[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 82 (Tuesday, June 15, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6777-S6790]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005--Continued

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut wants to 
modify an amendment at the desk. I suggest he lead off. The Senator 
from Missouri wishes to speak for about 5 or 6 minutes, the Senator 
from Rhode Island for whatever time he may wish, 5 or 10 minutes, and 
then Senator Durbin also would like to speak. So, Mr. President, is 
that an order which is agreeable to my colleagues?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Of course, there will be no more votes tonight. We do 
anticipate a very active day tomorrow, and the leadership is in the 
process of working out the sequencing of events tomorrow.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 3313, the amendment by the 
Senator from Connecticut.


                Amendment No. 3313, As Further Modified

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mr. WARNER. There is no objection, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 3313), as further modified, is as follows:

       On page 195, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:

     SEC. 868. PROHIBITIONS ON USE OF CONTRACTORS FOR CERTAIN 
                   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Prohibition on Use of Contractors in Interrogation of 
     Prisoners.--(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     and except as provided in paragraph (2), the use of 
     contractors by the Department of Defense for the 
     interrogation of prisoners, detainees, or combatants at any 
     United States military installation or other installation 
     under the authority of United States military or civilian 
     personnel is prohibited.
       (2)(A) During fiscal year 2005, the President may waive the 
     prohibition in paragraph (1) with respect to the use of 
     contractors to provide translator services under that 
     paragraph if the President determines that no United States 
     military personnel with appropriate language skills are 
     available to provide translator services for the 
     interrogation to which the waiver applies.
       (B) The President may also waive the prohibition in 
     paragraph (1) with respect to any other use of contractors 
     otherwise prohibited by that paragraph during the 90-day 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     but any such waiver shall cease to be effective on the last 
     day of such period.
       (3) The President shall, on a quarterly basis, submit to 
     the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the use, 
     if any, of contractors for the provision of translator 
     services pursuant to the waiver authority in paragraph 
     (2)(A).
       (b) Prohibition on Use of Funds.--No funds authorized to be 
     appropriated by this Act or any other Act may be obligated or 
     expended for the utilization of contractor personnel in 
     contravention of the prohibition in subsection (a), whether 
     such funds are provided directly to a contractor by a 
     department, agency, or other entity of the United States 
     Government or indirectly through a permanent, interim, or 
     transitional foreign government or other third party.
       (c) Prohibition on Transfer of Custody of Prisoners to 
     Contractors.--No prisoner, detainee, or combatant under the 
     custody or control of the Department of Defense may be 
     transferred to the custody or control of a contractor or 
     contractor personnel.
       (d) Records of Transfers of Custody of Prisoners to Other 
     Countries.--(1) No prisoner, detainee, or combatant under the 
     custody or control of the Department of Defense may be 
     transferred to the custody or control of another department 
     or agency of the United States Government, a foreign, 
     multinational, or other non-United States entity, or another 
     country unless the Secretary makes an appropriate record of 
     such transfer that includes, for the prisoner, detainee, or 
     combatant concerned--
       (A) the name and nationality; and
       (B) the reason or reasons for such transfer.
       (2) The Secretary shall ensure that--
       (A) the records made of transfers by a transferring 
     authority as described in paragraph (1) are maintained by 
     that transferring authority in a central location; and
       (B) the location and format of the records are such that 
     the records are readily accessible to, and readily viewable 
     by, the appropriate committees of Congress.
       (3) A record under paragraph (1) shall be maintained in 
     unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.
       (e) Review of United States Policy on Use of Contractors in 
     Combat Operations.--(1) Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a 
     report on the Secretary's review of United States policy on 
     the use of contractors in combat operations.
       (2) The report under paragraph (1) shall identify and 
     review all current statutes, regulations, policy guidance, 
     and associated legal analyses relating to the use of 
     contractors by the Department of Defense, and by other 
     elements of the uniformed services, in routine engagements in 
     direct combat on the ground, including any prohibitions and 
     limitations on the use of contractors in such engagements.
       (f) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' 
     means--
       (1) the Committees on Armed Services, Foreign Relations, 
     and the Judiciary of the Senate and the Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the Senate; and
       (2) the Committees on Armed Services, International 
     Relations, and the Judiciary of

[[Page S6778]]

     the House of Representatives and the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as 
a cosponsor to Senator Dodd's modified amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Conrad 
be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 3192 which was adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                fairness in public-private competitions

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Chairman Warner and Senator 
Levin for working with Senator Chambliss and me to reach a worthwhile 
bipartisan agreement on this amendment to produce greater fairness in 
public-private competitions. We face great challenges on national 
security and national defense in these times. We are doing all we can 
to meet the needs of our armed forces, and we are proud of their 
service to our country. The Federal civilian employees of the 
Department of Defense deserve our strong support, too.
  The rules put in place last May by the Office of Management and 
Budget to implement public-private competition reforms in the Federal 
Government, including the Department of Defense, are the most sweeping 
changes in half a century. These rules have been controversial, and 
Congress has passed important protections over the last year to ensure 
that competitions to privatize Federal work are fair.
  Last year, in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, a 
bipartisan Congress guaranteed Federal employees the opportunity to 
demonstrate that they can do the work better and for a lower cost than 
private contractors. The fair competition amendment will make these 
provisions permanent, guaranteeing the use of the most efficient 
organizations in both streamlined competitions and other A-76 
competitions at the Department of Defense. The amendment also reduces 
the incentive for private contractors to deny health benefits or 
provide inadequate benefits. Forty-four million Americans are uninsured 
today, and the cost of health insurance premiums have soared by 43 
percent over the last 3 years. Under this amendment, if contractors 
offer inferior health benefits, comparative savings in health costs 
will not be counted in assessing their bids.
  The amendment corrects a major defect in the OMB rules, which prevent 
Federal employees form competing effectively for a new work or work 
conducted by private contractors. The administration opposed a similar 
amendment in the House that established a pilot program. This amendment 
addresses the administration's specific concerns about the pilot 
project, while establishing a process for allowing and encouraging 
Federal employees to compete for new work and work currently performed 
by contractors.
  The amendment also requires the inspector general to determine 
whether the Department of Defense has the infrastructure necessary to 
conduct public-private competitions and administer service contracts.
  This amendment deals primarily with competitions in the Department of 
Defense. We know there is also more work to be done with respect to 
other Federal agencies.
  Given the importance of this issue to my colleagues and me, we will 
be closely monitoring public-private competitions at the Department of 
Defense to ensure compliance with the current rules, to improve the 
law, and to pursue further legislative solutions to ensure fair 
competition. As we expand the Nation's military budget, we must see 
that taxpayers and our men and women in uniform are obtaining all of 
the benefits possible, and I hope very much that Chairman Warner and 
Senator Levin will retain this important amendment in the conference 
report.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I appreciate the hard work of our chairman and ranking 
member in working with Senator Kennedy and to approve the fair 
competition amendment.
  The amendment addresses a number of issues about which I am very 
concerned. One of the key issues is the ability of civilian employees 
to have the opportunity to compete for new work or work currently 
performed by contractors. This amendment would encourage the Department 
of Defense to level the playing field in these areas, improve 
efficiency, and protect government employees' ability to perform 
critical skills in key areas. And it does so in a way that addresses 
the concerns expressed by the administration in its Statement of 
Administration Policy.
  Federal employees should compete in defense of their work, unless 
national security dictates otherwise. Direct conversion, giving work 
performed by Federal employees to contractors without competition, 
disservices Federal employees and taxpayers. The OMB Circular A-76 
allows for direct conversions with OMB's approval. But there is 
evidence that agencies may be undertaking direct conversions without 
OMB's approval. This amendment ensures that for DoD, the largest agency 
and the one that does the most contracting out, there will be no direct 
conversions of any functions performed by more than ten employees, 
absent the invocation by the Secretary of Defense of a national 
security waiver. We have also included strong language in the amendment 
to close loopholes by which DoD could break up functions so that they 
involve ten or fewer employees or arbitrarily designate the work as new 
in order to get around this requirement.

  Federal employees required to undergo public-private competitions 
should be able to submit their most competitive bids through the most 
efficient organization process. This amendment establishes such a 
requirement for all functions performed by more than ten employees.
  Due to the significant costs associated with conducting competitions, 
contractors should be required to demonstrate that they will be 
marginally more efficient than Federal employees before taking away 
work performed by Federal employees. This amendment requires a minimum 
cost differential for all functions performed by more than ten 
employees of 10 percent of $10 million, whichever is smaller.
  Privatization reviews should be predicated on agencies' capacity to 
perform those reviews and then satisfactorily administer any resulting 
service contracts. Our amendment ensures through its Inspector General 
reporting requirement that the Congress will know whether DoD has the 
capacity to conduct the privatization reviews required of it by OMB 
over the next several years.
  I am pleased that this amendment has been accepted by the Senate and 
look forward to working with my colleagues during conference to include 
it in law.
  Mr. LEVIN. I appreciate the willingness of my colleagues to work with 
the Chairman and me on this amendment. The amendment addresses a number 
of important issues that face the Department of Defense's contracting 
out policies.
  For the first time, this amendment would make permanent provisions 
that require a most efficient organization and a minimum cost 
differential in almost all competitions. It ensures that contractors do 
not have incentives to offer inferior health insurance packages as a 
way to cut costs and make their bids more appealing. And it sets up a 
process for Federal employees to gain opportunities to conduct new work 
and work performed by contractors.
  The amendment would, on a government-wide basis, put Federal 
employees and contractors on the same basis with respect to competing 
to perform new work. Contractors are not required to compete against 
Federal employees for new work, either under the FAR or A-76. The 
amendment would eliminate the requirement in A-76 that forces Federal 
employees to compete for new work or to retain their own work when the 
scope of that work expands.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Given that the one concern identified by OMB in its SAP 
has been addressed in the amendment, would the Senator anticipate that 
the amendment will be included in the conference report?

[[Page S6779]]

  Mr. LEVIN. That is my hope and expectation. I note that the House 
bill contains a similar provision, so the differences between the two 
provisions will have to be worked out by the conferees. I commit to 
working with my colleagues in the conference to ensure that the final 
language in the conference report achieves the purposes of the 
amendment.


commission on the future of the national technology and industrial base

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to discuss section 841 of 
S. 2400, entitled the Commission on the Future of the National 
Technology and Industrial Base.
  Mr. WARNER. Yes. This Commission will examine our national technology 
and industrial base as it pertains to the national security of the 
United States. The Commission will make important recommendations to 
ensure we maintain our technological leadership in a global economy.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I commend the chairman for his advocacy of this 
important issue. I would like to make the chairman aware of an effort 
that has been underway at the National Academy of Sciences.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator please describe this effort to me?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Yes. For the past 12 years, the Board on Science 
Technology and Economic Policy at the National Academies, has been 
evaluating the effects of globalization on key U.S. Industries such as 
biotechnology, software, telecommunications, semiconductors, flat panel 
displays, lighting and heavy manufacturing industries such as steel. 
The board produced a report in 2000 evaluating the effects of 
globalization on a subset of these industries. They are now in the 
process of evaluating the effects of outsourcing and globalization 
trends over the past 4 years on many of these same industries. Many, if 
not all, of these industries are important to our defense industrial 
base. I would like to ask the chairman if he believes it is important 
for the Commission to review the work of Board on Science Technology 
and Economic Policy as it undertakes its research.
  Mr. WARNER. Yes, I believe it is prudent that the Commission fully 
utilize the expertise that the Board on Science Technology and Economic 
Policy has developed in evaluating the trends of globalization and 
outsourcing on the industries you have just discussed.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the chairman for his time in this matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                           Amendment No. 3251

  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I have an amendment I wish to offer on 
behalf of Mr. Bond and myself. It is at the desk. I ask it be called 
up. It is amendment No. 3251.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Talent], for himself and Mr. 
     Bond, proposes an amendment numbered 3251.

  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress on America's National World 
                             War I Museum)

       At the end of subtitle G of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1068. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON AMERICA'S NATIONAL WORLD WAR 
                   I MUSEUM.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Liberty Memorial Museum in Kansas City, Missouri, 
     was built in 1926 in honor of those individuals who served in 
     World War I in defense of liberty and the Nation.
       (2) The Liberty Memorial Association, a nonprofit 
     organization which originally built the Liberty Memorial 
     Museum, is responsible for the finances, operations, and 
     collections management of the Liberty Memorial Museum.
       (3) The Liberty Memorial Museum is the only public museum 
     in the Nation that exists for the exclusive purpose of 
     interpreting the experiences of the United States and its 
     allies in the World War I years (1914-1918), both on the 
     battlefield and on the home front.
       (4) The Liberty Memorial Museum project began after the 
     1918 Armistice through the efforts of a large-scale, grass-
     roots civic and fundraising effort by the citizens and 
     veterans of the Kansas City metropolitan area. After the 
     conclusion of a national architectural design competition, 
     ground was broken in 1921, construction began in 1923, and 
     the Liberty Memorial Museum was opened to the public in 1926.
       (5) In 1994, the Liberty Memorial Museum closed for a 
     massive restoration and expansion project. The restored 
     museum reopened to the public on Memorial Day, 2002, during a 
     gala rededication ceremony.
       (6) Exhibits prepared for the original museum buildings 
     presaged the dramatic, underground expansion of core 
     exhibition gallery space, with over 30,000 square feet of new 
     interpretive and educational exhibits currently in 
     development. The new exhibits, along with an expanded 
     research library and archives, will more fully utilize the 
     many thousands of historical objects, books, maps, posters, 
     photographs, diaries, letters, and reminiscences of World War 
     I participants that are preserved for posterity in the 
     Liberty Memorial Museum's collections. The new core 
     exhibition is scheduled to open on Veterans Day, 2006.
       (7) The City of Kansas City, the State of Missouri, and 
     thousands of private donors and philanthropic foundations 
     have contributed millions of dollars to build and later to 
     restore this national treasure. The Liberty Memorial Museum 
     continues to receive the strong support of residents from the 
     States of Missouri and Kansas and across the Nation.
       (8) Since the restoration and rededication of 2002, the 
     Liberty Memorial Museum has attracted thousands of visitors 
     from across the United States and many foreign countries.
       (9) There remains a need to preserve in a museum setting 
     evidence of the honor, courage, patriotism, and sacrifice of 
     those Americans who offered their services and who gave their 
     lives in defense of liberty during World War I, evidence of 
     the roles of women and African Americans during World War I, 
     and evidence of other relevant subjects.
       (10) The Liberty Memorial Museum seeks to educate a diverse 
     group of audiences through its comprehensive collection of 
     historical materials, emphasizing eyewitness accounts of the 
     participants on the battlefield and the home front and the 
     impact of World War I on individuals, then and now. The 
     Liberty Memorial Museum continues to actively acquire and 
     preserve such materials.
       (11) A great opportunity exists to use the invaluable 
     resources of the Liberty Memorial Museum to teach the 
     ``Lessons of Liberty'' to the Nation's schoolchildren through 
     on-site visits, classroom curriculum development, distance 
     learning, and other educational initiatives.
       (12) The Liberty Memorial Museum should always be the 
     Nation's museum of the national experience in the World War I 
     years (1914-1918), where people go to learn about this 
     critical period and where the Nation's history of this 
     monumental struggle will be preserved so that generations of 
     the 21st century may understand the role played by the United 
     States in the preservation and advancement of democracy, 
     freedom, and liberty in the early 20th century.
       (13) This initiative to recognize and preserve the history 
     of the Nation's sacrifices in World War I will take on added 
     significance as the Nation approaches the centennial 
     observance of this event.
       (14) It is fitting and proper to refer to the Liberty 
     Memorial Museum as ``America's National World War I Museum''.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--Congress--
       (1) recognizes the Liberty Memorial Museum in Kansas City, 
     Missouri, including the museum's future and expanded 
     exhibits, collections, library, archives, and educational 
     programs, as ``America's National World War I Museum'';
       (2) recognizes that the continuing collection, 
     preservation, and interpretation of the historical objects 
     and other historical materials held by the Liberty Memorial 
     Museum enhance the knowledge and understanding of the 
     Nation's people of the American and allied experience during 
     the World War I years (1914-1918), both on the battlefield 
     and on the home front;
       (3) commends the ongoing development and visibility of 
     ``Lessons of Liberty'' educational outreach programs for 
     teachers and students throughout the Nation; and
       (4) encourages the need for present generations to 
     understand the magnitude of World War I, how it shaped the 
     Nation, other countries, and later world events, and how the 
     sacrifices made then helped preserve liberty, democracy, and 
     other founding principles for generations to come.

  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I rise today in support of an amendment to 
designate the Liberty Memorial Museum in Kansas City, MO, as America's 
World War I Museum. All of us in Missouri are privileged to have such 
an outstanding museum and memorial to honor those who served during 
this critical period in our Nation's history.
  World War I is, of course, an important part of America's history, 
and its history ought to be preserved so the generations of the 21st 
century can understand the role played by the United States in the 
preservation and advancement of freedom during that crucial time.
  The Liberty Memorial Museum is the only public museum in the Nation 
that exists for the exclusive purpose of interpreting the experiences 
of the United States and its Allies in the

[[Page S6780]]

World War I years, both on the battlefield and on the homefront. It 
deserves this designation as America's National World War I Museum.
  The museum has a truly amazing history. After the guns were silenced 
in 1918 and the huge celebrations died down, concerned citizens in the 
United States reflected on the war and the losses sustained. The 
Liberty Memorial Museum project began after the 1918 armistice through 
the efforts of a large-scale, grassroots civic and fundraising effort 
by the citizens and veterans in the Kansas City metropolitan area. In 
less than 2 weeks, $2.5 million was raised through donations from local 
citizens. That was in 1918. That gives the Senate some idea of the 
enormity of the efforts on behalf of this memorial.
  After the conclusion of a national architectural design competition, 
ground was broken in 1921, construction began in 1923, and the Liberty 
Memorial Museum was open to the public in 1926.
  At the dedication on November 1, 1921, the main Allied military 
leaders spoke to a crowd of close to 200,000 people.
  It was the only time in history the leaders of the United States, 
Belgium, Italy, France, and Great Britain were together at one place. 
These were the military leaders during World War I and they convened in 
Kansas City in 1921 to open this museum.
  Today, the Liberty Memorial Museum seeks to educate a diverse group 
of audiences through its comprehensive collection of historical 
materials, emphasizing eyewitness accounts of the participants on the 
battlefield and the homefront and the impact of World War I on 
individuals, then and now. The Liberty Memorial Museum continues to 
actively acquire and preserve such materials.
  The designation of the museum as ``America's National World War I 
Museum'' is a great opportunity to use the invaluable resources of the 
Liberty Memorial Museum to teach the lessons of liberty to the Nation's 
schoolchildren through onsite visits, classroom curriculum development, 
distance learning, and other educational initiatives.
  I am pleased to offer the amendment on behalf of Mr. Bond and myself. 
I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for agreeing to 
include the measure in the underlying bill. It has been cleared on both 
sides and I look forward to the Senate adding it to this Defense 
measure.
  I yield the floor, and I ask for adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the amendment is cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 3251.
  The amendment (No. 3251) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3352

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have an amendment numbered 3352.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside and the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for himself, Mr. 
     Hagel, Mr. McCain, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Akaka and Mr. Biden 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3352.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To increase the end strength for active duty personnel of the 
            Army for fiscal year 2005 by 20,000 to 502,400)

       On page 59, line 7, strike ``482,400'' and insert 
     ``502,400''.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, it is my intention this evening to spend a 
few minutes to lay the amendment down and then I presume at the end of 
the evening, with unanimous consent, I will be given at least an hour 
of debate tomorrow which I will share with Senators McCain, Hagel, and 
others. That is my understanding. I ask the Senator from Virginia if 
that understanding is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we will work that out along those lines.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I understand from the chairman that he will 
offer a second-degree amendment at the appropriate time. At this 
juncture, I would like to briefly explain the amendment and then have 
the opportunity to discuss it in more detail tomorrow with my 
colleague.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I understand it is in order to forward a 
second-degree amendment to the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island has the floor.


                Amendment No. 3450 to Amendment No. 3352

  Mr. WARNER. I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3450 to amendment No. 3352.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide for funding the increased number of Army active-
      duty personnel out of fiscal year 2005 supplemental funding)

       Strike line 2 and insert the following:
     ``502,400, subject to the condition that the costs of active 
     duty personnel of the Army in excess of 482,400 shall be paid 
     out of funds authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 
     2005 for a contingent emergency reserve fund or as an 
     emergency supplemental appropriation''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. My amendment will increase the end strength of the Army to 
meet the incredible mission that has been thrust upon them in the wake 
of the war on terror and the operations in Afghanistan and the 
operations in Iraq. I believe it is incumbent that we formally increase 
the end strength of the Army and we incorporate within the Army budget 
the requirements for these additional soldiers.
  At this juncture, the Army is being increased on an emergency basis 
through supplemental appropriations. I think that is not the 
appropriate way to do it. I think we have to recognize that the 
struggles we are engaged in are long term; they are not temporary. We 
have to have an end strength within the authorization bill that 
reflects that long-term effort we are engaged in.
  I also believe we have to have within the Army budget the baseline 
established so that if a supplemental is delayed or is not sufficient 
to cover these additional troops, the Army does not have to go among 
its own programs and root about and find moneys to pay for these 
troops.
  These troops are necessary. It is expedient that we should in fact 
engage and correct this discrepancy between the missions and the men 
and women who are serving our Army so well.
  This is a quick glimpse of our soldiers who are committed throughout 
the world: 310,000 soldiers in 120 countries. The most significant, of 
course, are operations in Afghanistan and in Iraq. There are 13,000 in 
Afghanistan and 126,000 in Iraq. There are soldiers all across the 
globe and I think we all understand the stresses of these operations 
are wearing our Army down rapidly.
  Some of the indications that we have too few troops can be cited very 
quickly. First, literally a few days ago the Army announced a stop-loss 
policy that would prevent soldiers from leaving the Army 90 days before 
their unit deploys into Iraq. We are essentially telling volunteers 
that they cannot leave at the end of their enlistment. That is an 
obvious indication we have too few troops.
  Second, we are withdrawing troops from Korea. There might be 
strategic reasons to pull troops out of Korea. There might be 
logistical reasons. Technology might be aiding them. But, frankly, this 
is an indication of, again, the shortage of troops within the Army, 
because we have huge risks in North Korea. This is a regime that has 
announced they have nuclear weapons. This is a regime that has been 
involved in on-and-off negotiations with us for a matter of many months 
to see if we can resolve the situation peacefully.
  The signal we are sending to the North Koreans, albeit unwittingly, 
is this is not a major priority; we are actually taking troops away.
  When troops are taken away, we may still have the ability to deter 
the North Koreans from attacking South Korea but, frankly, our mission 
over there is no longer just deterrence, it is disarmament, and that 
requires diplomacy backed up by force. We hope diplomacy works, but we 
are weakening our hand.
  One of the most interesting and insightful indications of the 
shortage of

[[Page S6781]]

troops is we are actually beginning to take apart the training 
infrastructure of the U.S. Army. Recently it was announced that troops 
from our training centers, the 11th Army Cavalry Regiment, which serves 
as the op force, the enemy force, in training our units, is being 
notified for deployment overseas. In addition to that, the 1st 
Battalion of the 509th Infantry, which acts as the opposition force to 
train our troops at Fort Polk, LA, is also on notice.

  What can be more demonstrative of the shortage of troops than the 
fact we are, in a sense, dismantling our training structure? That in 
the long term is going to do great harm to the service. We need more 
troops.
  I am sure those who are opposed to the amendment will say we have 
authorized in this bill again access to emergency authorization and 
supplemental funding, but that is not doing it the right way, doing it 
up front, doing it in a straightforward manner, increasing end strength 
statutorily, and putting this into the regular budget process.
  I hope tomorrow we can debate this bill. I am unaware of the second-
degree amendment. I will get with the chairman to see what his language 
is. I feel very strongly that this is the way to do it, and I am joined 
in that by my colleagues Senators McCain, Hagel, Corzine, Akaka, Biden, 
and many others who feel very strongly this is the way to do it and it 
should be done. I hope it will be done tomorrow.
  With the expectation and the understanding that we will have at least 
an hour tomorrow on my side to engage in debate on this issue, at this 
point I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my good friend from Rhode Island 
that this has been an issue he has expressed concern about for better 
than a year or more in the course of our hearings in the Armed Services 
Committee, where my colleague is a very valuable member. He also draws 
on his own experience as a distinguished West Point graduate and Army 
officer himself. He speaks against a background of experience and 
knowledge.
  Yes, the bill at the moment has a provision in it which gives the 
flexibility to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, and 
others to increase on a temporary basis--actually we go up to 30,000 if 
they need it, whereas the Senator from Rhode Island does 20,000. We 
will work this out tomorrow. But I express two concerns tonight, as we 
lay down the preliminary record. I pose this question to the Senator 
from Rhode Island. You do not provide in your amendment any means by 
which to pay for it; am I not correct?

  Mr. REED. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Then my next question would be, you know from your 
experience on the committee that the Department of the Army primarily--
it could be it comes from other areas of the defense budget, but the 
Department of the Army might have to get over $2 billion out of its 
current budget to meet these added costs. Would that not be correct?
  Mr. REED. If I may respond to the chairman, he is quite right about 
the offset. I have some ideas from where the money could come. It is my 
feeling it should come from funds outside the Army. I think what we 
have done is we have increased it, but we haven't offset it by Army 
programs. So there is the possibility--I hope the likelihood--the 
offset would come from other programs.
  Mr. WARNER. As I think the Senator will see--I think I have sent a 
copy of my amendment over to him. It is very brief. It just specifies 
that the funding will come from areas other than the Department of the 
Army budget or elsewhere in the defense budget. Has the Senator had an 
opportunity to look at the amendment?
  Mr. REED. I have had an opportunity to read the amendment. It seems, 
in keeping with the Senator's commitment to be constructive and 
helpful, to be very constructive and very helpful, on first 
examination.
  Mr. WARNER. We will work on this tomorrow. But I think for the 
purposes of tomorrow's debate, we framed the parameters in which the 
debate is likely to occur. I am optimistic that we can work this out 
together. I commend the Senator. He has been a lead, with Senator 
McCain and others, from the very beginning.
  At this point in time, the leadership, tonight, in consultation with 
Senator Levin and myself, will work out the sequence of events 
tomorrow. The Senator believes he needs a full hour on his side?
  Mr. REED. Yes. Myself, Senator Hagel, and Senator McCain wish to 
speak.
  Mr. WARNER. Fine. I will indicate to the leadership I will not need a 
full hour to speak to the second-degree amendment and to my concern 
about the permanency of it. But the reality is I think this will move 
tomorrow. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Illinois seeking 
recognition. It is my hope and expectation we can work this matter out. 
How much does he wish to address it tonight?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I say to the chairman, who I respect so 
much, I agree tomorrow we will take 30 minutes equally divided before 
the vote on this amendment. My hope this evening is, in the span of 
perhaps 20 minutes, to give a longer statement so it will not be 
necessary to repeat it tomorrow and save us some time so we can move 
more quickly. I know the Senator has been extremely patient.
  Mr. WARNER. We have all been patient. I thank the Senator. I think 
that is very helpful. If the Senator will proceed along those lines, I 
will be working on the finalization of the unanimous consent request to 
put in tomorrow. At the conclusion of the Senator's remarks, this 
amendment will just be among the pending amendments?
  Mr. DURBIN. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. We may be able to work it out tomorrow such that we do 
not require a recorded vote.
  Mr. DURBIN. I might say to the chairman, because of the serious 
nature of this amendment, I think we will want a recorded vote.
  Mr. WARNER. That is the Senator's prerogative.
  Mr. DURBIN. I hope we can work on this tomorrow, and I will confer 
with the chairman on that aspect.
  I come to the floor today to offer amendment to the Defense 
Department authorization bill.
  The amendment would reaffirm a very important, long-standing position 
of our nation: that the United States shall not engage in torture or 
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. This is a standard that is 
embodied in the U.S. Constitution and in numerous international 
agreements which the United States has ratified.
  The amendment would require the Defense Secretary to issue guidelines 
to ensure compliance with this standard and to provide these guidelines 
to Congress. The Defense Secretary would also be required to report to 
Congress on any suspected violations of the prohibition on torture or 
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The amendment specifically 
provides that this information should be provided to Congress in a 
manner and form that would protect national security.
  Let me also explain what this amendment would not do. It would not 
impose any new legal obligations on the United States. It would not 
limit our ability to use the full range of interrogation techniques 
that are outlined in the Army interrogation manual. It would not affect 
the status of any person under the Geneva Conventions or whether any 
person is entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
  It would only reaffirm and ensure compliance with our long-standing 
obligation not to subject detainees to torture or cruel, inhuman and 
degrading treatment.
  The amendment is supported by a broad coalition of organizations and 
individuals, including human rights organizations like Human Rights 
Watch and Amnesty International, religious institutions such as the 
Episcopal Church, and military officers, such as retired Rear Admiral 
John Hutson.
  Admiral Hutson was a Navy Judge Advocate for 28 years and from 1997-
2000, he was the Judge Advocate General, the top lawyer in the Navy. In 
a letter in support of this amendment, he wrote:

       It is absolutely necessary that the United States maintain 
     the high ground in this area and that Congress take a firm 
     stand on the issue. . . . It is critical that we remain 
     steadfast in our absolute opposition to torture and [cruel, 
     inhuman or degrading treatment]. Senator Durbin's proposed 
     amendment is a critical first step in that regard.


[[Page S6782]]


  In the aftermath of 9/11, some have called for the United States to 
abandon this commitment. But President Bush has made it clear that he 
does not support this position. On June 26, 2003, the International Day 
in Support of Victims of Torture, the President said:

       The United States is committed to the world-wide 
     elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by 
     example. I call on all governments to join with the United 
     States and the community of law-abiding nations in 
     prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of 
     torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual 
     punishment.

  I commend the President for standing behind our treaty obligations. 
Now the Congress must do no less. The world is watching us. They are 
asking whether the United States will stand behind its treaty 
obligations in the age of terrorism. With American troops in harm's 
way, we need to tell the world and the American people that the United 
States is committed to treating all detainees humanely.
  As we mourn the passing of President Ronald Reagan, we should recall 
his vision of America as a shining city upon a hill--a model of 
democracy, freedom and the rule of law that people around the world 
look to for inspiration. As President Reagan said in his Farewell 
Address to the Nation:

       After 200 years, two centuries, [America] still stands 
     strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held 
     steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still 
     a magnet for all who must have freedom.

  President Reagan was right. Our city upon a hill must hold steady in 
defense of our principles no matter what storm. Despite the threat of 
terrorism, we must stand by our opposition to torture and other cruel 
treatment.
  In fact, it was President Reagan who first transmitted the Convention 
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or 
Punishment to the Senate with his recommendation that the Senate ratify 
the treaty.
  We are in the process of defining our values as a country in the age 
of terrorism. We need to make it clear that we will not compromise 
principles that have guided us and other civilized nations for hundreds 
of years.
  The prohibition on torture and other cruel treatment is deeply rooted 
in our history. In 15th and 16th Century England, the infamous Star 
Chamber issued warrants authorizing the use of torture against 
political opponents of the Crown. Supporters of the Star Chamber 
claimed that torture was necessary to protect the security of the 
state. Blackstone, the English jurist who greatly influenced the 
Founding Fathers, said: ``It seems astonishing that this usage of 
torture should be said to arise from a tenderness to the lives of 
men.'' Those words still ring true today.
  In 1641, the Star Chamber was abolished and the use of torture 
warrants ended. A prohibition on torture and cruel treatment developed 
in English common law. The English Bill of Rights of 1689, which served 
as a model for our Bill of Rights, contained a ban on ``cruel and 
unusual punishments.''
  This history carried great weight with the Framers of our 
Constitution. During the Constitutional Conventions, Patrick Henry, in 
a statement that typified the Founders' views, said: ``What has 
distinguished our ancestors? That they would not admit of tortures, or 
cruel and barbarous punishment.''
  During the Constitutional Convention, George Mason, who is known as 
``the Father of the Bill of Rights,'' explained that the 5th Amendment 
ban on self-incrimination and the 8th Amendment ban of cruel and 
unusual punishment both prohibit torture and cruel treatment.
  Our history makes clear that these principles also guided us during 
times of war. During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln asked 
Francis Lieber, a military law expert, to create a set of rules to 
govern the conduct of U.S. soldiers in the field. The Lieber Code 
prohibited torture or other cruel treatment of captured enemy forces. 
It became the foundation for the modern law of war, which is embodied 
in the Geneva Conventions.
  In the early twentieth century, the emergence of large police 
departments in the United States was accompanied by a dramatic increase 
in the abuse of suspects in police custody. President Hoover appointed 
the National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement, also known 
as the Wickersham Commission, to review law enforcement practices. In 
1931, the Commission's findings shocked the nation and permanently 
transformed the nature of American law enforcement.
  The Commission concluded:

       The third degree is the employment of methods which inflict 
     suffering, physical or mental, upon a person, in order to 
     obtain from that person information about a crime. . . . The 
     third degree is widespread. The third degree is a secret and 
     illegal practice. When all allowances are made it remains 
     beyond a doubt that the practice is shocking in its character 
     and extent, violative of American traditions and 
     institutions, and not to be tolerated.

  The commission catalogued and condemned ``third degree'' methods, 
including, physical brutality, threats, sleep deprivation, exposure to 
extreme cold or heat--also known as ``the sweat box''--and blinding 
with powerful lights and other forms of sensory overload or 
deprivation.
  The commission also discussed practical reasons to reject the ``third 
degree'':

       The third degree involves the danger of false confessions. 
     . . so many instances have been brought to our attention 
     during this investigation that we feel convinced not only of 
     its existence but of its seriousness.
       The third degree impairs police efficiency. . . . It tends 
     to make [police] less zealous in the search of objective 
     evidence.
       The third degree brutalizes the police, hardens the 
     prisoner against society, and lowers the esteem in which the 
     administration of justice is held by the public. Probably the 
     third degree has been a chief factor in bringing about the 
     present attitude of hostility on the part of a considerable 
     portion of the population toward the police and the very 
     general failure of a large element of the people to aid or 
     cooperate with the police in maintaining law and order.
       Over the next two decades, numerous Supreme Court opinions 
     cited the Wickersham Commission report and condemned the use 
     of various third degree methods as unconstitutional.
       As the landscape of American policing was being reshaped, 
     the horrific abuses of Nazi Germany began to come to light. 
     This reinforced American opposition to torture and other 
     forms of cruel treatment.
       One of the counts in the Nuremberg indictment of Gestapo 
     officials detailed official orders approving the application 
     of ``third degree'' techniques, including ``[a] very simple 
     diet (bread and water)[,] hard bunk[,] dark cell[,] 
     deprivation of sleep[,] exhaustive drilling[,] . . . [and] 
     flogging (for more than 29 strokes a doctor must be 
     consulted)'' as a means of obtaining evidence, or 
     ``information of important facts'' regarding subversion. One 
     of the defenses raised by Gestapo officers was that such 
     actions were necessary to protect against Resistance 
     terrorism.

  After World War II, in the aftermath of Nuremberg and the disclosure 
of Nazi Gestapo tactics, the United States and our allies created a new 
international legal order based on respect for human rights.
  One of its fundamental tenets was a universal prohibition on torture 
and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The United States took the 
lead in establishing a succession of international agreements that ban 
the use of torture and other cruel treatment against all persons at all 
times. There are no exceptions to this prohibition.
  Eleanor Roosevelt was the Chair of the U.N. Commission that produced 
the Universal Declaration on Human Rights in 1948. The Universal 
Declaration states unequivocally, ``No one shall be subjected to 
torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.''
  The United States, along with a majority of countries in the world, 
is a party to the Geneva Conventions, the International Covenant on 
Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention against Torture and 
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, all of which 
prohibit torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
  Army regulations that implement these treaty obligations state:

       Inhumane treatment is a serious and punishable violation 
     under international law and the Uniform Code of Military 
     Justice (UCMJ). All prisoners will receive humane treatment 
     without regard to race, nationality, religion, political 
     opinion, sex, or other criteria. The following acts are 
     prohibited: murder, torture, corporal punishment, mutilation, 
     the taking of hostages, sensory deprivation, collective 
     punishments, execution without trial by proper authority, and 
     all cruel and degrading treatment. All persons will be 
     respected as human beings. They will be protected against all 
     acts of violence to include rape, forced prostitution, 
     assault and theft, insults, public curiosity, bodily injury, 
     and reprisals of any kind This list is not exclusive.


[[Page S6783]]


  Some people may be asking, ``What is, `cruel, inhuman or degrading 
treatment.' '' How can the United States be bound by such an uncertain 
standard?
  The United States Senate debated this question before ratifying the 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Torture 
Convention. In response to this concern, we filed reservations to both 
of these agreements. A reservation is a statement filed by the Senate 
that clarifies our obligations under international agreements.
  These reservations state that the United States is bound to prevent 
``cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment'' only to the extent that that 
phrase means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment 
prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. In other words, ``cruel, inhuman 
or degrading treatment'' is defined by the U.S. Constitution, and the 
United States is only prohibited from engaging in conduct that is 
already unconstitutional.
  This provides certainty and clarity. In 1990, the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee held a hearing on the Torture Convention and an 
official from the first Bush administration explained the reservation:

       We have proposed this reservation because the terms 
     ``cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'' used 
     in this Convention are vague and are not evolved concepts 
     under international law. . . . On the other hand, the concept 
     of cruel and unusual punishment under the United States 
     Constitution is well developed, having evolved through court 
     decisions over a period of 200 years.

  The current administration has confirmed that it stands by this 
reservation. Last year, Defense Department General Counsel William 
Haynes said:

       ``[C]ruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'' 
     means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment 
     prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments 
     to the Constitution of the United States. United States 
     policy is to treat all detainees and conduct all 
     interrogations, wherever they may occur, in a manner 
     consistent with this commitment.

  Aside from our legal obligations, there are also important practical 
reasons for standing by our commitment not to engage in torture or 
other cruel treatment.
  Torture is an ineffective interrogation tactic because it produces 
unreliable information. People who are being tortured will often lie to 
their torturer in order to stop the pain.
  Resorting to torture and ill treatment of detainees would make us 
less secure, not more. It would create anti-American sentiment at a 
time when we need the support and assistance of other countries in the 
war on terrorism.
  Finally, and most importantly, if we were to engage in torture or ill 
treatment of detainees, we would increase the risk of subjecting 
members of the Armed Forces to torture if they are captured by our 
enemies.
  The U.S. Army fully recognizes these practical downsides. The Army 
Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation states:

       Use of torture and other illegal methods is a poor 
     technique that yields unreliable results, may damage 
     subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to 
     say what he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. Revelation 
     of use of torture by U.S. personnel will bring discredit upon 
     the U.S. and its armed forces while undermining domestic and 
     international support for the war effort. It may also place 
     U.S. and allied personnel in enemy hands at a greater risk of 
     abuse by their captors.

  As the great American patriot Thomas Paine said: ``He that would make 
his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression.''
  Sadly, the ``third degree,'' which was condemned by the Wickersham 
Commission in 1931 and in subsequent Supreme Court decisions, has 
reemerged in modern times with a new name: ``stress and duress.'' 
``Stress and duress'' tactics, which are also known as ``torture 
lite,'' include extended food, sleep, sensory, or water deprivation, 
exposure to extreme heat or cold, and ``position abuse,'' which 
involves forcing detainees to assume positions designed to cause pain 
or humiliation. ``Stress and duress'' tactics clearly constitute 
torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
  As the Supreme Court explained in Blackburn v. Alabama, a 1960 case:

       [C]oercion can be mental as well as physical . . . the 
     blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an 
     unconstitutional inquisition. A number of cases have 
     demonstrated, if demonstration were needed, that the 
     efficiency of the rack and the thumbscrew can be matched, 
     given the proper subject, by more sophisticated modes of 
     ``persuasion.''

  Let's take one example: sleep deprivation. In Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 
a 1944 case, the Supreme Court held that a confession obtained by 
depriving a suspect of sleep and continuously questioning him for 36 
hours was involuntarily coerced. For the majority, Justice Hugo Black 
wrote:

       It has been known since 1500 at least that deprivation of 
     sleep is the most effective torture and certain to produce 
     any confession desired [quoting the Wickersham Commission]. . 
     . . We think a situation such as that here shown by 
     uncontradicted evidence is so inherently coercive that its 
     very existence is irreconcilable with the possession of 
     mental freedom by a lone suspect against whom its full 
     coercive force is brought to bear.

  As explained in a recent New York Times article by Adam Hochschild, 
sleep deprivation was widely used in the Middle Ages on suspected 
witches--it was called tormentum insomniae. Stalin's secret police 
subjected prisoners to the ``conveyer belt,'' continuous questioning by 
numerous interrogators until the prisoner signed a confession. Former 
Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin wrote about his experience with 
sleep deprivation in a Soviet prison in the 1940's:

       In the head of the interrogated prisoner a haze begins to 
     form. His spirit is wearied to death, his legs are unsteady, 
     and he has one sole desire: to sleep, to sleep just a little. 
     . . . Anyone who has experienced this desire knows that not 
     even hunger or thirst are comparable with it. . . . I came 
     across prisoners who signed what they were told to sign, only 
     to get what the interrogator promised them . . . 
     uninterrupted sleep!

  Another example is ``position abuse.'' In 2002, in a case called Hope 
v. Pelzer, the Supreme Court addressed this issue. Hope, a prisoner, 
was handcuffed to a ``hitching post'' for seven hours in the sun and 
not allowed to use the bathroom. The Court held that this violated the 
8th Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The Court 
said:

       The obvious cruelty inherent in this practice should have 
     provided [the prison guards] with some notice that their 
     alleged conduct violated Hope's constitutional protection 
     against cruel and unusual punishment. Hope was treated in a 
     way antithetical to human dignity--he was hitched to a post 
     for an extended period of time in a position that was 
     painful, and under circumstances that were both degrading and 
     dangerous.

  In the 1930s, Stalin's secret police forced dissidents to stand for 
prolonged periods to coerce confessions for show trials. In 1956, 
experts commissioned by the CIA documented the effects of forced 
standing. They found that ankles and feet swell to twice their normal 
size within 24 hours, the heart rate increases, some people faint, and 
the kidneys eventually shut down.
  For many years, the United States has characterized the use of 
``stress and duress'' by other countries as ``Torture and Other Cruel, 
Inhuman and Degrading Treatment.'' The State Department's ``Country 
Reports on Human Rights Practices,'' which are submitted to Congress 
every year, have condemned ``beatings,'' ``threats to detainees or 
their family members,'' ``sleep deprivation,'' ``depriv[ation] of food 
and water,'' ``suspension for long periods in contorted positions,'' 
``prolonged isolation,'' ``forced prolonged standing,'' ``tying of the 
hands and feet for extended periods of time,'' ``public humiliation,'' 
``sexual humiliation,'' and ``female detainees . . . being forced to 
strip in front of male security officers.''
  The Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation characterizes 
``stress and duress'' as illegal physical and mental torture. The 
Manual states that ``acts of violence or intimidation, including 
physical or mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to inhumane 
treatment as a means of or an aid to interrogation'' are ``illegal.'' 
It defines ``infliction of pain through . . . bondage (other than 
legitimate use of restraints to prevent escape),'' ``forcing an 
individual to stand, sit, or kneel in abnormal positions for prolonged 
periods of time,'' ``food deprivation,'' and ``any form of beating,'' 
as ``physical torture'' and defines ``abnormal sleep deprivation'' as 
``mental torture'' and prohibits the use of these tactics under any 
circumstances.
  The Army Field Manual provides very specific guidance about 
interrogation techniques that may approach the

[[Page S6784]]

line between lawful and unlawful actions. Before using a questionable 
interrogation technique, an interrogator is directed to ask whether 
``If your contemplated actions were perpetrated by the enemy against 
U.S. [prisoners of war], you would believe such actions violate 
international or U.S. law. . . . If you answer yes . . . do not engage 
in the contemplated action.''
  This is the Army's version of ``the golden rule''--do unto others as 
you would have them do to you. It is an important reminder that the 
prohibition on torture and other cruel treatment protects American 
soldiers as much as it does the enemy. If enemy forces used stress and 
duress tactics on American soldiers, we would condemn them. We must 
hold ourselves to the same standard.
  The United States is not alone in condemning ``torture lite.'' In 
Israel, a country that has grappled with terrorism for decades, the 
Supreme Court held that ``stress and duress'' techniques violate 
international law and are absolutely prohibited. As the Court 
explained:

       These prohibitions are ``absolute.'' There are no 
     exceptions to them and there is no room for balancing. Indeed 
     violence directed at a suspect's body or spirit does not 
     constitute a reasonable investigation practice.

  For all of these reasons, it is vitally important that the Congress 
affirm the United States' commitment not to engage in torture or cruel, 
inhuman or degrading treatment.
  Our commitment to principle, even during difficult times, has made 
America a special country. In the age of terrorism, we may be tempted 
by the notion that torture is justified. But to sacrifice this 
principle would grant the terrorists a valuable victory at our expense.
  The Israeli Supreme Court has explained:

       Although a democracy must often fight with one hand tied 
     behind its back, it nonetheless has the upper hand. 
     Preserving the Rule of Law and recognition of an individual's 
     liberty constitutes an important component in its 
     understanding of security. At the end of the day, they 
     strengthen its spirit and allow it to overcome its 
     difficulties.

  The brutal slaying of Nicholas Berg reminded us that our enemies do 
not respect any rules in their relentless quest to kill Americans. But 
that is what distinguishes us from the terrorists we fight. There are 
some lines that we will not cross. Torture and cruel, inhuman or 
degrading treatment are inconsistent with the principles of liberty and 
the rule of law that underpin our democracy.
  As President Reagan reminded us, our city upon a hill must stand 
firm. The eyes of the world are upon us.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  It has been suggested to me by staff that perhaps I would offer the 
amendment this evening and then ask unanimous consent it be set aside 
while we work things out with Chairman Warner and other Senators who 
are interested in this issue.
  If there is no objection, with the understanding that I will not call 
up the amendment this evening and will wait until a decision from the 
chairman and the ranking member as to my place in line, I offer the 
amendment and merely at this point ask it be reported by the clerk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3386

  Mr. DURBIN. I send to the desk amendment No. 3386.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois, [Mr. Durbin], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3386.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To affirm that the United States may not engage in torture or 
         cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment)

       At the end of subtitle F of title X, insert the following:

     SEC. 1055. HUMANE TREATMENT OF DETAINEES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) After World War II, the United States and its allies 
     created a new international legal order based on respect for 
     human rights. One of its fundamental tenets was a universal 
     prohibition on torture and ill treatment.
       (2) On June 26, 2003, the International Day in Support of 
     Victims of Torture, President George W. Bush stated, ``The 
     United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of 
     torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on 
     all governments to join with the United States and the 
     community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, 
     investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in 
     undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment.''.
       (3) The United States is a party to the Geneva Conventions, 
     which prohibit torture, cruel treatment, or outrages upon 
     personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading 
     treatment, during armed conflict.
       (4) The United States is a party to 2 treaties that 
     prohibit torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment 
     or punishment, as follows:
       (A) The International Covenant on Civil and Political 
     Rights, done at New York December 16, 1966.
       (B) The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman 
     or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, done at New York 
     December 10, 1984.
       (5) The United States filed reservations to the treaties 
     described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (4) 
     stating that the United States considers itself bound to 
     prevent ``cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or 
     punishment'' to the extent that phrase means the cruel, 
     unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by 
     the 5th amendment, 8th amendment, or 14th amendment to the 
     Constitution.
       (6) Army Regulation 190-8 entitled ``Enemy Prisoners of 
     War, Retained Personnel, Civilian Internees and Other 
     Detainees'' provides that ``Inhumane treatment is a serious 
     and punishable violation under international law and the 
     Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). . . . All prisoners 
     will receive humane treatment without regard to race, 
     nationality, religion, political opinion, sex, or other 
     criteria. The following acts are prohibited: murder, torture, 
     corporal punishment, mutilation, the taking of hostages, 
     sensory deprivation, collective punishments, execution 
     without trial by proper authority, and all cruel and 
     degrading treatment. . . . All persons will be respected as 
     human beings. They will be protected against all acts of 
     violence to include rape, forced prostitution, assault and 
     theft, insults, public curiosity, bodily injury, and 
     reprisals of any kind. . . . This list is not exclusive.''.
       (7) The Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation of the 
     Department of the Army states that ``acts of violence or 
     intimidation, including physical or mental torture, threats, 
     insults, or exposure to inhumane treatment as a means of or 
     an aid to interrogation'' are ``illegal''. Such Manual 
     defines ``infliction of pain through . . . bondage (other 
     than legitimate use of restraints to prevent escape)'', 
     ``forcing an individual to stand, sit, or kneel in abnormal 
     positions for prolonged periods of time'', ``food 
     deprivation'', and ``any form of beating'' as ``physical 
     torture'', defines ``abnormal sleep deprivation'' as ``mental 
     torture'', and prohibits the use of such tactics under any 
     circumstances.
       (8) The Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation of the 
     Department of the Army states that ``Use of torture and other 
     illegal methods is a poor technique that yields unreliable 
     results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can 
     induce the source to say what he thinks the interrogator 
     wants to hear. Revelation of use of torture by U.S. personnel 
     will bring discredit upon the U.S. and its armed forces while 
     undermining domestic and international support for the war 
     effort. It may also place U.S. and allied personnel in enemy 
     hands at a greater risk of abuse by their captors.''.
       (b) Prohibition on Torture or Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading 
     Treatment or Punishment.--(1) No person in the custody or 
     under the physical control of the United States shall be 
     subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment 
     or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws, 
     or treaties of the United States.
       (2) Nothing in this section shall affect the status of any 
     person under the Geneva Conventions or whether any person is 
     entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
       (c) Rules, Regulations, and Guidelines.--(1) Not later than 
     180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall prescribe the rules, regulations, or 
     guidelines necessary to ensure compliance with the 
     prohibition in subsection (b)(1) by the members of the United 
     States Armed Forces and by any person providing services to 
     the Department of Defense on a contract basis.
       (2) The Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense 
     committees the rules, regulations, or guidelines prescribed 
     under paragraph (1), and any modifications to such rules, 
     regulations, or guidelines--
       (A) not later than 30 days after the effective date of such 
     rules, regulations, guidelines, or modifications; and
       (B) in a manner and form that will protect the national 
     security interests of the United States.
       (d) Report to Congress.--(1) The Secretary shall submit, on 
     a timely basis and not less than twice each year, a report to 
     Congress on the circumstances surrounding any investigation 
     of a possible violation of the prohibition in subsection 
     (b)(1) by a member of the Armed Forces or by a person 
     providing services to the Department of Defense on a contract 
     basis.

[[Page S6785]]

       (2) A report required under paragraph (1) shall be 
     submitted in a manner and form that--
       (A) will protect the national security interests of the 
     United States; and
       (B) will not prejudice any prosecution of an individual 
     involved in, or responsible for, a violation of the 
     prohibition in subsection (b)(1).
       (e) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or 
     punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment 
     or punishment prohibited by the 5th amendment, 8th amendment, 
     or 14th amendment to the Constitution.
       (2) The term ``Geneva Conventions'' means--
       (A) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of 
     the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, done at 
     Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3114);
       (B) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of 
     the Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at 
     Sea, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3217);
       (C) the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners 
     of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316); and
       (D) the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian 
     Persons in Time of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 
     3516).
       (3) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Defense.
       (4) The term ``torture'' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 2340 of title 18, United States Code.

  Mr. WARNER. Would the Senator from Illinois clarify this?
  Mr. DURBIN. I offered the amendment and asked unanimous consent that 
it be set aside pending a decision by the chairman and Senator Levin 
and other Senators.
  Mr. WARNER. I wonder if the Senator might withhold until Senator 
Reid, with whom I am working tonight, will give me some advice. What we 
will be doing--Senator Reid could draw his up--we are going to 
incorporate this into the agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has already been reported.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be set aside until 
there is an agreement between Senator Warner, Senator Levin, Senator 
Reid, and others as to the time that it may be considered.
  Mr. WARNER. I was under the understanding we would do it differently. 
I have not had a chance to discuss this with Senator Levin. I 
understood you were just going do speak to this and not propose it. 
What is done, is done.
  Mr. DURBIN. I asked unanimous consent to set it aside, and it will 
not be considered until you, Senator Warner, and Senator Levin say it 
is appropriate, whatever that time may be.
  Mr. WARNER. What was the decision we made with respect to Senator 
Reed?
  We have to have some equality of how we are handling these things.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Reed amendment has been called up and is 
now set aside by the Durbin amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. This amendment would then have the same status of being a 
pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thought by asking unanimous consent that it be set 
aside, it would not in any way supersede any other Members' rights.
  Mr. WARNER. We get so many gatekeeping amendments up here we could 
encounter difficulty tomorrow morning.
  Mr. DURBIN. You have been so cooperative and helpful, I ask unanimous 
consent that my amendment be withdrawn and I will offer it tomorrow. I 
want to do whatever the chairman wishes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Illinois is willing to have his amendment 
set aside. He is certainly not trying to take advantage of anyone. I 
think it does not solve our problem if he withdraws his amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. I just want to treat--Senator Reed was here momentarily, 
and we worked with him. Anyway, I want to be fair to all Senators.
  Mr. REID. We have a queue that is tentatively going to be set up to 
handle all this tomorrow.
  Mr. WARNER. We will work this out tonight, hopefully.
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from Illinois has indicated--if I could just 
ask whoever has the floor to yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield.
  Mr. LEVIN. His amendment will be back in order when the chairman and 
ranking member so designate it. He is not trying to use his amendment 
as a gatekeeper. Why don't we just leave it pending and then set it 
aside?
  Mr. WARNER. If he will withdraw it, we can include it in the 
unanimous consent tonight.
  Mr. REID. We do not need to have him withdraw it.
  Mr. WARNER. I beg your pardon?
  Mr. REID. We do not need to have him withdraw it.
  Mr. WARNER. Well, I am going to rely on your assurances.
  Mr. REID. Because the Senator from Illinois has said he is not trying 
to take advantage of anyone, not trying to be a gatekeeper, that it is 
up to the two managers of the bill when the amendment of the Senator 
from Illinois is acted upon.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, may I suggest this. If I could have the 
chairman's attention, if we have a unanimous consent agreement that is 
entered into tonight, and if we include Senator Durbin's amendment in 
that list, that would supersede whatever status that amendment has at 
this point. Would that be agreeable to everyone?
  Mr. WARNER. That is agreeable.
  Mr. DURBIN. That is agreeable to me, as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am curious, having offered the 
amendment, whether I need to make a unanimous consent request to make 
it clear what has been agreed upon?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
  Mr. DURBIN. It appears it has become part of the legend and lore of 
the Senate, and I cannot add anything to it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 3167, As Modified

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan and myself will 
now proceed to do some cleared amendments. Domenici amendment No. 3167 
was inadvertently approved by the Senate yesterday without a 
modification that was agreed to by both the majority and minority. I 
send to the desk a modified amendment No. 3167, as agreed to, as a 
substitute for the original amendment and ask unanimous consent that it 
be substituted for the version agreed to yesterday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3167), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

(Purpose: To require a report on the availability of potential overland 
                 ballistic missile defense test ranges)

       At the end of subtitle C of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1022. REPORT ON AVAILABILITY OF POTENTIAL OVERLAND 
                   BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TEST RANGES.

       The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report 
     assessing the availability to the Department of Defense of 
     potential ballistic missile defense test ranges for overland 
     intercept flight tests of defenses against ballistic missile 
     systems with a range of 750 to 1,500 kilometers.

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


 Amendments Nos. 3395; 3392, As Modified; 3402, As Modified; 3346, As 
Modified; 3326, As Modified; 3349, As Modified; and 3385, As Modified, 
                                En Bloc

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send a package of amendments to the desk 
and ask that they be considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to considering the 
amendments en bloc?
  Mr. LEVIN. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there further debate? If not, without objection, the amendments 
are agreed to.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:

[[Page S6786]]

                          ammendment no. 3395

(Purpose: to encourage the Secretary of Defense to achieve maximum cost 
                       effective energy savings)

       On page 195, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:

     SEC. 868. ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE CONTRACTS.

       The Secretary of Defense shall, to the extent practicable, 
     exercise existing statutory authority, including the 
     authority provided by section 2865 of title 10, United States 
     Code, and section 8256 of title 42, United States Code, to 
     introduce life-cycle cost-effective upgrades to Federal 
     assets through shared energy savings contracting, demand 
     management programs, and utility incentive programs.


                    amendment no. 3392, As modified

     (Purpose: To clarify the duties and activities of the Vaccine 
                      Healthcare Centers Network)

       On page 147, after line 21, add the following:

     SEC. __. VACCINE HEALTHCARE CENTERS NETWORK.

       Section 1110 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Vaccine Healthcare Centers Network.--(1) The 
     Secretary shall carry out this section through the Vaccine 
     Healthcare Centers Network as established by the Secretary in 
     collaboration with the Director of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention.
       ``(2) In addition to conducting the activities described in 
     subsection (b), it shall be the purpose of the Vaccine 
     Healthcare Centers Network to improve--
       ``(A) the safety and quality of vaccine administration for 
     the protection of members of the armed forces;
       ``(B) the submission of data to the Vaccine-related Adverse 
     Events Reporting System to include comprehensive content and 
     follow-up data;
       ``(C) the access to clinical management services to members 
     of the armed forces who experience vaccine adverse events;
       ``(D) the knowledge and understanding by members of the 
     armed forces and vaccine-providers of immunization benefits 
     and risks.
       ``(E) networking between the Department of Defense, the 
     Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, and private advocacy and coalition groups 
     with regard to immunization benefits and risks; and
       ``(F) clinical research on the safety and efficacy of 
     vaccines.
       ``(3) To achieve the purposes described in paragraph (2), 
     the Vaccine Healthcare Centers Network, in collaboration with 
     the medical departments of the armed forces, shall carry out 
     the following:
       ``(A)(i) Establish a network of centers of excellence in 
     clinical immunization safety assessment that provides for 
     outreach, education, and confidential consultative and direct 
     patient care services for vaccine related adverse events 
     prevention, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up with respect 
     to members of the armed services.
       ``(ii) Such centers shall provide expert second opinions 
     for such members regarding medical exemptions under this 
     section and for additional care that is not available at the 
     local medical facilities of such members.
       ``(B) Develop standardized educational outreach activities 
     to support the initial and ongoing provision of training and 
     education for providers and nursing personnel who are engaged 
     in delivering immunization services to the members of the 
     armed forces.
       ``(C) Develop a program for quality improvement in the 
     submission and understanding of data that is provided to the 
     Vaccine-related Adverse Events Reporting System, particularly 
     among providers and members of the armed forces.
       ``(D) Develop and standardize a quality improvement program 
     for the Department of Defense relating to immunization 
     services.
       ``(E) Develop an effective network system, with appropriate 
     internal and external collaborative efforts, to facilitate 
     integration, educational outreach, research, and clinical 
     management of adverse vaccine events.
       ``(F) Provide education and advocacy for vaccine recipients 
     to include access to vaccine safety programs, medical 
     exemptions, and quality treatment.
       ``(G) Support clinical studies with respect to the safety 
     and efficacy of vaccines, including outcomes studies on the 
     implementation of recommendations contained in the clinical 
     guidelines for vaccine-related adverse events.
       ``(H) Develop implementation recommendations for vaccine 
     exemptions or alternative vaccine strategies for members of 
     the armed forces who have had prior, or who are susceptible 
     to, serious adverse events, including those with genetic risk 
     factors, and the discovery of treatments for adverse events 
     that are most effective.
       ``(4) It is the sense of the Senate--
       ``(A) to recognize the important work being done by the 
     Vaccine Healthcare Center Network for the members of the 
     armed forces; and
       ``(B) that each of the military departments (as defined in 
     section 102 of title 5, United States Code) is strongly 
     encouraged to fund the Vaccine Healthcare Center Network.''.


                    amendment no. 3402, As modified

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that the elimination of the 
 drug trade in Afghanistan should be a national security priority for 
     the United States, and to require a report on related efforts)

       On page 272, after the matter following line 18, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 1055. DRUG ERADICATION EFFORTS IN AFGHANISTAN.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The United States engaged in military action against 
     the Taliban-controlled Government of Afghanistan in 2001 in 
     direct response to the Taliban's support and aid to Al Qaeda.
       (2) The military action against the Taliban in Afghanistan 
     was designed, in part, to disrupt the activities of, and 
     financial support for, terrorists.
       (3) A greater percentage of the world's opium supply is now 
     produced in Afghanistan than before the Taliban banned the 
     cultivation or trade of opium.
       (4) In 2004, more than two years after the Taliban was 
     forcefully removed from power, Afghanistan is supplying 
     approximately 75 percent of the world's heroin.
       (5) The estimated value of the opium harvested in 
     Afghanistan in 2003 was $2,300,000,000.
       (6) Some of the profits associated with opium harvested in 
     Afghanistan continue to fund terrorists and terrorist 
     organizations, including Al Qaeda, that seek to attack the 
     United States and United States interests.
       (7) The global war on terror is and should remain our 
     Nation's highest national security priority.
       (8) United States and Coalition counterdrug efforts in 
     Afghanistan have not yet produced significant results.
       (9) There are indications of strong, direct connections 
     between terrorism and drug trafficking.
       (10) The elimination of this funding source is critical to 
     making significant progress in the global war on terror.
       (11) The President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, has stated 
     that opium production poses a significant threat to the 
     future of Afghanistan, and has established a plan of action 
     to deal with this threat.
       (12) The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has 
     reported that Afghanistan is at risk of again becoming a 
     failed state if strong actions are not taken against 
     narcotics.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the President should make the substantial reduction of 
     drug trafficking in Afghanistan a priority in the war on 
     terror;
       (2) the Secretary of Defense should, in coordination with 
     the Secretary of State, work to a greater extent in 
     cooperation with the Government of Afghanistan and 
     international organizations involved in counterdrug 
     activities to assist in providing a secure environment for 
     counterdrug personnel in Afghanistan; and
       (3) because the trafficking of narcotics is known to 
     support terrorist activities and contributes to the 
     instability of the Government of Afghanistan, additional 
     efforts should be made by the Armed Forces of the United 
     States, in conjunction with and in support of coalition 
     forces, to significantly reduce narcotics trafficking in 
     Afghanistan and neighboring countries, with particular focus 
     on those trafficking organizations with the closest links to 
     known terrorist organizations.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit 
     to Congress a report that describes--
       (1) progress made towards substantially reducing the poppy 
     cultivation and heroin production capabilities in 
     Afghanistan; and
       (2) the extent to which profits from illegal drug activity 
     in Afghanistan fund terrorist organizations and support 
     groups that seek to undermine the Government of Afghanistan.


                    amendment no. 3346, As modified

   (Purpose: To reduce barriers for Hispanic-serving institutions in 
   defense contracts, defense research programs, and other minority-
                       related defense programs)

       At the end of subtitle G of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1068. REDUCTION OF BARRIERS FOR HISPANIC-SERVING 
                   INSTITUTIONS IN DEFENSE CONTRACTS, DEFENSE 
                   RESEARCH PROGRAMS, AND OTHER MINORITY-RELATED 
                   DEFENSE PROGRAMS.

       Section 502(a)(5)(C) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1101a(a)(5)(C)) is amended by inserting before the 
     period the following: ``, which assurances--
       ``(i) may employ statistical extrapolation using 
     appropriate data from the Bureau of the Census or other 
     appropriate Federal or State sources; and
       ``(ii) the Secretary shall consider as meeting the 
     requirements of this subparagraph, unless the Secretary 
     determines, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that 
     the assurances do not meet the requirements''.


                    amendment no. 3326, As modified

  (Purpose: to clarify the authorities of the Judge Advocates General)

       On page 221, between the matter following line 17 and line 
     18, insert the following:

     SEC. 915. AUTHORITIES OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL.

       (a) Department of the Army.--(1) Section 3019(b) of title 
     10, United States Code, is amended by striking ``The General 
     Counsel'' and inserting ``Subject to sections 806 and 3037 of 
     this title, the General Counsel''.
       (2)(A) Section 3037 of such title is amended to read as 
     follows:

[[Page S6787]]

     ``Sec. 3037. Judge Advocate General, Assistant Judge Advocate 
       General: appointment; duties

       ``(a) Position of Judge Advocate General.--There is a Judge 
     Advocate General in the Army, who is appointed by the 
     President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 
     from officers of the Judge Advocate General's Corps. The term 
     of office is four years, but may be sooner terminated or 
     extended by the President. The Judge Advocate General, while 
     so serving, has the grade of lieutenant general.
       ``(b) Appointment.--The Judge Advocate General of the Army 
     shall be appointed from those officers who at the time of 
     appointment are members of the bar of a Federal court or the 
     highest court of a State or Territory, and who have had at 
     least eight years of experience in legal duties as 
     commissioned officers.
       ``(c) Duties.--The Judge Advocate General, in addition to 
     other duties prescribed by law--
       ``(1) is the legal adviser of the Secretary of the Army, 
     the Chief of Staff of the Army, and the Army Staff, and of 
     all offices and agencies of the Department of the Army;
       ``(2) shall direct and supervise the members of the Judge 
     Advocate General's Corps and civilian attorneys employed by 
     the Department of the Army (other than those assigned or 
     detailed to the Office of the General Counsel of the Army) in 
     the performance of their duties;
       ``(3) shall direct and supervise the performance of duties 
     under chapter 47 of this title (the Uniform Code of Military 
     Justice) by any member of the Army;
       ``(4) shall receive, revise, and have recorded the 
     proceedings of courts of inquiry and military commissions; 
     and
       ``(5) shall perform such other legal duties as may be 
     directed by the Secretary of the Army.
       ``(d) Position of Assistant Judge Advocate General.--There 
     is an Assistant Judge Advocate General in the Army, who is 
     appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate, from officers of the Army who have the 
     qualifications prescribed in subsection (b) for the Judge 
     Advocate General. The term of office of the Assistant Judge 
     Advocate General is four years, but may be sooner terminated 
     or extended by the President. An officer appointed as 
     Assistant Judge Advocate General who holds a lower regular 
     grade shall be appointed in the regular grade of major 
     general.
       ``(e) Appointments Recommended by Selection Boards.--Under 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, the 
     Secretary of the Army, in selecting an officer for 
     recommendation to the President under subsection (a) for 
     appointment as the Judge Advocate General or under subsection 
     (d) for appointment as the Assistant Judge Advocate General, 
     shall ensure that the officer selected is recommended by a 
     board of officers that, insofar as practicable, is subject to 
     the procedures applicable to selection boards convened under 
     chapter 36 of this title.''.
       (B) The item relating to such section in the table of 
     sections at the beginning of chapter 305 of such title is 
     amended to read as follows:

``3037. Judge Advocate General, Assistant Judge Advocate General: 
              appointment; duties.''.
       (b) Department of the Navy.--(1) Section 5019(b) of title 
     10, United States Code, is amended by striking ``The General 
     Counsel'' and inserting ``Subject to sections 806 and 5148 of 
     this title, the General Counsel''.
       (2) Section 5148 of such title is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b), by striking the fourth sentence and 
     inserting the following: ``The Judge Advocate General, while 
     so serving, has the grade of vice admiral or lieutenant 
     general, as appropriate.''; and
       (B) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
       ``(d) The Judge Advocate General, in addition to other 
     duties prescribed by law--
       ``(1) is the legal adviser of the Secretary of the Navy, 
     the Chief of Naval Operations, and all offices, bureaus, and 
     agencies of the Department of the Navy;
       ``(2) shall direct and supervise the judge advocates of the 
     Navy and the Marine Corps and civilian attorneys employed by 
     the Department of the Navy (other than those assigned or 
     detailed to the Office of the General Counsel of the Navy) in 
     the performance of their duties;
       ``(3) shall direct and supervise the performance of duties 
     under chapter 47 of this title (the Uniform Code of Military 
     Justice) by any member of the Navy or Marine Corps;
       ``(4) shall receive, revise, and have recorded the 
     proceedings of courts of inquiry and military commissions; 
     and
       ``(5) shall perform such other legal duties as may be 
     directed by the Secretary of the Navy.''.
       (c) Department of the Air Force.--(1) Section 8019(b) of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking ``The 
     General Counsel'' and inserting ``Subject to sections 806 and 
     8037 of this title, the General Counsel''.
       (2) Section 8037 of such title is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking the third sentence and 
     inserting the following: ``The Judge Advocate General, while 
     so serving, has the grade of lieutenant general.''; and
       (B) in subsection (c)--
       (i) by striking ``General shall,'' in the matter preceding 
     paragraph (1) and inserting ``General,'';
       (ii) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as paragraphs 
     (4) and (5), respectively, and, in each such paragraph, by 
     inserting ``shall'' before the first word; and
       (iii) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(1) is the legal adviser of the Secretary of the Air 
     Force, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and the Air 
     Staff, and of all offices and agencies of the Department of 
     the Air Force;
       ``(2) shall direct and supervise the members of the Air 
     Force designated as judge advocates and civilian attorneys 
     employed by the Department of the Air Force (other than those 
     assigned or detailed to the Office of the General Counsel of 
     the Air Force) in the performance of their duties;
       ``(3) shall direct and supervise the performance of duties 
     under chapter 47 of this title (the Uniform Code of Military 
     Justice) by any member of the Air Force;''.
       (d) Exclusion From Limitation on General and Flag Officer 
     Distribution.--Section 525(b) of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(9) An officer while serving as the Judge Advocate 
     General of the Army, the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 
     or the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force is in addition 
     to the number that would otherwise be permitted for that 
     officer's armed force for officers serving on active duty in 
     grades above major general or rear admiral under paragraph 
     (1) or (2), as the case may be.''.


                    amendment no. 3349, As modified

   (Purpose: To modify the authority to convey land at Equipment and 
               Storage Yard, Charleston, South Carolina)

       On page 365, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:

     SEC. 2830. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITY FOR LAND CONVEYANCE, 
                   EQUIPMENT AND STORAGE YARD, CHARLESTON, SOUTH 
                   CAROLINA.

       Section 563(h) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (Public Law 106-53; 113 Stat. 360) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(h) Charleston, South Carolina.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may convey to the City of 
     Charleston, South Carolina (in this section referred to as 
     the `City'), all right, title, and interest of the United 
     States in and to a parcel of real property of the Corps of 
     Engineers, together with any improvements thereon, that is 
     known as the Equipment and Storage Yard and consists of 
     approximately 1.06 acres located on Meeting Street in 
     Charleston, South Carolina, in as-is condition.
       ``(2) Consideration.--As consideration for the conveyance 
     of property under paragraph (1), the City shall provide the 
     United States, whether by cash payment, in-kind contribution, 
     or a combination thereof, an amount that is not less than the 
     fair market value of the property conveyed, as determined by 
     the Secretary.
       ``(3) Use of proceeds.--Amounts received as consideration 
     under this subsection may be used by the Corps of Engineers, 
     Charleston District, as follows:
       ``(A) Any amounts received as consideration may be used to 
     carry out activities under this Act, notwithstanding any 
     requirements associated with the Plant Replacement and 
     Improvement Program (PRIP), including--
       ``(i) leasing, purchasing, or constructing an office 
     facility within the boundaries of Charleston, Berkeley, and 
     Dorchester Counties, South Carolina; and
       ``(ii) satisfying any PRIP balances.
       ``(B) Any amounts received as consideration that are in 
     excess of the fair market value of the property conveyed 
     under paragraph (1) may be used for any authorized activities 
     of the Corps of Engineers, Charleston District.
       ``(4) Description of property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the real property to be conveyed under 
     paragraph (1) and any property transferred to the United 
     States as consideration under paragraph (2) shall be 
     determined by surveys satisfactory to the Secretary.
       ``(5) Additional terms and conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyance under paragraph (1) as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.''.


                    amendment no. 3385, As modified

     (Purpose: To exempt procurements of certain services from the 
 limitation regarding service charges imposed for defense procurements 
               made through contracts of other agencies)

       On page 163, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
       ``(c) Inapplicability to Contracts for Certain Services.--
     This section does not apply to procurements of the following 
     services:
       ``(1) Printing, binding, or blank-book work to which 
     section 502 of title 44 applies.
       ``(2) Services available under programs pursuant to section 
     103 of the Library of Congress Fiscal Operations Improvement 
     Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-481; 114 Stat. 2187; 2 U.S.C. 
     182c).

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

[[Page S6788]]

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my 
colleague Senator Feinstein in support of amendment No. 3402 to S. 
2400, the Department of Defense Reauthorization bill. We hope this 
resolution expressing Congress's expectations will encourage the 
Department to do more to address narcotics trafficking in Afghanistan.
  This resolution calls upon the President to make the elimination of 
drug trafficking in Afghanistan a priority in the global war on terror; 
encourages the Secretary of Defense to increase cooperation and 
coordination with the Government of Afghanistan and our allies to 
assist in providing a secure environment for counterdrug personnel 
operating in Afghanistan; and calls upon the Armed Forces to work with 
our allies against the regional illicit narcotics trade.
  These are not original observations. In testimony before both 
committees in both Chambers, several officials from the Department of 
Defense have affirmed that there is a strong, direct connection between 
terrorism and drug trafficking. We know from this testimony and other 
evidence that some of the profits generated by narcotics trafficking 
support terrorists.
  This resolution is needed, because there is some inconsistency 
between the direction that we are providing to our troops in 
Afghanistan and the narco-terrorist connection. I do not believe that 
we will see long-term success in the global war on terror until the 
financial underpinnings of terrorists are eliminated, and I do not 
believe that Afghanistan can avoid becoming a narco-state if the drug 
trafficking there is not addressed. To avoid these potential pitfalls, 
we must step up our counter-narcotics activities in Afghanistan. I hope 
the administration, and particularly the Department of Defense, will 
heed this resolution.
  Narcotic trafficking is not only a source of funding for terrorist 
organizations, but its production poses a threat to the future 
stability of Afghanistan. President Karzai has stated repeatedly that 
he believes opium production poses a significant threat to the future 
of Afghanistan. His concerns are echoed by the United Nations Office on 
Drugs and Crime, which recently warned that Afghanistan is at risk of 
again becoming a failed state if strong actions are not taken against 
narcotics. If we are going to assist the people of Afghanistan in their 
efforts to create a stable country, we cannot ignore their pleas for 
greater action against the narco-terrorists operating in the region.
  Mr. President, I believe that our current policy in Afghanistan does 
not square with these observations about the threat that narcotics pose 
to the future of Afghanistan. Attempts are being made to separate anti-
terror operations from anti-drug operations, despite the acknowledged 
link between the two. We know that drug trafficking is a war industry 
of terrorism. If we are going to be successful, we must eliminate the 
financial underpinnings of terrorism just as effectively as the 
organizations themselves.
  Those who sell and trade opium in Afghanistan are narco-terrorists. 
They support terrorists and insurgents who oppose the legitimate 
government. By supporting terrorists and insurgents, they become 
legitimate targets for the Combined Forces Command-Afghanistan. Just as 
ball bearing factories in Nazi Germany were important military targets 
during World War II, drug labs, and those who facilitate the drug 
trade, should also be considered viable military targets as we 
prosecute the War on Terror.
  I believe that the United States should treat narcotics traffickers 
no different than others suspected of cooperating with terrorists. The 
connection is real, and cannot be ignored. I urge my colleagues to join 
us in supporting this resolution.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Grassley-
Feinstein amendment, which calls upon the President to make the 
decimation of the Afghanistan heroin trade one of his highest national 
security priorities, asked the Defense Department to devote more time, 
energy and resources to anti-drug efforts in Afghanistan, and asks for 
a study into whether profits from the illegal drug trade continue to 
fund terrorists and others who upset the stability of that nation.
  Afghanistan has long been the world's major supplier of heroin, 
providing the global market as much as 80% of all the heroin consumed 
each year.
  This is a grave problem--not just because heroin is a bad thing in 
and of itself, but because profits from the heroin trade in Afghanistan 
have historically been funneled, in large part, to terrorists bent on 
doing America harm or those that aid and protect those terrorists.
  Indeed, it has been estimated that millions of dollars--even hundreds 
of millions of dollars--in drug profits have been funneled to al-Qaida 
and other terrorist organizations throughout the world. Those 
organizations, in turn, can use the money to run terrorist training 
camps; to buy guns, bombs and other supplies; to recruit; and to fund 
terrorist operations throughout the world.
  Needless to say, this is a major problem. If we continue to allow 
terrorist organizations to rake in hundreds of millions of untraceable 
dollars, the war on terror is going to go quite poorly for us indeed.
  This is not the first time I have raised these concerns. Last May, 
for instance, I expressed concern that this administration had made a 
decision to allow warlords and others in Afghanistan to continue to 
grow poppy and to produce opium, in the hopes of maintaining 
relationships and alliances with those who were trafficking in drugs. 
In other words, the administration was essentially turning a blind eye 
to drug production, in order to work more closely with those who were 
profiting from it.
  This was not acceptable then, and it remains unacceptable now. The 
very reason we went to Afghanistan--to remove al-Qaida's means of 
support--will be lost if we continue to allow these drug lords to fund 
al-Qaida and those that hide them, protect them, fund them and help 
them in other ways.
  More than two years after we went into Afghanistan, we don't have bin 
Laden. We have not stopped the terrorist attacks. We do not control the 
countryside in Afghanistan. And now we are standing by while the drug 
trade flourishes beyond levels experienced even before 9/11.
  I know this is not an easy problem to solve. Farmers in Afghanistan, 
like in many other nation's involved in illegal drug production, often 
find that growing poppy is far more profitable than the country's other 
staples--cereals, wheat, barley, rice, and so on.
  So combined with Afghanistan's foreboding terrain and chaotic 
political and security situation, it is not a simple matter to 
eliminate drug production.
  Many farmers survive either solely on poppy production or by growing 
a mix of legal, and illegal crops.
  There is hope--poppy production represents only about 8% of 
Afghanistan's crop production (in volume). So many farmers do grow 
alternate crops, and they make a living doing it.
  But we need to make better efforts to provide farmers good 
alternatives; to deter production; and, most importantly, to eradicate 
the crops on the ground.
  Eradicating poppy is not easy--particularly in a nation where the 
central government has so little control over its distant--and even 
not-so-distant--provinces.
  Only with military assistance can anti-drug operatives go into an 
area and take out the poppy fields. Some of these warlords have virtual 
armies at their disposal--helicopters, rocket launchers, you name it. 
This is not your local marijuana field in someone's backyard. This, 
truly, is akin to war.
  The war in Iraq has certainly hindered the Defense Department's 
ability to assist in these operations--there is only so much manpower 
and equipment to go around. This is one reason why so many questioned 
the advisability of going into Iraq before the job in Afghanistan was 
finished.
  But tough as it may be to solve, this issue is simply too important 
to ignore, and we cannot wait any longer.
  Recent estimates put Afghanistan's poppy production this year at more 
than 5,000 metric tons--more than 50 percent higher than last year.
  Even if the most aggressive current efforts at eradication succeed in 
every respect, only 25 percent of the crop this year will be destroyed.
  This means that no matter what, more heroin will be produced this 
year

[[Page S6789]]

than last. The value of that heroin could easily exceed three billion 
dollars. Farmers only get about a penny on the dollar. Where is the 
rest of the money going? Best estimates are that much of it goes to 
terrorists or their protectors.
  This simply cannot continue if we hope to win the war on terror. This 
amendment calls upon the Defense Department to better assist in 
protecting drug eradication efforts and to work to disrupt and destroy 
those who aid terrorist activity through the drug trade.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate resume the Defense authorization bill on Wednesday, there be 30 
minutes equally divided for debate in relation to the Dodd amendment, 
No. 3313, as further modified. I further ask that following that time, 
the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the amendment, with no 
amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote. I further ask 
that following the disposition of the Dodd amendment, the Senator from 
Virginia, Mr. Warner, or his designee, be recognized to offer the next 
first-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


commission on the future of the national technology and industrial base

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as we are considering the National Defense 
Authorization Act, I thank my colleagues, Senators Warner and Levin, 
the Chairman and ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee, for so 
graciously agreeing to accept an amendment that I and several of my 
colleagues have proposed to modify Section 841 of that bill to enhance 
the work of the new ``Commission on the Future of the National 
Technology and Industrial Base,'' which is being established by this 
legislation. This amendment is the result of collaboration between 
myself and Senators Snowe and Kerry, Chairman and ranking Member of the 
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, as well as Senators 
Allen and Coleman.
  First of all, our amendment will require this new Commission to 
consider carefully the problem of current or potential shortages of 
critical technologies in the United States. It will also require the 
Commission to examine the issue of existing or future shortages of the 
raw materials that are essential to the production of these 
technologies.
  America's national security continues to be threatened by dwindling 
supplies of U.S.-made components and raw materials. Our Nation's 
industrial base can be expected to experience a decline in the 
production of certain technologies and the raw materials necessary to 
create them, as more and more small and medium-sized U.S. firms shift 
their production overseas. To the extent that these firms specialize in 
the manufacture of unique components, or are ``sole source'' producers 
of materials needed to supply the U.S. defense industry, their 
departure from the U.S. market leaves manufacturers of America's 
critical technologies with a dearth of reliable suppliers.
  The amendment that my colleagues and I offer today requires the 
Commission to examine whether, and in which areas, the United States 
now suffers, or might suffer in the future, shortages of critical 
technologies and their raw material inputs. The amendment also 
accelerates the deadline by which the report must be issued, requiring 
that it be issued on March 1, 2007, rather than a year later. Further, 
it requires the Commission to make recommendations addressing these 
shortages, so that our Nation can attempt to alleviate, ahead of time, 
any adverse impact that such shortages might have on the national 
security of the United States.
  We cannot wait to discover whether our Nation will be confronted with 
these shortages. Once they are upon us, it will be too late. If we wait 
until confronted with the fact that our Nation can no longer access the 
materials it needs to feed its technological advancement or maintain 
its industrial base, the consequences could be disastrous. An ounce of 
prevention is worth a pound of cure, and we hope that by requiring this 
Commission to examine today possible shortages that could affect our 
Nation's technology and industrial base tomorrow, we can enhance and 
protect the national security of the United States.
  I would note, in closing, that our amendment will also make certain 
that representatives of small business can join labor representatives 
and others associated with the defense industry as members of this new 
Commission. I ask my colleague from Maine, the distinguished Chair of 
the Small Business Committee, how exactly will this provision make 
certain that the Commission has the benefit of obtaining a broad range 
of diverse opinions drawn from a wide cross-section of America?
  Ms. SNOWE. I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for 
his question. Just like its previous version which I introduced on June 
3, this amendment is intended to ensure that small business interests 
are represented in the Commission's composition and in the subjects of 
the Commission's activities.
  As I stated before, the Commission's activities will be incomplete 
without taking into account small business contributions to our 
Nation's defense. The most recent data from the Department of Defense 
suggests that more work needs to be done to secure small business 
access to national defense contracts. Representatives of small business 
contracting concerns would make important contributions to the work of 
the Commission. In addition, the Commission would benefit from 
participation by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration or his representative. Congress and President Bush 
endowed the Chief Counsel's Office of Advocacy with the unique mandate 
to represent America's small businesses before the agencies of our 
government. The Chief Counsel's trained staff of economists, analysts, 
and lawyers would provide much needed perspectives for the Commission 
deliberations.
  I thank Senator Byrd, Chairman Warner and Senator Levin for their 
work for America's small business. I also wish to thank the esteemed 
Senators Allen, Coleman, and Kerry for their support.
  Mr. BYRD. I commend the distinguished Chair Snowe for her tireless 
efforts on behalf of America's industrial base.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, last night the Senate accepted two very 
important amendments to level the playing field for Federal employees 
whose jobs are being contracted out. I am so pleased that we agreed to 
the Kennedy-Chambliss amendment to fix the worst problems with DoD's 
contracting out process, and the Collins amendment to--at long last--
give Federal employees the right to protest contracting out decisions 
to an independent entity.
  DoD is pursuing a political agenda masquerading as management reform. 
DoD's zeal for privatization costs money, it costs morale, it costs the 
integrity of the civil service, and now it's costing our reputation in 
Iraq. I was shocked to hear about about the role of contractors in the 
appalling abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. DoD is taking contracting 
out too far. How can you contract out the interrogation of prisoners?
  America needs an independent civil service. Our Federal employees are 
on the front lines every day working hard for America. At a time when 
we are fighting terrorism and struggling with chaos in Iraq, how does 
the administration thank DoD employees? By forcing them into unfair 
competitions. Forcing them to spend time and money competing for their 
jobs instead of doing their jobs.
  Make no mistake. I am not opposed to privatization. In some instances 
privatization works well. Look at Goddard, in my State of Maryland 
3,000 government jobs and 9,000 private contractors. I am proud of them 
both. What I am opposed to is the Bush administration stacking the deck 
against Federal employees to pursue an ideologically-driven agenda.
  The Kennedy-Chambliss amendment fixes the worst problems with DoD's 
procedures for contracting out to make competitions more fair for DoD 
employees. The Kennedy-Chambliss amendment does six things to level the 
playing field. It guarantees employees the right to submit their own 
``best bid'' during a competition. It requires contractors to show that 
they are actually saving money. It makes sure privatization doesn't 
come at the expense

[[Page S6790]]

of health benefits for employees. It closes loopholes that allow DoD to 
contract out jobs without a competition. It establishes a process for 
allowing and encouraging Federal employees to conduct new work and work 
currently performed by contractors. And it makes sure that DoD has the 
infrastructure in place to effectively conduct competitions and oversee 
the contracts.
  This amendment is so important. Civilian employees at the Defense 
Department work hard to support our troops and to protect our country. 
If we are going to contract out Defense Department work, we need to be 
very cautious. It's a matter of national security. Can we trust a 
private company to do the job? What if the company goes out of 
business? What if it is bought by a foreign company? How do we know a 
private company will have the same mission--and the same motive as U.S. 
military personnel?
  The Bush administration's rules do just the opposite. They're 
reckless. They give private contractors the edge--whether they deserve 
it or not. 75 percent of Federal jobs that were contracted out in 2002 
and 2003 were DoD jobs. And DoD is targeting 240,000 more jobs for 
privatization. More than 20 percent of DoD employees who lost their 
jobs to contractors never had the chance to compete for their own jobs.
  I want to know why the Bush administration is trying to undermine our 
Federal workforce--pushing a process so clearly stacked in favor of 
private contractors. Civilian Defense Department employees are not the 
enemy. Who are these employees? They are the shipbuilders at Naval 
Academy in Annapolis, they are intelligence analysts, and they are the 
electricians at the Pentagon--who know every nook and cranny of top 
secret buildings.
  These Federal employees are on the front lines. They lost their lives 
in the Pentagon on September 11. They are committed to making sure our 
soldiers are ready to protect us. These men and women are dedicated and 
duty driven. They are not political strategists. They cannot be bought. 
Why are some trying to make Federal employees the enemy? They aren't 
part of the problem, they are part of the solution. I know what Federal 
employees do, how hard they work. I know they think of themselves first 
as citizens of the United States of America, second as workers at 
mission driven agencies.
  The way the Defense Department pursues contracting out is 
irresponsible and dangerous. DoD is pushing contracting out even when 
it just doesn't make sense, even when it puts our Nation's security at 
risk, or the integrity of our Armed Forces on the line. They are 
pushing contracting out even when it costs more to conduct competitions 
than it saves in the long run.
  I know DoD isn't used to holding fair competitions. Look at their 
track record--no-bid contracts for cronies like Halliburton. But we 
can't let the Defense Department's zeal for privatization get in the 
way of the ability of our Armed Forces to carry out their duties. And 
we can't let them replace our civil service with cronyism and political 
patronage. That means putting some checks and balances on 
privatization.
  I also want to say a few words about an amendment that Senator 
Collins offered to give Federal employees the right to appeal unfair 
contracting out decisions to GAO. This legislation is long overdue. 
Contractors have always been allowed to appeal to GAO or to the Court 
of Federal Claims when they lose a competition. Yet Federal employees 
can only appeal within their agency--the same agency that's trying to 
contract them out. That is unfair.
  Giving Federal employees the right to appeal is vital to level the 
playing field during competitions, to hold agencies accountable for 
conducting fair competitions, and to make sure taxpayers are getting 
the best deal.
  The Collins amendment is a compromise. It doesn't give employees the 
exact same rights as contractors. For instance, they can't appeal to 
the Court of Federal Claims. And it creates hurdles for allowing unions 
to represent their members in an appeal. I am sick of union busting. I 
think we can do more for employees. I hope we fix these problems as the 
process moves forward. But we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the 
good. I support the Collins amendment because it is a good compromise, 
and it would--finally--allow employees to appeal when an agency makes a 
mistake.

                          ____________________