John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the deficit reduction bill that we have before us after many hours of people working together, compromising. You could go through the bill and pick out parts that you like and you don't like, so I want to put this in a bigger picture. I want to step back and look at what we are dealing with as a country. Over the next 5 years, we were slated to spend, before this bill, and if this bill does not go into effect, we will spend $13.8 trillion. If we pass this bill, this deficit reduction bill, we will still spend $13.76 trillion. Those numbers are impossible to understand. Impossible. They are too big. Let's try to get our arms around a little bit of a number. I always like to talk about $1 trillion with high school kids so they can understand it. I always ask them: Do you think a million dollars is a lot of money? And of course a lot of us think a million dollars is a lot of money. I ask them: If you spent a million dollars a day, do you think you would be spending a lot of money? And the unanimous answer of high school kids is: Of course that is a lot of money. I tell them that to get to $1 trillion, not $13.76 trillion but just $1 trillion, you would have to start spending a million dollars a day, start at the time Jesus was born, go until today and you still would not be at $1 trillion. What we are trying to do is to shave and slow the rate of growth of spending a tiny bit. It is almost insignificant. But what is significant in the bill is that we are starting to take on entitlement spending. Entitlement spending now is two-thirds of the Federal budget, and it is slated to grow into an ever-increasing share of the Federal budget in the future. We all know that. Republicans, Democrats, it doesn't matter who looks at the numbers, entitlements will gobble up the entire Federal budget. If you study democratic forms of government--and I know Senator Byrd, who has spoken, has done a lot of this--if you study democratic forms of government, they always collapse due to two reasons, and they happen in a particular order. The first thing that happens is there is a moral collapse in the country, and it is always followed by an economic collapse. If you think about it, it makes sense that it happens in that order. You see, if you have people who are not moral enough to think about the next generation, what they do is they elect people to office who will give them what they want by borrowing from the Treasury; in other words, borrowing from the next generations. When the debt gets too large, this debt gets so large the economy cannot handle it and you end up with all kinds of economic problems and finally an economic collapse. We are headed for that if we do not get entitlements under control. That is why this bill, even though it is a small amount of money--if you listen to the other side, you would think the sky is falling, as far as spending is concerned. This is a tiny, insignificant almost, amount of money. But it is significant in that we are finally starting to tackle entitlement spending. That is why this bill is so important. So when we hear the debate on both sides, boil it down to this very simple thing. Are we going to care enough about the next generation to finally start saying no to some of this big Federal Government spending? I believe it is time this body stands up. Instead of being selfish, instead of giving our voters what they want so they keep sending us back here, let's stand up and do what is right and think about future generations. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN. In addition, there should be no delay in implementing the exceptions process. CMS should work diligently to develop a process to determine whether a service is medically necessary. This process could include a ``code modifier'' and standard audit review of medical necessity and reflect similar processes that currently exist. It is my understanding, based on the language, that if CMS does not develop a process, a request for therapy services will be deemed medically necessary if CMS does not act on the request within 10 business days. Further, the language also appears to permit a beneficiary to request medically necessary coverage outside the caps at the outset of treatment. If CMS does not develop a process and fails to act within 10 business days, then the beneficiary can receive covered therapy services in excess of the cap. I would hope that further information from CMS regarding the exceptions process is laid out as we approach January 1, 2006, when the therapy caps go into effect. Senator Grassley, do you agree with these statements?

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss important new innovation legislation that will address concerns about our country and our ability to compete in the global marketplace. Today, Senator Lieberman and I introduced the National Innovation bill with bipartisan support from Senator Lugar, Senator DeWine, Senator Bingaman, Senator Allen, Senator Alexander, Senator Chambliss, Senator Bayh, Senator Bill Nelson, Senator Kohl, Senator Cornyn, Senator Isakson, Senator Ben Nelson Senator Leahy and Senator Smith as original cosponsors. We encourage all of our colleagues to join us in this important effort. Today the World is becoming dramatically more interconnected and competitive. In order to remain globally competitive, the United States must continue to lead the world's innovation. Innovation fosters the new ideas, technologies, and processes that lead to better jobs, higher wages, and a higher standard of living. Unfortunately, in the disciplines that foster innovation in the 21st Century--science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--America is steadily losing its global edge: The trouble signs are numerous: Less than 6 percent of high school seniors plan to pursue engineering degrees, down from 36 percent from a decade ago. In 2000, only 17 percent of undergraduate degrees earned in the United States were in the hard sciences. In the same year 56 percent of China's undergraduate degrees were in the hard sciences. Next year, China will likely produce six times the number of engineers that we will graduate in the United States. We must address these long-term competitive challenges to America's economic vitality and national security now or risk losing our essential leadership position on innovation. The National Innovation Act will help America meet these interconnected challenges by addressing three primary areas of importance to maintaining and improving United States' innovation in the 21st Century: 1. increasing research investment 2. increasing science and technology talent, and 3. developing an innovation infrastructure. I am a fiscal conservative, and current Federal budget constraints will require prioritization of spending. New programs must be funded through existing funds or through identifiable funding offsets whenever possible. I look forward to working with Senator Lieberman and the other cosponsors in this effort. Increased support of basic research through should be a national priority. Our bill would increases the national commitment to basic research by nearly doubling research funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF) by FY 2011. The National Science Foundation plays a critical role in underwriting basic research at colleges, universities, and other institutions throughout our nation. NSF supported basic research in chemistry, physics, nanotechnology, and semiconductor manufacturing has brought about some of the most significant innovations of the last 20 years. For example, the World Wide Web, magnetic resonance imaging and fiber optics technology all emerged through basic research projects that received NSF funding. Because our nation's long-term future economic strength depends in large part on the support we give to basic research projects now, the National Innovation bill also establishes the Innovation Acceleration Grants Program, which encourages Federal agencies funding research in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to allocate at least 3 percent of their Research and Development (R&D) budgets to grants directed toward high-risk frontier research. Three percent of overall R&D budgets from federal agencies may not seem like a lot, but this is an important starting point. Although our bill does not specifically require it, I encourage federal agencies engaged in R&D to dedicate an even greater percentage of their budgets to basic research. Along with strategic investment in the innovation economy, the Federal Government also needs to examine various barriers that impede innovation in the United States. Our bill instructs the National Academy of Sciences to study factors such as tort litigation that may impede American businesses from engaging in innovation risk-taking and provide recommendations on how best to address these issues. Litigation, taxation, and the substantial costs of regulatory compliance impact innovation and need to be addressed. Innovation must be a major priority as the United States looks to retain and strengthen its economic leadership and national security in the 21st Century. The National Innovation Act will help ensure that the Federal Government does exactly that by increasing research investment, increasing science and technology talent, and developing an innovation infrastructure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss important new innovation legislation that will address concerns about our country and our ability to compete in the global marketplace. Today, Senator Lieberman and I introduced the National Innovation bill with bipartisan support from Senator Lugar, Senator DeWine, Senator Bingaman, Senator Allen, Senator Alexander, Senator Chambliss, Senator Bayh, Senator Bill Nelson, Senator Kohl, Senator Cornyn, Senator Isakson, Senator Ben Nelson Senator Leahy and Senator Smith as original cosponsors. We encourage all of our colleagues to join us in this important effort. Today the World is becoming dramatically more interconnected and competitive. In order to remain globally competitive, the United States must continue to lead the world's innovation. Innovation fosters the new ideas, technologies, and processes that lead to better jobs, higher wages, and a higher standard of living. Unfortunately, in the disciplines that foster innovation in the 21st Century--science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--America is steadily losing its global edge: The trouble signs are numerous: Less than 6 percent of high school seniors plan to pursue engineering degrees, down from 36 percent from a decade ago. In 2000, only 17 percent of undergraduate degrees earned in the United States were in the hard sciences. In the same year 56 percent of China's undergraduate degrees were in the hard sciences. Next year, China will likely produce six times the number of engineers that we will graduate in the United States. We must address these long-term competitive challenges to America's economic vitality and national security now or risk losing our essential leadership position on innovation. The National Innovation Act will help America meet these interconnected challenges by addressing three primary areas of importance to maintaining and improving United States' innovation in the 21st Century: 1. increasing research investment 2. increasing science and technology talent, and 3. developing an innovation infrastructure. I am a fiscal conservative, and current Federal budget constraints will require prioritization of spending. New programs must be funded through existing funds or through identifiable funding offsets whenever possible. I look forward to working with Senator Lieberman and the other cosponsors in this effort. Increased support of basic research through should be a national priority. Our bill would increases the national commitment to basic research by nearly doubling research funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF) by FY 2011. The National Science Foundation plays a critical role in underwriting basic research at colleges, universities, and other institutions throughout our nation. NSF supported basic research in chemistry, physics, nanotechnology, and semiconductor manufacturing has brought about some of the most significant innovations of the last 20 years. For example, the World Wide Web, magnetic resonance imaging and fiber optics technology all emerged through basic research projects that received NSF funding. Because our nation's long-term future economic strength depends in large part on the support we give to basic research projects now, the National Innovation bill also establishes the Innovation Acceleration Grants Program, which encourages Federal agencies funding research in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to allocate at least 3 percent of their Research and Development (R&D) budgets to grants directed toward high-risk frontier research. Three percent of overall R&D budgets from federal agencies may not seem like a lot, but this is an important starting point. Although our bill does not specifically require it, I encourage federal agencies engaged in R&D to dedicate an even greater percentage of their budgets to basic research. Along with strategic investment in the innovation economy, the Federal Government also needs to examine various barriers that impede innovation in the United States. Our bill instructs the National Academy of Sciences to study factors such as tort litigation that may impede American businesses from engaging in innovation risk-taking and provide recommendations on how best to address these issues. Litigation, taxation, and the substantial costs of regulatory compliance impact innovation and need to be addressed. Innovation must be a major priority as the United States looks to retain and strengthen its economic leadership and national security in the 21st Century. The National Innovation Act will help ensure that the Federal Government does exactly that by increasing research investment, increasing science and technology talent, and developing an innovation infrastructure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, will you notify me when I have used 2 minutes? I will try to keep this within 2 minutes. I wish to make a couple of points. I am a licensed veterinarian and am still currently licensed. When I was first elected to the Senate, when we were going through the ethics routine very similar to what they have in the House of Representatives, I still owned an animal hospital when I was in the House of Representatives. I never really gave it much thought because I heard you can own a small business. That is what it was--a small business. But as I was listening to the ethics briefings when I was elected to the Senate, I said: I don't think I can own my animal hospital. I don't think I can be partners anymore in the animal hospital. What I liked about owning my animal hospital was that I thought it kept me in touch with the real world; that we passed the Congressional Accountability Act because Congress was so out of touch with the laws that we passed up here for the real world. We were so out of touch, we said at least we should live under the same laws in our offices as they live out in the real world. I thought my veterinary practice allowed me to stay in touch with the real world much better. But I went to the Senate Ethics Committee and asked them about it, and they said, sure enough, you are going to have to sell the animal hospital. That wasn't something that I counted on when I was elected. I spoke to Don Nickles when it was all done, and he said he thought it was a disservice and that I should have fought it at the time, that I should have fought for a rule change back then. I apologize to Dr. Coburn for not fighting for a rule change back then. I don't think Dr. Coburn wants to go as far as he actually should be able to go or I should have been able to go. All he wants to do is break even because of the high cost of medical malpractice today and to be able to make enough money to be able to pay his premiums and stay in touch with his patients and practice medicine. Health care costs in this country are skyrocketing, and we need people who understand the practice of medicine and our health care system in the United States. I wholeheartedly support the Senator from Oklahoma in his efforts to do this. This is not the same as practicing law where you have somebody come down and lay down a retainer of $100,000 or $200,000 with the look of corruption that we may be trying to avoid. The practice of veterinary medicine isn't like that, and the practice of human medicine is not like that. This is somebody who will be a much better Senator if we allow him to practice; somebody who is going to be a better doctor. He is not going to be here forever, and we want him to keep his skills up because when he goes back to the practice of full-time medicine, he will still stay solvent. As we go forward in the debate, I hope people keep this in mind: Let's us put some common sense back in here. He is one of most ethical people I have ever met in my life, and to allow him to practice will make this institution a better institution. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I want to inform the Senator from North Dakota that, hopefully, when we come back for a couple days in December, as the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, I plan on holding hearings on exactly this. I plan on pulling that curtain back. I plan on getting into the investigation in the same way as Harry Truman. If it happens to be it is embarrassing to the administration, we are going to find out the truth on this--just like Harry Truman went after those cost-plus contracts in those days. It is not only the soul- source aspect, it is also the fact they are cost-plus contracts. We are going to do a thorough investigation through the subcommittee, and I am committing to the Senator that the things he is talking about right now will be fully investigated by our committee, and we are going to uphold our oversight responsibility of this administration.

Mr. ENSIGN. I have spoken to the manager of the bill, and he would like to accommodate the ability of the Senator to have the secondary amendment offered before all time is yielded back. When the Senator is ready--I have spoken to the chairman and he is willing to work on that.

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I say to my friend from Michigan, our amendment seeks to clarify and to reinforce the Executive Order No. 11850, including section 1, as well as the examples in (a), (b), (c), and (d), used as examples where the riot control agents are able to be used. It is very clear that our military is allowed to use riot control agents based on this Executive order in these particular examples as a defensive mode to save civilian lives, for example. We are trying to clarify for our military and ask the Defense Department to lay out clear guidelines and clear training so the average person on the ground knows exactly when they can and when they cannot use these riot control agents.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask that Senator Allard be added as cosponsor to my amendment.

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, prior to having the 6 minutes prior to the vote but between now and the time that votes will occur, will there also be time to debate my amendment?

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, may I ask unanimous consent it be modified so that at least 15 minutes between now and the vote would be reserved for debate on the Ensign amendment?

Mr. ENSIGN. The Senator is correct; we are not trying to change any part of the Executive order. All we are trying to do is to clarify it so the average soldier, marine on the ground knows exactly when they can and when they cannot use it. We are calling on the Defense Department to clarify for them so this very valuable tool to save lives, both civilian and military, can be employed for a defensive purpose.

Mr. ENSIGN. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. ENSIGN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ENSIGN. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 2473 to Amendment No. 2433

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, very simply, this amendment seeks to clarify what the policy of the United States has been since 1975, that our military would be able to use riot control agents--in this case tear gas--for defensive purposes. That has been the policy of the United States. But because of some interpretations, our military is not able to use tear gas. They do not take it with them, they do not train with it, and in many cases tear gas--just as police forces use it all over the world--would save civilian lives as well as lives of the members of our military. This is absolutely a critical amendment to save lives of Americans and for those civilians who, when our military kills them--and unfortunately these things happen--it makes us look bad as a country. This is a critical amendment that we need to adopt.

Mr. ENSIGN. Yes.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a comment?

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. The Senator is correct.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Virginia that he has stated it exactly right. We are trying to restate the position that the Senate took in 1997, in the Executive Order 11850. It has been the policy of the United States, based on this Executive order, based on what the Senate did with the Chemical Weapons Treaty in 1997. But the problem is there have been lawyers down at the State Department who have interpreted it differently and therefore have put the military in a very difficult position, that if they used it consistent with former U.S. policy, they could be accused of violating the Chemical Weapons Treaty and be subject to prosecution as individual soldiers.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, before I make my full statement, I want my colleagues to know that the amendment that I have sent to the desk is something that we have been working with the administration on for almost 8 months now. I believe we have come up with a compromise that most people in the administration support. It is a very important amendment as far as the foreign policy and the military policy of our country is concerned. This amendment will allow our soldiers and marines to more effectively carry out their mission on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, while saving both military and civilian lives. Riot control agents, more commonly referred to as tear gas, can be a more effective alternative to the use of lethal weapons in combat. It is shocking and unacceptable that under current policy our military is banned from using tear gas on the battlefield. Let me restate that. Under current policy, our military is banned from using tear gas on the battlefield. Police officers in any city in America can use tear gas to avoid the loss of life, but our men and women carrying out the global war on terror cannot. This is not right and it must change. This restriction on the use of tear gas is the direct result of the bureaucracy's faulty interpretation of the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention, an interpretation made by arms control advocates in Brussels and The Hague and regrettably at our own State Department. Under this faulty interpretation, tear gas is considered a chemical weapon. In those isolated cases where it can be used, it requires Presidential authorization. This is wrong. The use of riot control agents in combat for defensive purposes to save lives is wholly consistent with the U.S. obligations under the laws of land warfare and of our treaty obligations. Retaining this capability was so important to our military leaders that the Senate included a condition in the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention that preserved our right to use tear gas in conflict. Many Members today were in the Senate when this matter was debated. All concurred with the arguments put forward by then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell, that giving up this capability is not even worth getting the treaty. Here is what he said: Nonlethal riot control agents provide a morally correct option to achieve defensive military objectives without having to resort to the unnecessary loss of innocent lives. Sacrificing such an option would be an unacceptable price to pay for a CW [chemical weapons] treaty. Senators Lugar, Biden, and others spoke eloquently on this point in a bipartisan manner. Senators knew then, and many do know now, that the use of nonlethal weapons, such as tear gas, is demonstrated routinely to be effective by law enforcement agencies all over the world. It is a moral alternative to the use of lethal force. In towns and streets throughout Iraq and Afghanistan, marines and soldiers are going house to house in an attempt to flush out hiding terrorists. In carrying out this vital mission, structures are damaged and innocent people are killed. Some of that death and destruction could be avoided if we allowed our military to use tear gas instead of bullets. In other cases, we know of situations where the insurgents have mixed in with innocent civilians, using them as human shields, forcing our fighting men and women to either retreat or fire into a crowd, which is a choice they should not have to make. I am reminded of a New York Times article, dated June 28 of this year. It chronicled marines clearing a town in Iraq. The article referenced one particular incident where three civilians, a mother and two children, were killed as marines battled an insurgent who had taken the family hostage. Perhaps the use of tear gas would have saved their lives; perhaps not. We will never know that. What we do know is that those marines were not provided every tool with which to carry out this global war on terrorism. Certainly our image has been tarnished as a nation, and our public diplomacy has suffered every time we use lethal force to clear a room, empty a building or take other actions that wound or kill innocent people. This is unconscionable when nonlethal alternatives are available. Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, described the restriction on the use of riot control agents as a straitjacket. Here is what he said: We are doing our best to live within the straitjacket that has been imposed on us on this subject. We are trying to find ways that non-lethal agents could be used within the law. He went on to point out that our soldiers and marines are authorized to shoot and to kill people in situations where tear gas is prohibited. This is a lethal lapse in legal judgment. It seems as if some would put the concerns of the global arms control theocracy above the lives of our military personnel. If anybody is watching or listening and they are scratching their head wondering where is the common sense, that is exactly what I thought and what led me to offer this amendment. In fact, our military has been so spooked about this issue they don't know how to train themselves on Riot Control Agent use on the battlefield. The Tactical Employment of Nonlethal Weapons training manual, dated January 2003, is applicable to all military branches. It specifically reminds all that ``. . . using Riot Control Agents in an armed conflict requires Presidential approval.'' Additionally, the Department of Defense's Joint Doctrine Encyclopedia, dated July 1997, advises that ``Commanders must consider the international ramifications . . . before recommending the use of herbicides or Riot Control Agents.'' Now, there are those who erroneously claim my amendment seeks to change long standing policy on the use of riot control agents in combat and runs counter to U.S. treaty commitments. In fact, my amendment seeks merely to reaffirm the policy of the United States since 1975, and the Senate's view on this issue from 1997, by stating that it is the policy of the United States that Riot Control Agents are not chemical weapons but are legitimate, legal, and non-lethal alternatives to the use of lethal force. It adds that these tools may be employed by members of the Armed Forces in defensive military modes to save lives. My amendment further requires the President to submit a one-time report to Congress on the availability and use of Riot Control Agents by our fighting men and women. It includes reporting language that prods the State Department to speak about and advocate the U.S. view on this important life-saving tool in multilateral forums. Finally, my amendment presses the Pentagon to develop this capability, which has languished in our training regimens, our doctrine, and our tactics through lack of use. I urge all of my colleagues to reaffirm this policy, to reaffirm what the Senate said in 1997, and to send a strong message to our men and women in uniform that the Senate puts their welfare above misguided interpretations of arcane international agreements, that the Senate wants to give them a full range of tools to help them accomplish their mission in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we want to do so in a manner that doesn't jeopardize their lives or those of innocent civilians. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, Senator Byrd has offered an amendment virtually identical to a piece of legislation that I brought forward because he has the same concerns I have. When I took over the chairmanship of the Readiness Subcommittee, the staff briefed me on various hearings that they do traditionally during the year. One of the hearings, the information that we got at the hearing, this piece of legislation was trying to address. It was the reason I drafted it, because I had literally the identical concerns Senator Byrd has raised today. Nothing he has said have I disagreed with. This happened last year. We used to have one of these hearings a year. I have actually stepped them up to every 6 months. We have a hearing tomorrow in the Readiness Subcommittee on this very issue, as well as others on the business transformation for the military. The military is a huge bureaucracy that none of us have our arms around. The military doesn't have its arms around its own bureaucracy. There are incredible inefficiencies. The problem is, you get one person in; they are there for a year, maybe two. They say they are going to be making changes. They have been promising to make changes for years. And then nothing happens. Last year, I was ready to proceed with my legislation. I met with Secretary England, and he asked me for 1 year. He said: Give me a year. I am new in this position. Give me a year. If you are not satisfied at the end of that year, if we haven't made significant progress, then go forward with your legislation. I reluctantly said: OK. You are new. I liked some of the ideas he was laying out. He was going in the right direction. I said, reluctantly: I will give you the year. Tomorrow we are having a hearing to see at least what progress they have made in the last 6 to 8 months. Depending on what happens at that hearing--from some of the preliminary results we have received, there is some progress being made--we are going to delve into it much more deeply tomorrow, plus what we see over the next several months. If we are not satisfied, I will be the first person to join the Senator from West Virginia on this legislation next year to create this position. The reason I thought this was good, that it was a good idea to make this change, was because to have somebody focused on the business goings on at the Department of Defense made good common sense to me. I didn't want to see another layer of bureaucracy created. But with the Deputy Secretary of Defense, I didn't see them focused on the business activities. I saw them focused on warfighting activities--all well and good. We want them focused on that. But these other duties seem to be neglected at the same time. I commit to the Senator from West Virginia that I am absolutely willing to work with him on this, with the same goals in mind; that is, to reform our Defense Department to make it more efficient, more accountable, more transparent in the way that it actually performs business. It is never going to operate like a business, but we have to get it to operate more like a business than it does today. I think the spirit of this amendment is absolutely right. I would ask that we would either go the direction of what Senator Warner has suggested or at least wait until next spring, when we go for reauthorizing the Defense Department again next year, to address this issue, simply because I made that personal commitment to Acting Deputy Secretary Gordon England. I would be more than happy to yield back or engage in a colloquy or whatever the Senator from West Virginia would like at this point.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I would say to the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, frankly, they are not being used today by our military and that is the problem. Therein lies the problem. We just saw President Bush down in the Summit of the Americas, and they had riots down there and they used these very agents to control the crowds. Even when they had problems at Abu Ghraib prison, these riot control agents were not allowed to be used because people were afraid to use them. Can you imagine, if you are a first lieutenant or you are a sergeant and you are out there and you know that these things have been allowed in the past, but now the State Department and the military are putting stuff out and there are questions, you are not going to use the thing that may be the most effective at saving lives of the personnel around you, as well as the civilians, because you could be accused potentially of violating the Chemical Weapons Treaty. We are handcuffing the very personnel that this Senate is supposed to be trying to protect. That is why I believe, as the Senator has correctly pointed out, that this amendment is consistent with the very examples that you pointed out that are in the Executive Order No. 11850 that was signed back in 1975.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the progress America is making in the global war on terrorism and in particular on the progress being made in Iraq. Recently we passed a solemn benchmark. Two thousand of our servicemen and women have paid the ultimate price in defense of freedom. A vocal minority contend that these casualties were in vain. They claim we are in Iraq for all the wrong reasons. Further, they say that since there have been no weapons of mass destruction uncovered in Iraq that the administration obviously lied to get Americans behind the initial war effort. I think it is important that we take a few minutes to recall the world in which we lived prior to taking military action against Saddam Hussein in 2003. The previous administration was quite clear in their belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Then-President Clinton said: Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. Clinton's National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, said of Hussein: He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1993. Even after he left office, Al Gore stated: We know that [Hussein] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout the country. Madeline Albright said: The risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. Let us all remember, Iraq had been in blatant violation of 17 separate United Nations resolutions dating back to the first Persian Gulf War--resolutions which required Iraq to reveal prohibited WMD and missile programs to U.N. inspectors. American and British warplanes were continually fired upon while enforcing U.N.-mandated ``no fly zones'' in Iraq. In 1993, terrorists detonated a bomb in the garage of the World Trade Center in an attempt to topple this symbol of capitalism. In 1996, the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, housing an Air Force Fighter Wing, were attacked by terrorists. Nineteen U.S. servicemembers lost their lives. Hundreds were wounded. In 1998, the U.S. Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya were bombed by terrorists. Hundreds lost their lives. In October of 2000, the USS Cole was attacked by terrorists while refueling in Yemen. Seventeen sailors lost their lives. Many more were injured. And, of course, we all remember the day the Pentagon was attacked and the World Trade Center was leveled by terrorists crashing commercial airliners into both structures on 9/11, resulting in more than 3,000 of our fellow citizens being killed and America finally waking up to the reality that is terrorism. The terrorists had no reason to believe that we would respond to 9/11 because we had not responded in the past. At that time, every country in the free world believed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein did nothing to dispel those beliefs. He had actually used chemical weapons on Iranians and on his own citizens. President Bush could not risk America's future on the hope that a dictator like Hussein, with a track record that included grotesque human rights abuses, aggression against his neighbors, and the harboring and funding of terrorists, could be reformed or indefinitely contained. In fact, the Senate chose not to risk America's future either. This body voted 77-23 in favor of the resolution allowing President Bush to use force in Iraq. Those voting in the affirmative included the then- Democratic Leader of the Senate, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee and the Democratic nominee for President in the 2004 election. I have a few quotes I would like to read. Senator Jay Rockefeller, Congressional Record, October 2002: There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction. He obviously had access to the intelligence that the President had. Senator John Kerry, Congressional Record, October 2002: When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein [it is] because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. . . . Senator Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, October 2002: In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members . . . It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Senator Carl Levin, Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing, September 2002: We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them. I could go on. We have lots of quotes, but let's stop for now. On March 19, 2003, 2 days after our President's televised ultimatum, a 35-nation coalition launched operations to disarm Iraq. In a matter of weeks, Hussein's decades-old regime had been removed, liberating 25 million Iraqis from one of the world's most brutal tyrannies. That was 2\1/2\ years ago. Now, because things aren't quite as antiseptic as some would like, there are calls for American troop withdrawal. Again, I think it is important for us to review just how far we've come over the last 2\1/2\ years. As far as security is concerned, the initial 35-nation coalition that liberated Iraq has increased to include 72 countries. Iraqi Security Forces are continuing to take a more prominent role in defending their country. One hundred sixteen Iraqi battalions are currently conducting military operations. That's 22 more battalions on line than there were just 3 months ago. As President Bush has stated numerous times: Our task is to make the Iraqi units fully capable and independent. We're building up Iraqi security forces as quickly as possible, so they can assume the lead in defeating the terrorists and insurgents. Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. Our assistance to the people of Iraq is not limited to the military. There have been infrastructure improvements as well, including almost 3,500 schools. Also, there were no commercial TV stations in Iraq before the war; today there are 44. There were no independent newspapers or magazines in Iraq before the war. Today there are more than 100. In January of this year, 8 million Iraqi citizens, in the face of violent threats, voted to establish a parliament. Last month, the Iraqis again returned to the polls in large numbers, and almost 10 million this time--more than 60 percent of the registered voters--voted to approve their constitution. This coming December, they will return to the polls to elect a fully constitutional government. Because of America's leadership, compassion, and sacrifice, the world has witnessed the end of Saddam Hussein's regime and the beginnings of an energetic democracy in Iraq. This fledgling democracy has the ability to transform a region that has been a breeding ground for terrorists. The world is a safer place because Qadhafi saw the fate of Saddam Hussein and decided Libya was better off with its weapons of mass destruction program under lock and key. We are safer because the AQ Kahn network has been shut down and is no longer supplying materiel support to Iran and North Korea's nuclear efforts. We are safer because terrorists and the countries that harbor them know if they threaten the United States, they could be the next ones to feel the force of the U.S. military. Our word means something now because the President laid a marker down in the sand and stood behind that marker when it was time--when Saddam Hussein did not come forward and agree to the resolutions that the United Nations had passed. I believe the more than 2,000 members of our military who have died in service for our Nation in Iraq--and others will surely follow them-- have made our country safer. I believe history will show in the fullness of time that America was involved in a noble effort that transformed a region and indeed the world. I yield the floor.