Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the vital interest of our national security is critical to our understanding of the degree to which we can cope with the circumstances involving the intelligence failure we have now experienced over this past year or more. Two important voices have been added to the growing chorus, raising questions about the accuracy and the veracity of the allegations the administration used to take this country to war. Just yesterday Secretary Powell made clear the importance of the prewar claims, suggesting that the case for war was much weaker without the allegations of existing stockpiles of weapons. When asked whether he would have recommended an invasion last year if he knew then what he knows now, Secretary Powell said: I don't know, because it was the stockpile that presented the final little piece that made it more of a real and present danger and threat to the region and to the world. A year ago this week, Secretary Powell made a lengthy presentation to the United Nations Security Council about the grave threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The Secretary of State did not speak of ``weapons of mass destruction-related program activities,'' but of existing stockpiles--existing stockpiles of horrendous weapons and the means to deliver them. In large measure because of the alarming assertions by Secretary Powell and similar claims by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, National Security Adviser Rice, and many other senior administration officials, a majority of Congress voted to give the President the authority to send troops to wage war against Iraq. Late last month, Secretary Powell had something decidedly different to say. For the first time since his U.N. presentation he explicitly acknowledged the strong possibility his claims about Iraq's weapons were untrue, telling reporters on his trip to Georgia: . . . what the open question is: how many stocks [the Iraqis] had, if any? And if they had any, where did they go? And if they didn't have any, then why wasn't that known beforehand? A few days later, Dr. David Kay, Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq until a couple of weeks ago, told the Armed Services Committee here in the Senate the administration's prewar intelligence on Iraq was, in his words, ``all wrong.'' While several nonpartisan experts have reached similar conclusions about our intelligence and raised concerns about the accuracy of the administration statements on this issue, hearing Secretary Powell and Dr. Kay, two of this Nation's most respected and knowledgeable officials, speak in this manner, has raised some questions at home and abroad about the foundation of the administration's case for going to war against Iraq. Given the significance of these questions, a broad, thorough, nonpartisan review of both the intelligence community's assessment of the threats posed by Iraq and the administration's use of this information is essential to restoring the trust of the American public and the international community in this administration and in the intelligence system itself. The reason is clear. The most effective means to counterterrorism and the many other national security challenges facing this Nation today is by gaining and maintaining the support of the American people and assembling a international coalition. Accurate, unimpeachable intelligence is one of the most crucial tools the President has at his disposal for rallying the American people and the world. If the President is to successfully convince Americans of the need to send daughters and sons into harm's way and urge our allies to support America's course of action, our intelligence must be seen as absolutely credible and accurate. National security experts of both parties have begun to warn that the lack of any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after the administration's grave predictions in the runup to the war is undermining America's credibility, not only on Iraq but on other national security challenges as well. For example, the United States increasingly believes that North Korea has used the last couple of years to create additional nuclear material and weapons. However, officials in South Korea and China have raised questions about these conclusions, in part by pointing to our intelligence community's failures in Iraq. This failure to reach a consensus on the threat posed by North Korea has greatly complicated efforts to effectively confront a nation that already possesses nuclear weapons and has been characterized as the world's greatest weapons proliferator. Given these stakes, one would think the President would be the first to demand a full and complete accounting of the accuracy and use of Iraq prewar intelligence. Yet up until this past weekend, the President has stubbornly insisted there was nothing wrong with that intelligence or the alarming assertions that he and senior administration officials made in the days leading up to the start of the war in Iraq. In a remarkable about-face this past week, administration officials said publicly that the President will support the establishment of an independent commission, provided he appoints the commissioners and defines the scope of their work. As in other instances, the administration is apparently seeking to both convince the America public it supports a thorough investigation at the same time it stacks the deck against such an investigation effort ever occurring. Although one of the major questions that needs to be addressed is whether senior administration officials exaggerated the nature of the threat to Iraq, the President is attempting to make the case that actions by these officials are best investigated by a commission whose members are appointed by and report to those very officials in the White House. There is little reason to believe a commission appointed and controlled by the White House will have the independence and credibility necessary to investigate and bring closure to these crucial issues. Consider this: At the same time the Secretary of State was suggesting that it was an open question whether Iraq had any weapons of mass destruction and the chief weapons inspector in Iraq was concluding that Iraq did not have any stockpiles of weapons before the war, Vice President Cheney was on national radio still suggesting that it was just a matter of time until such weapons could be found. If the President's senior advisers are still arguing that the prewar intelligence was right, can the American people be certain that commissioners handpicked by the White House to undertake an investigation defined by the White House will follow the facts wherever they lead? It would be a shame to have such an important commission start its work under the shadow of such doubt. We can avoid ever having to ask those questions by forming a truly independent commission that can rise above those concerns. I strongly believe the Congress can and should establish a truly independent commission to examine the collection, analysis, dissemination, and use by policymakers of intelligence on Iraq. Twice the Senate has voted to establish just such a commission that would be given access to all relevant information, appointed on a bipartisan basis by the congressional leadership of the House and Senate. I voted for this proposal both times. Although supporters of this commission fell short both times, I continue to believe that after putting our troops in harm's way we owe it to them to get to the bottom of this question. We owe them a truly independent investigation, conducted in the same way that our Armed Forces carry out their duties every day in Iraq, with honor and with integrity. I fear the process being started by the administration is neither, but it is not too late to establish a commission of which we can all be proud. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the question, as well as the predicate offered by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. The answer is yes, I am troubled by one fact that is now undeniable. That fact is, we were given bad information, information that now is much clearer than it was 6 months or 12 months ago, information that many of our colleagues have used repeatedly on which to base decisions fundamental to their interpretation of circumstances and ultimately the vote they cast on the resolution committing this country to a course of action. I was troubled by a report I read just this morning that there are many in the intelligence community who are becoming increasingly angered and frustrated that all of this responsibility has been put on their shoulders. The report by one intelligence officer was: ``We did our job. We reported the information. It isn't us.'' My question is, If it is not the intelligence community, who is responsible? Why did we get bad information? Was it the collection and analysis or was it the use of that information once it was collected and analyzed? We do not know the answer to that today. But we do know our best opportunity for collecting the answers to the questions posed by the Senator from Massachusetts is an independent counsel. What does it say of the independence of those potential commissioners when someone is suggesting to them, we want you to take this job to investigate us; we want you to have the authority to investigate us, with the implication that the detrimental consequences of an adverse investigation could weigh heavily on the commission itself. I don't think there is any doubt about the need for independence, about the need to look at past precedent when we have established commissions of this kind. We need to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this commission will have the opportunity to go wherever the facts lead them. The way the President and this administration are proposing this investigation be done flies in the face of past precedent, with that cloud that hangs over any investigation that could not be as open, honest, and ultimately successful as it needs to be. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished majority leader for his statement on the importance of the legislation that will soon be pending. He and I have had a number of discussions about the legislation and the need to proceed. I applaud him for his leadership in making sure the Senate has an opportunity to complete its work on this bill at the earliest possible time. He has very persuasively articulated why this legislation is important not only for the State of Tennessee but for the country. I will have a lot more to say about the bill in the coming days. But I hope that in spite of the differences there may be with regard to allocation, priorities, and policy, we can find a way to work together on this bill and complete our work perhaps as early as a week from this coming Friday. I think it is doable. I have pledged to the distinguished majority leader that we are going to do all we can to complete our work in that timeframe. That will take cooperation and it will take efficient use of the next 2 weeks. I think it is doable. I am very hopeful that by working together we can recognize this is one of the most important opportunities not only for our investment in infrastructure, but for the creation of good jobs and what it can mean in the longer term for the economy. This is a good moment for all people involved. I just hope we seize the moment and do all we can to successfully complete our work.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I congratulate a South Dakota native, Adam Vinatieri, on yet another Super Bowl-winning field goal. These are the kinds of heroics South Dakotans and New England Patriot fans have come to expect from Adam. Growing up in Rapid City, Adam lettered in football, soccer, track, and wrestling for the Central High School Cobblers. He was a 4-year letterman as a place-kicker at my alma mater, the South Dakota State University Jackrabbits. He actually set the school record for points scored. In the last 30 years, only twice has the Super Bowl been won by a last-second field goal. On both of these occasions, the kicker was Adam Vinatieri. Once again--and certainly not for the last time--he has brought pride to his State and joy to Patriot fans everywhere. I congratulate him. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, a recent article in the January 26, 2004 edition of TIME Magazine entitled ``A Trust Betrayed'' has again reminded the Nation of the shameful and illegal manner in which the United States treats Native Americans. A pending class action lawsuit alleges that the United States owes over $100 billion to some 500,000 Native Americans. For over 100 years, the Department of Interior has served as the trustee for the proceeds from the leasing of oil, gas, land and mineral rights on Indian land, yet the Department cannot tell us how much is owed or to whom it is owed. This money is desperately needed to address basic human needs and stimulate economic development. There are important legal issues at stake. The concepts of sovereignty, treaty rights, and government-to-government relations all come into play. Indian trust reform is also a civil rights issue. We are becoming a much more diverse country. How can Hispanic Americans, or African Americans, or anyone else, trust the United States if we are still breaking our legal obligations to our first Americans? I commend this article to the attention of my colleagues, and once again urge the Department of Interior to provide the accounting required to all Native Americans. I ask unanimous consent to print the article in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Democratic and Republican commissioners on the blue ribbon commission investigating the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks reached an important and bipartisan decision. They decided they needed more time--more time to get access to the documents and people that can help us understand what happened on that fateful day; more time to analyze this information so they can help us identify which corrective measures are needed to reduce the prospects for future 9/11s; in short, more time to do what they are required to do by law. I come to the floor today to talk briefly about my views on this commission and its work, and to explain why I have joined with Senators McCain and Lieberman to offer legislation to give the commission the time needed to complete its task and provide the families of the victims of 9/11 and all Americans with a complete and thorough report. The importance of this commission's work cannot be overstated. This independent commission represents the last and perhaps best hope for our Nation to understand how 19 individuals were able to execute the most deadly terrorist attack on American soil in this Nation's long history. How did these terrorists get into this country? What is the source of funding they used to carry out these activities? How did the hijackers get themselves, and apparently knives and mace, past airport security? How were they able to hijack four aircraft and drive them to such a deadly end? Why could our intelligence community and policymakers not do more to prevent these heinous acts? What can the Government and individual citizens do in the future to prevent similar attacks? These are but some of the difficult questions the commission has to address. Given the importance of their task, one would think that all parties--Democratic and Republican, Congress and the White House--would quickly agree to provide the commission whatever it needs. Unfortunately, in the days immediately after the commissioners made their request, it became evident some parties may not believe the commission should be provided the time it needs to do what is required by law. Quoting from the New York Times on January 28: The White House and Republican congressional leaders have said they see no need to extend the congressionally mandated deadline . . . and a spokesperson for Speaker J. Dennis Hastert said . . . Mr. Hastert would oppose any legislation to grant the extension. As unsettling as this position is, in hindsight, it should not be surprising to those who have followed the history of this commission. In the months immediately after the tragic events of September 11, 2001, President Bush and Vice President Cheney personally appealed to me and to other Members of Congress not to establish a bipartisan blue ribbon commission. Vice President Cheney suggested to me that creating such an effort could detract from administration officials' efforts to get the terrorists responsible. Fortunately, neither the families of the victims of 9/11 nor the American people accepted this argument. They understood, and properly in my view, that an independent investigation would enhance our efforts on the war on terror. Far from endangering national security, an inquiry could actually help us pinpoint and correct flaws in our security and intelligence communities and identify the necessary corrective measures. Despite the fact that the idea of a commission enjoyed the overwhelming support of the families of the victims and of the American people, the administration, and the House Republican leadership persisted in their efforts to see that this idea never took flight--in some instances, at the same time they were publicly professing their support for the commission. For example, on the same day the White House spokesperson indicated President Bush supported the idea of a commission, his negotiators were on Capitol Hill vetoing a congressional agreement to establish one. In October of 2002, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees announced they had reached a deal to include language to establish the commission in the intelligence authorization bill. The next day, the deal collapsed and negotiators involved laid the blame at the doorstep of the White House and the House Republican leadership. According to the Washington Post, a senior Republican Senator said: The House Republican leadership weighed in against [the deal] and the deal collapsed. . . . It is no secret that the White House works through the House Republican leadership. Again, the families of the victims and supporters of the commission were not deterred. In fact, this commission would not exist were it not for the dedicated efforts of the families of the victims. They pressed on, and in November of 2002, they prevailed. Congress passed the legislation creating the commission and the President signed it into law. The commission was given until May of 2004 to do its work. We all knew at the time that this deadline was both arbitrary and highly ambitious, given the scope of the work involved. Subsequent actions would make meeting this deadline impossible. The commission was immediately embroiled in controversy over the selection and subsequent resignation of Henry Kissinger, who the President selected to chair its work. But the obstacles placed in front of this commission were just the beginning. In light of the sensitive nature of much of the information the commission would be examining, getting the commission high-level security clearances was the first priority. However, for a variety of reasons, a process that could have taken weeks stretched into months, thereby preventing the commissioners from examining numerous important documents. Then came open resistance from the Bush administration to commission requests for access to documents and individuals the commissioners deemed vital to their inquiry. The commission quickly became bogged down in negotiations over which documents and individuals it would have access to and under what terms and conditions. Many agencies flat out refused to provide access. Others insisted the administration minders be present when the commission questioned Government employees. The commission was forced to resort to subpoenas to obtain information from several Federal agencies, and press reports is actively considering issuing others. As recently as this past week, it was reported that the administration is still placing roadblocks in front of the commission's vital work. Over the weekend, it was disclosed that the White House is refusing to allow the commission access to notes its own members have taken on briefings received by the President. As a result of the administration's repeated failure to cooperate fully and immediately with the commission and its important work, it has become increasingly clear that it cannot fulfill the immense task placed before it and comply with the deadline imposed on it. In order to meet this deadline, commissioners tell us they would have to cut corners. Scheduled hearings would have to be canceled. Interviews with key officials would have to be scrapped. Time to analyze their information and write their report would be short. All of these reasons led the commission, wisely in my view, to request additional time. All of these reasons led me to join the families of the victims, as well as Senators McCain and Lieberman, to conclude we must do everything possible to meet their requests. I hope those who have opposed the commission and its work in the past will step aside. I hope they will allow us to provide the commission with the time it needs to give the families and America the report it deserves.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I hope we can complete our work on the pension bill today. We have been on it now for, I think, 6 days. We have been getting good cooperation on both sides of the aisle. I don't see any reason why before we conclude our work this afternoon we cannot finish this bill. I appreciate very much the report of the assistant majority leader this morning.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, over the weekend, east of Fallujah, Iraq, a roadside bomb exploded, taking the life of SSG Kenneth Hendrickson, a member of the National Guard 957th Multi-Role Bridge Company. SSG Hendrickson is from Bismarck, ND, where he lived with his wife and son and near his mother Adeline. His father, Lyle Hendrickson, is now a Pendleton County commissioner in South Dakota. Staff Sergeant Hendrickson was only 4 weeks away from returning home. Shortly before the attack that would take his life, his parents were told not to send anymore letters or care packages because he would be heading home before any other mail could reach him in Iraq. Staff Sergeant Hendrickson served his country with courage. Every American owes him and the entire Hendrickson family a debt of thanks for his service, as well as his sacrifice. His death reminds us that nearly 150,000 of our sons and daughters still face danger in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, and children still wait anxiously for their loved ones' safe return. It reminds us, too, that more than 500 American soldiers have been lost since the Iraqi war began and about 3,000 have been wounded. The families of South Dakota have borne a particularly heavy toll during this war. South Dakota has a higher proportion of its citizens serving the Guard in Iraq than any other State in the country right now. There is nothing we can do to fully repay the men and women for their service. But in thanks for their commitment to our protection, we must commit ourselves to their protection as well. Our first responsibility is to give them every tool and technological advantage available to help them do their jobs and return home safely. Regrettably, we have received numerous reports that the Defense Department is not doing all it can with regard to protecting our troops. From the very first deployments, we were told members of the South Dakota Guard and Army Reserve were not equipped with the most effective body armor that should be standard issue. Soldiers from other States have suffered similar supply shortcomings. We attempted to address this issue in the supplemental appropriations and the regular 2004 Defense appropriations bill with an extra $420 million specifically to ensure that every soldier facing fire had the best body armor money can buy. The DOD promised us the problem would be solved by the beginning of December. As it became clear they would miss this deadline, we were then told it would be solved this January. However, today, 10 months after the start of the conflict in Iraq, we continue to hear reports that Guard and Reserve personnel, as well as others, lack top-of-the- line body armor and other vital equipment. In a few days, another 800 South Dakota Guard soldiers will be sent to Iraq to begin a year-long deployment. They have volunteered to face danger on our behalf. We owe them and the families they leave behind every effort to protect them from harm. Our obligation to stand by Guard members and Reservists cannot and should not end once they return home. Increasingly, Guard members are facing the same bullets as full-time soldiers. We owe them the same commitment to their health and well- being. That means giving them access to the same health care that full- time soldiers currently enjoy. Recent studies indicate now one-fifth of National Guard and Reserve members lack health care when they come home. Last year, thanks in part to a bipartisan coalition of Senators, we established a 1-year program to provide a significant number of our Reservists and their families access to TRICARE, the military health care system, when they are not on duty. Today, that same bipartisan coalition will introduce legislation to make that coverage permanent. Our bill would improve the readiness of our force and enhance the ability of the military to recruit and retain a new generation of soldiers. This legislation is important because these troops are performing a greater share of the fighting than at any other time in decades. By May, 40 percent of the more than 100,000 U.S. troops in Iraq will be Guard members or Reservists. Yet as we depend more heavily on their service, we are receiving troubling signs of discontent and instability. A recent internal survey showed the rate of those Reservists who decide not to reenlist could double in just a few years. Just last week, LTG James R. Helmly, head of the Army Reserves, said: This is the first extended-duration war our Nation has fought with an all-volunteer force. We must be sensitive to that, and we must apply proactive, preventive measures to prevent a recruiting-retention crisis. Unless this recruiting/retention crisis is addressed, those losses could severely undermine unit readiness and erode America's national security. Over the weekend, America lost another hero in Iraq with the death of SGT Kenneth Hendrickson. His death serves to remind us of the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform and what they do for their country. Their commitment to us is beyond question. It is time we demonstrated real commitment to them and their families as well. Our Guard and Reserve members have not failed us. We must not fail them. We must support our troops, not really with words but with action.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield for a question. Judicial Nominations

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada, the distinguish assistant Democratic leader, is right. That record exceeds the record of any predecessor in this period of time. Obviously, the Bush administration has 1 year left before the end of its term. So there is little doubt that they will probably continue to set records with regard to the confirmation of judges. I might add, this is a time when the Democrats were, at least for a period of time, actually in the majority. They have had good cooperation. The four who have not been confirmed have not been confirmed for good reason. Again, we will address the issue of greater numbers and more cooperation this afternoon, as the Senator suggests, with the confirmation of yet another judge.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct. That would be a pretty remarkable record if this were the sports world, the business world, or the academic world. I was just reminded that 100 of the 170 who were confirmed were confirmed under a Democratic-controlled Senate. So I think we can look back with great satisfaction. I know there are some who argue we have not been tough enough, we have not been aggressive enough. But I think, as we have said on many occasions, where we agree with the President, we will support him. Where we disagree, we have no recourse but to continue to raise these reservations and objections, especially with regard to lifetime appointments to the Federal bench. I thank the Senator from Nevada for raising the issue. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the announcements of the majority leader and will work with him to see if we can't finish the pension bill, if not today, certainly by tomorrow. I think we have had a good debate. There are a lot of good issues that have been addressed. It is an important bill. Even though it is a temporary measure, I think it goes a long way to addressing some of the concerns.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wish to address an issue that I think deserves even greater attention in the Senate. It has been 6 months now since a senior White House official publicly disclosed one of this Nation's most protected and valuable national security secrets: the identity of an intelligence operative. This act of political retribution not only placed at risk the life of an intelligence operative, it put at risk the security of every American. In the war on terrorism, the importance of intelligence agents to our national security simply cannot be overstated. Human intelligence is our best weapon against terrorists. By revealing the name of this operative, the senior White House official or officials responsible acted in an unprecedented manner to break a fundamental bond of trust that protects both the mission and the lives of intelligence officers. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld summarized the stakes involved when he said: Leaks put people's lives at risk. And I think that the people in any branch of Government have the obligation to manage their mouths in a way that does not put people's lives at risk. Folks that leak and put people's lives at risk ought to be in jail. Former President George H.W. Bush put it even more succinctly: I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the names of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors. While Republicans, including President Bush and members of his Cabinet, have been quick to condemn the act of leaking sensitive information, it took the Justice Department nearly 3 months after this leak to announce it was launching an investigation. Several more months ensued before Attorney General Ashcroft, in response to criticism about a potential conflict of interest, removed himself from heading up the investigation and turned it over to another Justice Department attorney. Not surprisingly then, given these twists and turns, the identity of the leaker remains unknown to this day. Last week, unsatisfied with its apparent lack of progress, a group of former intelligence officers asked Congress to open an immediate inquiry into the disclosure of Valerie Plame's name to the media. They said: The disclosure of Ms. Plame's name was an unprecedented and shameful event in American history, and, in our professional judgment, has damaged U.S. national security, specifically the effectiveness of U.S. intelligence gathering using human sources. These former intelligence officers took this extraordinary step because they feared that the Justice Department investigation underway may not uncover those responsible or may attempt to explain away the incident as little more than an unfortunate event that does not rise to the level of criminal behavior. No American--Democrat or Republican--can afford to allow this affair to be swept under the rug. The cloud of uncertainty hangs over our intelligence community. Intelligence agents report growing fear that the community is increasingly viewed as a political tool rather than as an instrument of independent and objective discovery and analysis. Too many agents and analysts are beginning to wonder what will happen to them if they come forward with facts or analyses that contradict official policies of the administration. In addition to affecting their work, we should all be concerned about the chilling effect this could have on the willingness of foreign nationals to cooperate with our agents if they, too, come to fear their identities could come to be disclosed. These fears are justified. Leaking the names of covert agents or other intelligence assets represents a direct assault on our intelligence community and our ability to work with foreign agencies and assets. The nature of intelligence officers' work prevents them from ever receiving from the American people the recognition or thanks they deserve. In fact, despite the incredible risks they assume on our behalf, they do not ask for recognition or thanks. All they ask is that we keep faith with them and offer them the protection they need to do their jobs. Someone in the White House betrayed that trust, and we owe it to every intelligence officer--indeed, to every American--to uncover the truth about this leak and punish those responsible to the fullest extent. In order to shed more light, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, several colleagues, and myself have requested that the GAO investigate whether or not the White House complied with the administrative requirements to safeguard classified information in the case of CIA operative Valerie Plame. This investigation is fundamentally different from the Justice Department investigation currently underway. That investigation will assess whether any criminal statutes have been violated. We have asked the GAO to assess a separate, yet equally important, question of whether the White House followed appropriate internal administrative procedures protecting Ms. Plame's identity and responding to the leak once it occurred. In order to safeguard the lives of our intelligence agents and the integrity of our intelligence process, we have an obligation to discover the truth about this affair and hold those responsible accountable. Yesterday at this time I discussed the growing consensus that Iraq did not, in fact, have weapons of mass destruction prior to the start of the war, as we had been told. I said then and I will say today, every Member of this body has a responsibility to review matters such as these and see that this Senate lives up to its obligations. We simply cannot afford to ignore what happened, why it happened, and our own responsibility to ensure that it does not happen again.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, it is my understanding that there will be no rollcall votes until Tuesday afternoon. Is that the decision made by the assistant leader?

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the assistant Republican leader for his clarification with regard to that schedule.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I wanted to say a couple of words today with regard to an article that appeared on the front page of the New York Times entitled ``Ex-Inspector Says C.I.A. Missed Iraqi Arms Chaos.'' I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. The article begins with a paragraph that reads: American intelligence agencies failed to detect that Iraq's unconventional weapons programs were in a state of disarray in recent years under the increasingly erratic leadership of Saddam Hussein, the C.I.A.'s former chief weapons inspector said in an interview late Saturday. Mr. Kay, the head of our government's effort to determine precisely which weapons Saddam possessed prior to the start of the war, offered the view on whether Saddam actually had weapons of mass destruction. His quote: I don't think they exist. The fact that we found so far the weapons do not exist--we've got to deal with that difference and understand why. I also think it is important for us to understand why. On Saturday, Secretary of State Colin Powell held out the possibility that prewar Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction. That is quite an admission, given the Secretary's presentation to the United Nations, given his assertions publicly and privately to us and many others as the case for war in Iraq was made last spring. These views are consistent with a report issued earlier this month by the nonpartisan Carnegie Endowment. The report by the Carnegie Endowment concluded that the assertion that the fundamental justification for the war with Iraq, namely that Iraq possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, was not real. Carnegie also concluded: Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and ballistic missile programs. Given the conclusion by the Carnegie Endowment, we can only get to the bottom of this issue by thoroughly examining the performance of both the intelligence community and senior administration officials. This has been quite a remarkable turnaround from the debate we had 4 or 5 months ago. During that debate, many of us proposed an independent commission to look at these issues. At that point, there was a debate about whether or not we had all the facts and whether or not the Intelligence Committee in the Senate was prepared to ascertain what the facts were. But consider now the revelations that have occurred just in the last few days, much less the last several months. You have the Secretary of State reversing his public position with regard to weapons of mass destruction. You have the chief weapons investigator working for this Government publicly declaring that weapons do not exist and questioning whether they did exist at any time in recent years. You have the Carnegie Endowment, one of the most respected nonpartisan organizations that also reviewed the matter, coming to to a similar conclusion. The question comes now: What do we do about it? We can ignore it. We can hope it will just go away. Or we can investigate it, research it, try to learn from it to ensure that mistakes of this consequence won't happen again in the future. Unfortunately, it appears neither the administration nor the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee share this view. According to Dr. Kay, he is stepping down in large part because the administration has reduced his team of analysts, translators, and interrogators working on the search for Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. I cannot overstate the significance of these claims. They contributed directly to the decision to go to war last spring. As many of us have said on several occasions, this obviously wasn't the only motivation, but it was clearly a major part of this decision for many of us. Since we made that fateful decision, over 500 Americans have been killed, over 2,000 have been wounded, and over 100,000 are still deployed in harm's way. In addition, published reports indicate the lack of evidence has badly damaged America's credibility around the world. So given all of this, I cannot understand why we would not want to get to the bottom of this issue as quickly as possible. We should be dedicating more resources to getting these answers not less. I am troubled too by the position of the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. This committee has the obligation and the authority to examine both the intelligence community and the administration's role in the intelligence failures leading up to the war with Iraq. Yet throughout all of the last session of Congress, the chairman steadfastly refused to permit the committee to meet its responsibilities. We are at the start of a new session of Congress now, with the advantage of a lot more information than we had weeks or months ago. In the wake of the statements by Secretary Powell and Dr. Kay, and the conclusions of the nonpartisan Carnegie Endowment, I urge the chairman of the Intelligence Committee to reconsider his position and that of the majority. We will work within the Intelligence Committee to urge the chairman to live up to those obligations. If he continues to fail to do so, we will again bring legislation to the Senate floor to establish a nonpartisan, independent commission to look at how intelligence was used by the intelligence community and this administration. Our troops in Iraq and the American people deserve a full and comprehensive review of all aspects of their Government's actions prior to the start of the Iraqi war. I hope all members of the Intelligence Committee, and indeed the entire Senate, will work with us to give them just that. Madam President, we will continue to come to the floor to review these matters and to express in the most determined way that it is the responsibility of this Senate to live up to its obligations--the Intelligence Committee, the other committees of jurisdiction, and the broad membership--especially when we become aware of revelations and conclusions drawn by experts in the field. We simply cannot afford to ignore what happened, why it happened, and how we can prevent it from happening again. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, over the last couple of days, the distinguished Presiding Officer lost her mother. I know I speak for all of us in the Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike, expressing our heartfelt sympathy. Our thoughts and prayers are with you and your family.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I also join the majority leader in expressing our heartfelt gratitude to this page class for their contribution over these past many months. This has been a challenging time for the Senate, for a lot of reasons. They have served us very well. As the majority leader noted, it is always difficult for a young person to combine the roles of student and page each and every week, getting up early, working, as they do, as students first and then as pages in carrying out their many responsibilities on the Senate floor. I know I speak for all Senators in expressing our gratitude to them. They have heard the noise of democracy firsthand at full volume. They have been spectators, as well as participants. I hope that what they have witnessed and experienced will lead them to come back in other roles in public service in the future, whether it is at a staff level, an elected level, or an appointed level. Their involvement and their opportunities for future roles in government and public service could not be greater or more appreciated. We welcome them back as we bid them farewell. We hope their ambitious character and the lives they have already experienced will encourage them to look for more opportunities to serve their country.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the majority leader talked briefly about the schedule. I spoke yesterday on the pension bill, and I am very hopeful we can complete our work on the pension bill at an early date. I think it is a bill that merits broad bipartisan support and, judging from the cosponsors, prominent Members on both sides of the aisle who have worked to get us to this point, I have every expectation that we will see completion of our work on the pension bill sometime early next week. We have--it is an overused word but certainly a word applicable here--a crisis with regard to pensions and retirement security, both in multiemployer plans as well as single-employer plans. That crisis will not be satisfactorily or successfully confronted until we take several steps. This is only meant to be an interim step, but it is an important step. It is a temporary step that will allow us some stability and confidence that we can address this issue more effectively in the months and years ahead. Secondly, with regard to schedule, it is important for us to recognize the narrow window of opportunity we have to deal with the highway bill. We have already lost valuable time. We should have done this bill last year. Not only have we lost 90,000 jobs as a result of our failure to pass the bill last fall, we have also threatened the contract season this year by our inability to move this legislation more expeditiously. For all intents and purposes, the contract cycle has already started in the South. It is important that we send the message that we intend to finish this bill as early as possible. It is a jobs bill, an infrastructure bill. I cannot think of a greater economic stimulus. We are told by experts that we could create 800,000 new, good-paying jobs if we can move this legislation forward. So it is my hope we will take this legislation up well before the President's Day recess in order to complete our work before that recess and send a signal to the country that we understand the importance of this legislation. Finally, I call attention to a front-page story in the Wall Street Journal this morning. The headline of the story reads, ``Halliburton Tells the Pentagon Workers Took Iraq-Deal Kickbacks.'' The first couple of paragraphs begin: Halliburton Co. has told the Pentagon that two employees took kickbacks valued at up to $6 million in return for awarding a Kuwaiti-based company with lucrative work supplying U.S. troops in Iraq. The disclosure is the first firm indication of corruption involving U.S.-funded projects in Iraq and raises new questions about Halliburton's dealings there. The company's work already is being scrutinized because of accusations that the U.S. government was overcharged for gasoline under another controversial contract. It says a little later down, referring to that second charge now under investigation: . . . the top Defense Department auditor asked the office to investigate whether Halliburton subsidy Kellogg Brown & Root overcharged for fuel deliveries by more than $61 million. These charges in this new report are terribly disturbing. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. As I said, it is very disturbing because there have already been serious concerns raised about the lack of scrutiny, auditing, and transparency with regard to the billions of dollars that are now being committed in Iraq. The Defense Contract Audit Agency has now been charged not only with taking responsibility for an audit, but they have also begun consideration of a criminal investigation. Clearly, if there is a possibility of a kickback, a criminal investigation is certainly warranted. I am troubled by the lack of any expressed concern in the Congress. There has been virtually no oversight in either the House or the Senate. When matters of this magnitude and concerns of this level are addressed on the front pages of some of the most prominent newspapers in the country, I cannot think of a more important wakeup call for us. One of our primary roles as Members of Congress, of course, is oversight, to make sure that the money we authorize and appropriate is not only spent well but is spent as the American people would expect it. I do not think we have any choice but to investigate this matter ourselves, to ask the appropriate committees, perhaps Government Affairs, Armed Services, Foreign Relations, to look into these issues, to ask the tough questions, and to have a somber appreciation ourselves of what is going on, why is it that we are reading for the first time reports of kickbacks when we have taken so little effort to understand the magnitude of the problem, the depth and scope of the issues that these allegations represent. I think it is also important for us to call for a halt in all further contracts with Halliburton until these issues are clarified. For the life of me, I cannot understand why we would reward corporations or organizations of any kind that face such serious allegations of fraud and corruption, that are under investigation for perhaps overpricing the American taxpayer by $61 million, at least with regard to the gasoline sold. Why we would award one more contract until these matters have been resolved? So I hope that on a bipartisan basis the Congress will live up to its responsibility, first, through oversight and, second, with a recognition that awarding contracts under circumstances such as these makes no sense whatsoever. We will have more to say as we learn more, of course. These are very disturbing revelations. They merit more careful consideration. We need to learn more and understand what circumstances allowed the kickbacks in the first place. Lack of transparency above and beyond anything else will generate stories and situations like this over and over again. Many of us have called for a complete public accounting of these funds, but here we are--no transparency, no public accounting, no oversight on the part of Congress, and the possibility of perhaps more contracts with Halliburton in the future. This is not the way to run a government, especially if we are hopeful of improving the confidence on the part of the American people that we understand the gravity of these issues and want very much to build their confidence that we are doing all we can in our efforts in Iraq to rebuild democracy, to provide for the assistance required. We have said on many occasions how troubling it is that we are the only real financial source for the economic, military, and public assistance provided to Iraq. When the American people hear that much of that money may now be under a cloud, it is all the more imperative that we act to remove that cloud, to provide the confidence, the transparency, the oversight, and certainly the corrective actions required. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I welcome our guest Chaplain today. I know he is no longer in the Senate Chamber. I appreciate very much Chaplain Keiran's prayer this morning. I am grateful to him and to those who arrange for our guest Chaplains to join us on occasion. It is a wonderful way to begin our session, and I appreciate very much his words of wisdom today.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. The assistant Democratic leader is correct. That is a succinct summary of what we did. We voted to ensure there be country- of-origin labeling, like 43 other countries have in the world today, knowing we will not be able to export our product to Japan unless it is labeled. We did that. When we found out the administration actually wanted to eliminate overtime, we said we are going to prohibit that. As the distinguished assistant Democratic leader's question suggests, the administration--over the objections, I would say, of the Presiding Officer and others on both sides of the aisle from the Senate--insisted that be part of the appropriations process and this omnibus bill. There is a third issue, and that is media concentration. Many of us are deeply concerned about concentration of media ownership, and for good reason. We have seen far too many examples already of what pressure is brought to bear at the local and even at the national level as a result of the power of ownership in media today. I must say, it gets worse and worse with each passing year. What we said is there ought to be a threshold on ownership of no more than 35 percent. That was a position taken on a rollcall vote here in the Senate. Incredibly, it was a position taken on a rollcall vote in the House of Representatives. Yet what does this omnibus bill do? This bill overrides both the vote taken in the House and the vote taken in the Senate. It is not representative whatsoever of the positions of either body, but it is in this bill. How did it happen? Where was the rollcall vote in the conference to overturn this incredible decision? It happened in the dead of night. It happened because of an ultimatum. It happened because of pressure from the White House and people who did not hold those views in the House who lost the first time. I worry about this precedent from the point of view of the institution. What does it mean in a democracy when 100 Senators vote, take a position, and when 435 Members of the House vote and take a position, and a cabal in the dark of night with no rollcall vote can overrule that position willy-nilly, with absolutely no record, with no fingerprints, and nullify the actions taken by the bodies themselves? What precedent does that set in our democracy today? Where will this take us in the future? How many more of these incredible overturning of position events will occur before all of us rise up in indignation and say what is a democracy if that is the result, that we can actually go to a conference and have a small group of people overturn the majority of Republicans and Democrats on important issues like this? I must say, regardless of philosophy, regardless of politics, regardless of the issue, if you care about this institution, 100 people ought to be on this floor to talk about this today. So I am worried about that and I am worried about the policy itself. But I know why we will probably get cloture today. Nobody here wants to be accused of shutting the Government down. Everybody understands the commitment that this legislation reflects in its support for veterans and for so many other things that we care deeply about. Senators are put in a very difficult position. I understand that. Do you support veterans or do you support an effort to deal with mad cow? Do you support highways and transportation or do you support an effort to confront this onerous provision eliminating overtime? Do you support housing or do you support an effort to retain the Senate position with regard to media concentration? That is a tough position for anybody to be in, especially people in politics. So we may lose this cloture vote today. I suspect we will. And I understand why. But I must say, first we ought to be concerned. I don't care whether you are in the majority or minority, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, we ought to be concerned when some small group of people, in the dark of night, overturn legitimate public rollcall decisions made by this body. We ought to be concerned about that because I think it is an erosion of democracy in our Republic that is deplorable, deplorable. How many more times is it going to happen? How does it render the Senate, this so-called deliberative body, when we can deliberate, make tough decisions here on the Senate floor, only to be overturned? What does it say? With regard to the issues themselves I will say this: I said a couple of days ago this is the beginning. It was not our desire to shut the Government down, to block this bill ultimately. We wanted to give our Republican colleagues a chance to fix it. They have chosen not to fix any of these issues. But we will be back. We must be back. We will continue to offer amendments on whatever vehicle is presented to us. We are now preparing Congressional Review Act resolutions. The legislative veto is available to us on some of these matters and we will use it. So we will be back again and again. These issues will not go away. We will continue to fight and we will continue to work, first, because we care about the institution but, second, because we care about these policies. So, Mr. President, it is with great concern--chagrin, that we find ourselves in a position today that I wish had never presented itself to this body. We will have a vote on cloture. We may have a vote on final passage. But it will not be the last vote on these issues. I hope in the interest of this institution we will learn the hard lessons that these specific problems have created for each of us. I yield the floor.