Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, a couple of weeks ago we received reports from inquiring UPI reporter Mark Benjamin and a very active veterans advocate Steve Robinson, director of the National Gulf War Resource Center, that there was a significant problem with the care and treatment of returning guardsmen and reserves coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan to Fort Stewart, GA. There were, at the time, indications that some of the Guard and Reserve perceived they were not getting the same priority of care, treatment, and housing as was received by those who had been on active duty before they were sent to the combat theater. So working with my colleague, Senator Leahy, with whom I cochair the National Guard caucus, we sent our military LAs to visit Fort Stewart, GA, and on to Fort Knox and Fort Campbell, KY. We wanted to visit other sites and will continue to visit other sites to see if the problems at Fort Stewart were isolated or were they present at other Army mobilization and demobilization sites. What Senator Leahy and I found is detailed in the report. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I don't have time to go over the entire report, but I think many colleagues will find it of interest to know what we experienced. First, let me say that the Army was very open and responsive to our staff when they came to review the situation. They were most anxious to have us get a complete look at the situation and to offer to help in any way they could. So they recognized there was a problem. Basically, there are not enough medical personnel--doctors, clinicians, support staff, specialists--available during ``peak'' mobilization and demobilization phases at a number of mobilization sites. Consequently, injured and ill soldiers have a difficult time scheduling appointments with medical care providers and seeing the specialists required to get the best possible care. Some of them had been waiting literally months to get the kind of care they deserve. Compounding the problem, large numbers of soldiers either mobilizing or demobilizing created shortages of available housing at mobilization sites, which resulted in some of the returning guards and reservists being placed in housing totally inadequate for their medical condition. Some of these Guard and Reserve members who had been activated and were coming back were put in temporary barracks, with outside latrines, where they normally would house Guard or Reserve members called up for summer maneuvers. We could neither confirm nor deny that there was any difference in medical treatment between the returning formerly Active and Guard and Reserve soldiers coming back, but one of the things that was different when the Active came back to the bases from which they had been mobilized was that they already had their housing, so they could go back to the housing from which they started. The Guard and Reserve coming back from service had to be put in some form of temporary housing, which, in some instances, was clearly inadequate for people with injuries or illnesses. So what is being done? Senator Leahy and I issued the report to highlight the problems to senior leaders at the Army, National Guard, and the Army Reserve. I was very encouraged by the response the military gave us. The Acting Secretary of the Army, Les Brownlee, visited Fort Stewart on Saturday, the weekend after we sent our teams there. He met with me last week to lay out his plans for dealing with the situation. He recounted what he discovered at Fort Stewart and promised swift support and changes, where necessary. Specific issues addressed by Secretary Brownlee included the adequacy of facilities and where they would get treatment. He said, if appropriate, soldiers will be moved to facilities where they can provide more timely care. We suggested that if they don't have the medical personnel available there, why not send them someplace else. He said he would encourage the commands to contract out for special services, such as MRIs, for example. If they don't have the equipment, they can contract out. I also asked the Secretary to allow soldiers in a medical hold status to be moved to facilities closer to their home, using military, veterans health administration, or civilian providers, as necessary. Secretary Brownlee told me some of the soldiers at Fort Stewart had already been moved to nearby Fort Gordon, where the medical staff was not so badly overworked. Also, at his direction, the Army Medical Command is transferring medical care clinicians to mobilization sites that need them. The Secretary has also established minimum standards for housing in medical hold status. He said, No. 1, facilities will be climate controlled, meaning air-conditioned and heated. Some of the facilities didn't have that. Second, facilities must have showers and restrooms indoors, and not a path in the back, and facilities must be clean and in good repair. The Secretary also indicated he is considering erecting prefab facilities to alleviate the housing shortages during mobilization and demobilization surges that could be used to house medical hold soldiers. Secretary Brownlee has issued policy guidance that allows the Army to deactivate Guard and Reserve personnel who do not meet the physical requirements for deployment due to a preexisting condition. One of the problems at Fort Stewart was the fact that some 10 percent of the Guard and Reserve called up had not had adequate pre-callup medical care, a situation we are addressing with the TRICARE measures, and they could not be deployed. They were then the responsibility of the Army at Fort Stewart, and at the time we were there, a third of the 650 soldiers on medical hold had never even been deployed because they did not meet the standards for deployment. Those people will be sent home rather than kept on medical hold. Also, after meeting with Secretary Brownlee, I followed up with LTG Steven Blum, Chief of the National Guard Bureau and LTG James Helmly, Chief of the Army Reserve, asking them to work with the Army in resolving these issues. Specifically, we asked their cooperation: No. 1, by doing a better job medically prescreening Guard and Reserve soldiers so they do not activate soldiers who cannot serve. No. 2, to coordinate the callup and retention of medical personnel-- clinicians, support staff, specialists--to ensure the Army mobilization sites have sufficient medical personnel onsite. I saw in the news today where the Department of Defense is looking to call up certain support personnel from other Reserve units, other than the Army, to provide perhaps naval medical personnel to assist with caring for the sick and injured soldiers. No. 3, we asked them to check on Guard and Reserve soldiers who are on medical hold, making sure somebody was looking after them, to let them know they have not been forgotten, or to find out if they have other needs. Further, Senator Leahy and I have asked the GAO to conduct a survey into the Army's medical hold process to ascertain the breadth of the problems that we saw at Fort Stewart and Fort Knox, and to determine if there is any disparity in medical treatment of returning guardsmen and reservists who come back in demobilization and have health care problems. It is our understanding that the Senate Armed Services Committee, as well as its House counterpart, is going to conduct hearings into the conditions uncovered by Mark Benjamin and confirmed by Senator Leahy's and my investigation, but I regret very much, as all of us do, that this situation has occurred. It is unacceptable to all of us to think that injured, ill soldiers returning from the theater of battle would not get the medical care they need, would not be placed in appropriate housing. Once it came to our attention and we brought it to the Army's attention, we are very encouraged by the way everybody is handling this, from the garrison commanders and medical directors to mobilization staff to the Acting Secretary of the Army. This is a matter of taking care of our soldiers regardless of whether they are traditional active-duty soldiers or National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers. Senator Leahy and I are going to continue to monitor the progress of the Army in addressing these issues. We plan on sending staff to additional mobilization sites in the next few weeks and months to make sure there are no problems. We know that in the next few months the National Guard and Reserve will be mobilizing thousands of additional troops. We want to make sure the Army gets it right and keeps it right. The next mobilization schedule is to begin in the January-April timeframe, which means when they go, we want to make sure soldiers get timely care and housing, suitable to getting well, no exceptions. We know the Army knows of the problems and is aggressively tackling them. We expect garrison commanders at mobilization sites to continue to do their best, and we will continue to support them, as well as every soldier in the war on terrorism. We owe a great debt of gratitude to our fighting men and women. They have and deserve our highest regard and respect. We will do all we can to ensure they get the kind of care we would expect for them. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate National Guard Caucus Report Senators Kit Bond and Patrick Leahy, co-chairs of the U.S. Senate National Guard Caucus, dispatched their aides to Ft. Stewart to investigate reports that activated Guard and Reserve members were being poorly housed, with inadequate medical attention, while on ``medical hold.'' Summary Approximately 650 members of the National Guard and the Army Reserve who have answered the call-to-duty and in many cases were wounded, injured or became ill while serving in Iraq, are currently on medical hold at Ft. Stewart, GA. Army base. As a result of an investigation by a reporter and expeditious follow-up by a veteran service organization representative it has come to our attention that these National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers have been receiving inadequate medical attention and counsel while being housed in living accommodations totally inappropriate to their condition. Of the roughly 650 injured soldiers currently awaiting medical care and follow-up evaluations, approximately one-third of these soldiers were found not physically qualified for deployment and therefore never deployed overseas. The remaining two-thirds deployed overseas and were returned to Ft. Stewart as a result of wounds or injuries sustained while serving or as the result of illness encountered either before or after deployment. Regardless of the nature of the medical malady, these soldiers have been enduring unacceptable conditions for as many as 10 months. The return of the 3rd Infantry Division from the Middle East (18,000-strong which is permanently stationed at the base), has forced commanders to lease barracks from the Georgia National Guard that were designed as temporary quarters for National Guard soldiers undergoing annual training. They are not designed to accommodate wounded, injured or ill soldiers awaiting medical care and evaluation. The Army has designed a Disability Evaluation System that is purposely slow to ensure that National Guard and Army Reserve citizen-soldiers who are found not physically qualified for duty receive a fair and impartial review when undergoing a medical evaluation board. The process, similar in many respects to the workmen's compensation process, requires that these soldiers be given every opportunity to recover. If full recovery is not possible, the system works to establish a baseline condition before the soldier is evaluated by a medical evaluation board. The situation at Ft. Stewart unfortunately was, and remains, hampered by an insufficient number of medical clinicians and specialists, which has caused excessive delays in the delivery of care. Exacerbating the situation, was the Army's placement of wounded and injured soldiers in housing totally unsuitable for their medical condition. Additionally, these soldiers were placed under the leadership of soldiers who were also injured, resulting in a situation where the sick and injured were leading the sick and injured. Furthermore, the perception among these soldiers is that the traditional active duty soldier is receiving better care, compounding an already deteriorating situation that had a devastating and negative impact on morale. Most of the soldiers in the medical hold battalion, which was established administratively to provide a military structure for the soldiers, have families living within hundreds of miles; yet they have been unable to join their families while awaiting the final deliberation of their cases. In the short term, we must alleviate the unacceptable conditions at Ft. Stewart and determine if the problem is isolated to Ft. Stewart alone or part of a larger system wide problem. Alleviating the problem at Ft. Stewart will require the immediate assignment of additional medical clinicians, specialists and medical support personnel and/or the transfer, where appropriate, of our National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers to faculties close to their families so they can continue to receive quality care and await further medical reviews if necessary in an environment conducive to healing. We must also ensure that the conditions at Ft. Stewart are not replicated elsewhere, while ensuring the fixes we install at Ft. Stewart are applied throughout the Army if necessary. In the long term, the Congress must address the physical readiness of the National Guard and the Reserve by passage of a pending bill, TRICARE for Guard and Reservists, to ensure that every member of the Guard and Reserves has adequate health insurance coverage and is medically ready to deploy. Fundamental Problem More than 650 members of the National Guard and Army Reserve, who have been activated and put on active duty (some of whom have already served in Iraq or Afghanistan) are currently on medical hold at Ft. Stewart, GA. These numbers change almost daily as some soldiers are returned to duty, others receive medical evaluations for medical conditions that prohibit their continued service on active duty, while more soldiers are brought into the system (the result of sustaining injuries, wounds or falling ill overseas; or failing to qualify for deployment after being mobilized because of injuries or preexisting conditions.) About one-third of the citizen-soldiers currently in the disability evaluation system at Ft. Stewart could not originally deploy with their units because they were not medically fit, while approximately two-thirds were injured, wounded or fell ill while on deployment overseas and were returned stateside to receive special medical attention. When the 3rd Infantry Division, which is based at Ft. Stewart, returned from its deployment in Iraq, available housing was in short supply which resulted in those on medical hold being moved from one barracks to another in a form of musical housing. The U.S. Army resorted to leasing open-bay barracks with detached restroom facilities and no air-conditioning in most cases, which are normally used to house Georgia National Guard troops during their two weeks of annual training. These National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers have been kept in place at Ft. Stewart according to standard Army policy while they await medical care and work-ups, which senior officials say is designed to protect their careers and ensure they receive the best medical care. The goal is to put these medically held Reserve soldiers in a holding pattern until they are healthy enough to return to duty and go back to their units or to prevent soldiers from being permanently discharged from service until the nature of their conditions have been fully assessed and optimal treatment regime prescribed. When soldiers cannot return to duty, a final determination about their status is made by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The MEB process can take anywhere from an average of 42 days to 76 days after the soldier's treatment has been ``optimized.'' That is when a sufficient diagnosis and treatment regime has been put in place to establish enough confidence to make a decision. Some troops have been on medical hold for more than 10 months. The primary task of the Army Medical Department is to return these soldiers to duty. While undergoing medical care and reviews they can be assigned light duty around the post. Adequate convalescence requires a great deal of rest in most cases and cannot be properly pursued if there are unnecessary life stressors, such as placement in housing that is designed to house ``healthy'' National Guard forces on annual training--not injured, wounded or ill soldiers. The barracks for these medically held National Guard and Army Reservists are totally inappropriate for soldiers injured, wounded or ill who are in need of quality care and are garrisoned in a stateside Army installation. The worst accommodations to which these medically challenged soldiers were subjected are 1950s-style, concrete-foundation barracks with no air-conditioning or insulation and detached toilets and shower facilities, though they do have heat. On a relatively cooler day in the area (October 22nd), the temperature in one of these huts was noticeably warm if not stifling. Bunks sit in open bays, no more three feet apart. In some cases, there are no footlockers for the troops to store their gear. In a few of the better barracks, for soldiers with more severe medical conditions, there is air conditioning, indoor-plumbing, and storage space. The fundamental problem, as summarized colorfully by one of the base commanders, is that soldiers are going through a ``go slow medical review system while living in `get them the hell out of here barracks.''' Many of the medically held reservists--mostly from Southern states like Georgia, Alabama, and Florida--expressed frustration and anger over the duration of their medical hold and the quality of their housing while in this seemingly interminable holding pattern. complicating factors Feeding these justifiable frustrations are several real and perceived considerations regarding their medical care and treatment on the base. There has been a shortage of clinicians and specialists to see the medically held Reservists and to accelerate the review and treatment process. At various points over the past several months there may have been only a handful of doctors to care for these hundreds of troops, as well as to assist with regular forces and their families. Most reserve doctors called to active duty were deployed forward, and those remaining in the states can stay on duty for only 90 days before returning to their civilian practices. One soldier on medical hold said it took him almost three weeks to get a follow-on appointment necessary to optimize his care. Further feeding the anger and frustration is inadequate leadership. Typically, a soldier will receive advice, counsel, and assistance in accessing the military's health system from the soldiers's unit or from upper echelon chain- of-command. The units of the medically held reservists, however, have deployed abroad in most cases, and their commanders are focused on their operational mission overseas. The Reservists at Ft. Stewart have been grouped together in a ``medical hold'' battalion for administrative purposes but the effectiveness of the unit chain of command is suspect. Additionally, many of the battalion leaders--at the officer and NCO level--are sick themselves, raising the question of whether these leaders are capable to care for themselves, let alone hundreds of their comrades. Without a familiar advisor and leader, deployed away from home and their parent National Guard or Army Reserve commands, and lacking experience dealing with a huge bureaucracy like the Army, these Reservists were left without the leadership to which they were accustomed. Moreover, many of the medically held Reservists perceive bias against them on the post. Whenever they go the hospital, PX, or dining hall, they are asked whether they are a Reservist or a traditional active duty service member. This question is made for accounting purposes, but it makes the Reservists--many of whom are likely disappointed about being on sick call in the first place--feel like they are being singled out. Similarly, many of the medically held Reservists, lacking sufficient knowledge of the military's medical bureaucracy, chalk up delays in treatment to preferential treatment for active forces. an avoidable situation This situation could have been avoided. In early June, medical and garrison staff realized that there would be a surge in housing needs when the 3rd Infantry Division returned from Iraq. The division was manned at over 115 percent authorized strength, which would force commanders to use triple bunks to accommodate 6500 troops in their barracks that usually hold about 4300. These commanders recognized then that these permanently assigned troops would have to take priority over the troops temporarily at the post on medical hold. Six weeks ago, medical staff submitted a request up the chain-of-command for 18 additional care providers who could help manage and accelerate the reviews of the medical holds. No action was taken on the request. At about the same time, the garrison commander submitted a request to 1st Army Headquarters at Ft. MacPherson, Georgia, for additional funds to renovate the barracks that are leased from the Georgia National Guard. The command provided $4 million, divided into two parts, but the prospective contractors could not begin work until this week. That project, which would have taken 90 days at the very least, was postponed pending the outcome of the investigations the Army has currently undertaken after media reports about the medical hold situation surfaced. Additionally, it is reported that the Army had the opportunity in the initial stages of the mobilization process to provide for rear-detachment elements staffed by National Guard personnel. These elements are designed to provide stateside oversight and support to National Guard personnel and units deployed overseas. Had they been present it is possible the conditions described herein might have been identified and rectified before they reached a crisis point. medical readiness of the guard and reserves It is clear that part of the situation was created by the fact that some of the mobilized reservists were not as healthy as possible. Almost ten percent of Guard/Reserve personnel mobilized for duty at Ft. Steward could not deploy because of a medical condition and were put on medical hold status for some period of time. In the barracks visits, there were also troubling indications that a handful of Reservists were knowingly activated and sent to mobilize with medical conditions that would preclude them from actually deploying. Such an unjustified deployment might have been designed to take advantage of the fact that once soldiers are activated (put on active duty orders) they become the full-scale responsibility of the U.S. Army. The service is then charged with their care and feeding to include medical care and medical evaluations. The hundreds of Reservists who could not deploy because they were medically unready raises a number of larger questions, which the caucus has already begun to address through its effort to ensure every member of the Guard and Reserves has adequate health insurance. The caucus will continue to address the issue in detail during its ongoing investigation of the medical readiness and mobilizations, examining questions like whether the resources and process for screening at the unit level within the National Guard and Army Reserve ranks are sufficient, and how to explain the recall of soldiers to active duty who are not fit for duty. recommendations There are a number of actions that the Army must take to address this situation at Ft. Stewart and the larger issue of ``medical holds,'' which will continue to arise as the country pursues the war against terrorism and sustains operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas where military forces are operating. In the short term, the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve must jointly provide for the leadership, guidance and medical care our Reservists require to operate at maximum proficiency. These dedicated and loyal soldiers need to know what to expect in the medical review process. They need to understand thoroughly the Army's health care system, warts and all. This strong, steady leadership must have the goal of reaffirming the Army's seamless support for the ``Army of One'' and the country's gratitude for their service and sacrifice, reassuring them that they are not forgotten despite the fact they are separated from their units. To move the Reservists along to a Medical Evaluation Board if required, many more doctors need to be assigned to Ft. Stewart and, specifically, to these cases. The biggest delay in getting the Reservists off medical hold is the wait to optimize care. Many soldiers are seeing a different doctor every time they enter the hospital, each of whom may prescribe a different remedy. Additional doctors and specialists, who could help coordinate care, would provide greater continuity-of-care, one of the central reasons to keep them at their mobilization station in the first place. It is unacceptable to have these citizen-soldiers--every one of whom answered the call-to-duty--living in such inadequate housing. However, more adequate barracks cannot be completed quickly because it will take almost three months to complete any upgrades. Other 3rd Infantry Division barracks are unlikely to become available soon. It would be far better to send these troops back home. They could be assigned to another Military Treatment Facility (MTF), a State Area Command (STARC) or possibly a VHA medical facility closer to their families. Liaisons from the TRICARE management authority could ensure that they are receiving adequate care and that they would be available to return to Ft. Stewart if they get better and can return to duty. The benefit to morale among the medically held Reservists would far outweigh any of the unlikely risks that might go along with moving troops away from their mobilization station. Current Army Regulation 40-501 directs medically held soldiers to remain near their mobilization post, but there is no statutory restriction against assigning them to another facility close to home. In the longer-term, the Army, working together with the leadership of the National Guard and the Army Reserve, must ensure that our citizen-soldiers who are identified for activation are medically ready to deploy. Enactment of the cost-share TRICARE proposal for Reservists, currently attached to the Senate version of the Fiscal Year 2004 Supplemental Spending Bill for Iraq and Afghanistan, would ensure that every member of the Reserves has access to health insurance and would increase the likelihood that citizen- soldiers are medically and physically ready for duty. Currently, reservists are required to complete a physical once every five years. The high percentage of reservists found to be physically unable to deploy raises the questions of whether this five-year interval is too long. Another question the Caucus may want to raise, is the Army's mobilization and demobilization policy sufficient in providing a housing standard for soldiers on medical hold? Furthermore, is the working relationship between the Army's medical department and the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) structured to allow for the transfer of soldiers on medical hold from Army military facilities to VHA facilities? Also, new medical case management software included in the second version of the military's Composite Health Care System (CHCS II) will permit continuity-of-care wherever a soldier accesses care. Guard and Reserve units across the country could assign liaisons to help manage a Reservist's care and maintain contact with their mobilization base at any point. Lastly, it has been reported that architectural hardware and software exist that will allow the Army to equip its hospitals, dining halls, and commissaries with scanners that could read an ID that can show whether a member of the service is from the active component or the Reserves. Perhaps the Caucus should look at such systems as a means of addressing the perceived bias that exists when reservists are queried about their service status.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, who I believe is doing a very fine job under very difficult circumstances, leading a bipartisan inquiry, which is the legitimate scope of the Intelligence Committee on how we can improve our intelligence system. When we are fighting the battle against terrorism, there is no question that intelligence is the coin of the realm. There is no way we can deter terrorist attacks by threatening to retaliate or administer retributive justice to those who make terrorist strikes against us. When you are dealing with suicide bombers, there is not going to be anything left for us to retaliate against or take retribution against. Finding the holes in our intelligence system, and how we can do a better job, is a major challenge. I joined the Intelligence Committee this year because I realized how important it is to the future of peace and security in the world and to our own security. I know from personal experience that we and our staffs--and particularly our staffs--have been engaged in an exhaustive examination of what the intelligence was prior to declaring Operation Iraqi Freedom. This was a major effort. As those in the Chamber may know, I have supported the President. I supported the Iraqi supplemental, and I thank our colleagues for passing that bill to defend our troops and also to make sure we build Iraq so we can move our troops out. But when the revelation came out yesterday of a memorandum apparently from Democratic staff, minority staff on the Intelligence Committee, indicating there was a different agenda, I was very much concerned. The key element in the Intelligence Committee, unlike any other committee, is that we have to do our work in confidence. We have to be able to maintain the confidence of the intelligence community that comes before us. We must protect intelligence sources, and we cannot get engaged in partisan battles. Yet the memorandum that came out yesterday has such interesting quotes such as: Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. They are not looking at the Intelligence Committee; they are looking at the administration. They say: We need to look at activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the State Department. They talk about preparing additional views. And they say: Among other things, we will castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry. They talk about an independent investigation, and they say: We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation on the administration's use of intelligence at any time. When you talk about what goes on and how intelligence is used, that is a topic of debate in the political realm, and there is no shortage of that debate in particularly the Democratic primaries right now. We see many of the candidates who are arguing very forcefully about it. I am disappointed that the discussion in the Presidential primary has totally ignored or forgotten the old adage that politics stops at the water's edge; that we should not be getting into political battles when we have troops in harm's way, and there is no question we have troops in harm's way. It appears this memo suggests there is, at least at the staff level, a Democratic game plan to make the Intelligence Committee a focal point for the 2004 Presidential debates. This memorandum said: Yet, we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of the senior administration officials who made the case for a unilaterally preemptive war. Those are pretty harsh words. Those are the words of a political attack. Unfortunately, it is not just the staff who has been talking about them. There is an article in the Sunday Telegraph of London quoting a Democratic member of the Intelligence Committee: We want to know whether the administration put pressure on the agencies to come up with certain kinds of information. It's a question that's been explored at great length in Britain. If the Republican leadership of the Senate Intelligence Committee is determined to protect the administration at any cost, we'll do the investigative job on our own. I can assure you that this inquiry goes into every area that we can find in the intelligence operation, in many intelligence agencies, how that information is developed. There are suggestions that there is improper influence. This is something we are exploring assiduously. The committee staff has interviewed many members of the Intelligence Committee, anybody who might have information. They have been asked: Were they pressured? Was the information tainted or changed or pressured? And absolutely not. If there is evidence of pressure, that will undoubtedly be included in the chairman and vice chairman's report. Moreover, I tell you regrettably, it will be leaked almost immediately because the committee has a tendency right now to leak like a sieve. There was one person who said he had a problem, and I turned to my colleague on the Intelligence Committee and said: Let's take bets on how long before it is on the national news wire. It was less than an hour. It turns out that the analyst did not have any problem with the intelligence related to the operations of Iraq, but it came out immediately. The question that is being raised that some of our Democratic colleagues want to address in the Intelligence Committee is: Can we find a way to undercut the President, the Vice President and the administration? That, I submit, is not the role of the Intelligence Committee. The Intelligence Committee has a very important responsibility. We need to determine how to improve our intelligence system to win the war on terrorism, not to win the war for the White House. What is the job of the Intelligence Committee? Is it to determine and argue with the policy or is it to find out if the intelligence- gathering information is appropriate? The people in the intelligence community have to deal with information that is fragmentary. We criticized them as a result of 9/11 for not having connected all the dots and come together to forecast and perhaps forestall the attacks of 9/11. Now we are saying they didn't have enough information, but this information has been available and has been supplied by the Intelligence Committee for some time. I quote a statement by the President. The President said: Heavy as they are, the cost of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction, he will deploy them, and he will use them. Those are the words of the President talking about intelligence that he received. And by the way, that was a speech on December 16, 1998, by President Bill Clinton. That was based on the information he was receiving at the time. If that intelligence was grossly inaccurate or inadequate, then we in the Intelligence Committee need to fix it. I happen to think there were some major mistakes made 7 or 8 years ago in the intelligence community when they decided to restrict severely the number of human intelligence sources they could use by refusing to take intelligence sources from people who didn't meet the highest moral and ethical standards. Frankly, those people often don't deal with terrorists and provide us the information we need. We need to do a better job. We are making improvements in intelligence, but I don't think anybody will say we have an intelligence system that is as good as it should be. I can tell you, the battle over how intelligence is used is a broader political battle. Leaving aside the question of whether it should be carried on while we have troops in harm's way in Iraq, it is not a question, in any case, to be fought out in the Intelligence Committee by trying to change or develop information that is not there.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair, and I urge our colleagues to remember that the battle of the Intelligence Committee is to win the war against terrorism, not to win the White House.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I am going to quote from just pieces of his report, because apparently a lot of my colleagues who are saying it confirms that there were no weapons of mass destruction have not read the report. Here is what Dr. Kay said: With regard to biological warfare activities, which has been one of our two initial areas of focus, ISG teams are uncovering significant information, including research and development of BW-applicable organisms, the involvement of Iraqi intelligence service in possible BW activities, and deliberate concealment activities. All of this suggests Iraq, after 1996, further compartmentalized its program and focused on maintaining smaller, covert capabilities that could be activated quickly to surge the production of BW agents. Debriefings of IIS officials and site visits have begun to unravel a clandestine network of laboratories and facilities within the security service apparatus. This network was never declared to the U.N. and was previously unknown. Again, he said two key former BW scientists confirmed that Iraq, under the guise of legitimate activity, developed refinements of processes and products relevant to BW agents. Iraq concealed equipment and materials from U.N. inspectors when they returned in 2002. One noteworthy example is a collection of referenced strains that ought to have been declared to the U.N. Among them was a vial of live C. botulinum Okra B from which a biological agent can be produced. ISG teams have developed multiple sources that indicate that Iraq explored the possibility of CW production in recent years, possibly as late as 2003. Information obtained since OIF has identified several key areas in which Iraq may have engaged in proscribed or undeclared activities since 1991, including research on a possible VX stabilizer, research and development for CW-capable munitions, and procurement concealment of dual-use materials and equipment. Officials assert Saddam would have resumed nuclear weapons development at some future point. Iraq did take steps to preserve some capability from the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program. Detainees and cooperative sources indicate that beginning in 2000, Saddam ordered the development of ballistic missiles with ranges of at least 400 kilometers and up to 1,000 kilometers, and that measures to conceal these projects from UNMOVIC were initiated in late 2002, ahead of the arrival of inspectors. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Kay report be printed in the Record. It talks about several revelations of his efforts to obtain ballistic missiles and unmanned air vehicles.

Mr. BOND. We are engaged in a monumental fight against terrorism and tyranny on a global scale, one in which all freedom-loving people have a stake. Other free countries ought to realize this is a battle in which we all have a stake. The Middle East region has long been marked by instability and marred by war, the threat of war and torture, terrorism, and ruthless dictators. Saddam Hussein was at the heart of it. On September 11 we lost close to 3,000 citizens when foreign terrorists attacked innocent civilians. It is a miracle we did not lose more. But we are now fighting that battle against terrorism in Baghdad, not in Boston or Boise or Baldwin, MO. As I said earlier, some argue that Saddam has not been linked to terrorism. Well, what David Kay has already described puts the lie to that. Also, tell that to the thousands of Israeli families who have lost innocent relatives at the hands of Hamas suicide bombers whose families received $25,000 from the Iraqi dictator for each successful attack on innocent men, women, and children. Today, on the good-news side, there are close to 100,000 Iraqis who are assuming control of essential civil responsibilities such as border police, civil defense, police facilities protection, and as soldiers. With each passing day, more and more Iraqis are taking the lead in security and in protecting Iraq. Over 85 percent of Iraq is relatively stable, with the exception of the troubled Sunni Triangle. It is no surprise the Sunni Baathists are putting up the most resistance, for they have the most to lose. We have seen recently declassified reports of the Iraqi-sponsored torture, which are too disturbing even to watch. We found mass graves. We know Saddam conducted mass chemical attacks against his own people and launched chemical attacks against Iran. I believe the President was correct when he said we must take on the war on terrorism, which would take years, not months. This is a global conflict against terrorism. The will of the American people is being tested. We cannot flinch. If we do not pursue terrorists where they live now, then we will continue to invite more attacks any time U.S. interests collide with the interests of terrorists. Exhibit 1 The Oct. 26 front-page article ``Search in Iraq Fails to Find Nuclear Threat'' is wildly off the mark. Your reporter, Barton Gellman, bases much of his analysis on what he says was told to him by an Australian brigadier, Stephen D. Meekin. Gellman describes Meekin as someone ``who commands the Joint Captured Materiel Exploitation Center, the largest of a half-dozen units that report to [David] Kay.'' Meekin does not report, nor has he ever reported, to me in any individual capacity or as commander of the exploitation center. The work of the center did not form a part of my first interim report, which was delivered last month, nor do I direct what Meekin's organization does. The center's mission has never involved weapons of mass destruction, nor does it have any WMD expertise. Gellman's description of information provided by Mahdi Obeidi, chief of Iraq's pre-1991 centrifuge program, relies on an unnamed ``U.S. official'' who, by the reporter's own admission, read only one reporting cable. How Gellman's source was able to describe reporting that covered four months is a mystery to me. Furthermore, the source mischaracterized our views on the reliability of Obeidi's information. With regard to Obeidi's move to the United States, Gellman writes, ``By summer's end, under unknown circumstances, Obeidi received permission to bring his family to an East Coast suburb in the United States.'' The reader is left with the impression that this move involved something manipulative or sinister. The ``unknown circumstances'' are called Public Law 110. This mechanism was created during the Cold War to give the director of central intelligence the authority to resettle those who help provide valuable intelligence information. Nothing unusual or mysterious here. When the article moves to describe the actual work of the nuclear team, Gellman states that `'frustrated members of the nuclear search team by late spring began calling themselves the `book of the month club.' ``But he fails to note that this was before the establishment of the Iraq Survey Group. In fact, the team's frustration with the pace of the work is what led President Bush to shift the responsibility for the WMD search to the director of central intelligence and to send me to Baghdad. One would believe from what Gellman writes that I have sent home the two leaders of my nuclear team, William Domke and Jeffrey Bedell, and abandoned all attempts to determine the state of Iraq's nuclear activities. Wrong again, Domke's assignment had been twice extended well beyond what the Department of Energy had agreed to. He and Bedell were replaced with a much larger contingent of experts from DOE's National Labs. Finally, with regard to the aluminum tubes, the tubes were certainly being imported and were being used for rockets. The question that continues to occupy us is whether similar tubes, with higher specifications, had other uses, specifically in nuclear centrifuges. Why anyone would think that we should want to confiscate the thousands of aluminum tubes of the lower specification is unclear. Our investigation is focused on whether a nuclear centrifuge program was either underway or in the planning stages, what design and components were being contemplated or used in such a program if it existed and the reason for the constant raising of the specifications of the tubes the Iraqis were importing clandestinely. We have much work left to do before any conclusions can be reached on the state of possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program efforts. Your story gives the false impression that conclusions can already be drawn.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I rise this morning in support of the U.S. forces in Iraq and all our forces engaged in the war on terrorism. I am delighted and very pleased that the vast majority of this body voted overwhelmingly in support of the supplemental and our ongoing efforts to protect our troops to finish the job so we can bring our troops home. Last week, I had the honor of going out to Walter Reed to visit a number of our wounded soldiers recently returned from Iraq. The spirit and enthusiasm of our service men and women serving in the war on terror is inspiring. It should remind all of us that our warfighters have the will to win as long as the American people have the will to win. We cannot be defeated by Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden militarily. They are engaged in a psychological war to break our will. This past weekend brought news of the tragic loss of 16 soldiers in a Chinook helicopter mishap. No one in this body takes that current conflict lightly. Any loss of life is difficult to bear, particularly this tragic situation. Yet we must not forget the losses incurred in the United States on 9/11, and the loss of innocent lives in other terrorist attacks, from the marine barracks in Lebanon to the disco bombing in Bali. The message we must send, if we are to avoid future catastrophic attacks, is that no price is too great for the freedoms we and other freedom-loving peoples now hold dear. The message we need to send our enemies is that we will not cut and run. There are critics of U.S. foreign policy who now want us to pull out. They are just dead wrong. Do they think Saddam Hussein was not really evil, was not really a threat? Last week, I talked a little bit about the unclassified report released by Dr. David Kay, the head of the Iraqi Survey Group, who has been over there looking. He has found a tremendous record of denial, deception, and destruction, which among other things is likely the reason we have not found the storehouses of weapons of mass destruction. Dr. Kay believes that people have been distorting his record. I will submit for the record a copy of his November 1, 2003, piece in the Washington Post. It begins: The October 26 front-page article ``Search in Iraq Fails to Find Nuclear Threat,'' is wildly off the mark. I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record after my remarks.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. On behalf of the Senator from Texas, I claim 9 minutes of the time that has been reserved for her and ask that the Chair notify me after 8 minutes.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will transfer the control of the Mingo Job Corps Center to the U.S. Department of Agriculture to be administered by the U.S. Forest Service. Since its inception, the Center has served at-risk youth by providing a facility where students can complete their secondary education and serve the local area through community service projects. The Department of Labor has expressed their plans to contract out operations of the Mingo Center, which is currently administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service, an action that would greatly increase the chances for the permanent closure of the facility. The Mingo Job Corps Center has been extremely successful in southern Missouri. For over 40 years, the Center has been a place for students to complete their education, learn a trade, and serve the community. Through the Center, students master trades from auto repair to fire fighting, from carpentry to culinary arts, and from bricklaying to business. The closure of the facility would mean 250 students would not be able to receive their High School Diploma, GED, or learn the skills necessary to earn gainful employment. For over 40 years the Center has made a substantial contribution to the community through service projects. Mingo students have participated in national projects such as the recovery of the space shuttle Columbia and fighting western forest fires. However, the main impact of their activities are felt locally in southern Missouri. Each year the Mingo Job Corps completes over $1 million worth of community and conservation projects. These projects include construction of the Poplar Bluff Forest Service District Office, construction of many Puxico School buildings, and the painting and repair of furniture at various local schools. The Mingo Job Corps Training Center is truly an invaluable asset to the State of Missouri that must be preserved. Last year, with the help of Congresswomen Jo Ann Emerson, I secured a commitment from the USDA to have the Forest Service assume operation of the Mingo Job Corps Center. However, now it has become necessary for this transfer to be handled legislatively. My legislation will ensure that the Center will continue to be a positive force that shapes the lives of our youth. Our economy and the kids who depend upon this facility will remain the real winners here.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will transfer the control of the Mingo Job Corps Center to the U.S. Department of Agriculture to be administered by the U.S. Forest Service. Since its inception, the Center has served at-risk youth by providing a facility where students can complete their secondary education and serve the local area through community service projects. The Department of Labor has expressed their plans to contract out operations of the Mingo Center, which is currently administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service, an action that would greatly increase the chances for the permanent closure of the facility. The Mingo Job Corps Center has been extremely successful in southern Missouri. For over 40 years, the Center has been a place for students to complete their education, learn a trade, and serve the community. Through the Center, students master trades from auto repair to fire fighting, from carpentry to culinary arts, and from bricklaying to business. The closure of the facility would mean 250 students would not be able to receive their High School Diploma, GED, or learn the skills necessary to earn gainful employment. For over 40 years the Center has made a substantial contribution to the community through service projects. Mingo students have participated in national projects such as the recovery of the space shuttle Columbia and fighting western forest fires. However, the main impact of their activities are felt locally in southern Missouri. Each year the Mingo Job Corps completes over $1 million worth of community and conservation projects. These projects include construction of the Poplar Bluff Forest Service District Office, construction of many Puxico School buildings, and the painting and repair of furniture at various local schools. The Mingo Job Corps Training Center is truly an invaluable asset to the State of Missouri that must be preserved. Last year, with the help of Congresswomen Jo Ann Emerson, I secured a commitment from the USDA to have the Forest Service assume operation of the Mingo Job Corps Center. However, now it has become necessary for this transfer to be handled legislatively. My legislation will ensure that the Center will continue to be a positive force that shapes the lives of our youth. Our economy and the kids who depend upon this facility will remain the real winners here.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is my honor and great privilege to recognize my fellow Missourian and personal friend, Mr. Charles E. Kruse, president of Missouri Farm Bureau. Mr. Kruse has been recently awarded the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award, the highest honor awarded to Eagle Scouts by the Great Rivers Council. Today I am proud to join with family and friends to recognize and honor Mr. Kruse on this occasion. I have, over the course of my career, worked with Charlie Kruse on many occasions and have come to know him as a great friend and close ally on behalf of agriculture. In 1983, as Governor, I appointed Charlie to serve on the University of Missouri Board of Curators. Since his appointment Charlie went on to serve as director of the Missouri Department of Agriculture, as the sole Missourian on President Bush's Council on Rural America, Brigadier General of the National Guard, and as the exclusive vice president of North American Equipment Dealers Association. Since August of 1992, Charlie has solidified his longtime friendship with the Missouri farmer by serving as president of the Missouri Farm Bureau. He is a fourth generation farmer; is on the American Farm Bureau Federation Board of Directors; has served on numerous Presidential commissions making recommendations on farm, tax, trade and environmental policies, and; he is married to Pam--the lady whose name is on the farm combine and who harvests corn at home when Charlie is harvesting awards around the country. Charlie has been a close friend and advisor for as long as I have been in the Senate and longer than either of us care to admit. He has contributed immeasurably to his community, State and country. He is the product of generations of rural ancestors and is blessed to be deputy commander of his own terrific family. His tireless and enthusiastic contributions and his family inspire his love and inspiration. Charlie is as good a friend as rural America could ever have. We congratulate him for this important recognition and thank him for his for your service to our country.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I begin by thanking the Chaplain for his prayers for our brave fighting men and women in Iraq, as well as in Afghanistan, as well as for the first responders and law enforcement personnel who are putting their lives on the line every day for us. In California, we pray for those who are fighting the fires. Certainly our hearts and sympathies go out to them. I also note, Mr. President, as you well know, that we are working hard to complete the Iraqi supplemental, which will provide the support that our troops need to be safe in Iraq, as well as the reconstruction money, which I hope we can pass quickly so we can bring the troops home. Having said that, let me share with you an experience I had this weekend. It came as a great surprise to hear on the news this weekend that newspapers were reporting that the Intelligence Committee was preparing a report saying that the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee was trying to do something with a report that was uncalled for and that would whitewash the administration, and purporting to outline material in that report. That caught me by surprise, No. 1, because I am on the Intelligence Committee. As reported by Chairman Roberts, we have not completed a report. We have not started a report. We have worked very diligently with our staff to interview a hundred witnesses from the intelligence agencies. They have reviewed tens and perhaps thousands of documents, and they are continuing to do so. As Chairman Roberts said, there will be information sought from the Director of the CIA, Director George Tenet. So whatever was leaked was not based on fact. The second thing that bothered me is that what was supposedly a work in the classified confines of the Intelligence Committee had been somehow shared with the press. Now, that is a problem. The President has come down very strongly in saying that he absolutely abhors leakage of classified, sensitive material, as he should. We all should. He said he will not tolerate it in the administration, in the White House, or even in Congress. But it appears to me that somehow in the Intelligence Committee it is leaking like a sieve, and people are saying things that are not true. So I would caution those who are listening, when you hear about something that is going on in the Intelligence Committee, perhaps you ought to take it with a great big grain of salt. Chairman Roberts and Vice Chairman Rockefeller are conducting these hearings, and all Members of this body can come to Hart 219 and have access to the material if they want to find out what we are working on. But what you hear being discussed is not necessarily relevant to anything that is going on. What is relevant, and what many people have cited--and I am afraid they have not read--is the work of Dr. David Kay, the Interim Progress Report of the Iraqi Survey Group, the ISG. This is a declassified report from this distinguished person who is heading the intelligence gathering in Iraq. He has been cited as saying: Well, we have found no weapons of mass destruction; therefore, there must not be any. Well, I would say, by that same reasoning, we have not found Saddam Hussein; so by that reasoning, maybe Saddam Hussein did not exist. But we have seen in the tragedies that have occurred in recent days and weeks in the Sunni Triangle and in Iraq and elsewhere that the proteges, the adherents to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, continue to carry on their war of terrorism. They are attacking our troops. They are attacking Iraqi civilians. They have attacked the U.N. They have attacked the Red Cross. They are very dangerous, and we know that the battle on terrorism goes on. That is why we have to complete work on the Iraqi supplemental appropriations. But what has David Kay found? Why hasn't he found any weapons of mass destruction? I might note that it was only this summer, after we had been there several months, that we found a squadron of Russian-made MIG airplanes hidden in the desert. They were buried in the sand. Well, weapons of mass destruction, chemical or biological weapons, which we know Saddam Hussein has had in the past and has used in the past, could be hidden in a two-car garage, and they could be hidden in much smaller samples. There is speculation in the media that they could have been taken out of the country, which should really worry us. There is speculation elsewhere as to what may have happened. But Dr. Kay said, talking about the extensive program of denial and deception engaged in by Saddam Hussein's regime: From birth all of Iraq's WMD activities were highly compartmentalized within a regime that ruled and kept its secrets through fear and terror and with deception and denial built into each program; Deliberate dispersal and destruction of material and documentation related to weapons programs began pre-conflict and ran trans-to-post conflict; In other words, they were concealing, they were denying they had it before the war, during the war, and even after the war. Post-OIF-- In other words, after Iraqi Freedom-- looting destroyed or dispersed important and easily collectible material and forensic evidence concerning Iraq's WMD program. As the report covers in detail, significant elements of this looting were carried out in a systematic and deliberate manner, with the clear aim of concealing pre-OIF activities of Saddam's regime; Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre/trans- conflict period and may have taken evidence and even weapons- related materials with them. . . . In other words, what Dr. Kay is saying is, the people involved with Saddam Hussein, his loyal thugs, could have taken the material out of the country. But he says what we have found and what we have discovered are: dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2000. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I claim the time that has been set aside for the Senator from Texas.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill. I commend the managers and the bipartisan group who worked on this bill. It is vitally needed, and I rise in strong support of it. Mr. President, this long overdue piece of legislation will finally bring some common sense to forest management in our Nation. Currently, conditions in our Nation's forests are terrible. The poor state of our forests is due in large part to a lack of active forest management efforts to reduce undergrowth and remove dead and dying trees to restore forest health. According to the Society of American Foresters, ``As a result of 80 years of fuels accumulation and several years of drought, the potential for catastrophic wildfire is at an all time high in many regions of the United States.'' An estimated 190 million acres of Federal forests and rangelands in the United States, an area twice the size of California, face a high risk of catastrophic wildfire. Decades of an accumulation of dense undergrowth and brush, along with drought, insect infestation and disease, and the presence of invasive exotic species have made our forests vulnerable to these environmentally destructive wildfires. According to Secretary of Agriculture, Ann Venman, last year was the second worst fire season in modern history with over 7.2 million acres burned--an area larger than Maryland and Rhode Island combined. The States of Arizona, Colorado, and Oregon registered their largest and most destructive wildfires ever. It was also the most expensive fire season ever costing Federal taxpayers $1.6 billion. When the season ended, 23 firefighters were dead, tens of thousands of people fled their homes and more than 2,000 buildings were destroyed. This devastation was only eclipsed by the 2000 fire season where more than 8 million acres of forests burned at a Federal cost of $1.4 billion. This year, as of the first week in October, we have had a total of 67,500 fires that have burned over 3.2 million acres at a cost of over $550 million. Worse than that, over 20 wildland firefighters have lost their lives this year. The time for addressing the problem of our unhealthy forests is long overdue. Current efforts to reduce excessive fuel loads, underbrush, and dead and dying trees are taking for too long due to senseless bureaucratic delay. According to the U.S. Forest Service, it can take up to 8 years to plan and execute relatively routine fuels reduction projects--8 years. Does anyone here believe that this is responsible forest management? In May of this year, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) released the results of a survey that confirms that the large numbers of appeals filed by environmental interest groups are delaying efforts to restore the health of our Nation's forests through the thinning of overgrown and diseased areas. These delays increase the threat of severe forest fires which threaten human life, old growth trees, habitat for endangered species and private property. These endless and meritless appeals result in nothing but inaction and increased bureaucratic costs. If we do not address this problem now, we risk losing many of America's most pristine forests to wildfire devastation. Congress needs to pass legislation to streamline and expedite these forest thinning and fuels reduction efforts. I believe the H.R. 1904 will accomplish this goal. The Senate compromise to H.R. 1904 is designed to cut through unnecessary red tape and speed up the review and approval process for forest health restoration projects, while at the same time preserving the appropriate environmental review process. Specifically this bill establishes procedures to expedite forest and rangeland restoration projects focusing on lands near communities in the wildland urban interface; that are in condition class 3 (high fire risk) areas located in proximity to a municipal watershed or water supply system; that provide important habitat for endangered species where the risk of catastrophic wildfire threatens these species; and where insect infestation, disease and old age are destroying forests and increasing the chance of wildfire. The Senate compromise also contains language for the protection of old growth or large trees in the implementation of hazardous fuels reduction projects. This legislation requires authorized hazardous fuels reduction projects to be consistent with the applicable forest and resource management plans, along with other administrative policies or decisions applicable to Federal land. The amount of acreage eligible for authorized fuels reduction projects under this legislation is limited to 20 million acres. In addition to allowing for an environmental assessment and expedited administrative appeals, this legislation does allow for judicial review. As a part of this review, this bill requires lawsuits to be filed in the district court where the project is located. It limits temporary injunctions to 60-days, subject to renewal. Finally, this legislation directs the courts to balance the short- and long-term environmental effects of undertaking a project versus those of not undertaking a project. The problem of excessive forest fuels build is not just a Western problem. It is a National problem. The expedited reduction of forest fuels and the thinning of underbrush would greatly improve the health of Missouri's forests. There has been a significant increase in the buildup of these fuels in National and State Forest land in the State of Missouri as a result of recent tornadoes, several years of drought, oak decline and oak mortality. Oak mortality is the most pressing problem in Missouri's forests. As of January 2003, oak mortality due to drought, insects, and fungi have affected 41 percent of the Mark Twain National Forest's 1.5 million acres, and caused an estimated loss of more than 30 million dollars' worth of red oak timber. Dead limbs and debris in this area also reduce food for wildlife, and contribute to fuels buildups, which increases the dangers of wildfires. In turn, these wildfires endanger wildlife habitat areas, healthy watersheds and neighboring private lands. Missouri also has huge volume of dying forest land throughout southern Missouri as a result of infestation by an insect known as the red oak stem bore. According to Dr. Gene Garrett of the University of Missouri School of Natural Resources, who has studied and taught forestry for over 33 years, ``Roughly 33 percent of the 23 million acres of the interior highlands in the scenic Missouri Ozarks are infested by this red oak stem bore. Dr. Garrett goes on to say that ``this insect and associative disease complex is by far the greatest threat to the oak component of the interior highlands.'' This has resulted in over $1.1 billion worth of timber at risk and an increased threat of wildfire in this area. H.R. 1904 will address most of the forest health issues in Missouri and prioritize them for expedited cleanup. Section 102(a)(4) of this health forest legislation will specifically address this problem of red oak stem bore and oak decline. The first of Missouri's two fire seasons is now underway. The most recent high wildfire season in Missouri occurred in 2000 when over 8,700 acres of wooded lands burned--more than 3,000 acres over the 10- year average. By expediting the cleanup or thinning of our forests, Missouri and the rest of the Nation can expect to see the risk of these catastrophic wildfires reduced. In closing, I believe that H.R. 1904 represents a commonsense approach to forest management based on sound science. I have talked with forest scientists all over the country, including several from my own State, and they believe that this legislation takes the right approach to restoring the health of our Nation's forests. These are actual forest scientists who know what they are talking about--not big city newspaper editorial writers. If we do not act on this problem right now, vast acres of old growth trees and wildlife habitat will remain at a high risk of catastrophic wildfire. Once these areas are destroyed by fire, there will be very little, if anything, that we can do to restore them to health. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. It is time to put some common sense back into forest management. It is long past time that we get this done. I really thank the bipartisan group that came together for this extremely important and most needed forest health measure. Again, I urge my colleagues to support it and move it expeditiously.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, the committee I believe properly has jurisdiction over this issue, a committee on which I serve and which has debated these issues many times. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his leadership, his guidance, and his wisdom on these matters. Interestingly enough, today I was reading a couple of news articles and it seems the Soviet Union is backing out on the Kyoto Treaty. Russia is now finding that they cannot live up to the commitments that were made in Kyoto, so Russia is bailing out on them. I just read another article that the European Union finds they really can't come up with all of these carbon dioxide reductions that they had promised. Why? Even in a Communist country they begin to realize that government actions have consequences. There are some impacts. These impacts are pretty stark. Let me address for just a few minutes, for the benefit of my colleagues and those who may happen to listen, some of the practical impacts the passage of the McCain-Lieberman bill would have on our communities and on our families. I strongly believe this bill will cripple our economy, cripple our communities, and financially cripple many of our struggling families. We can debate the science of climate change here on the floor until we are all blue in the face--and I think we may be headed in that direction. We have heartfelt experts, scientists, and data on both sides of the issue. I happen to believe the causal effect of CO2 emissions and recent changes to our climate is not yet fully proven. But the real impact, the real point of the McCain-Lieberman bill is, What will it do? That is kind of a practical test. I am from Missouri, the ``show me'' State. What would this bill do? Show me what this bill would do. How much will the McCain-Lieberman bill hurt our economy? How much will the McCain-Lieberman bill drive up electricity bills for my constituents to pay? How much will the McCain-Lieberman bill raise the price of natural gas which is already going through the ceiling thanks to unwise governmental increases in demand and restrictions on production? How much more will the McCain-Lieberman bill force our families to pay for gasoline? It would be nice if we stopped once before we rushed into a major thing such as this and found out whether the medicine we prescribe was going to make the patient sicker or make the patient well. I think we all recognize that our economy is just now starting to recover from the doldrums. We are just now starting to turn the corner on job growth. We are heading into a winter when we expect the cost to heat our homes will increase significantly because of previous overreaching congressional actions in the past. Now is not the time to place more burdens on our families and our communities. As I said, I sit on the Environment and Public Works Committee where we considered legislation to cut carbon dioxide as part of a multipollutant strategy to cut emissions from electric powerplants. Before that committee, supporters urged caps on carbon dioxide from electric powerplants as a way to fight global climate change. What they didn't want to talk about was the negative impact this measure would have on the everyday lives of our constituents--those who use electric power. Experts conclude that the legislation under consideration to cut carbon dioxide in electric powerplants would cost the economy over $100 billion. That is one-zero-zero billion dollars. Experts also estimated that the electricity bills would go up by about 40 percent. If you are sitting at home and you happen to have an electric bill handy, take it and multiply it by 1.4, see what that number is, and see what impact that would have on your family budget. I have read heartbreaking stories from families in Kansas City who have to decide between buying food and paying their utility bills. Other families could not buy school clothes because they had to pay higher heating bills. Seniors on fixed incomes often have no way to meet higher utility bills. I voted against that bill. And Democratic leaders when they controlled the Senate refused to even bring that measure to the floor because they knew what an impact it would have on senior citizens, what an impact it would have on the poor, and why union members who realize it can cost them their jobs object to it. We now have many of the same issues involved in this climate change bill. The McCain-Lieberman bill would establish mandatory caps for carbon dioxide emissions. Economists and energy experts at the Department of Energy's Energy Information Agency--or EIA--recently concluded that the enactment of the McCain-Lieberman bill would result in a 46-percent increase in electricity prices, a 27-percent increase in the cost of gasoline, and a 54-percent increase in the cost of home heating oil. Again, if you are at home and happen to have any of your last winter's bills handy, apply those percentages--a 50-percent increase in electricity and heating oil, a 27-percent increase in the cost of gasoline. The EIA--the Government agency with the experts and the expertise-- concluded that McCain-Lieberman would cost millions of Americans jobs. Excuse me. Did I say that right? Yes, I said that right--millions of American jobs. We are having slow job growth in our economy. We are working hard to get jobs back. This bill would cost millions of American jobs. Even if the sponsors dropped the second phase of this bill, it would still cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Do we really want to be raising costs on senior citizens, on poor people, and be throwing people out of work? The EIA further concluded that McCain-Lieberman would cause a cumulative decrease in the gross domestic product of $1.4 trillion. Talk about sucking the wind out of the economic recovery; that baby would be flatter than a flounder. The effect of this bill would be, first, to send our economy back into recession, then strip the Nation of hundreds of thousands of jobs, and then increase the cost of heating our homes. I, frankly, cannot think of a better combination of ills. That is a trifecta that we obviously cannot afford to undertake. The most troubling part is that all of this pain would come without any real dent in the worldwide amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. McCain-Lieberman suffers from the same inherent flaw of the failed Kyoto Treaty. It imposes absolutely no restrictions on two of the world's worst largest and fastest growing polluters in the world. In case you can't guess who those are, those would be China and India. Not only do we unfairly punish U.S. communities but we let other countries off the hook and, therefore, have practically no real worldwide impact on carbon dioxide levels. The Kyoto Treaty was rightfully rejected in advance by a unanimous vote in this body of 95 to zero for a very good reason. On top of all the unfairness of the Kyoto Treaty, we now know the crippling effects McCain-Lieberman would have on the economy, on our communities, on our families, and on job creation in our country. For me, I cannot see voting to strip American families of hundreds of thousands or millions of jobs. I cannot see why we would be voting to increase electricity prices by 46 percent. I cannot see why we would be voting to increase the cost of home heating oil by 54 percent. That is why I cannot vote for this bill. I urge my colleagues to think about the practical impact before we vote on this bill. This is a disaster waiting to happen. This would be another congressionally inflicted disaster. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to defeat McCain-Lieberman.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of Governor Leavitt. I think the President has made an excellent choice in nominating this Governor, who has a great record. I think the environment and the Environmental Protection Agency will be well served by his nomination. At a time when there are many pressing issues facing us in the environmental area, it is important that we have a good leader. Governor Leavitt is a good leader. He is a Governor, as I was formerly, and I know that he has brought leadership and management skills and a State perspective. He was very successful in Utah, and he will bring success, as the Nation's longest serving Governor, to the EPA. I believe he stands for environmental principles that we desperately need: collaboration, not polarization; national standards and neighborhood solutions; rewarding results, not programs; science for facts, process for priorities; markets before mandates. All of these things are necessary to move forward in improving our environment. Governor Leavitt has a record of environmental achievement to match his environmental vision. As my colleagues from Utah will describe shortly, because of him the air in Utah and the West is cleaner and clearer. Visibility over the Grand Canyon has improved because of the Governor's role with the Western Regional Air Partnership. I know our friends from Utah are proud that Utah has among the Nation's cleanest watersheds. That has improved dramatically during the Leavitt administration. Utah's most environmentally sensitive land is better protected because of Governor Leavitt's service. Unfortunately, Governor Leavitt is entering a job in a city where political opponents try to use the environment to make political gains. We heard charges a few minutes ago that he had not answered all the questions. The interesting part is that we went back and looked at similar questions asked of previous nominees, particularly Administrator Brown in the last administration. She was not able to answer those questions dealing with the internal operations of the EPA either. At the time, we understood, and the Republicans confirmed her. I am delighted that we are moving forward to confirm Governor Leavitt because he cannot be expected to know everything going on inside the EPA. As far as the record of this administration under President Bush, environmental and health benefits from drastically reduced levels of NOX and SOX and mercury pollution in the President's Clear Skies proposal are being held hostage by those who want to use global warming as a political issue against the President. Environmental benefits, improved energy security, and more efficient and reliable electricity protection in New Source Review improvements are being attacked and blocked by the President's political opponents. Even my own modest incremental suggestions for improved environmental collaboration in the transportation bill were leaked to the press, mischaracterized by the very environmental stakeholders, some of whom we worked with to formulate those improvements. Fortunately, President Bush is maintaining a strong commitment to the environment and the Environmental Protection Agency. In the face of funding a war on terrorism, growing deficits, and, yes, even tax cuts, President Bush has requested more money for EPA. President Bush's $7.6 billion request for the EPA is $300 million more than President Clinton requested for the EPA in his last budget. President Bush's $431 million request for EPA enforcement is the largest request for Federal environmental enforcement funds in our Nation's history. I just hope that my colleague, Senator Mikulski, and I have enough money in the budget of VA-HUD to meet those goals. It is questionable at this point. But we certainly want to achieve the President's funding. Just last week in the Environment and Public Works Committee, we were able to pick up the broken transportation pieces and fashion a bipartisan agreement on environmental provisions relating to NEPA and the Clean Air Act. I think this spirit of cooperation can serve this body and our Nation's highway needs well, and maybe we can even flow that cooperation into the Leavitt nomination. I urge my colleagues to follow this new bipartisanship and move forward and support the nomination of Governor Leavitt without delay. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. If the Senator will yield, I offer my sincere apologies. Would he accept it if I said ``of voting age'' and correct that statement?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut has introduced a very important amendment that deserves the support of this body. Events of the 2000 election in my home State and elsewhere pointed out that there are serious flaws in our election system that invite mischief and confusion. But last year, in a near unanimous vote, this body passed important legislation that will make it easier for Americans to vote and harder for those who would do such a thing, to cheat. The legislation offers a tremendous opportunity to modernize our election system, improve election technology and help State and local officials manage elections better. Once this legislation is in full effect, we will see a dramatic improvement in the reliability and integrity of elections. But funding is essential to move forward on the key aspects of this bill. With the funding, we can take large steps forward before the upcoming election. So far, we have funded a significant downpayment on implementation of this law. The chairman has included a generous sum in this bill, and I thank him for his attention to the issue. We are here today to ensure that we are on target with the funding level and funds are flowing in advance of the 2004 election; we can have an impact on this election, move rapidly towards complete implementation and put the problems we experienced behind us for future elections. I will take a minute to remind my colleagues of some of the more important components of this bill. First, this funding will go toward ensuring that every State has a modern, computerized statewide voter registration system. This is perhaps one of the most important aspects of this bill and one provision that cannot be implemented without funding. Surprisingly, much of voter registration has missed out on the rapid advances in technology. In many States and jurisdictions they are still paper records. Compounded by Motor Voter's overly broad restrictions on removing names from lists, too many voting lists around the country have become clogged with fake names or names that should simply no longer be there. The result is inaccurate, unreliable, and unmanageable voter registration lists. As my colleagues and I learned while working on this bill, voter registration lists are the most basic element of any well-run election, and their accuracy is essential if elections are to be honest and voters are to have confidence in the outcome. How bad are these lists? When we looked into this issue while working on this bill, West Virginia's Mingo and Lincoln Counties both had more registered voters than living people. Allegheny County, PA, had 18 municipalities with more registered voters than voting-age adults. The State of Alaska had 502,968 on the voter rolls, though census figures show only 437,000 Alaskans of voting age. In Missouri we have found individuals who are registered at three, four, and even five different locations across the State--not to mention those that are registered twice in the same jurisdiction. At one point in the city of St. Louis, we had 240,000 registered voters but only 200,000 people of voting age. These are the problems that are a serious threat to the confidence people have that their vote will be counted and that the outcome of the election will be honest. This bill also includes a requirement that voters using the ``by mail'' registration offered in Motor Voter will now have to identify themselves before casting a vote. How did all those names get on the lists? As some may remember from our discussions last fall, we even discovered the odd circumstances of voter rolls including the names of canines. How did this happen--because mail registration was available and could be used to anonymously put names on voter lists. Those same States that were required to accept registrations through the mail were also prohibited from authenticating those registrations. The election reform bill corrects that problem by requiring those who exercise their right to register by mail to provide some identification prior to voting. As previously stated, this contributed greatly to the troubled shape of voter rolls and the administration of elections. This bill fixes this, and we need to step up and ensure it is fully implemented. This bill addresses a number of important issues, including dealing with judicial orders affecting polling place hours, providing provisional voting for those who have their names removed from voting rolls because of administrative error and ensuring that voting equipment have advanced audit trails to prevent manipulation of votes at the polling places. States will also be issuing identification numbers to registered voters to track voters and will be collecting information to ensure that voters are citizens and of proper eligibility status. To summarize, the bill contains significant advances that will greatly enhance integrity and administration. It is important that these and all the provisions in this bill are fully implemented--the sooner the better. So thanks again to Senators Dodd and McConnell for their work and help pushing this bill and its funding forward. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. As has been stated by the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Kentucky, we had a very long and difficult process over better than 18 months to try to pull together a truly significant piece of legislation that would, in fact, make it easier to vote and tougher to cheat. A lot of people had lots of questions about the 2000 election. I happened to think that from my own personal experience, the fraudulent parts of that election were of extreme concern. And it is my view and understanding that in order for us to ensure, No. 1, that we have the voting equipment available for the 2004 Presidential election, and that we have the antifraud provisions in effect for the 2004 election, we need to appropriate this money. We made the commitment. It is a question of ``pay me now or pay me later.'' Frankly, I urge my colleagues on this side of the aisle to say: Let's pay now rather than pay later. You can ask questions about how quickly the money is spent but, frankly, in order to trigger the antifraud provisions, we have to get the money now. In many States around the country, Motor Voter has led to an amazing electoral turnout. People send in a postcard and say ``register me,'' or register whatever name is signed. There is no authentication required. States were even prevented from authenticating it. When you look at the list, West Virginia's Mingo and Lincoln Counties had more registered voters than living people, adults and children. Allegheny County, PA, had 18 municipalities with more registered voters than voting age adults. The State of Alaska had 503,000 on the voter rolls, though the census figures only show 437,000 Alaskans. In Missouri, we found some truly amazing things--three, four, even five different voter registrations by the same individual, some two or more times in the same jurisdiction; at one point the city of St. Louis, 240,000 registered voters but only 200,000 people of voting age. That is a heck of a trick. We found out when, fortunately, a very aggressive media went out and checked on it. We found vacant lots with people registered. We found 10, 15, 20 people registered from one location. In a subsequent election, a very popular alderman from the city of St. Louis re-registered to vote on the 10th anniversary of his death. That is a wonderful statement of theological implications, but it does not do much for political science. Of course, many on this Senate floor were tired of seeing the picture of my favorite St. Louis voter, Ritzy Mekler, the 13-year-old cocker spaniel who was registered. We have to stop that. The way we do it is to make all of the provisions of this bill effective for the very important 2004 elections. I thank Senators Dodd and McConnell. I urge my colleagues to support the Dodd amendment.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I rise today in support of the conference report to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation, and I look forward to the day when partial-birth abortion is banned once and for all. Medical experts agree, partial-birth abortion is not good medicine. The Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth, PHACT, a group of over 500 doctors, mostly specialists in OB/GYN, maternal and fetal medicine, and pediatrics, have stated that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a woman's health or her fertility. In fact, the exact opposite is true; the procedure can pose a significant threat to both the pregnant woman's health and her fertility. Today we move one step closer to putting an end to this brutal procedure. One of life's greatest gifts is our children, and we cannot allow them to be victims of this heinous and cruel procedure. I have cosponsored this legislation in the past three Congresses, and I am a cosponsor of the bill before us today. I am pleased to rise once again in support of protecting human life. I hope that Congress will deliver this bill to the President, who is eager to sign this bill into law.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of this amendment on behalf of my colleague, Senator Mikulski, and a number of other colleagues. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Specter be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. BOND. This amendment provides $1.3 billion in emergency funding for VA medical care to address the medical care needs of returning service members from Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe the $1.3 billion in emergency funding meets the criteria under section 502 of the budget resolution. This is consistent with the final figures approved in the budget adopted. This meets the figures included in the original budget. Unfortunately, the Office of Management and Budget sent us a budget that achieved these goals by increasing fees on veterans, and neither body has shown any enthusiasm for that. Under section 502, an expenditure may be designated an emergency if it meets five criteria: One, necessary, essential, or vital; two, sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up over time; three, an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring immediate action; four, unforeseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated; and five, not permanent, temporary in nature. It is clear that this amendment meets the five criteria due to the compelling, vital, and essential needs of veterans who seek medical care services from the VA. As I trust all of our colleagues know, the VA cannot currently keep up with the demand of the current veteran population. Tens of thousands of veterans have been told to wait at least 6 months. Even more distressing is the fact that many of them have to wait up to 2 years to see a doctor. That is unacceptable. If the VA cannot help those who are in the system, how will they help the veterans returning from Afghanistan and Iraq? In the legislation before us today, we provided the funds that I think are vitally needed to the Department of Defense to fight these wars and reconstruction funds to ensure that the peace is secure and we bring our troops home. I strongly support these funds, but I believe we must ensure that when our troops do return home, the Government will be there to treat their medical care needs. If we are willing to provide emergency funding to fight wars, we must be willing to provide emergency funding to meet the medical care needs to treat injuries and wounds suffered from the war. In other words, we would have to ensure there is a continuum of care for our service members from basic training to deployment to discharge. Let me illustrate the urgent and pressing needs for these emergency funds. According to a recent VA analysis, 15,813 service members who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom have separated from military duty as of September 22, 2003. Among these service members, almost 2,000, or 12.4 percent, had sought VA health care during 2003. I point out that these numbers do not include those military men and women who are returning from Afghanistan and other parts of the world fighting the war on terrorism. Every day in the news we hear the unfortunate and sad news of American soldiers killed in Iraq, but as illustrated by the VA's analysis and scores of news reports, there are thousands of service members who were fortunate to live but who were wounded in combat. As reported in the October 1, 2003, edition of the USA Today: ``At least seven times as many men and women have been wounded in battle'' as those killed in battle. As these wounded service members are discharged from the military and confront new and challenging hardships in piecing together a new life, most of them will depend on the VA to meet their needs. According to the VA, some of our returning servicemen and women are currently being served through VA/DoD sharing agreements and others, such as Pvt Jessica Lynch, are being discharged and turning to VA for specialized services, services that only the VA can provide not found in the private sector. This level of demand for VA services has not been foreseen or anticipated. Further, we know that the overall demand for VA medical care is not going to lessen. We have already seen the VA medical care system being overwhelmed by the staggering increase in demand for its medical services. Since 1996, the VA has seen a 54 percent in growth or 2 million patients in total users of the medical care system. Further, the VA projects that its enrollments to grow by another 2 million patients from a current level of 7 million to 9 million in 2009. Again, I urge my colleagues to support these emergency funds. In a time of war with thousands of injured troops returning from battle, it is clearly an emergency to include these funds. It is our moral responsibility to ensure that we provide adequate resources to the VA to meet the vital medical needs of our veterans. If these emergency funds are not included in this bill, the VA will have enormous difficulties in treating veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan due to the current backlog of veterans waiting for medical care. Without these funds, those waiting veterans will wait longer for medical care and the VA will be forced to deny medical care to another 585,000 veterans. I cannot accept these outcomes. This is medical care they have earned through risk of life and all too often at the cost of their limbs and their long-term health. I ask my colleagues to think about our service members who have already returned from service, about our service members who are currently serving, and about those who want to serve. If we do not provide these funds, what kind of message does this send to those currently fighting overseas and those who will be sent overseas? I hope my colleagues agree with me that we want to tell these men and women that we will not turn our backs on them and that we will keep our promises to them. I urge your support on the Bond-Mikulski amendment.

Mr. BOND. We would like to have a vote on that amendment. This is an extremely important amendment providing veterans health care. It will be vitally important. I would like to have a recorded vote.

Mr. BOND. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I was off the floor, and I am not sure whether the chairman asked for a vote on the Bond-Mikulski amendment.