J. Cleland

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. I ask unanimous consent that my press secretary, Patricia Murphy, be admitted to the floor.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to reflect on a 6 year term in the Senate which has been simultaneously the most challenging, yet most rewarding, experience of my life. I have had the chance to realize a lifelong dream by following in the footsteps of one of my personal my heroes, Senator Richard Russell of Georgia. I have been able to represent the state I love in an institution I revere. And I have been able to add my voice to the others that have risen before me in this chamber, from William Fulbright to Harry Truman to John Kennedy to Everett Dirksen to so many other outstanding men and women of history. In my Senate office, I have surrounded myself with small reminders of the men I most admire. I sit at Richard Russell's desk. On my walls, I have photographs of just two people. President Franklin Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Theirs were no ordinary times, and we can safely say now, neither are ours. After the Pentagon was attacked on September 11th, I looked at FDR's picture and finally understood the gravity of his day of infamy, because this generation now had one of its own. I have used Churchill's and Roosevelt's examples of strength and courage to make it through every day in this town. Some days have been better than others, but every one has been a gift because this has been the life of my dreams. When I came to the Senate, I came to do the best job I could for the people of Georgia and the people of the United States, particularly our men and women in uniform. I am proud of what we've accomplished since then. Today, over 60% of our service members are married, and their benefits have finally begun to reflect that fact in order to retain those talented professionals. We knew that the decision to stay in the military is made at the dinner table, not the conference table, so we've increased pay for service members by nearly 20% since I came to the Senate. We've modernized the G.I. bill so that service members can transfer their benefits to start a college fund for their children. We set a schedule to eliminate out of pocket housing expenses and we even added a measure to help families take their pets with them when serving in Hawaii. Keeping the family dog may not be the highest priority for some lawmakers, but it's the whole world to a child moving around the globe as their mother or father serves our country. The family matters to the military member, so the family has mattered to me in my time here. Beyond these individual personnel matters, I became deeply concerned about the shrinking numbers of our U.S. military, and this year was able to raise the ceiling of our force strength. In our new war on what Sam Nunn calls ``catastrophic terrorism,'' we must continue to go on the strategic offensive. Our military may be winning the battle, but we will lose the war if we continue to ignore the fact that our forces are critically over-deployed and being asked to do too much with too little. We are out of balance. Our commitments are far outpacing our troop levels, and the situation is only getting worse. Since the end of Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the armed forces have downsized by more than half a million personnel, but our commitments have increased by nearly 300%, including new deployments to Afghanistan, Yemen, the Philippines, Georgia, and Pakistan. Today, a Desert Storm-size deployment to Iraq would require 86% of the Army's deployable end strength, including all stateside deployable personnel, all overseas-deployed personnel, and most forward-stationed personnel. To make the war on terrorism possible, we have activated more than 80,000 guard and reserve troops and instituted stop-loss for certain specialties. This is no way to fight a war when our strategic national interests are at stake. The President has rightly told the country to be prepared for a long commitment. But the Pentagon has not requested an increase in end strength for services other than the Marines. Our military is on a collision course with reality of families they don't see, training they aren't receiving and divisions borrowing from each other to meet the bare minimum in staffing. We can prevent a loss tomorrow, but we have to act today by increasing our numbers, and I hope that we will. Just as we must go on the strategic offensive overseas, we have to be on the strategic defensive here at home. The Senate has just passed the bill to create a new Department of Homeland Security, which was long overdue. For my own part, I am pleased to see passage of several measures I have worked on that I believe will significantly improve our sense of security here at home. The homeland security bill itself contains provisions to coordinate law enforcement and public health emergencies and to move the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center into the new department. The Port Security bill will help the ports of Brunswick and Savannah cut off options for terrorists who want to attack the U.S. on our own shores. The Bus Security bill will ensure that bus passengers are finally accorded some of the same security measures that the flying public receives. I look ahead now, and see our nation facing perilous challenges. Iraq and Saddam Hussein are back on our radar screen. We are right to insist on disarmament, and I leave the Senate confident that my vote to give the President the authority to use force to that end was the right one. I also believe my vote to go after Osama bin Laden was the right one, but we have miles to go before we sleep on that front. As all of these issues continue, I hope that the Senate and the country will continue to vigorously debate the proper course for our nation's foreign policy. A policy unchallenged is a policy unproven. Why would we wait to prove our theories to ourselves and our allies until our troops are in the field proving our policies for us? When he was in Vietnam, Colin Powell swore to his men, as I swore to mine, that when we were the generals instead of the captains, when we were the senators instead of the sergeants, we would not send our boys into a fight willy-nilly. And we haven't. And we shouldn't. In retrospect it seems to me that the real failure of Congress in Vietnam was not so much passage of the open-ended Gulf of Tonkin resolution, but its subsequent failure to exercise its Constitutional responsibilities after the resolution passed. Likewise, Congress' vote on the Iraq resolution provided a tangible, militarily achievable objective, but it did not discharge the Congress of all future responsibility with respect to our policy on Iraq. After the 1990-91 Gulf War, Powell put forth six questions which he believed must be addressed before future military interventions: Is the political objective important, clearly defined, and well understood? Have all non-violent means been tried and failed? Will military force achieve the objective? What will be the cost? Have the gains and risks been thoroughly analyzed? After the intervention, how will the situation likely evolve and what will the consequences be? The first three questions have been addressed thus far, but when we turn to the final three of General Powell's questions, we see the need for some serious and sustained attention not only by the Administration, but by the Congress as well. What will be the cost, not only the cost of the immediate military operation, but also the costs of what could be a very long-term occupation and nation-building phase? What about the cost for our economy? The mere threat of war has sent oil prices upward and caused shudders on Wall Street. What will a full blown war do? Have the gains and risks been thoroughly analyzed? And after the intervention, how will the situation likely evolve and what will the consequences be? Powell has said that the purpose of the American military is to prevent war. But if war cannot be prevented, we should go in, win and win quickly. I am grateful to have Colin Powell's voice in this debate today. And I am hopeful we will have his and others like his in the debates of tomorrow. I hope the members of the 108th Congress will ask these questions and these are the ones I will be asking from whatever vantage point I move to after January 2. In his farewell speech to Congress, General Douglas McArthur said that old soldiers never die, they just fade away. This old soldier is not going to fade away, but I will take my battles to another front. The people of Georgia have given me a chance to live the life of my dreams here in the Senate, but now I may have the chance to live a life that exceeds my dreams, and I am grateful for that. As much as Richard Russell achieved for Georgia and for America, he said his greatest regret in his life was that he never married. I am happy to say that this old soldier has learned a thing or two from Russell, and I will be married to my fiancee, Miss Nancy Ross, after I retire. There is life after the Senate, and it will be a wonderful life. FDR said that the purpose of politics is to generate hope, but for me, the purpose of life is to generate hope. I will continue to try to live up to FDR's example every day. Before I leave, I want to thank several people. Senator Robert Byrd, for teaching me so much about this institution. Senators Reid and Daschle for your constant help and support, as well as Senator Zell Miller. Senators John McCain, John Kerry and Chuck Hagel, who reminded me that nothing is stronger than brotherhood, and some things are more important than politics. I thank my staff for letting me lean on them, and I thank the entire Senate family, from our Chaplain Lloyd Ogilvie to the reporters who cover the Senate, from the wonderful elevator operators to the staff in the Senate dining room and the barber shop and everyone in between--you've been my friends and my family and I will always remember your kindness. Finally, to my colleagues and the people of Georgia, a song from one of my favorite old westerns comes to mind. Happy trails to you, 'til we meet again. God bless you. (Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. I ask unanimous consent that my press secretary, Patricia Murphy, be admitted to the floor.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to reflect on a 6 year term in the Senate which has been simultaneously the most challenging, yet most rewarding, experience of my life. I have had the chance to realize a lifelong dream by following in the footsteps of one of my personal my heroes, Senator Richard Russell of Georgia. I have been able to represent the state I love in an institution I revere. And I have been able to add my voice to the others that have risen before me in this chamber, from William Fulbright to Harry Truman to John Kennedy to Everett Dirksen to so many other outstanding men and women of history. In my Senate office, I have surrounded myself with small reminders of the men I most admire. I sit at Richard Russell's desk. On my walls, I have photographs of just two people. President Franklin Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Theirs were no ordinary times, and we can safely say now, neither are ours. After the Pentagon was attacked on September 11th, I looked at FDR's picture and finally understood the gravity of his day of infamy, because this generation now had one of its own. I have used Churchill's and Roosevelt's examples of strength and courage to make it through every day in this town. Some days have been better than others, but every one has been a gift because this has been the life of my dreams. When I came to the Senate, I came to do the best job I could for the people of Georgia and the people of the United States, particularly our men and women in uniform. I am proud of what we've accomplished since then. Today, over 60% of our service members are married, and their benefits have finally begun to reflect that fact in order to retain those talented professionals. We knew that the decision to stay in the military is made at the dinner table, not the conference table, so we've increased pay for service members by nearly 20% since I came to the Senate. We've modernized the G.I. bill so that service members can transfer their benefits to start a college fund for their children. We set a schedule to eliminate out of pocket housing expenses and we even added a measure to help families take their pets with them when serving in Hawaii. Keeping the family dog may not be the highest priority for some lawmakers, but it's the whole world to a child moving around the globe as their mother or father serves our country. The family matters to the military member, so the family has mattered to me in my time here. Beyond these individual personnel matters, I became deeply concerned about the shrinking numbers of our U.S. military, and this year was able to raise the ceiling of our force strength. In our new war on what Sam Nunn calls ``catastrophic terrorism,'' we must continue to go on the strategic offensive. Our military may be winning the battle, but we will lose the war if we continue to ignore the fact that our forces are critically over-deployed and being asked to do too much with too little. We are out of balance. Our commitments are far outpacing our troop levels, and the situation is only getting worse. Since the end of Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the armed forces have downsized by more than half a million personnel, but our commitments have increased by nearly 300%, including new deployments to Afghanistan, Yemen, the Philippines, Georgia, and Pakistan. Today, a Desert Storm-size deployment to Iraq would require 86% of the Army's deployable end strength, including all stateside deployable personnel, all overseas-deployed personnel, and most forward-stationed personnel. To make the war on terrorism possible, we have activated more than 80,000 guard and reserve troops and instituted stop-loss for certain specialties. This is no way to fight a war when our strategic national interests are at stake. The President has rightly told the country to be prepared for a long commitment. But the Pentagon has not requested an increase in end strength for services other than the Marines. Our military is on a collision course with reality of families they don't see, training they aren't receiving and divisions borrowing from each other to meet the bare minimum in staffing. We can prevent a loss tomorrow, but we have to act today by increasing our numbers, and I hope that we will. Just as we must go on the strategic offensive overseas, we have to be on the strategic defensive here at home. The Senate has just passed the bill to create a new Department of Homeland Security, which was long overdue. For my own part, I am pleased to see passage of several measures I have worked on that I believe will significantly improve our sense of security here at home. The homeland security bill itself contains provisions to coordinate law enforcement and public health emergencies and to move the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center into the new department. The Port Security bill will help the ports of Brunswick and Savannah cut off options for terrorists who want to attack the U.S. on our own shores. The Bus Security bill will ensure that bus passengers are finally accorded some of the same security measures that the flying public receives. I look ahead now, and see our nation facing perilous challenges. Iraq and Saddam Hussein are back on our radar screen. We are right to insist on disarmament, and I leave the Senate confident that my vote to give the President the authority to use force to that end was the right one. I also believe my vote to go after Osama bin Laden was the right one, but we have miles to go before we sleep on that front. As all of these issues continue, I hope that the Senate and the country will continue to vigorously debate the proper course for our nation's foreign policy. A policy unchallenged is a policy unproven. Why would we wait to prove our theories to ourselves and our allies until our troops are in the field proving our policies for us? When he was in Vietnam, Colin Powell swore to his men, as I swore to mine, that when we were the generals instead of the captains, when we were the senators instead of the sergeants, we would not send our boys into a fight willy-nilly. And we haven't. And we shouldn't. In retrospect it seems to me that the real failure of Congress in Vietnam was not so much passage of the open-ended Gulf of Tonkin resolution, but its subsequent failure to exercise its Constitutional responsibilities after the resolution passed. Likewise, Congress' vote on the Iraq resolution provided a tangible, militarily achievable objective, but it did not discharge the Congress of all future responsibility with respect to our policy on Iraq. After the 1990-91 Gulf War, Powell put forth six questions which he believed must be addressed before future military interventions: Is the political objective important, clearly defined, and well understood? Have all non-violent means been tried and failed? Will military force achieve the objective? What will be the cost? Have the gains and risks been thoroughly analyzed? After the intervention, how will the situation likely evolve and what will the consequences be? The first three questions have been addressed thus far, but when we turn to the final three of General Powell's questions, we see the need for some serious and sustained attention not only by the Administration, but by the Congress as well. What will be the cost, not only the cost of the immediate military operation, but also the costs of what could be a very long-term occupation and nation-building phase? What about the cost for our economy? The mere threat of war has sent oil prices upward and caused shudders on Wall Street. What will a full blown war do? Have the gains and risks been thoroughly analyzed? And after the intervention, how will the situation likely evolve and what will the consequences be? Powell has said that the purpose of the American military is to prevent war. But if war cannot be prevented, we should go in, win and win quickly. I am grateful to have Colin Powell's voice in this debate today. And I am hopeful we will have his and others like his in the debates of tomorrow. I hope the members of the 108th Congress will ask these questions and these are the ones I will be asking from whatever vantage point I move to after January 2. In his farewell speech to Congress, General Douglas McArthur said that old soldiers never die, they just fade away. This old soldier is not going to fade away, but I will take my battles to another front. The people of Georgia have given me a chance to live the life of my dreams here in the Senate, but now I may have the chance to live a life that exceeds my dreams, and I am grateful for that. As much as Richard Russell achieved for Georgia and for America, he said his greatest regret in his life was that he never married. I am happy to say that this old soldier has learned a thing or two from Russell, and I will be married to my fiancee, Miss Nancy Ross, after I retire. There is life after the Senate, and it will be a wonderful life. FDR said that the purpose of politics is to generate hope, but for me, the purpose of life is to generate hope. I will continue to try to live up to FDR's example every day. Before I leave, I want to thank several people. Senator Robert Byrd, for teaching me so much about this institution. Senators Reid and Daschle for your constant help and support, as well as Senator Zell Miller. Senators John McCain, John Kerry and Chuck Hagel, who reminded me that nothing is stronger than brotherhood, and some things are more important than politics. I thank my staff for letting me lean on them, and I thank the entire Senate family, from our Chaplain Lloyd Ogilvie to the reporters who cover the Senate, from the wonderful elevator operators to the staff in the Senate dining room and the barber shop and everyone in between--you've been my friends and my family and I will always remember your kindness. Finally, to my colleagues and the people of Georgia, a song from one of my favorite old westerns comes to mind. Happy trails to you, 'til we meet again. God bless you. (Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. The Senator is right in his sense of being absolutely dumbfounded by this. I am absolutely perplexed. I would certainly hope the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, would not veto a defense authorization bill worth $394 billion, that this body passed, on a spurious issue that it costs money to pay those who fight our wars. It sure does, especially those who get wounded in our wars. It sure does. If we can find the money for war, certainly we can find the money to take care of those who fight our wars. It is just as simple as that to me. So I thank the Senator from Delaware for his question.

Mr. CLELAND. I do.

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I find it the height of irony in the midst of our discussion on potential war with Iraq and potential use of force and committing young Americans into harm's way--and I indicated my support yesterday for the bipartisan resolution that would authorize the use of force to go after weapons of mass destruction in Iraq--I find it ironic in the midst of this debate about whether to commit American forces to a national objective somewhere in the world, that in the Washington Post yesterday an article was entitled ``New Pension Benefits Imperil Defense Bill. In Cost-Conscious Move, Bush Vows to Veto Entire Budget if Item Isn't Eliminated.'' The message in the article is disturbing to me because the item referred to is something called concurrent receipt. I might say currently under law there is an untenable situation where, if someone has served 20 years in the American military and additionally gets wounded in that service, they cannot draw their retirement which they have earned and their disability compensation which they are entitled to, concurrently. They cannot do that. So I find it ironic in the midst of the time when the President is calling upon us to authorize the use of force somewhere in the world, he is opposing the use of concurrent receipt or the ability of our troops, our servicemen and women who have served 20 years or more and get wounded in that effort, to draw those entitlements concurrently. He opposes that and has threatened to veto the almost $400 billion defense authorization bill because of that one item. That is unconscionable. This article says the President has threatened to veto the defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2003 in order to block the Defense Department from paying veterans and military retirees the very compensation they have earned. I am puzzled. I am flabbergasted by the President's position and the veto threat. He goes on television one night and threatens war to accomplish our national objectives, and the next moment says he is going to veto the entire defense authorization bill which would help pay for that very war because he doesn't agree with the Senate's position here, where we stand foursquare behind those who have gone in the military, served more than 20 years, and gotten wounded. I can't understand it. Surely, with all the benefits and quality-of- life provisions we have in our laws supporting our military families, and authorizing weapons systems, and passing, as we passed in this body, a defense authorization bill of $393.4 billion--that the President has threatened to veto this package over a question that ought to be a nonstarter, a no-brainer, is very alarming. The fact is, if somebody serves in the American military 20 years or more and gets wounded in that service, what they are actually entitled to is not authorized. I challenge anyone who opposes the repeal of the concurrent receipt: Just what are we talking about here? What is the cost to our military personnel who put their lives on the line? And what is the cost to our Nation when nobody else wants to do that because we are not giving them their just due? We have to address this issue and protect our military retirees and veterans. To ignore it is actually the height of hypocrisy, and dishonors the very men and women who serve in uniform. How can we as a Nation, in good conscience, in a matter of hours, ask our military men and women to put their lives on the line in the future if they know this country will not take care of them? That is idiotic. The defense authorization bill is in conference between the House and the Senate. It is my hope we can find the right compromise that will make sure we take care of our veterans and retirees. I urge that the House and Senate adopt legislation that will address this issue, and I ask the President and the Secretary of Defense rethink their position and stand up for our veterans and military retirees who are unfairly affected by the current law. We need to change it. This body stood foursquare behind them. As a matter of fact, one of my combat veterans in this great body here, fellow Vietnam veteran Senator John Kerry from Massachusetts, he and I and others are sending a letter to the President of the United States, urging him to recant that position on threatening to veto the very defense authorization bill we will need to go to the very war he is trying to crank up. I see this as the height of irony. At one moment we are threatening to put our young Americans into harm's way. At the other moment the President said he is going to veto the entire defense authorization bill because of one item. What is that one item we are paying at the request of this great body? Those who serve 20 years or more and get wounded, they get their just due. I appreciate my colleague, Senator Reid from Nevada, for pushing this issue and bringing it to national attention as the chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee in the Armed Services Committee. We feel very strongly in our committee and in the Armed Services Committee of this body on this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. CLELAND. I yield.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, we as Members of the Senate, are now being asked by the Commander in Chief to make the most serious decision we can make: the decision to authorize him potentially to send our young American men and women in the American military into harm's way. When I was a young man in the mid-1960s, the U.S. Congress authorized the use of force against North Vietnam, and I volunteered to fight in that war. Three times since I came to the Senate--on Iraq in 1998, on Kosovo in 1999, and then last year on al-Qaida and international terrorism--I have been asked by the Commander in Chief to authorize the use of military force to achieve our Nation's objectives, and all three times I voted to authorize the use of force. This is now the fourth occasion I have been asked to give my consent to such action, and each time I have thought back to the words of one who occupied the same seat in the Senate I now have the privilege to hold, Dick Russell. Senator Russell said: While it is a sound policy to have limited objectives, we should not expose our men to unnecessary hazards to life and limb in pursuing them. As for me, my fellow Americans, I shall never knowingly support a policy of sending even a single American boy overseas to risk his life in combat unless the entire civilian population and wealth of our country--all that we have and all that we are--is to bear a commensurate responsibility in giving him the fullest support and protection of which we are capable. That was a marvelous quote by Senator Russell in the 1960s. While we need to update Senator Russell's statement to encompass the young women who now also put themselves into harm's way when we go to war, I think it stands the test of time very well and speaks to us all now as we contemplate our second declaration of war in the last 12 months. I believe its counsel of limited ends but sufficient means is sage advice now, as it was when first uttered under the shadow of the Vietnam war. The leading military analyst of the Vietnam War, the late Col. Harry Summers, wrote in his excellent book, ``On Strategy: The Vietnam War in Context'': The first principle of war is the principle of The Objective. It is the first principle because all else flows from it . . . How to determine military objectives that will achieve or assist in achieving the political objectives of the United States is the primary task of the military strategist, thus the relationship between military and political objectives is critical. Prior to any future commitment of U.S. military forces our military leaders must insist that the civilian leadership provide tangible, obtainable political goals. The political objective cannot merely be a platitude but must be stated in concrete terms. While such objectives may very well change during the course of the war, it is essential that we begin with an understanding of where we intend to go. As Clausewitz said, we should not ``take the first step without considering the last.'' In other words, we (and perhaps, more important, the American people) need to have a definition of ``victory.'' Colonel Summers continues: There is an inherent contradiction between the military and its civilian leaders on this issue. For both domestic and international political purposes the civilian leaders want maximum flexibility and maneuverability and are hesitant to fix on firm objectives. The military on the other hand need just such a firm objective as early as possible in order to plan and conduct military operations. Since we are indeed being asked to authorize the commitment of U.S. military forces, it is our responsibility--I would say it is our obligation--as the civilian leadership to provide our Armed Forces with ``tangible, obtainable political goals.'' In other words, we have to define now, before the fighting starts, what the objective is. It is crystal clear to me what the appropriate, achievable, internationally supported and sanctioned objective is at the present time and in the present case: not simply the admission of weapons inspectors but the verified destruction of Saddam Hussein's store of weapons of mass destruction. This is the matter which makes the Iraqi regime a danger requiring international attention beyond that which is afforded to the all too numerous other regimes which oppress their own people, or threaten regional peace, or fail to fulfill their international obligations. It is the objective which President Bush has been increasingly centered on in his calls for action by the UN. For example, in his September 26 meeting with congressional leaders, the President put it very well. He said: We are engaged in a deliberate and civil and thorough discussion. We are moving toward a strong resolution . . . And by passing this resolution we'll send a clear message to the world and to the Iraqi regime: the demands of the U.N. Security Council must be followed. The Iraqi dictator must be disarmed. These requirements will be met, or they will be enforced. And this objective, the disarming of Saddam Hussein, is the objective which this Senate, this Congress is prepared to overwhelmingly endorse as we close ranks behind the President. Adoption of the force resolution authorization will satisfy our obligations to make it clear to the international community that America stands united in its determination to rid the world of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. And it will fulfill our responsibility to our military and our service men and women to provide a tangible, militarily obtainable objective. But it will not discharge this Congress of all responsibility with respect to our policy on Iraq. In retrospect, it seems to me that the real failure of Congress in the Vietnam war was not so much passage of the open-ended Gulf of Tonkin resolution by near unanimous margins in both Houses--based as it was on what we now regard as very dubious information supplied by the executive branch and what those Senators and Representatives had to take at face value--but its subsequent failure for too many years to exercise its constitutional responsibilities as that authorization lead to a cost and level of commitment that few, if any, foresaw at the time. I would note that Senator Russell actually got the following language added to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution itself: This resolution shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by action of the United Nations, or otherwise, except that it may be terminated earlier by concurrent resolution of the Congress. Our duty, and the duty of this Congress and its successors, to our Nation's security and to our service men and women with respect to Iraq will not end merely with the passage of the pending resolution. We have a constitutional and moral responsibility to continue to review the evolving situation and to ask the hard questions. I did so on each of the three previous occasions when I have supported an authorization of the use of military force. I asked those questions on Iraq in 1998, on Kosovo in 1999, and then last year on al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden and the international terrorism war. And I will do so again with respect to Iraq. After the 1990-1991 gulf war and after the final end of the cold war, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell, propounded a list of six questions which he believed must be addressed before we commit to a military intervention: Is the political objective important, clearly defined, and well understood? Second, have all nonviolent means been tried and failed? Additionally, will military force actually achieve the objective? What will be the cost? Have the gains and risks been thoroughly analyzed? And finally, after the intervention, how will the situation likely evolve and what will the consequences be? I have already discussed the first question, the mission, and to the extent we focus on disarmament, I believe we satisfy Colin Powell's first criterion. The second, as to nonmilitary means, is being asked right now, at the United Nations, at Vienna, and in other world capitals. And while what the President calls a ``decade of deception'' by Iraq must make one very skeptical about the possibility for a satisfactory diplomatic resolution, I believe we should and must give it one final chance before considering the military option. As to the effectiveness of military force, since the President has not made any final decisions, he says, as to what kind of military operation, if any, will be undertaken, it is premature to make a firm determination, but in principle, given the outstanding capabilities of our Armed Forces, and what will hopefully be a well-defined mission, I believe we can answer in the affirmative. So far, so good. But when we turn to the final three of General Powell's questions that he asked years ago, we see the need for some serious and sustained attention not only by the administration but by the Congress as well. What will be the cost? And here we need to factor in not only the cost in terms of the immediate military operation, but also potential costs of what could be a very long-term occupation and nation-building phase. Among the many reasons we need to actively seek to build as large an international coalition as possible behind whatever we eventually undertake in Iraq is to help with the aftermath. I want to single out the leadership of my friends and colleagues from across the aisle, Senators Lugar and Hagel, in calling the country's and the Senate's attention to the importance of this aspect of our Iraq policy. And what about the cost for our economy? The mere threat of war has sent oil prices upward and caused shudders on Wall Street. What will a full blown war do? Have the gains and risks been thoroughly analyzed? And after the intervention, how will the situation likely evolve and what will be the consequences? These two are closely related in that, in my view, the long-term consequences have been the least discussed part of the equation thus far. If, as some believe, the consequence of a U.S. invasion of Iraq will be a united, democratic Iraq which can serve as a ``role model'' for the rest of the Arab world. Maybe, but such an outcome would not only fly in the face of Iraq's entire history since being created out of a British mandate at the end of the First World War but would appear to be contrary to much of what we have seen in the aftermath of other recent U.S. interventions, including most recently in Afghanistan. Perhaps, most importantly, we need to make absolutely certain that whatever we do in Iraq does not distract or detract from the war we authorized 12 months ago, our war on terrorism, which remains, in my view, job No. 1, mission No. 1, objective No. 1, one for our national security policy. So these are the kinds of questions I will be asking, and I hope I will be joined by colleagues from both sides of the aisle in asking, as we move forward. It now appears the Senate may have at least three alternatives to consider as we move forward on authorizing force against Saddam Hussein: the Biden-Lugar-Hagel resolution; a Levin resolution; and the resolution endorsed by the President, the House leadership and a bipartisan group of Senators. I certainly wish to pay tribute to all of the Senators involved in crafting all of these alternatives. Without exception, they are acting out of conscience and conviction in promoting our national security. And I believe most Senators share the views that diplomacy is preferential to force, and that proceeding with the input and support of the international community, including the United Nations, is far better and more effective than going it alone. I will be supporting the resolution backed by the President and opposing the alternatives because I believe it is imperative that we now speak with one voice to Saddam Hussein, to the entire international community and, most importantly, to our servicemen and women. A strong, bipartisan vote for the pending resolution will strengthen the President's hand in his efforts to get the international community to step up to the plate and deal effectively with the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and give the diplomats one last chance to secure Saddam Hussein's final, unconditional surrender of those weapons, as he has pledged since 1991. The objective of our policy against Saddam Hussein should be a regime of unfettered inspections leading to full disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. If diplomacy fails, the military objective must be the complete destruction of such weapons. Regime change may come but, because of the large costs and massive uncertainties this will inevitably produce, this should be the last resort, not the first. We must not repeat the most disturbing display of partisanship with respect to national security to have occurred in the time I have served in the Congress. I am referring to the extremely disturbing spectacle of disunity and irresolution displayed by the House of Representatives on April 28, 1999 when, with American servicemen and women already in combat against Milosevic and Serbia, the House cast a series of votes that: prohibited the deployment of ground forces, which the President had never asked for; defeated an attempt to remove US forces; and most dismaying of all, on a tie vote of 213-213, defeated the Senate-passed resolution authorizing the very air operations and missile strikes which were even then underway. What kind of message was that to send our Armed Forces personnel, or our NATO allies or Milosevic? I implore the Senate to pull together behind the one resolution endorsed by the President, by the bipartisan House leadership and by a bipartisan group of Senators. That resolution affirms the importance of working in concert with other nations, gives preference to a diplomatic over military solution, focuses attention where it should be on disarming Saddam Hussein, seeks to ensure that we not be diverted from fighting the war on terrorism, and provides for the ongoing and Constitutional role of the Congress as events unfold in our policy toward Iraq. I urge a strong and bipartisan vote in favor of the resolution. God Bless our country and the young men and women who serve in uniform. I yield the floor.

Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Senator for those kind words. In terms of the Powell doctrine, I had a chance to listen to it up front and close when I encountered him as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon. We had a long discussion about being fellow Vietnam veterans, about what we learned out of that war, and how he approached the world now as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I can remember two elements to the Powell doctrine. The first is sometimes overlooked. The first should be how to use the American military to stay out of war and, if we do get in it, win quickly. The second part of the Powell doctrine is the doctrine of superior force, what Nimitz called in the Second World War in the Pacific ``superior upon the point of contact.'' I am delighted we have a Secretary of State who understands the power of the first, which is using the American military to stay out of war. I think that is step one for me in the Powell doctrine. Step two is obviously if diplomacy fails, use superior force to accomplish your objective. In many ways, we have been acting since 1991. We have had Iraq under Operation Northern Watch and Southern Watch. We are covering 40 percent of Iraqi territory as we speak, we have a naval blockade, and we have sanctions, so we have not been inactive since 1991. What is the status of his weapons of mass destruction, which is the focus of this entire debate? We really don't know, since the U.N. inspectors were kicked out about 4 years ago, where we stand in that regard. That poses a question and a threat. We know he has biological and chemical weapons, and he is working on a nuclear weapon. So that poses great danger to the Middle East, our allies, Western Europe, and potentially to us. Therefore, I think it is appropriate for the U.S. Senate to support, and the Congress to support, a resolution authorizing the President to take all necessary means, including to use force, to back up the original 1991 U.N. resolution authorizing disarmament of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. For me, that is the political objective and the military objective.

Mr. CLELAND. That is correct. I voted for that resolution in 1998. At one point, the resolution did not authorize the American forces to involve themselves in a regime change. In this resolution we are considering now, we are considering using American forces to not only order Saddam Hussein to comply with the 1991 resolution in terms of disarmament, there is an ``or else'' clause that says the President can use force as well.

Mr. CLELAND. Two points. First, the 1998 resolution, which I supported, the Senator from Virginia supported, and most of us supported, called for regime change but did not authorize the use of American military force. This resolution is different because I believe the situation is different, as the Senator pointed out. The situation is we really don't know the exact status of the biological and chemical capability of Saddam Hussein to wage warfare on his neighbors, our allies, our friends in the Middle East, and on us. Therefore, the 4 years the inspectors have not been there gives us great pause and great concern. Therefore, our first step should be access to those military sites, those weapons of mass destruction sites, and the destruction of those weapons of mass destruction and complete disarmament according to the 1991 resolution. It is worth, in my opinion, authorizing the use of military force to accomplish that objective.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 487, S. 414; that the committee-reported amendments be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read three times and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table without further intervening action or debate.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 544, S. 1739; that the Cleland amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read three times and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table without further intervening action or debate.

Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, I rise today to address two timely issues. It is with a heavy heart over the loss of two passengers on a Greyhound bus last night in California and the injury of several others that I turn the attention of the Senate to bus security. This tragedy occurred when a passenger attacked the driver of the bus. After a heroic struggle upon being stabbed in the neck, the driver lost control of the bus. That is when the bus careened off Interstate 5. The alleged attacker was subsequently arrested by the police. While terrorism is not suspected as the cause of the attack, no one knows what would have happened had the attacker gained control of the bus. Also, this attack occurs almost exactly 1 year after the October 3, 2001, Greyhound attack in Tennessee that left 7 dead. However, we have seen the all-too-often result of buses used to commit terror attacks in the Middle East where suicide bombers have used buses to carry out their deadly work. Historically, between 1920 and 2000, about half of the terrorist acts in the world occurred against buses or bus companies. With intercity buses serving almost 800 million passengers annually in over 4,000 communities, I believe Congress must act to protect our travelers from being subject to the same terror and safety concerns. Last November, I introduced S. 1739 to authorize a 2-year grant program to improve the safety and security of buses. Funding could be used for safety improvements inside the terminals and on buses--for equipment such as metal detectors, database programs for sharing passenger lists, communication technology, cameras, and more. My legislation passed the Commerce Committee earlier this year without opposition, but unfortunately, it has been stalled waiting for floor action. I urge my colleagues to clear this bill for passage by the full Senate today. We owe it to the families of those who have been touched by this tragedy, and we owe it to the millions of passengers embarking on a trip or tour via bus service. Also, the House companion legislation, H.R. 3429, has passed the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and is pending on the House floor. It has strong bipartisan support, including its sponsor Committee Chairmen Don Young. Congress has already expressed its approval for funding of such security measures in the 2002 supplemental appropriations bill by providing $15 million for bus security. My legislation authorizes the program at more adequate levels and provides much-needed congressional commitment for implementation of the program. Intercity bus passengers--our fellow citizens--should feel secure and safe, and Congress should not stand in the way. Additionally, I would like to ask my colleagues to examine the issue of access to technology, which is also important to protecting the security of our people. Over 7 months ago the Commerce committee held a hearing on the so-called digital divide at our colleges and universities that serve the largest concentrations of the Nation's minority students. We heard compelling testimony that a significant technology gap exists for a majority of these students at a time when the world economy is becoming increasingly technology driven. Only one tribal college has funding for a broadband connection, and it is not yet in place. At private historically black colleges and universities, 75 percent of their servers and printers are obsolete or nearly obsolete and in need of replacement. Half of the HBCUs surveyed in a landmark study 2 years ago by the Department of Commerce did not have computers available in the location most accessible to students--their dormitories. Hispanic students are almost 20 percent less likely than non-Hispanic whites to have a home computer and almost 25 percent less likely to use the Internet at home. Curerntly there is no Federal program that provides funds to minority-serving colleges and universities for computer hardware and software acquisition. S. 414, the NTIA Digital Technology Program Act, would provide this critically needed resource for America's under- represented and educationally disadvantaged minorities in higher education. It has been lauded as the most significant tool for addressing the infrastructure and instrumentation needs of the Nation's minority-serving institutions since the reauthorization of title III of the Higher Education Act. It is a bipartisan bill sponsored by 18 Senators from both sides of the aisle. The bill was reported unanimously by the Senate Commerce Committee in May and also enjoys bipartisan cosponsorship and support in the House of Representatives. In the ever-expanding world of the information highway, it should be our mandate to work to ensure that no one in this country is left behind-least of all our leaders of tomorrow.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, today I congratulate United Parcel Service on the occasion of its 95th anniversary, and to ask my distinguished colleagues to join me in recognizing the accomplishments of one of the Nation's most successful companies, a company that employs more than 371,000 men and women worldwide. UPS was founded on August 28, 1907, in a small office under a sidewalk in Seattle, WA, where founder Jim Casey started what has become the largest transportation company in the world. Now headquartered in Atlanta, GA, UPS is considered the world leader in package delivery, and has been recognized for 4 straight years as the ``World's Most Admired Delivery Company'' by Fortune magazine. Customers around the globe rely on UPS to ship nearly 13 million packages a day, creating a volume of 3.4 billion packages annually. UPS.com is one of the busiest websites on the Internet, allowing customers to enhance the customer service and efficiency of their e- commerce. And UPS employees are among the best in the business, a result of working in an environment that enables growth and opportunity. In return, UPSers provide countless hours of volunteerism to organizations such as the United Way. In fact, last year alone, employees donated more than $50 million to the United Way, more than any corporation in the 115-year history of the United Way. The true spirit of UPS is shown in the legacy carried out by its employees over the last 95 years. UPS is an example of what's right in corporate America today, and I am proud to congratulate them on 95 years of exemplary service.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Byrd and Senator Burns, along with their staffs, for the hard work they have put into the Fiscal Year 2003 Interior Appropriations bill. I know that, with the current budgetary constraints, it was not easy task to craft a bill which would fund all of the agencies and programs which fall under this legislation. The FY 2003 Interior Appropriations bill includes close to $.6 billion for the National Park Service. This is an increase of nearly $100 million above the FY 2002 funding level and I know it will go a long way in helping the National Park Service meet their responsibilities to maintain our National Park system. However, the National Park Service currently has an estimated $600 million annual shortfall in operations funding which has significantly contributed to a backlog of unmet needs, threatening the natural, historic, and cultural treasures that the National Park Service was established to protect. The National Park Service is charged with managing 83 million acres of land, 385 sites, habitat for 168 threatened or endangered species, more than 80 million museum objects, 1.5 million archeological sites, an 26,000 historic structures. Park Service employees do a remarkable job of preserving our heritage and welcoming park visitors, nearly 300 million each year, however, it has become clear that if the Park Service is to continue the good work they do, the Congress must provide substantial increase in funding so as to alleviate the maintenance backlog which is contributing to the physical deterioration of our parks and cut-backs in services provided. The Chichamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park, located in Georgia and Tennessee, has more than 1,400 monuments and plaques, most erected during the 1890's and early 1900's to honor those who lost their lives during the Civil War. Many of these historic monuments have been vandalized or otherwise damaged over the years and have not been repaired due to a lack of funding. Another National Park Service site in Georgia, the Ocmulgee National Monument, was established to preserve the cultural remnants of 12,000 years of human habitation in the Southeastern United States. While Ocmulgee boasts the second-largest museum collection in the park system, there is no museum curator on site to monitor the artifacts. Funding limitations have also impaired the Park Service's efforts to teach visitors about the park's cultural resources. Most recently, a week-long program introducing local youth to the park was discontinued, and instead of receiving a guided tour of the park as in the past, visitors are fortunate if there is a ranger available to hand them a brochure upon entering the park. Earlier this year, Senator Thompson and I were joined by 26 of our colleagues in requesting that the Senate Interior Appropriations bill include increased funding for the National Park Service. While the Committee did not increase funding as much as we had hoped for, we are most appreciative for the increase of nearly $100 million. Today, Senator Thompson and I have again worked together to introduce an amendment expressing the Sense of the Senate that the National Park Service is of tremendous importance and value to the American people and that the Congress should significantly increase operational funding and eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog by 2007. I thank Senator Akaka and Senator Graham for their leadership on this issue and appreciate their co-sponsorship of this amendment.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, I want to express my relief that the long standoff with the Russian Government over American poultry exports has finally been resolved. On March 1, 2002, the Russian Government instituted a ban on American poultry imports and cited safety concerns about U.S. processing procedures. Although the U.S. Department of Agriculture responded to those concerns point-by-point, the ban continued until August 23. Russia is the largest market for U.S. chickens, with annual sales of about one million tons valued at $600 million. This trade dispute had cost Georgia poultry producers, the most productive in the country, approximately $100 million a year. After many efforts to resolve this embargo, American poultry producers may resume selling chickens in Russia. I had joined with many of my colleagues on multiple occasions in contacting members of the administration about this unfair trade practice. For example, I cosigned a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Zoellick with 16 other Senators on March 4. Soon after, on March 14, I personally wrote to the President on behalf of Georgia poultry producers. On March 22, I cosigned a letter to the President with nine of my Senate colleagues. On May 9, I personally wrote Trade Representative Zoellick on behalf of Georgia's poultry producers. Again, on May 17, I cosigned a letter to the President with 51 of my Senate colleagues. Finally, on July 2, I cosigned a letter to the President with 30 other Senators about the serious economic damage that the Russian trade block was having on the American economy. I believe that the continued focus by members of Congress, as well as the diligence of the administration, helped bring about the successful resolution of this ban. At a time of economic uncertainty, the poultry producers of my State will certainly appreciate the reopening of this important market.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, William A. Schwartz died today from the disease that he fought so tirelessly to defeat, prostate cancer. Bill was a 35-year veteran executive of the media industry and a staunch leader in the fight against prostate cancer. His endless passion, devotion, drive, and caring for his family, friends, and community, along with his unwavering commitment to save lives from cancer, will always be remembered. After being diagnosed with prostate cancer in 1994, Bill dedicated himself to fighting the disease by promoting awareness and launching lobbying efforts to increase research dollars. He served as vice chairman and volunteer CEO of the National Prostate Cancer coalition, board member of CaP CURE, and president of the Prostate Cancer Research Political Action Committee. His work also included cancer projects for the Department of Defense and the National Dialogue on Cancer. The results of his work will continue to benefit countless men and families for many years to come. Georgia was very fortunate to have Bill, his wife Marlene and their three children reside in Atlanta for the past 23 years. Thank you for letting me take this time to remember our friend, Bill Schwartz and to offer our prayers for the loss of a great American. Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in America among men and nearly 40,000 American men lose their lives to this disease each year. I know the best tribute we can pay to Bill and his family is to continue his work and find the cure for prostate cancer.

Mr. CLELAND

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

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I would like to speak on behalf of the homeland security agency bill. It is with humble appreciation of the gravity of the task now before us that I rise to advocate the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Today, almost a full year since the forces of hatred attacked the American homeland, we are poised to transform the Federal Government into a sharper, more versatile instrument of peace and security for all of our citizens. The people of America and their leaders here in Washington, in both Chambers of the Congress, on both sides of the aisle, and at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, are united on the substance of this issue. All agree we cannot stand idly by as the enemies of freedom plot our destruction. All agree that the homeland security apparatus of the Government is at present ill equipped for its grave task. And all agree that we are called, therefore, to take decisive action to retrofit the Federal Government for the more effective performance of its greatest commission--the protection of its citizens. Thomas Jefferson once said the real goal of government is the protection of life and not its destruction. When Senators Lieberman and Specter introduced legislation establishing a Department of Homeland Security in May, I am proud to say I was one of four Senators to sign on as an original cosponsor. Since that time, we all now know, the administration, followed by every Member of Congress, has joined us in this critical reform effort, so that we find ourselves standing now on the threshold of an historic bipartisan achievement. A few points of difference on the details do remain. I look forward to a full and healthy debate on these over the next few days. But by and large, we are headed in the same direction, toward the same ultimate destination--the protection of our Nation. I have no doubt that we will get there together. As my good friend Congressman John Lewis said after September 11: We may have come to this country aboard different ships, but we are all in the same boat now. How true that is. Under Senator Lieberman's leadership, the Governmental Affairs Committee, upon which I sit, has outlined in its bipartisan homeland security legislation a blueprint for a robust new Department that hews closely in most key respects to that envisioned by the President. The committee's measure would construct the Department around the core missions already identified by the President: Critical infrastructure protection, border and transportation protection, emergency preparedness and response, and science and technology. With few exceptions, the existing agencies transferred to the new Department under the administration's proposal are the same as those transferred by the committee's bill. Often where the committee has diverged from what the administration has done, as in the case of the transfer of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Brunswick, GA, to the new Department, the change has been made in close consultation with, and with the approval of, the administration. In other cases, changes are merely a fleshing out of proposals and concepts previously set forth by the administration. Among the latter are two amendments I offered during markup of this legislation that pertain to the Federal response to terrorism of a biological nature. The administration's proposal laid a strong foundation by recognizing that public health agencies, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the CDC, in Atlanta are absolutely central to an effective response to biological terrorism and by further recognizing that prudence requires that scientists who focus on bioterrorism not be separated from the vast expertise and resources of the rest of the public health sector. My amendments, which the committee adopted during the July markup, are efforts to use the lessons of last fall's anthrax crisis culled from hours of testimony before our Governmental Affairs Committee to build on the solid foundation the President and HHS Secretary Thompson have set. The inadequacy of our bioterrorism preparedness and response capability was exposed in dramatic and painful fashion last fall. In reaction, the Governmental Affairs Committee, under the distinguished leadership of Chairman Lieberman and Senator Thompson, held a series of hearings investigating the roots and potential remedies of that inadequacy. At a hearing convened at my request on April 18 this year, Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson, buttressed by a panel of experts who followed him, testified to the following unmet needs in our Federal counterbioterrorism efforts: First, a reorganization of the CDC's Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Program, much like on a smaller scale what we are now doing with the Federal Government at large. Second, clearer protocols of communication and coordination between public health and law enforcement officials. And third, a greater commitment of resources to the CDC. These recommendations comprise the three-point approach for filling in the gaps in our national bioterrorism defenses that I have been advocating for some months now. I am pleased that two of these largely have been incorporated into the bill we are now considering. With respect to the first, I proposed, and the committee adopted, an amendment to create in the CDC a Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Division. Why a division, Mr. President? Because that division answers directly to the head of the CDC. It is an entity located at the intersection of science and security, of public health and law enforcement, empowered to respond with speed and with a firm grounding in the science of biological warfare to the infectious terror some might seek to unleash upon this great Nation. The CDC's existing Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Program is a relatively new initiative at the agency, having been created only in 1999 with a handful of personnel, little status within the agency, and meager funding. The program remains as a subsidiary of the National Center for Infectious Diseases, a sub-branch of a sub-branch. It should come as little surprise then that the many witnesses who testified before our committee about last fall's crisis depicted a Federal response that was fragmented, confused, and largely inadequate. CDC officials, both within and without the bioterrorism program, responded commendably, but their ability to do so was clearly constrained by, among other factors, an organizational structure that led inadequate focus to the unique aspects of a manmade threat to the public health. The Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Division, as described in this chart, will remedy that. Operating directly out of the Office of the Director of the CDC, the division will lead and coordinate the agency's counterbioterrorism activities. It will train and employ a cadre of public health professionals whose specialized training and focus is on bioterrorism, and it will serve as a nexus, a meeting ground, between the realms of public health and security, including homeland security and law enforcement. There is a real need in the Federal Government for expertise in the intersection of health and security. Terrorists, as a matter of fact, hit the seam. They went right between the two. Officials thinking exclusively along either law enforcement or public health lines, as is too often the case under the current structure, will inevitably overlook key bits of information that are not fully appreciable, except by individuals with expertise in both areas. In the case of bioterrorism--the word itself a fusing of health, bio, and security, terrorism--appreciating such bits of information and drawing critical conclusions based on these are absolutely essential to an effective Federal response. The cadre of bioterrorism specialists developed by the Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Division would be specially trained accordingly. In addition, while the threat posed by bioterrorism bears a strong resemblance to that posed by conventional disease outbreaks, there are real substantive differences between a manmade disease outbreak--a la the anthrax attack through envelopes that were obviously mailed by a human being--and a naturally occurring one--West Nile virus, Ebola virus, and the like. Our health officials are highly trained to cope with the latter, but most lack a sophisticated appreciation of the different considerations that attend a manmade attack. The upshot is when a recognition of these different divergences can make a difference between effective and ineffective emergency response. For example, while epidemiologists knew that contracting inhalation anthrax naturally required exposure to between 5,000 to 10,000 spores, they failed in the early stages of the crisis to consider the ways in which the deliberate weaponization of anthrax, with a substance such as silica, might alter the level of exposure required for lethality. Consequently, two Postal Service workers died. They are not to be criticized. They are scientists, after all, not criminal investigators. However, had bioterrorism specialists with training in both medicine and criminal behavior been on the case last fall, their unique expertise might have led to conclusions that in the hands of decisionmakers might have made a difference in recommendations and courses of action. In academia, there is a growing recognition that the study of bioterrorism, though it shares much with the fields of public health and counterterrorism, is a distinct discipline. To cite just a few leading examples in the world of academia, Mr. President, Johns Hopkins University has established the Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies; St. Louis University's School of Public Health has a Center for the Study of Bioterrorism; and the University of Texas medical branch has established a Center for Biodefense. This bill will create in the Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Division of the CDC a career track for the bioterrorism specialist, a place for graduates of programs such as these to put to use their unique expertise in the service of their country. The chart behind me describes the organization of the counterbioterrorism efforts of the Federal Government with the establishment of the Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Division and a Department of Homeland Security, as under the bill we are considering. The second part of my plan for improving our bioterrorism defenses is contained in an amendment also adopted by the committee in the July markup that mandates that law enforcement, homeland security, and public health personnel keep each other fully and currently informed in the event of a bioterrorist attack. One of the objectives of a Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Division of the CDC is to coordinate, cooperate, and communicate with other elements of the Federal Government that are involved in a biological attack on this country--Department of Homeland Security, law enforcement, Department of Justice, FBI, the Department of Health and Human Services, and State and local public health entities, all of which are in this boat together, Mr. President. It was too frequently the case last fall that the different agencies with a role in the Federal response failed to communicate and coordinate with one another often or adequately enough. The requirement of full disclosure that will help put an end to that is upon us, but a significant part of the same problem relates to confusion in current law. Executive branch documents delineating the roles of law enforcement and public health agencies vis-a-vis one another say one thing while Federal statutes, most notably section 319 of the Public Health Service Act, say another. In an effort to address this inconsistency, this legislation we are considering includes my amendment to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a Federal response plan that accords fully with the statutory authorities granted to the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the Public Health Service Act. By so doing, this bill will mitigate in future crises a good bit of the confusion that prevailed last time. As we debate this legislation, I will offer an additional amendment to provide further clarity with respect to the roles of public health, law enforcement, and homeland security in the event of a bioterrorist attack. This amendment will provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the authority and flexibility he needs to carry out the responsibilities of the public health sector in the Federal response to bioterrorism. Specifically, the amendment provides that no Federal agency may supersede the authority of the public health agencies to respond to a public health emergency in whatever manner is appropriate and necessary. Last fall, public health authorities were at times muzzled, overridden, and generally kept out of the loop by law enforcement agencies. Each was doing its own thing, so to speak. Therein lies the problem. The problem arises because public health and law enforcement agencies both have essential roles to play in the event of an attack of terrorism that is also a threat to the public health. These roles are distinct but sometimes overlap. While both are vital, in the event of a terrorist-caused public health emergency, the unique life-and-death ramifications of such an attack mandate, in my view, that public health experts take the lead role in investigating and treating the attack. The amendment I will offer would give public health officials the authority and flexibility they need to do just that. The third point of my bioterrorism response plan calls for providing the public health agencies that will play the central role in preparing for and responding to bioterrorism with the resources they need to do the job. We have to put our money where our mouth is--in this case, our money where our mission is, and our mission is to defend this Nation. I commend the administration for proposing an unprecedented $4.3 billion for HHS's bioterrorism initiative in the next fiscal year, a 45-percent increase over the current year's funding level. These funds are badly needed. However, within this considerable request there is significant oversight. The administration has proposed actually a reduction in funds for revitalizing and securing the CDC's dilapidated, World War II-era facilities in Atlanta by $186 million in the next fiscal year, a Draconian cut of nearly two-thirds. That does not comport with putting our money where our mission is of defending this Nation. As the chart behind me demonstrates, since fiscal year 2000 when Congress first got on board with the CDC's master plan, the revitalization of its ramshackle facilities, the budget for building facilities and security has steadily increased each year. I have been proud to be part of this increase. This increase accompanied a recognition on the part of Congress, especially the Senate, and made more acute in the aftermath of the anthrax crisis, that if the CDC is able to protect us all against the new, more insidious threats to the public health we now face, the agency must be equipped with adequate modern facilities and its labs must be fortified against potential terrorist designs. The needed funds will not, of course, be appropriated through the legislation we are considering today, but I urge my colleagues to keep in mind, when the Labor-HHS appropriations bill reaches the floor, that the steps we are taking to combat bioterrorism in this legislation will require an adequate commitment of resources if they are to be effective. In summary, the public health-related provisions of the Governmental Affairs Committee bill that were added during the markup of this bill are, in my view, perfectly aligned with the administration's approach and goals. While they are not contained in the administration's original proposal, they are really extensions on concepts contained therein. On a separate but related matter, however, I must respectfully disagree with the approach contained in both the committee's and the administration's proposals. The legislation before us would transfer the strategic national stockpile--that is the vaccines that are strategically placed around America in secret locations known as the strategic national stockpile--from the CDC, where it has been successfully operated since its creation in 1999, to the Department of Homeland Security. I have serious reservations about the proposed transfer. Accordingly, I am continuing to work on a bipartisan basis with the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Chairman Lieberman, the administration, and others, on an attempt to preserve the role of the CDC in the operation of the stockpile. The stockpile is collectively 12 secret stashes of vaccines, medicines, and other medical supplies placed in strategic locations around the country, deliverable in a few short hours to any location in the country should the need for massive quantities of emergency medicines arise. Decisions related to deploying the medicines in the stockpile, what medicines to administer, who should receive medicines, what medicines should be in the stockpile, are essentially medical questions. They should, as such, be made by public medical professionals based on public health considerations. This is the reason, in point of fact, that the stockpile was assigned to the CDC in the first place. The committee's bill would transfer final authority over the stockpile to the new department while leaving some operational responsibility with the CDC. I am afraid we are borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. Leaving aside the problems inherently associated with separating operational responsibility from accountability, this approach, while retaining some stockpile functions with the CDC, would undermine the most important reason to have the CDC involved at all; that is, to bring to bear the necessary expertise in making final decisions regarding the use of the stockpile. If there were a core public health competency in the new department that could supervise the stockpile, then the reasons cited by the proponents of the transfer--primarily a desire to consolidate all emergency response functions in the new department--might be sufficient to justify the move. However, the public health expertise of the Federal Government was, by and large--correctly, in my view--left where it currently resides because of the important synergies, the command, control, cooperation, and communication, that would be lost if certain public health professionals were to be segregated from their colleagues in other public health sectors. There is, consequently, no core public health competency in the new department. There is no assistant secretary for health, as some have proposed. An interest in the effective administration of the stockpile demands then that it remain in the hands of those who do have public health expertise. The CDC has handled the stockpile effectively to date, coordinating smoothly its deployment on September 11 and during the anthrax crisis with FEMA and other emergency responders. We should follow the old dictum that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Whatever the Senate's final decision on this matter, however, let me reiterate I am fully on board with the President and his team on homeland security. We are all in the same boat. We cannot, we will not, stand by idly while those who hate us plot our demise. The fundamental reorganization of our homeland security apparatus is the surest step we can take now to gird ourselves for the threats to come. With sober understanding of the moment of the task now at hand, let us complete this good work. Above the pyramid on the Great Seal of the United States, in reference to the founding of our Nation, it says, in Latin, ``God has favored our undertaking.'' May He grant us now His favor again. I yield the floor.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, 27 years ago the National Medical Association and other prominent organizations endorsed the development of the Medical School at Morehouse College in Atlanta, GA. This came in light of studies that revealed, first, a severe shortage of African-American and other minority physicians in the United States, particularly in Georgia, and, second, that African-Americans suffered disproportionately from major diseases. Since its inception, Morehouse School of Medicine has worked to help solve our Nation's healthcare crisis by graduating top-quality physicians who dedicate themselves to serving the more than 32 million people in this country who live in medically neglected communities. Seventy percent of Morehouse School of Medicine graduates practice in underserved communities. The entering M.D. class has grown from 24 students in 1978 to its current 44. Each year, more than 20,000 Georgians who are disadvantaged are served by approximately 30 community health promotion projects sponsored by Morehouse School of Medicine. These projects include prevention initiatives associated with substance abuse, teen pregnancy, geriatric services, cancer, lead poisoning, and violence prevention. In addition, Morehouse School of Medicine faculty provides about 75,000 patient encounters per year in community clinics throughout metropolitan Atlanta. The student body of Morehouse School of Medicine continues to excel. For the past few years, 100 percent of the school's family medicine residents have passed their board exams in their first sitting. These accomplishments grow out of strong leadership, beginning with the vision of Dr. Hugh M. Gloster of Morehouse College and Morehouse School of Medicine's founding dean and first president, Dr. Louis W. Sullivan, and continuing with Dr. James R. Gavin, the current president. Since its inception in 1975, Morehouse School of Medicine has established a four-year medical education program, a master of public health program, a Ph.D. program in the biomedical sciences, seven residency programs, and several centers of excellence. These centers include the Neuroscience Institute, the Cardiovascular Research Institute, and the NASA/Space Medicine and Life Science Research Center, the first of its kind at a minority medical institution. Today we celebrate the new home of one of those centers of excellence, the National Center for Primary Care. This state-of-the-art facility will house an exceptional team of administrators, educators, and researchers devoted to eliminating health disparities in this country. Georgia should, indeed, be grateful for this new jewel in our crown. Under the guidance of former Surgeon General David Satcher, Director of the National Center for Primary Care, this healthcare think tank is poised to educate and illuminate for decades to come.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, in December 2000, New York Times reporter, John Schwartz, wrote ``When Congress passed a new bill last week requiring virtually every school and library in the nation to install technology to protect minors from adult materials online, it created a business opportunity for companies that sell Internet filtering systems. . . . some of the filtering companies' business plans include tracking students' Web wanderings and selling the data to market research firms.'' While I support the use of filtering technology in schools and libraries that will be visited by our children, this statement alarmed me. A month later, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Department of Defense was buying information about our school children's Internet habits from a filtering company without the knowledge of their parents or the school officials. The Defense Department contracted directly with the filtering company. As one of our most vulnerable populations, I believe it is Congress's duty to act in a manner to ensure families knowledge of the information that is collected about our children and to restrict the collection of personal information on children. The fact that this arrangement could occur without anyone with direct responsibility for the children having knowledge of it is a serious oversight. We need a solution, and to that end, I am introducing the Children's Electronic Access Safety Enhancement, or CEASE Act. This legislation is a commonsense approach to dealing with this problem in order to ensure our children are protected. The first section of the bill requires an Internet filtering government contractor to disclose its treatment of collected information to the school or library with which it is contracting. Additionally, if changes to these policies are made, the filtering company must inform the school or library of these changes. If adequate notice is not provided, the entity has the option to cancel the contract. Armed with such information about the company's practices, the school or library officials can make an informed decision of whether it wishes to contract with a particular company. The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, COPPA, which passed Congress and was signed into law in 1998, prohibits the collection of personal information about children on commercial websites. In the second section of my legislation, a similar COPPA prohibition would extend to Internet content management services at schools and libraries. If personal information is collected on a child, the provider is required to inform the school or library and the Federal Trade Commission and to indicate how it will treat this information so that it will not be disclosed or distributed. When children go to schools and libraries, these environments are supposed to be safe. Parents and guardians should not have to worry about how their children's personal information may be compromised, especially by a company that markets itself to protect children and in some cases facilitate learning. I believe my legislation will help put to rest such concerns. Protecting the privacy of children has been widely supported, as it should be. When Congress was debating COPPA in 1998, the bill received broad support. At a Senate Commerce Committee hearing in September 1998, Arthur Sackler, representing the Direct Marketing Association, DMA stated, ``Although DMA usually supports self-regulation of electronic commerce, we believe it may be appropriate to consider targeted legislation in this area.'' Kathyrn Montgomery from the Center for Media Education stated, ``Children are not little adults. . . . Because many young children do not fully understand the concept of privacy, they can be quite eager and willing to offer up information about themselves and their families when asked. Children also tend to be particularly trusting of computers, and thus more open to interacting with them.'' An April 2002 FTC report on the implementation of COPPA draws the conclusion that Web sites have generally been able to comply with COPPA. That is why I have every hope and expectation that the CEASE Act can also be implemented. Given the fact that we have evidence of some Internet content management companies already sharing information with outside entities, the CEASE Act is timely. If an Internet content management company believes it is a good business plan to share information, even in aggregate, with outside parties, these companies should not be adverse to disclosing this practice with a potential client. And, I believe that a number of communities may not wish to allow these practices at all because they believe that, as Alex Molnar, a professor at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, stated, ``Providing demographic information about students to special interests, even in aggregate form, is a potential violation of the privacy of children and their families.'' Communities with such beliefs should be able to act upon them in the best interest of their children, and my legislation requires the disclosure that will help make this a reality. There is no arguing that the Internet is, and will continue to be, an important part of the learning process. Personally, I support wiring the schools and libraries in this Nation as rapidly as possible because I understand the educational and job opportunities the Internet can bring. However, especially for our children, we need to ensure there are safeguards. Providing more information and empowering local officials to make decisions based on this information are good policies. As the Nation's children prepare to return to school--schools that are more wired now than ever before--I urge my colleagues to support the CEASE bill to protect our children.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, in December 2000, New York Times reporter, John Schwartz, wrote ``When Congress passed a new bill last week requiring virtually every school and library in the nation to install technology to protect minors from adult materials online, it created a business opportunity for companies that sell Internet filtering systems. . . . some of the filtering companies' business plans include tracking students' Web wanderings and selling the data to market research firms.'' While I support the use of filtering technology in schools and libraries that will be visited by our children, this statement alarmed me. A month later, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Department of Defense was buying information about our school children's Internet habits from a filtering company without the knowledge of their parents or the school officials. The Defense Department contracted directly with the filtering company. As one of our most vulnerable populations, I believe it is Congress's duty to act in a manner to ensure families knowledge of the information that is collected about our children and to restrict the collection of personal information on children. The fact that this arrangement could occur without anyone with direct responsibility for the children having knowledge of it is a serious oversight. We need a solution, and to that end, I am introducing the Children's Electronic Access Safety Enhancement, or CEASE Act. This legislation is a commonsense approach to dealing with this problem in order to ensure our children are protected. The first section of the bill requires an Internet filtering government contractor to disclose its treatment of collected information to the school or library with which it is contracting. Additionally, if changes to these policies are made, the filtering company must inform the school or library of these changes. If adequate notice is not provided, the entity has the option to cancel the contract. Armed with such information about the company's practices, the school or library officials can make an informed decision of whether it wishes to contract with a particular company. The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, COPPA, which passed Congress and was signed into law in 1998, prohibits the collection of personal information about children on commercial websites. In the second section of my legislation, a similar COPPA prohibition would extend to Internet content management services at schools and libraries. If personal information is collected on a child, the provider is required to inform the school or library and the Federal Trade Commission and to indicate how it will treat this information so that it will not be disclosed or distributed. When children go to schools and libraries, these environments are supposed to be safe. Parents and guardians should not have to worry about how their children's personal information may be compromised, especially by a company that markets itself to protect children and in some cases facilitate learning. I believe my legislation will help put to rest such concerns. Protecting the privacy of children has been widely supported, as it should be. When Congress was debating COPPA in 1998, the bill received broad support. At a Senate Commerce Committee hearing in September 1998, Arthur Sackler, representing the Direct Marketing Association, DMA stated, ``Although DMA usually supports self-regulation of electronic commerce, we believe it may be appropriate to consider targeted legislation in this area.'' Kathyrn Montgomery from the Center for Media Education stated, ``Children are not little adults. . . . Because many young children do not fully understand the concept of privacy, they can be quite eager and willing to offer up information about themselves and their families when asked. Children also tend to be particularly trusting of computers, and thus more open to interacting with them.'' An April 2002 FTC report on the implementation of COPPA draws the conclusion that Web sites have generally been able to comply with COPPA. That is why I have every hope and expectation that the CEASE Act can also be implemented. Given the fact that we have evidence of some Internet content management companies already sharing information with outside entities, the CEASE Act is timely. If an Internet content management company believes it is a good business plan to share information, even in aggregate, with outside parties, these companies should not be adverse to disclosing this practice with a potential client. And, I believe that a number of communities may not wish to allow these practices at all because they believe that, as Alex Molnar, a professor at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, stated, ``Providing demographic information about students to special interests, even in aggregate form, is a potential violation of the privacy of children and their families.'' Communities with such beliefs should be able to act upon them in the best interest of their children, and my legislation requires the disclosure that will help make this a reality. There is no arguing that the Internet is, and will continue to be, an important part of the learning process. Personally, I support wiring the schools and libraries in this Nation as rapidly as possible because I understand the educational and job opportunities the Internet can bring. However, especially for our children, we need to ensure there are safeguards. Providing more information and empowering local officials to make decisions based on this information are good policies. As the Nation's children prepare to return to school--schools that are more wired now than ever before--I urge my colleagues to support the CEASE bill to protect our children.