amendment. It would amend the Constitution to provide specific protection for the institution of traditional marriage. I am an original cosponsor of this measure because I believe marriage should only consist of a union between a man and a woman.

Traditional marriage has existed as a fundamental building block of our society for thousands of years, and we have learned that it provides the best and most stable environment for nurturing the children who become America's and the world's next generations. Now we see the courts have been moving in this area on what I consider a radical quest to sweep away the traditional definition of marriage, one man and one woman, by allowing same-sex couples to marry.

This undemocratic activism by the courts can only be stopped, the future stability of our society protected, and this whole area clarified, by the safeguard of a constitutional amendment. Some Senators have argued that while they support traditional marriage, they do not believe a constitutional amendment is necessary or proper at this time. They maintain the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, is sufficient to protect traditional marriage by allowing individual States to bar the recognition of same-sex marriages that may be allowed in other States. Unfortunately, I am convinced they are incorrect.

When the Supreme Court of Massachusetts directed the Massachusetts legislature to authorize same-sex marriages, the inadequacy of the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, as it is commonly referred to, was exposed. Approximately three-fourths of the States have laws protecting traditional marriage, indicating the democratically enshrined views of the residents of those respective States. But activist courts in many of those States could unfortunately overturn these laws by forcing that State to authorize same-sex marriage or to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other States. Additionally, now that the State of Massachusetts has endorsed same-sex marriages, the legal system in every other State will be impacted when couples of the same sex are married in Massachusetts but go to other States to seek divorces or probate wills, even if that particular State chooses not to recognize such marriage. This development could obviously create, and is beginning to create, legal chaos in the country.

Furthermore, sadly, it is only a matter of time before the Defense of Marriage Act is overturned by unelected Federal judges who ``find'' rights in the U.S. Constitution which simply are not there, such as the U.S. Supreme Court did in the Lawrence v. Texas case. Therefore, a constitutional amendment protecting marriage is the only way to adequately guarantee the sanctity of this fundamental institution.

Those who oppose the amendment say the U.S. Constitution should only be amended on rare occasions and for crucial reasons, if at all. I agree, and I think this is a rare situation and a critical one. I have been disappointed occasionally over the years that we have not been able to succeed in amending the Constitution. A few years ago we lost in the Senate by one vote to have a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. A few years after that, we actually had balanced budgets and a number of Senators said, see, we do not need it. Well, here we are again.

By the way, there would have been an exception for national emergencies or national security requirements that we are now dealing with.

When we look at the Constitution, wonderful document that it is, the original Constitution turned out not to be perfect. We had the articles of the Constitution and we went through Article V, Article VI, Article VII, and stopped, and then we had the 10 amendments that are referred to as the Bill of Rights. So there were 10 amendments that were soon added, and in the last century alone we added 12 amendments. Most people would say some of those amendments are not exactly earth- shattering amendments. The 27th, being the last one, is one that took almost the entirety of this country's history to get through the process to actually be ratified, but it had to do with the compensation of the services of Senators and Representatives. I will bet if we asked the American people to list the 10 things they think the Constitution should perhaps be amended for, that would not be one of the top 10.

It is a sacred document. It is one we should defend and protect. We take an oath to it. We do not take an oath to the people. We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and I think we should do that.

There are occasions when we should consider the process. They should be in areas that are critical and they should be rare. We have not had a serious debate on a constitutional amendment now for about 6 or 8 years. A constitutional amendment dealing with marriage being between one man and one woman seems to me to be an issue that is important enough for us to have a debate on amending the Constitution.

There are those who say it should not be amended lightly. I certainly agree with that. But our Founding Fathers made sure it would not be done often and that it would not be done lightly. The process for ratification of an amendment is a very difficult and lengthy one. Under the Constitution, within Article V itself, it says it requires a two- thirds vote of both Houses of Congress to approve a constitutional amendment and three-fourths of the State legislatures must ratify the amendment for it to become a part of the Constitution.

There is one other very difficult procedure in the Constitution in which a convention process can be conducted to get an amendment approved. I know how difficult that is, too, because some years ago I actually joined in a bipartisan effort to try to go through the State legislatures to take advantage of this part of the Constitution to have a convention that would lead to a balanced budget requirement in the Constitution. My own State legislature took that action, as well as several other States, but it soon fizzled out and I do not believe that process has been used in the history of our country. So this is not an issue we should take lightly. It is rare, it is exceptional, and it is one that will take a lot of thought and debate before we get through the process.

Some people say, well, what about federalism? What about the rights of the States? That is what we are talking about.

If we do not deal with this issue that may arise from the full faith and credit clause, some States such as, say, Alabama or Oklahoma are going to have a

real problem in dealing with what the courts have directed in the State of Massachusetts.

Full faith and credit says we have to respect each other's laws. But I do think we need clarity in this very critical area. I think the Constitution deserves to be amended when it deals with something so traditional and which is such a vital part of our country and our future.

Marriage is our most basic social institution, and its traditional definition as the union of a man and a woman is intended to be the best environment for rearing children. There is a reason that we have a ``traditional'' definition of marriage: God's design and the resulting evidence of science and common sense clearly demonstrates that the union of a man and a woman is the best, most secure and nurturing atmosphere in which to bring up children.

This does not mean that single parents, foster parents, and others cannot do heroic jobs of raising children--because many children are being raised by these heroes. However, marriage is meant to affirm the ideal model in which to bring up the next generation. Mothers and fathers both matter, and both make critical contributions in the lives of children. A man and a woman united in marriage can uniquely provide the many different attributes that children need as they are reared to become our next generation, and both make important contributions.

I am going to yield the floor at this point, since I am about to lose my voice talking about this subject, but I think this is an issue whose time has come. I commend the leader and Senator Santorum for making sure this issue is debated in the Senate.

Mr. President, on July 20, 2004, the city of Moss Point, MS will take time out to honor and pay tribute to one of its own, Mr. Thayas Ray Bray. In fact, his accomplishments are so numerous and his dedication to his community so strong, Moss Point officials have designated this Saturday as ``Thayas Ray Bray Day.'' Along with his wife, Joyce Bray, and two sons, Jerry and Keith, and their families, I want to take this opportunity to join the City of Moss Point in congratulating Mr. Bray on all of his hard work.

Mr. Bray's service to his local community and fellow citizens has taken on many different forms over the years. He has served as president of YMBC, MPAC, Exchange Club, and JC. He has owned Moss Point Sonic since 1976, as well as Lucedale Sonic, and has co-owned Jackson County Funeral Home. I understand he was the original organizer of Moss Point Impact, and a member of the Mississippi Restaurant Association. All the while, he has remained an active member of First Baptist Church of Moss Point.

By giving back so generously to the community through volunteer time, he has truly made a difference in the lives of others. Leading youth in Boy Scouts and Little League baseball are prime examples of his dedication. He has supported local activities such as the high school band and football, Gulfport Special Olympics, and YMBC Golf Tournaments. He also has been an active supporter of the fight against Muscular Dystrophy, and has supported both the American Cancer Society and American Heart Association.

As you can see, his contributions to the City of Moss Point are far- reaching and have benefited the community in many different ways. So again I want to thank Mr. Bray for his contributions to his community, and I want to join my friends and neighbors in applauding and commemorating his service.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, July 14, 2004, to conduct an oversight hearing on the Federal Election Commission.

For further information concerning this meeting, please contact Susan Wells at 202-224-6352.

Subcommittee on National Parks

Mr. President, when we dedicated the National World War II Memorial and commemorated the 60th anniversary of D-Day, much was made of the fact that this Nation loses an average of over 1,000 World War II veterans every day. Just last week, we honored the passing of one of the greatest members of that great generation, President Ronald Wilson Reagan.

I want to take this opportunity to recognize the passing of another great member of that great generation, Thurston Esco Womble. When President Reagan spoke at the 40th anniversary of D-Day, he memorably referred to the assembled veterans as ``the boys . . ., the heroes who helped end a war.'' Thurston Womble was one of those boys, one of this Nation's unsung World War II veterans who helped ensure the United States of America maintained its freedom and way of life during a very difficult time in our Nation's history.

Mr. Womble's service began prior to Pearl Harbor, when he enlisted in the Navy in March, 1941. By that October, he had gone through the Metalworkers School in Norfolk, VA. Womble was soon assigned to duty on the U.S.S. Cincinnati (CL-6), engaged in patrol and convoy duty in the western Atlantic and Caribbean, blockading occupied French men-of- war, and searching for German blockade runners.

In November, 1942, Cincinnati assisted in the interception and destruction of the German blockade runner S.S. Annalise Essberger. Although the German crew scuttled their ship, a boarding party reached it in time to take all 63 crew members prisoner before the blockade runner sank. Early in 1944, Cincinnati served as escort flagship for three convoys transporting men and equipment from New York to Belfast in preparation for the invasion of Normandy. She subsequently participated in the assault on Southern France and patrolled South Atlantic shipping lanes until the war in Europe ended.

But Thurston Womble's naval service did not end there. After the war ended, he went back to school at the Philadelphia Navy Yard and graduated as a boilerman. He was then assigned to duty aboard U.S.S. Lake Champlain (CV-39), one of our newly built aircraft carriers assigned to so- called ``Magic Carpet'' duty, bringing veterans of the European Theater back home. Womble was aboard in November, 1945, when Lake Champlain crossed the Atlantic in 4 days, 8 hours, 51 minutes, a record which held until surpassed by the U.S.S. United States in 1952. He was in charge of lighting off the boilers in Lake Champlain's #1 Fireroom for that historic transit.

On February 18, 1950, in Quincy, MA, Womble married Olive Bates Merrill. They became the parents of Noreen, who is a high school teacher in Inverness, FL, and Eric, who served as my national security adviser and military legislative assistant for 7 years.

In the years after World War II, through the Korean Conflict, and up until 1960, Womble served on a veritable parade of U.S. Naval vessels: U.S.S. Beverly W. Reid (APD-119), U.S.S. Houston (CL-81), U.S.S. Fargo (CL-106), U.S.S. Bataan (CVL-29), U.S.S. San Marcos (LSD-25), U.S.S. Fort Mandan (LSD-21), U.S.S. Laning (APD-55), and finally, U.S.S. Saratoga (CVA-60).

Womble rose in rank and responsibility to become a Boiler Technician Chief Petty Officer and Leading Chief of the Boilers Division aboard Saratoga. His commanding officers repeatedly cited, not only his mechanical abilities and technical skills, but his energy, enthusiasm, and his outstanding and inspirational leadership in performing tasks ``not previously considered within the capacity of ship's force personnel.'' Truer words were never spoken than in 1960, when his commanding officer wrote, ``The Navy will realize a great loss when Womble retires this coming August.'' That was when Womble became a fleet reservist and started a second career.

Womble's Navy career probably wasn't what his parents, Huey Clayton and Thelma Esco expected when he was born in Autauga County, AL, on August 16, 1922. But the experience of being raised in rural Alabama in a close knit family taught Thurston the values that carried him through a long and honorable Naval career.

Following his active-duty service, he enrolled in Jones College in Jacksonville, FL, to study business management and worked 13 years in Mobile, AL, as the representative for the Royal Insurance Companies, specializing in employee protection and workplace safety. In 1980, he became Sales Manager and Quality Control Manager for G&V Industrial Contractors, also in Mobile, AL. Thurston then served as Director and Chief Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspector for my home State of Mississippi. All in all, it seems clear to me that Womble carried his experience as the son of a carpenter, fisherman and farmer, as well as his devotion to his Navy shipmates, into a career of devoted and humble service to the people and communities in Mississippi and Alabama.

During an active and reserve career that spanned 30 years, Thurston was awarded the Navy Occupation Medal; European Clasp, American Defense Service Medal; American Area Campaign Medal; European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal; World War II Victory Medal; Korean Service Medal;

National Defense Service Medal; and six Good Conduct Awards.

Thurston Womble's final days where spent with the family and friends he loved so much--and doing what he enjoyed most, golfing and fishing. He is survived by his wife of 54 years, Olive, their children, Noreen and Eric, Eric's wife Wendy and grandchildren, Melissa and Matthew. I extend my sincere condolences to the entire Womble family on their loss. I also want to thank Thurston for his dedicated service to our country and for setting an example that the rest of us can only hope to emulate; our great Nation owes him a debt of gratitude.

Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to recognize an outstanding Air Force Officer, MAJ Annette Ortiz, for the tremendous work she has done as a member of my staff during the 108th Congress. It is my privilege to recognize her career accomplishments and to commend her for the superb service she has provided the Air Force, the great State of Mississippi, and our Nation.

Major Ortiz earned her commission through ROTC at the University of Hawaii where she graduated in 1990 with a bachelor of arts degree in telecommunications with a minor in German. She completed specialized undergraduate navigator training at Mather Air Force Base in November 1991, and KC-135 Combat Crew Training School at Castle Air Force Base in August 1992. In July 1994, Major Ortiz retrained into the C-130E at Little Rock Air Force Base, where she demonstrated academic excellence.

Following flight school, Major Ortiz reported to the 906th Air Refueling Squadron, 43rd Air Refueling Wing, at Minot Air Force base. While assigned to the 906th, she deployed on inter-command refuelings in the Pacific, European, and Southwest Asian theaters. In support of Operation Restore Hope, the humanitarian re-supply operation in Somalia, she was the lone recipient of the coveted ``outstanding performance'' evaluation rating during the 15th Air Force Standardization and Evaluation Inspection. She also flew several combat missions into Tuzla and Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, including participation in Operations Provide Promise, Joint Endeavor, Deny Flight, Joint Guard, and other NATO supported European operations.

Major Ortiz subsequently served as an Instructor Navigator, C-130E, for the 37th Airlift Squadron, 86th Airlift Wing, at Ramstein Air Force base. During this assignment, she instructed combat employment of the C-130 Adverse Weather Aerial Delivery System, AWADS, and Aircraft Defensive System, ADS. She also led tactical formations of multiple aircraft during joint airborne transportability training and special assignment airdrop missions. Following that assignment, Major Ortiz served as a C-130 FTU instructor navigator and assistant flight Commander at the 53rd Airlift Squadron, Little Rock Air Force base. In this capacity, she provided training to students from the US Armed Forces and 27 allied nations regarding combat mission planning, tactical formation, and airdrop/airland procedures.

Major Ortiz's next assignment was air operations staff officer, Special Operations Command Pacific, Camp Smith, HI. During this tour, she was first attached to the Air Mobility Warfare Center Tactics Division where she assisted with the instruction of the Combat Aircrew Tactics Training course. She also updated and developed course curriculum, including the Blue Command and Control course that focused on development of tactics. Subsequently, Major Ortiz was attached to the headquarters Air Force, Directorate for Future Strategic Plan. In this capacity, she participated in the Quadrennial Defense Review and developed strategic personnel initiatives. Major Ortiz was instrumental in the formulation of doctrine and policy that pertained to the total force of Active, Reserve, and civilian Air Force personnel.

In October 2002, Major Ortiz was selected to serve as a legislative fellow and special assistant on my staff. During this 1-year assignment, she was responsible for a wide spectrum of issues that directly affected the security and national defense of the United States. She was also instrumental in carrying out a wide range of special projects, and was particularly effective at coordinating and resolving a broad range of complex military issues for constituents. Major Ortiz also provided expert advice regarding foreign policy matters, and provided effective liaison with senior staff of the Foreign Relations Committee and both Defense Committees. Upon completion of her fellowship, Major Ortiz resumed her status as a Reservist and became a permanent member of my staff, serving as the deputy national security advisor.

Throughout her most distinguished career, MAJ Annette Ortiz has served the Air Force and our Nation with pride and excellence. Her awards include two Air Force commendation medals, Air medal, three Aerial Achievement medals, two with Oak Leaf Cluster, the 15th Air Force outstanding performance flight evaluation, and numerous other campaign and unit distinctions.

Major Ortiz has been an integral member of my staff and has contributed greatly to the best-trained, best-equipped, and best- prepared Air Force in the history of the world. Annette's superb leadership, integrity, and limitless energy have had a profound impact on my entire staff and will continue to positively impact the United States Air Force and our Nation. On behalf of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I wish Annette, her husband Carlos, and their children Sofia Anna and Carlos Joseph Alejandro the best of luck in their bright future.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the remarks of our former colleague, Senator Connie Mack, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3158, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, first I have a couple of housekeeping items. I am delighted to join in support of a truly bipartisan amendment. The lead sponsors of the amendment are Senator Dorgan of North Dakota, Senator Snowe of Maine, Senator Feinstein of California, Senator Cochran of Mississippi, and Senator Daschle of South Dakota. We do have broad bipartisan support as original sponsors.

I would like to begin by describing the amendment. This will take approximately 10 minutes, and then perhaps Senator Dorgan can have 10 minutes and then Senator Cochran would like to be recognized. We will try to get the opening statements in before we break for the policy luncheons, and then we can discuss during the break the timing on the amendment and how we proceed from there.

Does the manager of the legislation have a comment?

Mr. President, I believe I have the floor. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. President, I am delighted we are moving forward with this amendment. I know how much the managers like to get the process started and consider major amendments. I believe this is an issue that deserves some consideration and some debate

during the day and early on. We will be prepared to work with the managers to get a reasonable time agreement and get to a vote because I think this is the best way to proceed on legislation such as this. We are not interested in delaying tactics.

I rise to offer this amendment which would modify the Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1990, BRAC, to first consider our needs overseas before we move forward with closing more bases at home.

Let me emphasize what this amendment is not. This is not an amendment that would eliminate or terminate the next BRAC round. This is not an amendment that would even delay it for 2 years, as the House Armed Services Committee language now provides. I believe they would delay the next base closure round until 2007. No, this amendment specifically says let's go forward with the realignment overseas. Let's look at our force structure. Let's determine how many installations are truly needed and required overseas, what their missions are, and what will the future call for.

We have talked about needing a more mobile, lighter force with a lot of prepositioning, but as we found out in Iraq, that may not be all that we need.

Then the question is, if we decide to bring back some of these divisions, such as the 1st Armored Division now based in Germany, where would we put them? The question is, before we go to the next domestic round, let's get this decision on realignment and changing of force structure overseas, see what we are going to need over there, where we are going to put our troops, and what are we going to do with them when they come home. Then the BRAC Commission would go forward with the domestic round.

I want to emphasize a couple of points about how this would work.

It would make clear that section 2913, the selection criteria, for the 2005 round does not apply in that we would have the overseas realignment first and then the domestic. It would keep the existing schedule for the Pentagon's mission of a list and for a BRAC consideration of that list. It specifies that the Secretary's May 16, 2005, submission to the BRAC Commission should include a number of items.

The Secretary's May 16, 2005 submission to the BRAC commission should include a detailed plan for eliminating excess physical capacity at the overseas bases and facilities of the Department of Defense, the operation, sustainment, and recapitalization of which diverts scarce resources from defense capability; a list of overseas bases and facilities that will be closed or realigned during the period 2005-2010 and a schedule for implementing each base closure or realignment; where the personnel and equipment from each base on the list will be relocated to; the infrastructure investments that are required at each receiving base; an estimate of the annual net savings for each of the military departments that will result from the closures and realignments; and a certification whether the need exists for an additional round of domestic base closures and realignments in 2007.

It also says in developing the overseas base closure plan, the Secretary shall take into consideration the report of the Commission on review of overseas military structures of the United States that is due to report its findings by December 31, 2004. In other words, this process is underway, but we need to get those Commission reports. They need to take into consideration the overseas decision before they go to the next domestic round. That is basically what this amendment does.

I want to cite, though, why I feel so concerned about this. The record is clear that I have never thought BRAC was a good idea. I think the way it should be done is the way it was done always up until the 1980s. The Pentagon determines where they have overlap or duplication, they send up foreclosure recommendations to the Congress, and Congress acts.

The argument might be that Congress wouldn't act. They did. Congress acted in the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s, and up to the midpart of the 1980s and numerous bases throughout the country were closed. It is an assumption we cannot assume our rightful role in this Government or in that process. So that is something that is clear.

There are other factors now. As I have looked at domestic bases and looked at overseas bases, the very idea we are now going to move forward with a base closure round that would close up to 25 percent of our existing bases is a real concern, if that is going to be done domestically. As a matter of fact, CBO says the four--count them, the four BRAC rounds we have already had resulted in little or no excess capacity in the United States--little or no excess capacity. Yet the Pentagon is insisting on moving forward with this BRAC at this time.

Let me assure my colleagues, too, they are doing it differently this time. The list is not being compiled by uniformed services, but it is being pulled up to the Office of the Secretary of Defense level. That does worry me.

We are doing this at a time when we have our troops all over the world, in combat situations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The American people are concerned about our troops, concerned about our capacity to have sufficient numbers there. We have National Guard and reservists serving now and doing a tremendous job, I think, up to perhaps as much as 40 percent of the troops are deployed in those locations. Keep this in mind. The next BRAC round will include National Guard. We didn't have that in the past. But National Guard facilities will probably-- will, under the definition they are going forward with, be included in this process.

These are communities all over America, in almost every State. I have here a list of the bases that have been on earlier BRAC closure lists or would probably be on the list, based on the criteria as we now understand them. All over America, communities and States are worried about the situation. They are employing consultants to represent the communities or the States. It is running into the millions of dollars because of this sheer uncertainty: Is it going forward or not? Are we going to be affected or not? And, by the way, the Secretaries of Defense--and I say Secretaries because I have talked to three of them about it--refuse to set up this criterion in such a way where you look at the places where you know you have duplication or overlap. Why put everybody on the list, everybody in an uproar, when you know as a matter of fact the duplication is in this place or that place? No, they don't want to define it in that sort of limited way.

Here is the point. We need to decide what we are going to do overseas first. We need to be careful about what we do domestically because it could be affected by what we do overseas. At a time when we are at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, at a time when our people are already concerned about what the future is for their military men and women in their communities and in fact their families, let's do this in such a way that people will feel comfortable we are going about it in the right way.

There have been some bases eliminated overseas since the wall came down. In fact, I think 700 facilities in Europe have been closed. But we still have 200,000 troops stationed overseas--80,000 in Germany alone, and that doesn't count some of the reservists and civilians. I suspect there are as many as 100,000 in Germany alone. Let me give an example here with this chart of what we are talking about. This is Germany--unified Germany, surrounded by Belgium, France, Switzerland, Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark. I don't think they are threatened by any of those countries.

You will see on this chart the sites where we have Army and Air Force bases in Germany. They are, of course, right across the central part, but they are also now in what was East Germany. There are 310 installations, an estimated 100,000 people in Germany alone. Do we need 310 installations? Some of them are small, but let me assure you on my recent trip to Berlin it was clear they wanted to keep all these bases and it was clear why. Because economically it is helpful--economically helpful to Germany. Yet we are talking about closing bases here at home, when we have 310 bases there.

By the way, this is also a country that has recently said they would no longer provide 2,500 troops to guard our installations in Germany while the troops ordinarily stationed there are in Iraq not even 2,500 troops.

I am saying let's take a strong look at Germany. It is not only Germany. I don't want to pick on Germany. We have, I think, 18 installations in Belgium, 12 in The Netherlands. Let me

make sure I have the exact numbers--18 in Belgium, 310 in Germany, 12 in The Netherlands, 101 in South Korea, 54 in the United Kingdom. There is a list here of what we have overseas, a total of 721 facilities overseas.

Do we need to have a hospital or Air Force bases in Germany? Sure. Do we need to have naval bases in Spain? Sure. Do we need to have prepositioning at various places around the world? Absolutely. We have heard a lot of talk about this restructuring or realignment overseas, but we still have not gotten it done. In fact, if you look at the force structure plan for BRAC 2005, based on the Pentagon's forecast, it assumes the same forces as now, from 2005 to 2009. It apparently assumes the forces that are based overseas now will remain based overseas.

Are we going to have a realignment and bring some home or not?

I think this amendment makes good sense. It does not stop BRAC. It allows it to go forward. But it puts the horse before the cart. Let's look at the overseas situation. Let's assess what we need there. Let's find out what we are going to do with them if we do bring them back home and then go forward with the next step.

I talked with Senator Dorgan a lot about this. We thought about it carefully. We want to do the right thing. Surely there are some bases we could close and installations in the United States that could be closed. But I think we should do it in an orderly way and I think the timing of doing it now could not be worse.

I don't trust this process. Some people say if you do the commission, it takes it out of politics. Who believes that? Commissions are beyond politics? Take a look at the last commission. We got in a terrible conflict based on a decision that involves the States of Texas and California. I am not picking on those States, but it happened.

Let's take more time. Let's do the overseas situation first and then go forward with the domestic bases a year or two from now, when we will have a better feel for what is happening in the world.

Since we are limited on time, I would like to withhold further comments at this time so Senator Warner or Senator Dorgan could speak and perhaps Senator Cochran wishes to be heard on this issue, too.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, is the pending business amendment No. 3158?

Reserving the right to object, do we have the amendment? Have the managers had a chance to view that? I don't know that there is a problem.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I don't intend to, I don't even believe it is my role, I don't know that anyone has had a chance to look at it.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts in his typical courteous manner for the way he has handled it. I know the managers will work with him.

Mr. President, we have talked back and forth and we think that 45 minutes a side should be sufficient.

An hour and a half equally divided.

Mr. President, if I could respond, we do have Senators who have not been heard.

If we have time and we do not need it all, we can always yield it back--an idea I like.

Mr. President, Senator Snowe and Senator Feinstein have

been patiently waiting, Senator Cochran wishes to speak, as well as Senator Dorgan.

Would the Senator from New Hampshire have a question?

Would the Senator be willing to withhold so we can proceed with the Senator from Maine?

Mr. President, I know the Senator from California has been waiting to speak. Will 10 minutes be sufficient, or if she does not need all that time, we will reallocate the time. I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from California.

Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining in support of the amendment?

Mr. President, does Senator Dorgan wish to use some of the time at this point?

How much time remains on the opposition side?

Senator Levin has not spoken and Senator Inhofe is here, so perhaps we could take some more time off the opposition.

Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. President, would Senator Warner be willing to yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Mississippi?

He had a unanimous consent earlier to go after Senator Sessions.

Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma, if he needs that time.

This amendment is not the same as the House language, which is a 2-year delay.

This amendment says when you get the global review, you would go forward with a BRAC for overseas bases, and then have the domestic round, presuming that is completed. It is not a 2-year delay. It could be that we would go forward with it after only 1 year. If the realignment in force restructuring that is going on globally would occur next year, then it could go forward next year.

That is correct.

Mr. President, since we have more time, I believe, remaining on this side, the side of the proponents of the amendment, I yield such time as he may consume--the remainder of that time--to Senator Dorgan, who has been very much involved and a leader in this process for several years.

Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. President, I yield myself the remainder of the time.

This commission on overseas bases is a Global Posture Review. It is not a closure or realignment process. It is a review of requirements that should then inform an overseas base process. But it is not a base closure. This commission which reports in December guarantees that nothing will happen. I

want to make sure everybody understands that. We are trying to get an overseas realignment and base closure process.

Secondly, I am shocked with all this talk about the key factor here is the lobbyists: We don't want our communities or States to keep these lobbyists who are going to be working to try to keep the commission from closing this base or that base. I really can't really believe that has been the argument.

I have an answer to that. Take them off the payroll. I know how it has been working. Some of these people have been paid for 4 years, and there has not been a BRAC process underway. That is why we are here. We are here as representatives of the people. We do not need these people on the payroll. Surely, that is not the best argument.

I guarantee this: Some of the communities, some of the bases, some of the people will say this will give us 2 more years, at least, on life. We will take those 2 years. The very idea of ``shoot me and get it over with'' when, as a matter of fact, some of these bases are really needed--CBO has said there is not excess capacity.

My last point is, if we are going to have a base-closure process, target the excess bases; do not target every base in America. I urge we adopt this amendment.

Mr. President, has all time expired?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have an additional 30 minutes.

Thirty seconds, to wrap up this debate.

Mr. President, I want to emphasize again, think about what we are doing. Think about the time. Think about how much has happened in the last 2 years. Think of the troops, the Reserve and Guard forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Think about the families, the mothers, and communities already very much concerned about the future of our military men and women, where they are going to be, and now add this to it. I think the timing is wrong. To say we are not going to even identify what bases will be subject to this review is not the way to go.

I say again, think about these issues. I do not think we have any guarantee overseas bases will be realigned. I have evidence to indicate they will have the same numbers overseas in 2025. We have heard a lot of talk about realignment overseas and restructuring. It has not happened. This will make sure we first have overseas bases realigned and a new structure and then the domestic bases.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 18, 2004, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Oversight of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 18th, at 10 a.m.

The purpose of this hearing is to evaluate implications of a recent change in reporting of small business contracts by the Department of Energy. This change has the effect of increasing the number of small business contracts issued directly by the Department and decreasing the number of contracts issued by the Department's Management and operating contractors.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 18, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing on ``Iraq's Transition--The Way Ahead.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 18, 2004, at 2 p.m., to hold a Nomination hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, May 18, 2004, at 10 a.m., on ``Animal Rights: Activism vs. Criminality'' in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 226.

Panel I: McGregor W. Scott, U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of California, Sacramento, CA; and John E. Lewis, Deputy Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

Panel II: William Green, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Chiron Corporation, Emeryville, CA; Jonathan Blum, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, Yum! Brands Inc., Louisville, KY; and Dr. Stuart Zola, Director, Yerkes Primate Center, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet Tuesday, May 18, 2004, from 10 a.m.-12 p.m., in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Aviation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 18, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., on FAA Oversight.

Mr. President, this month DuPont Chemical and the people of the Mississippi Gulf Coast region together celebrate the 25th anniversary of the DuPont Chemical Plant in DeLisle, MS. DuPont began manufacturing in DeLisle in 1979 and in 1991 underwent an expansion. The plant now employs over 1,000 people who are residents of both Mississippi and Louisiana. These employees are the No. 1 reason the plant has achieved some very impressive production rates. In fact, its high productivity levels have made the DuPont DeLisle plant the second largest titanium dioxide producing plant in the world. This is truly cause for the plant's employees, management and all local residents to be proud.

The plant's success over the past 25 years is directly attributable to the partnership between DuPont DeLisle and the city of DeLisle, the Mississippi gulf coast region, and the State of Mississippi. The local community and State maintain a strong interest in supporting the plant and ensuring its continued success, while the plant and its employees work to give back to and improve the local community. For example, over the years DuPont DeLisle and its employees have worked in cooperation with the Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College to offer extensive on-site operator training in electrical, machine shop, and computer skills. In addition, employees have conducted American Red Cross blood drives and United Way campaigns, donated equipment to local schools and fire departments, and participated in State and local organizations that are focused on improving Mississippi's workforce.

In addition to their work in the community, the plant's employees have strived to make it the best. As a result, the plant today is the top performer in its business group organization. DuPont DeLisle also work 4 times more safely than comparable industrial plants in the chemical industry using OSHA measurements. In fact, in October 2003, DuPont DeLisle employees exceeded their previous all-time safety record and early this year completed a full year without a single injury requiring medical treatment. These are truly significant accomplishments by employees who are obviously dedicated and committed to their employees' safety.

As one can see, DuPont in DeLisle has been good for the Mississippi economy by creating and sustaining high paying technical jobs. For the past 25 years, Mississippi has been proud to call itself home to this plant and we look forward to our continued partnership for the next 25 years. Congratulations to DuPont DeLisle and its local and State partners on this most noteworthy anniversary.

Mr. President, I join the Senator from Texas in thanking the Senator from Utah for the leadership and information he has been providing about what is happening with the economy, and helping us to understand all the data. As chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, he has been the most aggressive chairman I have seen in recent years. He is doing a fantastic job.

I would describe this economic recovery we are going through now as the ``just say it ain't so recovery.'' When I listen to many of the speeches around Washington--and even out across the country in some areas--I sometimes get the feeling some people think that if you just keep saying the economy is not good, maybe it won't be. Only in Washington do you have that sort of perverse thinking, that too much good news about the economy is either not true or it is unhelpful.

Many people try to look at the stock market to assess whether the economy is doing well. Well, in the long term this may be true, but at some points in time, I think it is a reverse indicator of what is going on in the economy. Sometimes, bad news in the stock market is really good news. We saw that just yesterday. Because the economy is growing, because jobs are being created, because orders are going up, because manufacturing is going up, the stock market said: Wait a minute now. Maybe the economy is beginning to get a little too hot, and maybe the Federal Reserve System is going to have to raise the historically low interest rates a little bit. Oh, this must be bad news, so let's sell now.

So when the stock market reacts like that, you can bet good things are happening in the economy. The list of good economic news is very long and is growing.

I think a lot of credit should go to the Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan. He has been careful in his language. Low interest rates have been fantastic for automobile sales and housing starts. The American dream is now available to more Americans than at any time in the history of this country. Americans have access to a variety of choices in homes. More and more people are owning their own home. Of course, a lot of the credit for this should go to the availability of quality housing, a good area of the economy. Home building is done by a lot of really good people who are very capable. But you have to acknowledge that low interest rates have really helped the housing sector.

I think credit should also go to the President for his leadership, and to the Congress. The President knew when he was sworn in that January in 2001, that we were already in a recession. We were already in one, it did not start then. The President came to the Congress and said: We have to do some things to encourage the economy to grow. One of the best ways to do that is to carefully cut taxes. We needed tax cuts that put money in the pockets of working Americans, and incentives for business and industry to create jobs. The Congress heard the President and passed tax cut legislation. We did it in 2001, 2002, and 2003.

Now, Mr. President, we are getting the benefit--the tremendous benefit--of those tax cuts because they boosted the economy when we needed it most. Just look at the numbers. If you have doubts about what is happening in the economy, look at the numbers published by the experts, not as cited by a Member of Congress.

For instance, with respect to jobs, the administration announced on May 7 that 288,000 net new jobs were created in April; and 308,000 were created the month before--over a half million jobs in 2 months. Since last August, an estimated 1.1 million jobs have been created. I think it is probably more like 1.3 million jobs when you take into account the Household Survey. But either way, that is a significant increase.

The national unemployment rate has edged down to 5.6 percent. I remember years ago, when I first came to Washington--I admit that was a long time ago, 30 or so years ago--6-percent unemployment was considered ``full employment.'' Well, my attitude is, any unemployment is unacceptably high. But it is now down to 5.6 percent, falling .7 percentage points, from a peak of 6.3 percent in June of 2003. I believe it is going to continue to go in that direction, partly because manufacturing employment increased 21,000 jobs in April. The February and March job numbers were also corrected upward. So, manufacturing employment has risen for 3 consecutive months.

One of the most interesting statistics I have come across is that we have more Americans employed now than at any time in history. More Americans are working today than at any time in history. Is it enough? No. We want more, and we want better paying jobs with greater opportunities. But still, you have to say, the fact that more Americans are working than ever before is a very impressive statistic.

Weekly unemployment claims have fallen to their lowest level since the year 2000. The economy grew at a strong annual pace of 4.2 percent during the first quarter of 2004. I think, when the assessment is done, it will be adjusted upward to 4.5 percent. That is very strong growth. Most of the countries of the world would be delighted to have even half of that kind of growth.

Household spending continues to be strong. Retail sales are up. Consumer confidence is at the highest level in 3 months, and rising. In March, new housing construction surged to levels near those of December 2003, when we had the highest levels in almost 20 years. American companies are, across the board, reporting historic levels of growth. Productivity levels are up.

So the administration's policies have been working, and we are making great progress. Every economic statistic now is moving in a positive direction. Now, we also need to pay attention to making sure inflation does not creep in, while keeping interest rates as low as possible.

The downturn in the economy, our response to 9/11, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and additional expenditures for homeland security have contributed to deficits, but even that projection has fallen. Last year, we were told that the current fiscal year deficit would be more than $500 billion. Now it looks like it will be down to $417 billion. I think it may end up below that because the economy is growing. This is good news, but we have to continue to address the budget deficit problem. I think we are going to have to make some tough choices in the next couple of years to get the deficit back down to where it can be eliminated. I think deficits do matter. They will affect interest rates over a period of years if we ignore them.

One other thing. You might say, well, all right, that is good, but what have you done for me lately? What are you going to do to add to the growth we are trying to achieve? The Senate is doing it today. After fits and starts, four different attempts, we are going to get an international tax bill today. Hallelujah, a bill; an important bill, finally, after 3 years of ignoring the problem of increasing European tariffs on American exports.

Mr. President, this bill will create jobs and address the problem of the WTO ruling. It includes incentives for manufacturing jobs and manufacturing tax credits, and incentives to grow the energy sector of the economy. This is a jobs growth bill. I am glad we are going to get it done. I commend all of those Senators who were involved, including Finance Committee Chairman Grassley and his ranking member, Senator Baucus from Montana.

I yield the floor.