Daniel Inouye

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation today to modify Title VII of the Public Health Service Act in order to provide students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with the opportunity to participate in various health professions loan programs. Providing students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with eligibility for financial assistance in the form of loans, loan guarantees, and scholarships will facilitate a much-needed infusion of behavioral science expertise into our community of public health providers. There is a growing recognition of the valuable contribution being made by psychologists toward solving some of our Nation's most distressing problems. The participation of students from all backgrounds and clinical disciplines is vital to the success of health care training. The Title VII programs play a significant role in providing financial support for the recruitment of minorities, women, and individuals from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Minority therapists have an advantage in the provision of critical services to minority populations because often they can communicate with clients in their own language and cultural framework. Minority therapists are more likely to work in community settings where ethnic minority and economically disadvantaged individuals are most likely to seek care. It is critical that continued support be provided for the training of individuals who provide health care services to underserved communities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I introduce the Clinical Social Workers' Recognition Act to correct a continuing problem in the Federal Employees Compensation Act. This bill will also provide clinical social workers the recognition they deserve as independent providers of quality mental health care services. Clinical social workers are authorized to independently diagnose and treat mental illnesses through public and private health insurance plans across the nation. However, Title V of the United States Code, does not permit the use of mental health evaluations conducted by clinical social workers for use as evidence in determining workers' compensation claims brought by federal employees. The bill I am introducing corrects this problem. It is a sad irony that Federal employees may select a clinical social worker through their health plans to provide mental health services, but may not go to this same professional for workers' compensation evaluations. The failure to recognize the validity of evaluations provided by clinical social workers unnecessarily limits federal employees' selection of a provider to conduct the workers' compensation mental health evaluations. Lack of this recognition may well impose an undue burden on federal employees where clinical social workers are the only available providers of mental health care. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to correct discrepancies in the reimbursement of clinical social workers covered through Medicare, Part B. The three proposed changes contained in this legislation clarify the current payment process for clinical social workers and establish a reimbursement methodology for the profession that is similar to other health care professionals reimbursed through the Medicare program. First, this legislation sets payment for clinical social worker services according to a fee schedule established by the Secretary. Second, it explicitly states that services and supplies furnished by a clinical social worker are a covered Medicare expense, just as these services are covered for other mental health professionals in Medicare. Third, the bill allows clinical social workers to be reimbursed for services provided to a client who is hospitalized. Clinical social workers are valued members of our health care provider network. They are legally regulated in every state of the nation and are recognized as independent providers of mental health care throughout the health care system. It is time to correct the disparate reimbursement treatment of this profession under Medicare. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to amend Title 18 of the United States Code to allow our Nation's clinical social workers to use their mental health expertise on behalf of the federal judiciary by conducting psychological and psychiatric exams. I feel that the time has come to allow our Nation's judicial system to have access to a wide range of behavioral science and mental health expertise. I am confident that the enactment of this legislation would be very much in our Nation's best interest. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INOUYE

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

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, although there were voting irregularities in Ohio, I will not vote in support of the objection. I do respect the result of the recent Presidential election, but I do not respect the process. Several thousand voters believe they were discouraged or even prevented from voting, and several thousand who did vote believe that their votes were not correctly reported. The inequitable allocation of voting machines, the lack of instruction for the review of provisional ballots, and the questionable activities surrounding the recount of the electronic ballots call into question the final results in Ohio. However, I am unconvinced that it would have made a difference in the final outcome of this Presidential election. I had hoped that we would not have the electoral college votes called into question again. After the 2000 Presidential election, we worked together to pass election reform legislation, the Help America Vote Act. That legislation set Federal requirements for provisional ballots and for voter information, registration, and identification. Unfortunately, that legislation has not yet been fully implemented and does not go far enough. I would like to work with my colleagues craft legislation to ensure that all of our citizens are encouraged to vote and participate in our democratic process. Our citizens must believe their vote will count. At a time when we are risking lives of our service men and women to spread democracy throughout the world, we cannot ignore the threats to the democratic process here at home. I do not relish the vote I am forced to cast today, but I as I do, I look forward to being able to cast future votes on Federal election reform to ensure that we are not in this position again.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in tribute to Senator Ernest ``Fritz'' Hollings. I will miss my good friend from South Carolina, who in 2003, at the age of 81, finally became his State's senior senator--after 36 years as a junior Senator. In addition to being remembered as a coauthor of the Gramm-Rudman- Hollings legislation that cut tens of billions of dollars from the Federal budget deficit, Fritz Hollings has left an indelible mark on our nation in the areas of health care, environmental protection, resource conservation, technology development, job creation, transportation security, and law enforcement, to name a few. Immediately after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on America, Senator Hollings worked to protect the safety of our traveling public by authoring the Aviation Security Act which created the Transportation Security Administration. Similarly, recognizing that America's ports and borders were our Nation's weak security links, Senator Hollings championed legislation to increase security at America's ports. As the father of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Senator Hollings recognized the extent to which the ocean environment sustains us--from human uses in commerce and recreation to being the original cradle of life on our planet. He knew the importance of taking appropriate steps to be responsible stewards of this rich, yet fragile resource. His oceans legacy includes authorship of the National Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, which established Federal policy for protecting coastal areas, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which also became the model for other countries, for the protection of dolphins, sea otters and other mammals. In a continuing effort to do what is best for our ocean environment, Senator Hollings created the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy in 2000, to review the accomplishments of the last 30 years, and recommend actions for the future. Upon the issuance of the report, Senator Hollings laid the groundwork for legislation to adopt the recommendations of the Ocean Commission. I am the proud cosponsor of two of those measures, S. 2647, the Fritz Hollings National Ocean Policy and Leadership Act, and S. 2648, the Ocean Research Coordination and Advancement Act. Beyond the oceans, Senator Hollings worked to make our communities and schools safer, through programs such as Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, that put more than 100,000 police officers on the streets in 13,000 communities across the country. The COPS program is also the largest source of dedicated funding for interoperable communications for public safety officers. Senator Hollings brought competition to the telecommunications arena which resulted in new services to consumers at affordable rates. I will miss Senator Hollings' wisdom, vision, and wit, but mostly his friendship. I wish Fritz and his wife Peatsy a fond aloha.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in tribute to Senator Ernest ``Fritz'' Hollings. I will miss my good friend from South Carolina who in 2003, at the age of 81, finally became his State's senior Senator--after 36 years as a junior Senator. In addition to being remembered as a coauthor of the Gramm-Rudman- Hollings legislation that cut tens of billions of dollars from the Federal budget deficit, Fritz Hollings has left an indelible mark on our Nation in the areas of health care, environmental protection, resource conservation, technology development, job creation, transportation security, and law enforcement, to name a few. Immediately after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on America, Senator Hollings worked to protect the safety of our traveling public by authoring the Aviation Security Act which created the Transportation Security Administration. Similarly, recognizing that America's ports and borders were our Nation's weak security links, Senator Hollings championed legislation to increase security at America's ports. As the father of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Senator Hollings recognized the extent to which the ocean environment sustains us--from human uses in commerce and recreation to being the original cradle of life on our planet. He knew the importance of taking appropriate steps to be responsible stewards of this rich, yet fragile resource. His oceans legacy includes authorship of the National Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, which established Federal policy for protecting coastal areas, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which also became the model for other countries, for the protection of dolphins, sea otters and other mammals. In a continuing effort to do what is best for our ocean environment, Senator Hollings created the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy in 2000, to review the accomplishments of the last 30 years, and recommend actions for the future. Upon the issuance of the report, Senator Hollings laid the groundwork for legislation to adopt the recommendations of the Ocean Commission. I am the proud cosponsor of two of those measures, S. 2647, the Fritz Hollings National Ocean Policy and Leadership Act, and S. 2648, the Ocean Research Coordination and Advancement Act. Beyond the oceans, Senator Hollings worked to make our communities and schools safer, through programs such as Community Oriented Policing Services--COPS--that put more than 100,000 police officers on the streets in 13,000 communities across the country. The COPS program is also the largest source of dedicated funding for interoperable communications for public safety officers. Senator Hollings brought competition to the telecommunications arena which resulted in new services to consumers at affordable rates. I will miss Senator Hollings' wisdom, vision, and wit, but, most of all, his friendship. I wish Fritz and his wife Peatsy a fond Aloha. don nickles

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise in support of my bill, S. 2489, the Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act of 2004, which is being considered by the Senate. This bill which was reported unanimously from the Commerce Committee, addresses the nearly 90 percent of the U.S. Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone that remain unmapped by modern technologies. I am pleased to be joined by my friends and colleagues, Senators Ted Stevens, Fritz Hollings, Judd Gregg, Olympia Snowe, Trent Lott, John Breaux, Frank Lautenberg, and Dan Akaka, who are cosponsors of the bill. There was a time in the history of our Nation when our best efforts to map the seas meant lowering weights tied to piano wire over the side of a vessel, and measuring how deep they went. These efforts led to the development of rudimentary nautical charts designed to help mariners navigate safely. The rapidly increasing uses of our coastal and ocean waters, however, call for development of a new generation of ecosystem- oriented mapping and assessment products and services. The technologies of today create richly layered mapping products that expand far beyond just charting for safe navigation. Now, by combining such information as mineral surveys of the U.S. Geological Service, habitat characterizations of the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, and watershed assessments of the Environmental Protection Agency into a single product, map users are able to consider the impacts of their actions on multiple facets of the marine environment. The recent draft report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy has highlighted the urgent need to modernize, improve, expand, and integrate federal mapping efforts to improve navigation, safety and resource management decision making. By employing integrated mapping approaches, urban and residential growth can be directed away from areas of high risk from ocean-based threats such as tsunami and tidal surge. The risks of maritime activities can be minimized by identifying hazards that could impact sensitive ecosystems, and devising appropriate mitigation plans. Managers of living marine resource can also gauge where and how best to focus their efforts to restore essential marine habitats. My bill will lay the foundation for producing the ocean maps of the 21st century. It mandates coordination among the many federal agencies with mapping missions with NOAA as the lead in developing national mapping priorities and strategies. The bill will also establish national ocean and coastal mapping centers to manage comprehensively the mapping data produced by the Federal Government, encourage innovation in technologies, and authorize the funding necessary to implement this comprehensive effort. Perhaps the most important lesson that comprehensive, integrated mapping can afford is an awareness of a web of human marine communities as rich and varied as the ocean itself. From awareness grows understanding, respect, and cooperation. I am extremely proud to be the author of this legislation, and hope you will join me in supporting enactment of the Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act of 2004. This bill will provide the United States with the programs and resources necessary to improve maritime commerce and national security, and develop healthy coastal communities across the Nation.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am extremely grateful for those reassuring words of my distinguished friend from Arizona and my distinguished friend from New Mexico. We look forward to working with them next year on this most important bill, a bill for the native Hawaiians.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senators from Idaho and California for their comments, and to associate myself with their discussion. The depth of my concern with the subject of Japan's cooperation with the U.S. on security matters goes very deep. I was privileged to have served my country during World War II, and I was as proud as any American with the victory we achieved over Japan. However, I am much more proud of the events that have occurred since that war--events that have changed two former enemies into the closest of allies. Mr. President, the post-war actions of these two former adversaries is one of history's most shining moments. America demanded and received Japan's unconditional surrender. America also insisted on compensation, and that was accomplished by the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty. Our country, however, also recognized that Japan is a great nation, and we dedicated ourselves to helping restore its place in the world. Thus, instead of the kind of ``armistice'' or ``cold peace'' settlement that only preserves hostility and resentment, both nations worked hard to transcend their recent past and build a true alliance. As Americans, we have seen this before. Our Nation's first enemy, Britain, is now one of our very closest allies. It is inspiring that Japan and the U.S. have accomplished a similar achievement and created a truly strong and lasting alliance. The facts that Senators Feinstein and Craig put before us only confirm how strong that alliance is.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Twenty minutes.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleague from Alaska in opposition to this amendment to transfer jurisdiction over the TSA to the soon-to-be renamed Governmental Affairs Committee. As noted by Senator Stevens, this amendment would effectively strip the Commerce Committee of its ability to oversee and coordinate the safety and security needs of our Nation's transportation system. To consider security in a vacuum, without understanding the impacts of security policy on the safety and operations of the mode of transportation, could give rise to unrealistic, contradictory, and counterproductive policies. The McCain amendment would sever issues and responsibilities that have enabled the Commerce Committee to craft and enact two of the most significant transportation security measures this body has adopted since the 9/11, 2001 attack on our Nation. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act created the TSA, the Transportation Security Administration, mandated the Federal takeover of aviation security functions, and created a fee to pay for the new responsibilities. The Maritime Transportation Security Act created a new regime for maritime security within the TSA and the U.S. Coast Guard. The Commerce Committee also successfully completed a conference with the House earlier this year on a second port security bill, the Coast Guard and Maritime Security Act. These efforts were successful because of the Commerce Committee's understanding of the transportation industry, and the integral link between security, safety, and operations. The committee has worked for more than a decade to improve transportation security and has had to deal with the inertia of the Federal Government as well as fight entrenched interests to change the way we secure the transportation system. As far back as 1996, attempts were made to transfer security functions from the airlines to the Federal Government. Similarly, the port security act was initiated prior to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The 9/11 attacks created sufficient public pressure to fundamentally change the way the Federal Government secured our aviation system and the ports. The problems we are having in improving security are not the result of an outdated committee system; they are the result of ``growing pains'' of a newly created department with insufficient resources to fulfill its responsibilities. The 9/11 Commission made many recommendations. However, the recommendations with respect to the transportation sector were very general, with no specifics. An effective approach would require taking operational needs of transportation systems, the funding streams for these systems, the economics of the industries, and the safety regulatory framework that is so crucial to protecting our citizens. In setting transportation security policy, all of these aspects come into play: safety regulations imposed by the Department of Transportation, safety regulations and recommendations by the National Transportation Safety Board, and the need to efficiently move passengers and cargo. For example, the Commerce Committee developed legislation to strengthen cockpit doors based on its jurisdictional aviation funding programs, the FAA's certification approval process, and aviation system safety. We had working knowledge of aircraft structure and the carrier maintenance schedules. The Commerce Committee was able to develop funding streams for the installation of another explosive detection system because of the committee's jurisdiction over airport funding programs and the use of the airport and airways trust fund. Similarly, the authorization for pilots to carry guns required an understanding of a wide variety of issues, including structural integrity of the aircraft, training programs, and the pilot licensing process. For example, if you left it up to a gun merchant or gun expert, he might say, give the pilots a .45. If you fired a .45 in one of those aircraft, it will blow the plane apart under the pressure of the atmosphere. So we have some sort of background and knowledge about aircraft structure. So the pilots would be carrying a smaller caliber pistol, something that will not put the aircraft into an explosive position. You cannot separate safety considerations, security considerations, and the operational theory. Keep in mind that when we passed the Airport Security Act, we initiated a user fee system, a system where the beneficiaries, if you want to call them that, the airlines, pay a fee for the metal detectors, pay a fee for the x ray machines, pay a fee for the personnel. They have been paying $14 million per year. If you separate this function to another organization that will have no knowledge about the economics involved in the airlines, not realizing that the airlines are now on the verge of bankruptcy, who knows, we may really put them out of business. And the major mission of our airlines is to carry passengers, to carry on the mobility of the citizens of the United States. Transportation security decisions cannot be separated from the safety and operational concerns. The Senate leadership, tasked with the mission of developing a reorganization plan, recognized this vital link. That is why the leadership amendment keeps matters relating to the Coast Guard and the transportation security within the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. Even the Department of Homeland Security recognizes that security decisions can have safety and operational ramifications. This link is embodied in a recent memorandum of understanding between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation. Transportation security and safety are so intertwined that separating them, as the McCain amendment would do, could do harm rather than benefit our transportation system. After we created the Transportation Security Administration, long before we had a Department of Homeland Security, the President put in charge a tough law enforcement official who knew little about transportation. He did not last long because he knew only one side of the equation. He was succeeded by Admiral Loy who understood not only the balance between safety and security but the need to support policies and positions to maintain our safety needs while meeting our security challenges. Those tasked with the responsibilities of securing our transportation system must take into account the intricacy of the operations of the system, from safety standards to mock in place realities. The two cannot be separated. Without such context, security decisions will be made in a vacuum that at best might produce misguidance and extraneous efforts and at worst could triple the transportation modes that ensure the free flow of commerce and traffic upon which our Nation has been built. Competition, safety, and security are interrelated and inseparable aspects of interstate transportation, and each element significantly impacts a carrier's operation. I realize this amendment does not discuss the Coast Guard, so I will not discuss that matter at this moment. This is not a debate about protecting turf. It is a debate about the best way to do the job our Nation has entrusted to us. It is about our role in transportation safety and security and our ability to craft effective and timely solutions. Although the report said Congress should create a single board of review for homeland security, I feel certain the commission did not intend that such a consolidation would result in more harm than good. Each of us must look at what is in the best interest of our Nation. Senators Reid and McConnell have done that. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against the McCain amendment. Finally, it has been said the homeland security proposal submitted by the leadership of the Senate did not change the status quo. It recommends, as this resolution will point out, that the new homeland security and governmental affairs committee have sole jurisdiction of three of the four directorates in the Department of Homeland Security: directorate of information analysis, science and technology programs under the under secretary, and emergency preparedness and response director. Yes, we have tried our best to make a change but not at the expense of a good, efficient, safe, and profitable transportation system.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today, the Senate is considering the resolution which responds to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission to revamp the congressional oversight process for intelligence and homeland security. I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words about this matter. The Commission recommended two options for Congress to consider regarding intelligence oversight. First, they suggested that the Congress could create a joint bicameral committee modeled after the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, as they said, to streamline the congressional review over intelligence functions. They supported this idea because they believe we need to have a very powerful Intelligence Committee which can stand up to the administration and speak authoritatively for the Congress. I understand there is virtually no support within the Senate for this suggestion. The other alternative suggested by the Commission was to give the Intelligence Committees the authority to appropriate funds, and this is the matter now being discussed. The Intelligence Committee--some of the members--believes the inability to appropriate funds allows the administration to play the Intelligence Committee off against the Appropriations Committee. They argue this weakens congressional oversight. My colleagues are undoubtedly aware that granting an authorization committee such authority would be unprecedented in modern times. Chairman Stevens and I were surprised that neither one of us was contacted by the members of the 9/11 Commission as they conducted their review and prepared their recommendations. We were shocked that, without even consulting us or our House counterparts on the Appropriations Committee, they would recommend that Congress eliminate our role in intelligence oversight. As such, I cannot offer any personal explanation for the Commission's recommendation. Furthermore, their report provides scant explanation why they believe the Appropriations Committee should be excluded from its mission to fund all Federal agencies. In fact, there is not a single word in the 9/11 Commission's report to suggest that the appropriations subcommittee was at fault in its oversight of the intelligence budget. Never once were we accused of that shortfall. I believe the Intelligence Committee's role in spending authority is already powerful enough without any new authority. Under the National Security Act of 1947, as amended by section 504, the intelligence community cannot spend appropriated funds unless the funds are specifically authorized. Now, I think this is worth repeating. The intelligence community cannot spend appropriated funds unless the funds are specifically authorized. As such, the Select Intelligence Committee already has more authority than any standing committee. Let me be clear about what that means. If the Appropriations Committee were to fund programs that were not included in the annual intelligence authorization bill, the appropriated funding for those programs cannot and will not be spent by the executive branch. This authority is virtually unheard of in other budget functions. The authority was granted to the Intelligence Committee to ensure that the executive branch could not use the wide latitude provided in appropriations law to circumvent the will of the Congress. Appropriations acts are written with broad authority to hide the amounts for classified programs in large lump sums. This ensures that the amounts for these programs remain undisclosed. As such, the limits on spending for classified programs are very broad. The authorization requirement ensures that both committees agree on how much should be spent to provide a better check on the administration. More important, I believe the idea of centralizing congressional oversight is not only a bad idea, it could be dangerous to the Nation. In all areas of Government, except intelligence, our system requires and allows public scrutiny. The media, nongovernment organizations, and even lobbyists all provide information and insight to Members of Congress on everything except intelligence. Congress needs to have a system of checks and balances internal to the legislative branch because there are no other checks. We all remember Iran-Contra, which was able to go unchecked even though multiple committees had some degree of intelligence oversight. What chance would we have of uncovering that type of abuse if only one committee were examining intelligence matters? We know there have been other abuses by the intelligence community. I remember a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee expressing outrage to discover that the National Reconnaissance Office was spending significantly more money to build a new headquarters than the chairman was aware. I recall how Chairman Stevens uncovered a slush fund in the same agency that had been accumulating outside of the knowledge of the Congress. Do any of my colleagues really believe that having only one committee perform oversight of the intelligence community's budget will provide more effective oversight? In addition, a single committee overseeing intelligence for the Senate would create a powerful czar. Little opportunity would exist for meaningful debate on intelligence budgets because so few Members would be aware of the details of intelligence matters. Of equal concern, a more powerful chairman could end up being co-opted or at least overly influenced by the intelligence community and potentially lose objectivity. The Senate would be at his or her mercy with little outside scrutiny. That is not an appropriate or effective form of oversight for the Congress. Having a few committees cleared for intelligence programs, such as Armed Services, Appropriations, and Intelligence, and each with some role in determining how resources are provided would ensure that fewer bad ideas get legislated, and it would also create more effective oversight and competitive analysis by the Congress. I also note that maintaining the link to the Appropriations Committee is beneficial to the intelligence community. Intelligence funding is protected by inclusion under the Appropriations Committee. By combining all appropriations resources, the committee has historically solved many intelligence shortfalls. If the Appropriations Committee is removed from intelligence matters, it will be less likely to support intelligence requirements. First, the committee will not be as knowledgeable of intelligence needs. Second, it is human nature for chairmen and ranking members to care about the programs over which they have jurisdiction. If they do not have some oversight over intelligence programs, they will not have the link to the intelligence providers or necessarily the desire to help. The Intelligence Committee would be subject to 302 budget reductions and other general reductions levied against all committees by the Budget Committee. To believe that they would be held harmless in across-the-board cuts or other cutbacks I think is very naive. Their funding level is more likely to be decreased than increased. Linking Defense and Intelligence is critical. DOD cannot operate without good intelligence. The Defense Subcommittee has ensured that intelligence resources support the needs of the warfighter. Today, the Defense Subcommittee reviews the recommendations of both the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees. The Appropriations Committee can minimize redundancies and make sure that the needs of both Defense and Intelligence are met. Separating Defense from Intelligence through the creation of an all-powerful Intelligence Committee would hurt oversight and hurt the community they hope to help. In recent testimony before the House Intelligence Committee former Deputy Defense Secretary, Defense Comptroller, and staffer to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Dr. John Hamre stated that the Intelligence and Armed Services Committees worry too much about input and not enough about output. His counsel was to let the Appropriations Committee worry about input in the budget process, to determine what we should spend money on and let the authorizing committees worry about how the agencies are performing with these resources. He noted that the authorizing committees spend far too much time on the budget and therefore had insufficient time for oversight. I am pleased that the leadership has decided to recommend creating an Intelligence subcommittee on oversight to highlight its importance. Since the Civil War it has been the mission of the Appropriations Committee to balance needs among competing priorities. While the 9/11 tragedy exposed problems with intelligence oversight, it did not expose problems with the appropriations process for intelligence. Certainly, nothing was uncovered that would be resolved by giving the Intelligence Committee the authority to appropriate funds. The intelligence budget should not be considered in a vacuum. It needs to be considered in conjunction with the Defense budget. While some speculate we can simply separate national intelligence from military intelligence, it is not that simple. Many programs have both national and military, strategic or tactical, components. Military personnel provide a large proportion of the intelligence community workforce. The Defense Department and Intelligence Community both need to support maintaining this relationship and benefit from doing so. It should remain the Appropriations Committee's responsibility to ensure that the needs of both defense and intelligence are met. The Collins-Lieberman bill that the Senate adopted yesterday recognizes the need for maintaining a close working relationship between DoD and intelligence. Creating an Intelligence Committee that could separate itself from all the other actors in the intelligence support arena would be, quite simply, a colossal mistake. Some of our colleagues think that the Congress needs to reorganize dramatically to meet the challenges of the 21st century. There are also those that believe that the Intelligence Committee needs to be stronger. The resolution that has been offered by the leadership in fact will provide some significant enhancements to the authority of the Intelligence Committee which will hopefully improve oversight. However, I believe the real key to better oversight is for our authorizing committees to focus on outputs as Dr. Hamre noted and for the Appropriations Committee to focus an allocating resources as efficiently and effectively as possible. I was the first chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I have great regard for the work of that committee and a great fondness for its chairman and vice chairman. I have also served on the Appropriations Committee for the past 30 years. I understand the critical role that this committee plays in our Nation's security both in defense and intelligence. I can say with no false modesty that the work that Chairman Stevens and the committee does in overseeing the intelligence budget with the assistance of our very experienced professional staff is unmatched anywhere in Congress. As powerful as the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy was, it did not control appropriations. Maintaining Appropriations Committee control over funding would preserve a check on unlimited spending by an authorizing committee and would allow at least one other committee to have some review of Intelligence matters. I for one do not think that this is sufficient oversight, but it is clearly the minimum that the Senate should accept. This is a very important matter. Senator Reid and Senator McConnell have spent the past 3 weeks deliberating on this issue. They have consulted with many Members who have competing interests in this arena. The resolution they propose represents a compromise that balances these many and varied views. I cannot say I am completely happy with their recommendation, but I can say this: Their recommendation is far superior to the alternative that is being proposed by the Senator from Arizona. I urge all my colleagues to vote to support the bipartisan leadership and defeat the McCain amendment.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I commend military certified registered nurse anesthetists, CRNAs. CRNAs are advanced practice nurses who administer anesthesia. Today, CRNAs administer approximately 65 percent of the anesthetics given to patients each year for all types of surgical cases in the United States. Nurse anesthetists have been the principal anesthesia providers in combat areas in every war in which the United States has been engaged since World War I. In World War II, there were 17 nurse anesthetists to every 1 physician anesthetist. In Vietnam, the ratio of CRNAs to physician anesthetists was approximately 3 to 1. During the Panama strike authorized in 1989, only CRNAs were sent with the fighting forces. In addition, the vast majority of anesthesia providers deployed for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom has been CRNAs. Nurse anesthetists are again carrying the load by providing 80 percent of the anesthesia requirements in Iraq and Afghanistan. We rely heavily on CRNAs to accomplish wartime missions and our need for their services will only increase in the future. In all of the uniformed services, maintaining adequate numbers of Active Duty and Reserve CRNAs is of utmost concern. For several years, the number of CRNAs serving on active duty has fallen somewhat short of the number authorized by the Department of Defense. This lag in recruitment has been further exacerbated by a strong demand for CRNAs in both the public and private sectors. One reason the military has difficulty retaining CRNAs is that a large pay gap exists between annual civilian salaries and military pay. I am deeply concerned about retention of these CRNAs, particularly in the Army Nurse Corps. It has come to my attention that within the next 3 years, the Army Nurse Corps could lose up to 50 percent of its current complement of CRNAs. A recent survey of Army CRNAs revealed that despite overall satisfaction with their anesthesia practice, dissatisfaction with pay and frequent deployments are the primary reasons for leaving active duty. One strategy that is proving effective in increasing overall satisfaction is the Army Surgeon General's 180-day rotation policy. I urge continuation of this policy. However, this is not enough to ensure that we meet our mission. I am quite certain that another remedy to prevent further losses would be an across-the-board increase in incentive speciality pay for all CRNAs, regardless of Active-Duty service obligation. I trust that the Department of Defense is also concerned and actively pursuing measures to address this very important issue.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to address the question of intelligence reform and the future of our national security establishment. I believe this is the single most important issue to be addressed by the Congress this year. Today, the Senate is considering legislation which would overturn the current structure of the intelligence community, primarily in response to the recommendations of the Commission established to review the tragedy of 9/11. While I agree that improvements are needed, I urge all of my colleagues to approach this matter very cautiously. We live in interesting and very dangerous times. Many felt that with the collapse of the Soviet Union we had entered into a new era of world peace. I think most of us here recall that we, the President and the Congress, immediately proceeded to claim a peace dividend, and we sought to reap its benefits by cutting back on national security spending. Perhaps it was the right thing, in a world that had indeed fundamentally changed, to reduce our national security spending. Important programs in both defense and intelligence were curtailed. In hindsight, some now question why certain areas of the budget were reduced. As the Cold War ended, it was clear we needed to review our national security programs. For 45 years, our defense and intelligence capabilities had keenly focused on the Soviet Union. We had devised weapons systems, strategies, and intelligence capabilities, all designed to counter that threat. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, our leaders have been working to adjust the focus of our national security apparatus to de-emphasize certain elements of our strategy and accentuate others. These changes have taken a long time and some have met resistance. Those of you who know the military history might recall that during World War I, with the advent of tanks and other motor vehicles, it became apparent that the horse cavalry was obsolete; it simply had no place on the 20th century battlefield. Yet while that war ended in 1917, it took until the 1930s for the Army to completely eliminate the horse cavalry from its ranks. In his highly acclaimed account of the Cuban missile crisis, ``The Essence of Decision,'' Graham Allison explains how President Kennedy was surprised when Khrushchev wanted to negotiate the removal of our missiles from Turkey, while he removed missiles from Cuba, but President Kennedy had already directed that the Turkish missiles be removed. After 42 years in the Senate, I am aware of how frustrating it can be to change the massive national security bureaucracy. It has frustrated the reformers in those agencies who recognize what needs to be done. Each Secretary of Defense and CIA Director since 1990 has worked to change the emphasis of these agencies from a Cold War focus, and they are succeeding, albeit very slowly. The Congress can legislate changes, but that is only half the battle. As President Kennedy discovered, those who have to implement these changes must do so. We should not be fooled into thinking this bill will be fully implemented, unless it does right by the agency it seeks to change and is supported by them. As written, I do not believe this bill meets that test. It is clearly our responsibility to make constructive recommendations that can lead to improvements in our national security bureaucracy. That is what the people expect of us. We must be sure that the bill we pass is in fact constructive and will not create greater problems than it solves. If we pass legislation that fundamentally alters the current intelligence structure, we can ensure that it will lead to a period of several years during which the new intelligence community will experience growing pains. Furthermore, if, in our attempt to strengthen the control of the head of intelligence, we disenfranchise those it is supposed to support, the impact of this bill will clearly be adverse. I understand the frustrations of my colleagues and of all Americans who suffered because of 9/11--those who lost loved ones in particular, but in reality all Americans because our lives were changed by that tragedy. Every Member of Congress wants to improve our defenses against any further terrorist attack. I say to each of my colleagues again, what is most important, what is absolutely critical is that we make changes that are positive, that improve our national security structure, and that do not have unintended consequences that could jeopardize our security. We all recognize that we face a new enemy, one that knows no borders and operates beyond the norms of civilized society, but we also know that we have 130,000 troops standing in harm's way, who face a threat significantly different than the one we face here at home. The new national security system we create must allow us to meet both of these challenges, as it must be able to protect us from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and from the threats of nations that might seek to harm us, our allies, or our interests around the world. I often remark that we have the greatest military in the world, perhaps in the history of mankind. Our young men and women who put on the uniform of this country serve us magnificently. Let me remind you that it is only 1 percent of our citizens who serve in our Armed Forces to protect the remaining 99 percent of us. We are truly in their debt. It is for them that I strongly support a robust budget to strengthen defense every year. It is also for them that we must ensure we do nothing to weaken the support they get from the intelligence community. I would like to note that, in addition to our military, our Nation is lucky to be served by the men and women in our intelligence community. They represent the best in public service. There are those who have criticized our intelligence community since 9/11, but the men and women in this field are truly dedicated, patriotic Americans. In seeking to change how we manage intelligence we must be sure that we remember those who serve in both of these communities. We are focusing on intelligence reform in this bill because there is need for further improvement. The tragedy of 9/11 and the faulty intelligence which had many believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction demonstrate that our system is not perfect. It was exactly these problems which led the 9/11 Commission and many others to call for reforming intelligence. Like all Americans I commend the Commission for its work. It did a masterful job of reviewing the facts, combing through the massive data, and presenting the results in clear and concise prose. Their report provides a great reconstruction of the events of 9/11 and why it occurred. However, some not that the conclusions they draw may not be fully justified by the facts they uncovered. Last week, the Appropriations Committee received testimony from several expert witnesses. We heard from a distinguished jurist, Judge Richard Posner, who studied the 9/11 Commission report and was disturbed by its recommendations. He concluded that the Commission went way beyond the evidence presented. The Commission contends that we had an intelligence failure, that it was a systemic problem as opposed to several mistakes being made by our intelligence community. They blame it on a failure to connect the dots and a lack of imagination. In their analysis, and also cited by the Committee, for example, they note that several terrorists met in Malaysia and that a few proceeded from there to the United States and took part in the attack on 9/11. They conclude with hindsight that the CIA should have recognized that these terrorists were linked to the bombing of the USS Cole and should have informed the FBI and the State Department about the meeting. It is this type of evidence which the Commission and the Governmental Affairs Committee both cite as the justification for an overhaul of our intelligence infrastructure. We all wish that our analysts would have been prescient enough to recognize the relationship among these terrorists, and their connection to the Cole bombing, and the importance of the Malaysian meeting. We all wish that these same analysts would have made that information available to the FBI and State Department where there exists a possibility that it would have triggered an investigation of their movements here. But I for one believe it would have taken a lot of luck for that to have happened--more than simply connecting the dots or having better imagination. Consider this point. It has been more than 3 years since the attack on our Nation. In that time, we have devoted billions of dollars and we have sacrificed many young lives in the war on terrorism, but as far as we know, Osama bin Laden remains hidden from view directing the farflung al-Qaida network. Would anyone seriously claim that we have not worked hard enough to connect the dots since 9/11? Intelligence is a tough business. Like me, many of our colleagues have been involved in intelligence oversight for the Congress. I am not telling them something new. We have witnessed advances in communications and in command and control and other technologies which have revolutionized intelligence. But, with all the highly sophisticated tools in our arsenal, we still can not find Osama. Earlier this year, former CIA Director Tenet testified to the Congress that it would take another 5 years before we had successfully rebuilt an inadequate human intelligence capability in the war on terror. Some immediately held up the Director's statement as an indication that we have not addressed human intelligence requirements. And that is simply not the case. For 50 years we promoted human intelligence, but our focus was on defeating international communism in places where it was taking root, primarily in Europe, Asia, and Latin America. In some cases it takes a generation to build a human intelligence network. When we took our peace dividend, we set back the efforts to refocus human intelligence on newer threats. When the Director says it will take another 5 years, it is not because we haven't been responsive since the rise of al-Qaida. Should we have been working on this more vigilantly? Maybe. But I ask you: Who among us knew at the end of the Cold War that the greatest challenge we were likely to face in the future would come from the son of a Saudi construction magnate? Had we known that at the time of Desert Storm, could we have convinced all of our colleagues that there should be no peace dividend because we needed to prepare for al-Qaida? We all know the answer to that. So I ask you: How will changing the intelligence structure solve this dilemma? Will it allow us to grow our human intelligence capability overnight? Obviously not, but it could distort the working relationship among the various agencies so that intelligence support is harder for the agencies, such as the Defense Department, to get. That could lead agencies with the financial wherewithal to provide that capability internally. That outcome would be expensive and very harmful. The Commission looks at this issue only through the lens of terrorism, and seeks to ensure better coordination within the community. In so doing, it fails to consider the varied responsibilities and needs of all the actors which depend on intelligence. As you know, as ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I have access to virtually all of our Nation's secrets, including those in the Defense Department and in intelligence programs as well. Over the past 3 years our Committee has been informed of multiple threats, most of which have never been publicized. The intelligence community must treat each warning with utmost care. They must research and investigate each one to determine its veracity, and then respond appropriately to those incidents which are deemed credible. In many cases what some call connecting the dots is really like searching for a needle in a haystack. And, just to make it more difficult, there are many hay stacks to examine and in some cases the needle looks exactly like hay. Sure the needles are there and theoretically they could be found, but should we really expect our analysts to find them every time? Furthermore, I want everyone to realize that we are not standing still. We have come a long way in improving intelligence cooperation. We created the Terrorist Threat Integration Center to bring analysts from various parts of the community to work together. The enactment of the PATRIOT Act brought down a wall which had previously blocked information sharing between various parts of the intelligence community and the FBI. Our defense and intelligence leaders are working to break stovepipes and to ensure that information sharing is working. Certainly more improvements are needed in intelligence cooperation and in new technology to improve information sharing. Our Nation has the finest national security apparatus--defense and intelligence--in the world. It is not perfect and it never will be. Some areas can be improved. But it is a critical capability. Our warfighters--our young men and women who, as we speak, are serving in harm's way--depend on seamless intelligence. It is our solemn duty to ensure that we can continue to provide them the best. We must make sure that we do not inadvertently take actions which could sever the link between our defense capabilities and intelligence support. We cannot take the Secretary of Defense out of the loop simply because we seek to strengthen the head of the intelligence community. So what changes shall we make to improve the intelligence capability of this country? First, I would suggest, as recommended by the Commission and the Governmental Affairs Committee, that we establish a national counterterrorism center. The one real failing of the intelligence community in preparing for 9/11, be it in the FBI, the CIA, the NSA or other organizations was the inability or unwillingness to share terrorist intelligence and analysis completely and seamlessly among the disparate parts of this community. Many improvements have already been made, but the one reform that truly can respond to the cries from the families of 9/11 victims is to address this issue, and to address it now. This is the most critical change that needs to be legislated and our Intelligence and Armed Services Committees need to follow up to make sure it is implemented and is effective in conducting it mission. That center needs to be the clearing house for all intelligence on counter-terrorism, both foreign and domestic. It needs to work across disciplines and agencies, and it needs to have the support of all of the intelligence community. It needs to be the analytical capability for the community in the field of counterterrorism. We need to join foreign and domestic analysis together to be sure that we get the full intelligence picture. However, because this Nation believes that foreign and domestic intelligence programs must be separated to ensure that civil liberties and the rights of all Americans are safeguarded, I would urge my colleagues not to give this organization any operational role. It certainly should conduct analysis and strategic planning, but operational planning and operations should continue to be handled as they are today through other parts of the intelligence community working with the Defense Department overseas and the FBI working here at home in conjunction with other relevant domestic agencies. I believe that as we establish this new organization, the national intelligence director's charter should ensure that this national counterterrorism center receives the resources it needs and that the director should focus his efforts on this one challenge in its first year of existence. I agree with the managers of the bill that other intelligence centers may need to be created, but I believe the decision to do so should come from the President based on the recommendation of the national intelligence director with the concurrence of the National Security Council and the Congress. Most important, we have to make sure we come up with the right solutions for the rest of the intelligence community. What may be right for counterterrorism may not be the solution that best serves our intelligence needs for weapons proliferation or for our military. For those reasons, I am not comfortable with rushing this process. Some criticize the community for a ``group think'' outlook. They say that the analysis that indicated that in all probability Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction is an example of group think. I am one who questioned the results of that analysis. With hindsight, I speculate that the community failed because it tried to provide policy makers the answer they wanted rather than a fair interpretation of the facts. Nonetheless, if group think was a problem, how will that be improved by greater centralization of the analytical capabilities in the community? Won't that only exacerbate that problem? And by creating a more powerful intelligence director with a closer tie to policy making, won't that likely lead to more attempts to sway analysts to reach politically acceptable conclusions? These are the troubling facts that were not addressed by the 9/11 Commission and are not adequately considered in this bill. Last week, the Appropriations Committee received testimony from seven witnesses, all of whom are experts in the field of national security and counterterrorism. Included among them were Dr. Henry Kissinger, the current head of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and former Deputy Secretary of Defense, Dr. John Hamre. I do not believe I would be overstating their views to say they were quite concerned with the legislation being proposed by the Governmental Affairs Committee. Their counsel was to be cautious. Dr. Kissinger recommended that Congress study this issue more carefully. He urged us to take another 6 months before we moved forward on what is the most significant Government overhaul since the National Security Act of 1947. Last week, noted experts in national security, including former Secretary of State George Shultz, former CIA Director William Gates, former Secretaries of Defense Bill Cohen and Frank Carlucci, and former Senators Nunn, Hart, Bradley, Rudman and Boren, all recommended that the Congress proceed cautiously. They urged all of us to remember the old medical adage: First, do no harm. This is a most important debate and a most important issue. I know some of my colleagues worry that if we do not act now we will lose the opportunity for significant change. I recognize this concern. But enacting bad legislation in haste because there is a popular demand to act is not the proper way for this body to respond. The Senate was created to cool the passions of the people. Our history, our culture, even our rules are all deeply instilled with the concept of proceeding cautiously. I urge my colleagues to agree with those of us who recommend beginning the process of reform by establishing a new central authority for intelligence, a national intelligence director, any by responding to the specific challenges raised by the events of 9/11 with the creation of a national counterterrorism center. But I believe we need to give a new administration and Congress more time to determine how the rest of the national security apparatus will be structured. Let us use the coming year to determine how we balance the additional responsibilities and share power among the various components of our national security agencies. This matter is too important to rush through in 2 weeks in the heat of a Presidential campaign. Please let us act responsibly. I yield the floor.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Kate Kaufer, a detailee with the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, during consideration of this legislation.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the House version of the Homeland Security appropriations bill has language that clarifies this point. I would like to express my hope that the House language be preserved in the final version of the bill. flood assistance

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from Mississippi yield for a clarification?

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on rollcall No. 178, I was present and voted aye. The Official record has me listed as absent. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the official record be corrected to accurately reflect my vote. This will in no way change the outcome of the vote. The ACTING PRESIDING pro tempore. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to commend RESOLVE, the National Infertility Association, on its three decades of accomplishment and for the many activities it has planned to observe National Infertility Awareness Week, which will be celebrated this year during the week of September 26 to October 2, 2004. For 30 years, RESOLVE has compassionately and effectively served the needs of the nearly seven million Americans comprising our Nation's infertile community, and has been a leading force in efforts to educate the broader public about this devastating condition. Infertility is recognized as a disease and medical condition that has devastating physical, social and psychological consequences. RESOLVE, the National Infertility Association, was incorporated by Barbara Eck Menning, in 1974, to aid and support individuals with infertility. RESOLVE is a nonprofit organization, governed by a volunteer board of directors, many of whom are individuals with first- hand personal experience with the physical, emotional, and social challenges accompanying infertility. They are citizens who have overcome these challenges through assisted reproductive technologies and adoption or determined that their lives would be childless. Regardless of their resolution, RESOLVE helped them to reach it with information, education, and support. RESOLVE's leaders are also members of the professional community who address these issues including National Institutes of Health funded researchers, attorneys, physicians, nurses, and other representatives from the health care industry and related businesses. RESOLVE has a database of more than 40,000 individuals and providers, and a network of more than 40 chapters providing support services, information and grassroots advocacy in local communities nationwide. National Infertility Awareness Week focuses attention on the fact that infertility affects approximately 6.6 million people in the United States, a figure which represents 1 in 10 couples in which the woman is of reproductive age. These are only the reported cases. Millions go unreported because of the stigma attached to infertility and recent surveys suggest that nearly three-quarters of those who can be helped do not seek medical or other assistance because of, among other things, their fears and lack of awareness of the resources available to them and the limited insurance coverage to assist them. The National Institutes of Health, most particularly the National Institute for Child Health and Development, spends approximately $300 million a year on biomedical research focused on reproductive health, treatments, and cures of reproductive disorders. This important research will advance our understanding of infertility-associated diseases and the availability of more effective and affordable treatments that will be respected by insurers and employers as a routine benefit for all those insured. I am proud that my state of Hawaii and 14 other states have enacted laws that require insurance companies to provide some level of coverage for infertility treatment. Like the thousands of individuals working as part of the RESOLVE network, a dedicated community of Americans, I am committed to helping to ensure that those struggling with the multiple challenges of infertility have regular access to appropriate and affordable health care coverage to address their health care needs. I applaud the work of RESOLVE, The National Infertility Association, and commend the many ongoing efforts and special activities throughout the country aimed to educate and inform the public about the issue of infertility, during National Infertility Awareness Week, September 26 to October 2, 2004. ``FOUR TRIALS''

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to address the Defense appropriations conference report that passed the House earlier today. First, I wish to commend my chairman, Senator Stevens, and his capable staff for this agreement. The proposals provided by the conference report represent a careful balance between the recommendations of each body. Moreover, it provides what the Defense Department needs for the coming year. This is a good bill. It represents a fair compromise. It is the product of a lot of hard work by the chairman and members of the committee. I recommend all my colleagues support it. Let me highlight just a couple of key items in this measure. In meeting the conference committee priorities, the bill supports the men and women in uniform. It approves a 3.5 percent pay raise for them. It funds health care requirements to include benefits that are authorized for our guard and reserve forces. And, most important in this very challenging time, it provides significant increases for force protection--specifically up armored ``humvees'', body armor, better helmets, armor plating for other vehicles and new technology to try and counter improvised explosive devices. The bill provides substantial resources to enhance investment programs in the Defense Department to support key programs like the V- 22, the F-22, the new DDX destroyer, the littoral combat ship, missile defense and significant increases in Army equipment for Stryker combat vehicles, trucks, and helicopters. But, I want to inform my colleagues that this bill does not rubber stamp the administration's desires. It reduces many programs for which insufficient justification has been provided. While we recognize that the country needs to continue to enhance its space capabilities, members of the Appropriations Committee have learned the hard way that improvements must be developed prudently. It is a waste of resources to try and accelerate complex new technologies in the manner recommended by civilian officials in the Defense Department. The bill also provides $25 billion in emergency spending, the amount requested, but it allocates the funds to meet the priorities and needs of the individual military departments, not the blank check sought by the administration. It provides adequate safeguards on these funds to ensure proper congressional oversight and requires stringent reporting requirements on its use. I point out also that there are a few items in here that do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Defense Subcommittee. I will defer to others to speak to those. This is a good bill. It represents a fair compromise. It is the product of a lot of hard work by the Chairman and Members of the committee. I encourage all my colleagues to support it. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Ellen Forster during consideration of this legislation.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President. Today I would like to recognize women in technology. While gender equity is not found on the agenda when discussing homeland security, it certainly is a key strategy for maintaining our Nation's preeminent status in science and technical innovation. The last 30 years have seen women make great strides in education and employment. Women are receiving more than 50 percent of the bachelor degrees conferred and are close to reaching parity in the once male-dominated fields, such as law. Unfortunately, these gains have not been uniform in all fields. Women continue to be persistently underrepresented in high-demand, high-wage science, technology, engineering and math, STEM, education and employment. While women make up 46 percent of the American labor force, they are less than 25 percent of the total science and engineering workforce, and have not been able to break through a 10 percent ceiling in engineering. At a time when we face a shortage of skilled STEM workers who are U.S. citizens, women provide an untapped national resource to fill the workforce pipeline. Recent studies from the National Science Foundation and the Department of Commerce confirm these conclusions, including the September 2000 Report of the Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology, which concludes that, ``Unless the STEM labor market becomes more representative of the general U.S. workforce, the nation may likely face severe shortages in [STEM] workers and thus risks undermining its global competitiveness.'' We are at a serendipitous time, when our Nation's economic and security imperatives are aligned with social justice. We must leverage this opportunity to build the requisite partnerships with stakeholders in government, academia, and industry to recruit, train, and retain women and underrepresented minorities in STEM fields. Not only is it a strategy that will ensure our global competitiveness and national security, but it is the right thing to do to ensure that all our citizens have equal access to the education and training needed to succeed. In 1999, when I recognized that the jobs at the Maui High Performance Computer Center and other related research and development contract activities were being filled by males recruited from the mainland, I secured Department of Labor funding to launch the Women in Technology project designed to bring Hawaii's women into these emerging STEM fields. The island of Maui reflects the characteristics of many rural American communities: professional isolationism, limited access to higher education, overdependence on a single economic engine, and perceived limited career opportunities for its young people. These conditions uniquely position Maui to pilot workforce development programming that can be exported to other rural communities. The Women in Technology, WIT, project is administered by the Maui Economic Development Board, a private nonprofit organization well respected for its leadership in helping to diversify the economy through high technology industry development. The board of directors, comprised of community leaders in industry, academia, business, and government gave the project access to key partners. Interviews, focus groups, and roundtable discussions helped establish the workforce challenges and skill sets needed to sustain industry growth projections. Workshops were designed to provide tools to educators and industry on how to overcome the barriers that had created the chilly climate for women. Buy-in was established that even though teachers and employers had no intent to track girls and women into different fields than boys and men, long-established cultural stereotypes of gender roles were imbedded throughout society and insidious messages of what were appropriate female jobs versus male jobs were very strong. The WIT project provides ongoing technical assistance to educators, guidance counselors, and industry partners on recruitment and retention skills to overcome these societal barriers. We must start young. By middle school our girls lose interest in math and science, unless proactive efforts are exerted. In a survey of Maui students, boys were five times more likely than girls to express interest in careers in computer science and engineering. Despite the fact that girls outperformed boys academically in math and science, their personal esteem in these areas was significantly lower and they did not self-select into the physical sciences. After compiling a database of female industry role models, WIT has developed a multitrack program to keep girls engaged in the STEM pipeline. Job shadowing programs, career days, science camps, and mentoring are anchor events in the program designed to influence career intent. Attrition has been another factor in keeping the number of women in STEM low. Mentoring has been identified as the most successful intervention strategy. WIT successfully negotiated with MentorNet, a Presidential award winning program that has been deployed at elite engineering research universities. Maui Community College was accepted into MentorNet's first community college cohort and the program has significantly reduced the female attrition from its STEM courses. The Women in Technology project continues to work with local industry to develop internship and apprenticeship programs. Four years later, the number of women in technical employment at the Maui Research & Technical Park has gone from 0 percent in November 1999 to 23 percent in June 2004. This is the direct result of a local industry and education commitment to build a qualified resident workforce that reflects the diverse demographics of its community, including gender balance. We must use this time when both our Nation's security and its economic strength are dependent on producing more citizens trained in STEM fields, to assure that we do not perpetuate the climate which has precluded women and minorities from entering these fields. Gender equity in science, technology, engineering, math, education, and employment equals homeland security.

Mr. INOUYE

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to James A. Zimble, President of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, USUHS. On August 3, 2004, this remarkable individual will mark the end of his 46-year career in Federal service. Dr. Zimble, Vice Admiral, Medical Corps, United States Navy (Retired), and 30th Surgeon General of the United States Navy, was born on October 12, 1933, in Philadelphia, PA. He served as a senior medical student and ensign in the Navy Reserve Program from 1958 through 1959, earning a Medical Degree from the University of Pennsylvania, School of Medicine (SOM). Thus commenced a career dedicated to service to his nation, medical readiness, and force health protection. Dr. Zimble's 33-year career in the Navy began with his internship and residency at the Naval Hospital in St. Albans, New York. By 1969, he was board certified by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. From 1972 through 1987 he served with distinction in a series of assignments directing clinical services and strategic planning. His Navy career culminated with his selection to serve as Surgeon General of the Navy, from 1987 through 1991. Vice Admiral Zimble earned multiple honors and awards during his Navy career, including the Department of Defense Distinguished Service, Superior Service, and Meritorious Service Medals, the Department of Navy Legion of Merit, the Naval Reserve Association Distinguished Service Award, and the Association of Military Surgeons of the United States Founder's Medal. Dr. Zimble was selected by the Secretary of Defense to serve as the President of USUHS in 1991. He was first to initiate strategic planning and assessment processes, which focused on mission accomplishment and the annual achievements of the 1,824 members of the USUHS community. Today, the University provides a comprehensive, performance-based annual report to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). In 1996, under Dr. Zimble's leadership, the Graduate School of Nursing was established and officially recognized by OSD, thereby, providing uniquely qualified advanced practice nurses for the military. In December of 2000, the OSD Joint Meritorious Unit Award was presented to Dr. Zimble and the University, which officially recognized the multiple products and services of USUHS and their generation of cost avoidance for the Department. In addition, research conducted at USUHS was recognized in Science as one of the top ten scientific breakthroughs of 2002. In 2003, the University received the maximum term of ten years of accreditation with commendation from the Middle States Commission on Higher Education. Today, the USUHS School of Medicine Graduate Education Programs in Public Health rank sixth in the Nation according to U.S. News & World Report's 2004 Rankings of America's Best Graduate Schools on the list of the top 10 community health master or doctoral programs. The American Medical Association has recognized that USUHS not only educates its own graduates, but also provides a significant national service through its continuing medical education courses for military physicians in combat casualty care, tropical medicine, combat stress, disaster medicine, and medical responses to terrorism, courses not available through civilian medical schools. Significantly, the Emerging Infectious Diseases Graduate Education Program provides courses on the agents and effects of bioterrorism and is the only graduate program in the Nation to offer formal training in these critical areas. Over the past 13 years, USUHS has gained recognition and evolved into the Academic Center for Military Medicine. During his tenure, Dr. Zimble remained focused on the medical readiness and force health protection requirements of the Uniformed Services. Today, USUHS prepares its career-oriented physicians, advanced practice nurses, and scientists for the practice of health care in contingency environments. USUHS alumni possess the essential knowledge, skills, and attitudes required during Joint Service deployments. Relevant knowledge in the psychological stresses of combat and trauma and the medical effects of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and extreme environments have been integrated throughout the USUHS educational programs. USUHS' internationally recognized operational exercises, Operations Kerkesner and Bushmaster, ensure flexibility in meeting the ever-evolving requirements of medical readiness. Dr. Zimble's meticulous focus has secured recognition for USUHS throughout the uniformed and civilian health care communities for providing uniformed physicians, advanced practice nurses and scientists with a better understanding of, commitment to, and preparation for the practice of health care in the military. Such accomplishments were recognized in 2000, when the Surgeon General of the United States awarded Dr. Zimble the Public Health Service Surgeon General's Medallion. In December of 1998 and 2001, the Association of American Medical Colleges confirmed the critical role of USUHS in national security by recognizing the USUHS is the one place where physicians of tomorrow, obtain today, thorough preparation to deal with many contingencies, including the medical aspects of chemical and biological terrorism. As of April 2004, the USUHS SOM alumni averaged approximately 20 years of active duty service and represent 22.2 percent of the 11,901 physicians on active duty. The Center for Navy Analysis has reported that where the median length of non-obligated service for physician specialists is 2.9 years, the median length of non-obligated service for USUHS SOM alumni is 9 years, making USUHS the most cost-effective and recommended accession source for leadership positions and ensuring continuity in the military health system. Today, USUHS alumni are globally deployed and providing essential care for our Armed Forces in every theater of operation. Dr. Zimble provided visionary leadership in the establishment of the National Capital Area Medical Simulation Center and the immersive Computer-Aided Virtual Environment. Both projects serve as a template for civilian entities to model and participate in similar training scenarios. Dr. Zimble's extraordinary contributions are respected and admired throughout the Joint Services and within the Federal and civilian health care communities. Our Nation is proud of Dr. Zimble's long and distinguished career and his devotion to the health of the Armed Forces and that of all citizens. I take this opportunity to thank him for his tremendous dedication and love for our country. I wish him fair winds and following seas.