Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 88 (Wednesday, June 23, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 88 (Wednesday, June 23, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7277-S7300]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page S7277]]

Senate

(Legislative day of Tuesday, June 22, 2004)

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005--Continued

Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I wonder if I might engage the
distinguished Chairman in a brief colloquy.
Mr. WARNER. Certainly.
Mrs. DOLE. I thank my colleagues. Mr. President, as a member of the
Personnel Subcommittee, I am acutely sensitive to the enormous
challenges confronting our National Guard and Reserve forces, and their
families, as they are called upon to defend our Nation in the war on
terrorism. North Carolina is at the forefront of National Guard and
Reserve mobilizations, with 31 percent of our State's 23,300 National
Guard and Reserve members currently mobilized.
The University of North Carolina, in partnership with a wide range of
universities and community organizations, is developing a National
Demonstration Program for Citizen-Soldier Support to augment,
strengthen, and refine the existing framework of support for National
Guard and Reserve personnel, and their families. The objectives of the
demonstration program are to strengthen communication and information
dissemination; strengthen community support systems; strengthen support
systems for children and adolescents; strengthen health and mental
health care systems; strengthen employment support networks; and
address proactively emerging issues of importance to our personnel and
their families. This National Demonstration Program of Citizen-Soldier
Support has been presented to a wide variety of civilian and military
leaders, and has been uniformly supported as timely, substantive, and
highly promising as an adjunct to existing Department of Defense
programs and services.
Unfortunately, as a relatively new initiative, this National
Demonstration Program for Citizen-Soldier Support was not included as
part of the President's budget request and was not authorized within
the bill now before the Senate. It is my understanding that the
decision to not include the National Demonstration Program for Citizen-
Soldier Support in the FY05 Defense Authorization bill was not made
with prejudice to the program but, rather, was based on the emerging
nature of the structure and deliverables associated with this program--
a program that is focusing on how to best assist our Reservists and
their families in their newly emerging roles in the war on terror.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator from North Carolina is
correct. At the time that the Armed Services Committee was preparing
its mark, there was not sufficient data available concerning the
specific elements of the proposed program, and its interrelationship
with other existing and emerging programs within the Department, to
fully assess the merits of the National Demonstration Program for
Citizen-Soldier Support. The absence of this proposed program in the
bill should not be interpreted as a negative assessment.
Mrs. DOLE. I thank the Chairman. I might also ask the Chairman if he
would agree with me that our Nation's security depends on the mission-
readiness and retention of our citizen-soldiers, and that for the total
force to function effectively, we must make certain that these men and
women, their families, and employers have needed support while they
prepare for, carry out, and eventually return from active military
service.
Mr. WARNER. I would agree wholeheartedly with the Senator from North
Carolina's statement. At at time when we are relying more and more on
our National Guard and Reserve forces to defend our national security,
we must continue to provide direct and substantive support to these
personnel and their families.
Mrs. DOLE. I thank the distinguished Chairman. Given this concurrence
on the importance of ensuring necessary and effective support for our
National Guard and Reserve families, I ask the Chairman if he would be
willing to support my effort to bring this proposed Demonstration
Program for Citizen-Soldier Support to the attention of the appropriate
Department of Defense offices. This effort will require modifying
elements of the proposed program, where appropriate, to maximize
synergies with ongoing Department of Defense initiatives and exploring
options within the defense budget for funding implementation of the
program.
Mr. WARNER. I commend the distinguished Senator from North Carolina
for her steadfast advocacy for our men and women in uniform, and their
families, and I would be pleased to work with her on this important
issue.
Mrs. DOLE. I thank the distinguished Chairman for his courtesy.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I wonder if I might take just a minute to
ask the Chairman whether I am correct that developing a reliable,
automated three-dimensional facial recognition capability has
significant implications for our fight against terrorism and would be
of great interest to the defense, intelligence and transportation
security agencies.
Mr. WARNER. Yes, that is certainly my understanding.
Mr. ALLEN. I also understand that one very promising approach would
be to use laser radar to acquire such a three-dimensional image. This
technology is highly accurate, and is already used in industrial
applications to measure such things as minute imperfections in airplane
wings. Unlike more traditional photography, it also would work in a
greater variety of lighting

[[Page S7278]]

conditions and at a much greater distance. It also has the advantage of
avoiding allegations of racial profiling because it makes no use of
skin color, instead measuring facial features.
Mr. WARNER. I understand that accuracy has been a problem with some
systems developed to date so new approaches would be welcomed.
Mr. ALLEN. Does the Chairman agree it would be worthwhile to explore
taking existing industrial technology and applying it to the problem of
quickly and reliably identifying at a distance moving individuals at
such locations as airports and border crossings?
Mr. WARNER. Yes, I think that if there were funding for such a
development project it offers the prospect of significant security
benefits.

AFRTS

Mr. WARNER. In discussions with my good friend and colleague, Senator
Inhofe, I have been made aware of the fact that questions have arisen
about the intent of amendment 3316 regarding the American Forces Radio
and Television Service, or AFRTS, submitted by Senator Harkin. That
amendment to the pending legislation was accepted on June 14, 2004.
Mr. INHOFE. That is correct. Numerous concerns have been expressed
from my home State, and, I believe, many other States, about this
amendment. There is a belief that this amendment is intended to be
critical of the AFRTS and the manner in which it makes current
programming decisions regarding radio and television shows featuring
political commentary.
Mr. WARNER. Thank you for offering me the opportunity to clarify this
point. In my view, the intent of this amendment was not to call into
question the performance of the AFRTS. Indeed, as my staff and I
examined the proposed amendment originally submitted by Senator Harkin,
we saw that it called for the establishment of a Presidential Advisory
Board to examine the manner in which AFRTS carries out its mission and
to submit recommendations on how the AFRTS should carry out
programming. As we looked at the manner in which the Office of the
Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs and AFRTS perform its mission,
however, it became clear that the case had not been made that changes
were necessary or that such an Advisory Board was needed.
Mr. INHOFE. Is it correct to say, then, that this Harkin amendment
expressing the sense of the Senate was actually intended to be an
expression of support for the current approach of the Department of
Defense to the AFRTS which provides programming representing a cross-
section of popular American radio and television offerings and
emulating stateside programming seen and heard in the United States?
Mr. WARNER. Absolutely. The amendment cites word for word relevant
portions of the current Department of Defense Directive concerning
AFRTS, including a statement of the mission to be accomplished and the
key principles that should be followed in order to provide a free flow
of political programming from U.S. commercial and public networks. The
amendment specifically states that the mission statement is
appropriate. Recognizing that there are several hundred satellite
stations or ``outlets'' around the globe at which programming decisions
are made on a daily basis, the amendment goes on to recommend that the
Secretary of Defense ensure that these important principles, which can
be summarized as fairness and balance in presenting shows on various
topics, including political commentary, are being accomplished.
Mr. INHOFE. Is it correct to say that those who make the programming
decision for AFRTS have an obligation to consider the popularity and
desirability of radio and television programming? In other words,
should the AFRTS take note of national commercial ratings as well as
local and worldwide formal audience surveys as to what their audience
desires to see and hear on their AFRTS programming?
Mr. WARNER. Yes. That would clearly be one factor among several that
should be considered, consistent with the goal of providing the same
type and quality of American radio and television news, information,
and entertainment that would be available to military personnel and
their families if they were in the continental United States. Other
factors should also be considered in achieving the AFRTS goals of
fairness and balance in presenting all sides of important public
questions, and the amendment was intended to underscore the importance
of those goals.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank the chairman for that clarification.

Air National Guard

Mr. BIDEN. I would like to take a moment to engage the Senator from
Michigan in a discussion about information operations in the Air
National Guard. Before we begin, I would also like to thank my
colleague for his willingness to have this discussion on an issue of
great importance to national security and to many of the Air National
Guard personnel in my State.
Let me start by saying that I think most of my colleagues understand
that while the world today has changed, some things have stayed the
same. When you are trying to stop terrorists, just like organized
crime, you have to follow the money. These days, in order to follow the
money, you have to have the very best in information operations skills.
You have to understand the computerized financial networks and security
systems used by financial institutions. In addition, you have to be
able to protect your own information. This is a critical aspect of the
war on terrorism and one where the Government needs more capability.
Last year, the Defense Authorization Conference Report provided 30
additional Air Guard personnel that we had hoped would be used to stand
up a new unit in Delaware to do this mission. This year, Senator Carper
and I had hoped to finish that work by providing a total of 60
personnel for that unit. Unfortunately, we are not able to do that
because the Department of Defense has not evaluated this proposal to
determine whether it is a mission that should be assigned to the Air
National Guard.
We understand that the Department of Defense has an established
process for assigning missions and determining the manning necessary to
support those missions. Expanding the information operations capability
of a unit or units within the Air National Guard has not been
considered through this process.
Mr. LEVIN. My colleague from Delaware is correct. The Department of
Defense has a rigorous process for determining whether a new mission
should be assumed as a military mission and that expansion of the
information operations capability of the Air National Guard has not
been considered by this process. Additionally, the Department of
Defense is conducting a complete review of the Guard's roles and
missions right now.
Mr. BIDEN. I hope that we can agree that the Department's review
should include an examination of using the Air National Guard for
emerging missions like information operations.
Mr. LEVIN. I can commit to the Senator from Delaware that I will do
all that I can to ensure that this area is included in the Department's
review and given full consideration.

Mr. BIDEN. I also hope that we will have their input regarding the
mission and its suitability for the Air Guard before we take up next
year's Defense Authorization bill. I would also like to make sure that
the consideration of this particular mission takes into account the
unique skills present in the Delaware Air National Guard and the work
that they have already done in this area.
Mr. LEVIN. Again, I commit to my colleague that we will work with him
and the Department of Defense to get that thorough and timely
consideration.
Mr. BIDEN. I thank my colleague for those assurances and look forward
to working with him over the next year to make sure our information
operations needs are met.
Now, let me explain why I think it is so important to stand this unit
up in Delaware.
Delaware is uniquely situated to provide the skills needed for
information assurance and financial tracking. Delaware is host to 7 of
the top 10 banking institutions in the U.S. Delaware also has the
highest amount of computer networking per capita of any State. In
addition, major research companies like DuPont and Astra-Zeneca make
their headquarters in Delaware. Last, Delaware has the highest number
of

[[Page S7279]]

scientists and engineers per capita in the U.S.
All of those statistics mean that many members of Delaware's Air
National Guard have civilian employment in banks or other institutions.
They understand what is required to protect financial information and
to track it. They are on the cutting-edge of information protection
today.
Their skills cannot be used by the Government, however, because banks
and financial institutions are very sensitive about the employees of
other banks reviewing their financial transactions. To do this type of
work, a person must be a Government employee. One of the best ways to
provide the benefit of these private sector skills to Government
agencies fighting terror is through the National Guard. Guard personnel
stay on the cutting edge of these skills because of their private
sector jobs. They can then provide that knowledge to the Government,
something that a civilian government employee cannot do.
In 2003, the National Security Agency and the Air Intelligence Agency
recognized their shortfalls in information assurance and tracking
skills and started asking some of these Delaware Guardsmen and women to
help them meet their requirements. NSA will have spent $945,000 between
2003 and 2004 to make use of the Delaware Air Guard's expertise. They
would like to spend an additional $900,000 in 2005. AIA is spending
$150,000 in 2004 on these missions. They are spending this money
because a real need exists.
Last year, the Senate, and then the full Congress, agreed that this
mission needed support and a full-time unit. Thirty personnel were
added to the Air National Guard's end-strength to create this new
information operations unit. This year, we had hoped to finish the job
by providing the full complement of 60 personnel needed for the mission
and the $3.997 million needed to fully fund this unit. That is $2.75
million for personnel costs and $1.247 million for operations and
maintenance. Unfortunately that will not be possible.
Some may wonder why we sought an amendment to add the personnel and
funding needed. The reason is simple. The Delaware Air National Guard
is too small to move people to this mission and still do their primary
tactical airlift mission. The 166th tactical airlift wing has had its
C-130s fully tasked to support operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. When
I wrote Lieutenant General James at the Guard Bureau about standing up
this new unit, he replied that he thought Delaware's Guard was well-
postured for the mission, but his ``end strength cap makes it
challenging to resource new initiatives.'' Our amendment would have
taken care of that challenge.
Up to now, the personnel who have been working with NSA and AIA so
far have been working three jobs. Let me say that again, three jobs. It
is simply not sustainable. They cannot continue to do their regular Air
Guard mission in the 166th tactical airlift wing, their civilian job,
and the third job of helping NSA and AIA. With a new unit, we can
provide the critical information operations skills needed to fight
terrorism without harming the on-going tactical airlift mission that is
supporting troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I know end strength increases are controversial, but we need to look
at the big picture. Remember, Congress agreed that a new unit was
needed to do these missions last year. The facts on the ground have not
changed. This is exactly the type of new mission the Air Guard should
be doing. Only with the Guard can you get the commercial expertise and
cutting edge knowledge needed to protect information systems and to
track financial transactions. I look forward to hearing the Pentagon's
thoughts about this new mission.
Again, I think it's important to stress that information assurance
and financial information operations are critical to the war on
terrorism and to a transformed military. This is a growing area, not a
shrinking one. We have looked carefully at all of our opportunities to
provide the needed highly-skilled personnel to the fight. It is my
belief that we can only do this if we create a unit to take advantage
of the experienced and knowledgeable personnel available. No matter how
patriotic people are, they cannot continue to work three jobs for years
on end. Creating the new 166th information operations unit in the
Delaware Air National Guard will enhance national security. It was the
right thing to do last year and it's still the right thing to do. I
hope that the Air Force will recognize that as we move forward in the
war on terrorism.

JOINTSTARS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the heavily
tasked, high value asset of the E-8C JointSTARS fleet, which provides
real-time surveillance and targeting for our armed forces. This
critical asset, operated by an integrated wing located in my home State
of Georgia, has worldwide commitments and is essential to the effective
execution of the combined air-land strategy and tactics for our forces.
However, the current engines do not provide sufficient power for the E-
8C JointSTARS fleet to meet all of its operational requirements.
Mr. WARNER. The Senator from Georgia is quite correct in his
observation and assessment and our committee has urged the Department
to move forward with its economic analysis of engine alternatives for
this critical fleet of aircraft. The Senator from Georgia should be
proud of the 116th wing of the Georgia Air National Guard, as the work
that this integrated wing performs on a daily basis is responsible for
saving many soldiers' lives. As he stated, the E-8C JointSTARS fleet
provides critical airborne battle management command and control.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. As the chairman has mentioned, the conference report
on the fiscal year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act required the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees providing an economic analysis comparing the options of
maintaining the current engines on the E-8C JointSTARS aircraft,
purchasing and installing new engines, and leasing and installing new
engines. This report was to have been submitted by February 13, 2004,
but has yet to be received.
The engines that currently power the E-8C JointSTARS aircraft fleet
are the same engines we have gone to great lengths to replace over the
last decade in the Air Force's tanker fleet. The engines are old,
provide marginal power to support the E-8C's taskings, and are
expensive to operate and maintain compared to new engines currently
available in the commercial market. These are not just my observations.
Let me quote from a recent memorandum from the Vice Commander of Air
Combat Command to the Air Force Vice Chief of Staff:

This letter provides a brief update on our efforts to re-
engine JSTARS, which continues to be one of our top
initiatives for the E-8. The current TF-33-102C engines do
not satisfy desired safety margins or meet operational needs.
An Air Force Flight Standards Agency critical field length
waiver is required to support takeoffs with current engines.
Additionally, Operations ALLIED FORCE, ENDURING FREEDOM, AND
IRAQI FREEDOM highlighted significant JSTARS engine
performance shortfalls. A lack of thrust and fuel efficiency
combined to reduce mission operating altitudes and on-station
times. The current TF33 engines are the number one driver of
the Non-Mission Capable for Maintenance rate and are the
leading cause of sortie aborts and code-3 landings. It is
projected that re-engining will reduce the NMCM rate by 10
percent and positively increase the overall system Mission
Capable rates by four percent. E-8C crews have also
experienced several instances of engine over temps on
takeoffs, which have mandated reduced thrust takeoffs. Re-
engining JSTARS makes sense operationally and from a
sustainability perspective.

We have included language in the report accompanying this bill that
states should the Secretary of Defense recommend in his report that a
re-engining program be pursued for the E-8C, the committee encourages
the Air Force to initiate this program, taking into account the
recommendations of the Secretary's report on how best to implement it.
I am optimistic that the Air Force report will be delivered to the
committee in the near term. I am hopeful that as our bill moves from
floor consideration and to conference with the House, we can work to
ensure that this re-engine initiative is given every consideration
based on the data and analysis provided for our consideration.
There are many aspects to consider in taking care of our soldiers,
sailors, airmen and marines who are sent into harm's way. In times like
these, preserving the assets that help to ensure the well-being of our
men and women

[[Page S7280]]

in uniform should be given the investment necessary to see that the
equipment is the best that we can provide and at the best value for our
armed forces.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator from Georgia for his leadership on
this issue, and I look forward to working with him on this important
issue.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. We owe it to the men and women who crew the E-8C
JointSTARS to ensure that these aircraft are powered by engines that
provide desired safety margins and on-station operating times that
accomplish the aircraft's mission without degradation. At the same time
we owe it to the taxpayers of this Nation to ensure that these aircraft
are powered by engines that are fuel efficient and supportable for our
armed forces.

competitive sourcing

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to engage
with the distinguished Senator from Virginia regarding some of the
measures included in this very important bill. First, I want to commend
the Senator from Virginia for his tireless efforts in managing this
bill. He is always very fair and considerate, and his outstanding
leadership is appreciated.
Mr. President, I am concerned that some amendments adopted by
Unanimous Consent may have a negative impact on the President's
Competitive Sourcing Initiative, and ultimately adversely impact the
President's ability to administer the bureaucracy of the Department of
Defense. As a longtime supporter of a more accountable and responsible
federal government, I strongly support President Bush's competitive
sourcing initiative which seeks to improve the way federal agencies
operate. However, I recognize how critical it is in these times of war
that we move this bill quickly and not allow it to be held up further
by partisan politics. So I do not object to accepting these measures in
the larger interest of getting a Defense bill through the Senate.
Every president for the last 50 years, Republican and Democrat alike,
has endorsed the elimination of commercial functions in the federal
workforce, but their plans were not vigorously implemented or enforced.
As a result, nearly half of today's civilian federal workforce is doing
work that could be done more efficiently by the private sector.
Mr. WARNER. I believe we looked to remedy this with the FAIR Act in
1998. Am I not correct in stating that this law basically says that
federal agencies should inventory government services that are
commercial in nature, and then review whether these activities should
continue to be performed in the public sector?
Mr. THOMAS. That's correct. The Clinton Administration did the first
inventory and found that more than 850,000 Federal employees out of 1.8
million were in jobs that were commercial in nature. The federal
government was paying individuals to do jobs that could also be found
in the Yellow Pages. Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration did not
follow up. These positions should have been reviewed and solutions
explored to return these jobs to where they belonged--the private
sector. Unfortunately, there were no follow up reviews. It was only
when George W. Bush was elected that a program was implemented to
actually do the reviews of these 850,000 positions. Competitive
sourcing could then be employed to see if it would be more effective
and accountable to have these activities performed by the private
sector.
Contrary to misinformation by some of our colleagues and labor
unions, competitive sourcing is not about eliminating or privatizing
federal workers. Simply put, competitive sourcing, which relies on the
A-76 Circular for public-private competitions, is a useful tool that
allows federal agencies to evaluate whether or not commercial functions
should be performed in the future by federal employees or the private
sector. As it is now, many federal employees who work in commercial
functions are stuck in inefficient bureaucracies performing activities
that are non-inherently governmental.
The competitive sourcing process is good government. As numerous
independent reports to Congress have shown, competitive sourcing saves
taxpayers between 10 to 40 percent--regardless of who wins. The record
is that every position reviewed by competitive sourcing shows savings
regardless of whether that position stays in-house or gets contracted.
Federal employees win an overwhelming majority of the competitions. But
clearly, the taxpayer is the real winner in this process. Inefficient
monopolies that waste taxpayer dollars and divert much-needed federal
resources from our government's most pressing programs should always be
examined. There are activities which are inherently governmental, and
should be performed by the government. No one would argue this.
However, government should not be engaged in activities which are
already offered in the private sector. As we look for ways to reduce
its size, cost and scope, we need always remember that government
should be the provider of last resort with the free enterprise system
being the provider of the first choice. To do otherwise is a disservice
to the American taxpayer. Would the Senator from Virginia agree with
us?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I certainly agree with my friend from
Wyoming that we should continue to evaluate the way the federal
government operates. Competitive sourcing is an important tool
available to the government to ensure that high quality governmental
services are acquired at the lowest cost to the taxpayer.
I believe the Senator wanted to share some of his concerns with an
amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator
from Georgia.
Mr. THOMAS. I do. The amendment offered by Senators Kennedy and
Chambliss would all but eliminate use of the streamlined process
contemplated under the revised Office of Management and Budget Circular
A-76. This process applies to competitions of 65 or fewer full-time
equivalents. By making the use of A-76 competitions arbitrary, as
opposed to strategic, the Department of Defense's necessary flexibility
in procurement is removed. The amendment also includes provisions
designed to give in-house employees unfair advantages over the private
sector in the competitive sourcing process and makes it difficult for
small businesses to be competitive in job contests.
Unfortunately, with the country at war, I'm afraid that these
measures would be very counterproductive, costly, and present
unnecessary hurdles for the Department in this very crucial period of
time. In fact, the Administration, in a statement of administration
policy issued by OMB, has declared its opposition to any final defense
measure that limits DOD's competitive sourcing flexibility. The White
House has, in fact, threatened to veto this bill if it contained these
provisions. I am sure the distinguished Senator from Virginia is well
aware of the importance the President places on this issue.
Mr. WARNER. Yes, I am. I certainly understand the Senator's concerns,
and I can tell him that I am hopeful that as we move forward and
reconcile this very important bill with that of the House in
conference, we will take a very careful look at these measures and work
out acceptable language that will not burden the DOD or hamper the
President in his role as administrator of the federal bureaucracy in
these critical times.
Mr. THOMAS. I think it is very important that we revisit these
proposals. In the interest of moving this defense bill in a time of
war, we have forgone an important debate. So I thank the Chairman for
his attention to this matter and again say to him that I appreciate his
strong leadership.

Manufacturing Extension Partnership

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, Senator Reed and I filed an amendment to
ensure the soundness of our Nation's defense supply chains through the
support of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, Centers. We
would like to thank our colleagues, Senators Warner, Levin, Gregg,
Hollings and McCain for accepting the modified amendment. Senator Reed
and my amendment clarifies that the Department of Commerce has the
ability to transfer and reprogram $21.8 million to the MEP Program in
fiscal year 2004.
The vitality and viability of our Nation's small manufacturers has
tremendous consequences for our Nation. Without a strong manufacturing
base, we risk losing wealth for our Nation,

[[Page S7281]]

we risk good jobs for our citizens, and we risk irreparably harming our
Nation's defense supply base at a critical time.
The MEP assists America's small manufacturers and helps boost
productivity, sales, investment in modernization, and employment. I
have a very simple, but vital, message to deliver--manufacturing
matters--MEP matters. But I am worried that President Bush does not
understand this simple message. This fiscal year 2004, the
administration's budget slashed the MEP Program by 88 percent. Due to
the efforts of Senators Gregg and Hollings, the Senate fiscal 2004
appropriations bill restored funding for the program to $106 million.
However, the Omnibus Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004 reduced
that level to only $39.6 million.
As a Federal-State-private partnership, MEP is a network of over 60
centers with 400 locations across the country and Puerto Rico providing
technical assistance and business support services to small
manufacturers. These not-for-profit centers employ more than 2,000
professionals who work with manufacturers to help them adopt and use
the latest and most efficient technologies, processes, and business
practices. As a result, our small manufacturers are better able to
compete with low wage countries, maintain jobs in America, and continue
driving a higher standard of living in the U.S. In fiscal year 2002,
MEP's clients reported sales of $2.8 billion, 35,000 new or retained
workers, $681 million in cost savings, and $941 million invested in new
plant and equipment as a direct result of their MEP projects.
However, funding constraints and budget cuts have forced every MEP
Center in the country to downsize. According to a recent Modernization
Forum survey, MEP Centers have closed 58 regional offices and reduced
staffing by 15 percent, which will leave small manufacturers across the
country without the invaluable technical and business assistance that
helps them remain competitive edge in the global marketplace.
Senator Reed's and my amendment will help address this issue by
clarifying that the Secretary of Commerce can reprogram $21.8 million
to the MEP Program this year. Fifty-five Senators requested that the
Secretary reprogram funding to the MEP Centers this year.
Unfortunately, the Department refused this request; leaving the MEP
Centers and small manufacturers without the resources they need. In a
response to the Senate request for reprogramming, Secretary Evans
implied that the Department of Commerce does not consider it worthwhile
to reprogram funding to the MEP program because the appropriations act
would only allow the transfer and reprogramming of $3.9 million. In
discussions with the Appropriations Committee and the Congressional
Research Service, however, this appears to be a very narrow reading of
the statute by the Department of Commerce. The appropriate level of
funding that can, and should, be transferred and reprogrammed is $21.8
million. This amendment clarifies that level of funding for transfer
and reprogramming.
The administration needs to make resources available to help our
Nation's small manufacturers. That is why I, along with my colleague
Senator Reed, continue to call on the administration to reprogram $21.8
million to support the MEP Centers this year. And we call on the
administration to send a Budget Amendment to Congress to support
$106.9M for the MEP Program in fiscal 2005.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues Senators Warner,
Levin, Gregg, Hollings and McCain for working with Senator Kohl and I
on this important amendment preserving the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership, MEP, Program. I particularly want to thank Senators
Hollings and Gregg for their strong support of the MEP Program and
their efforts to restore funding to a program that is vital to our
Nation's small manufacturers. I look forward to working with them this
year to ensure funding is restored in fiscal year 2005.
Senator Kohl and my amendment clarifies that the Secretary of
Commerce has the ability to transfer and reprogram $21.8 million to the
MEP Program this fiscal year in order to assist our nation's small
manufacturers. Senator Gregg, Hollings, Kohl and I believe that the
Secretary already has the ability to transfer and reprogram this
funding; however, rather than honor the request of 55 Senators and work
with the Senate and Congress to help reprogram funds, the Department of
Commerce has chosen to hide behind a legal interpretation that it lacks
such authority.
Small manufacturers have a direct impact on national security. Small
manufacturers are the backbone of our defense production capacities.
Firms with fewer than 500 employees comprise more than 80 percent of
the defense supply chains. Small businesses are responsible for a
significant share of defense contracting. They receive 21 percent of
prime contracts and 41 percent of the subcontracts awarded to
businesses by, or on behalf of, the Department of Defense.
The National Coalition for Advanced Manufacturing in a 2002 report
identified five key challenges that confront the defense industrial
base. First, the loss of small and medium-sized firms that participate
in the defense supply chain is taking its toll on our Nation's defense
readiness as many makers of components and spare parts for the larger
defense contractors have left the marketplace or are ill-prepared to
respond to swift increases in orders. There is no known source of
supply for over 11,000 products used by the Department of Defense.
Second, our Nation needs to maintain sufficient surge production
capacity to meet unanticipated national defense needs. The production
of platform systems, components and munitions is constrained by the
surge capacity of prime contractors and the capabilities of the
supplier base. Being able to provide for these defense needs is vital
to our military. Third, outdated and aging manufacturing systems and
processes are involved in the production of major weapon systems. The
need for quality and technology improvements along with increased
productivity and cost reduction makes the shortage of capable small
manufacturers more problematic. Fourth, large defense companies often
have the knowledge and resources to make investments in productivity
and efficiency improvements; however, small manufacturers frequently
lack the necessary technical knowledge, staff and resources to take
advantage of new techniques and technology. Lastly, to increase
participation in defense production, small manufacturers need
assistance adapting commercial production practices and techniques to
the needs of the defense industrial base.
The MEP program can help our Nation address these challenges. MEP
Centers have a strong track record of solving supply management issues.
MEP helps preserve and strengthen domestic production of unique defense
technologies and provides a strong strategic edge over threats to
national security. MEP is active within U.S. defense supply chains
assisting small sub-tier suppliers to cut costs, boost productivity,
integrate technology and accelerate delivery times. Officials from
Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and
Raytheon expressed their reliance on MEP for cost and quality
improvements at small manufacturing firms on which they rely for
component parts and assemblies.
To date, the actions of the Department of Commerce have been
unacceptable. The administration needs to make resources available to
help our Nation's small manufacturers. The administration should
immediately reprogram $21.8 million to support the MEP Centers this
year as directed by Senator Kohl and my amendment. Given the broad
bipartisan and national support for this program, the administration
should send a Budget Amendment to Congress to support $106.9M for the
MEP program in fiscal 2005.

fuel cell program

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I wonder if I might discuss an important
matter with the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee regarding the
program to advance fuel cell technology for support of armed forces.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would be happy to discuss this issue
with the Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, the Senate report accompanying National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 included language on a
program to

[[Page S7282]]

demonstrate proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell designs at
Department of the Navy installations. In particular, the language
referred to an uninterruptible substation using fuel cells based on
proton exchange membrane technology. This was a program that the
Congress supported last year.
I believe that the program the Committee intended to support this
year was somewhat more narrowly focused on the developing technology to
improve the membranes for those fuel cells that might be used in the
substation program that was the subject of discussion last year or for
other important Defense Department applications.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Hawaii that
improving the membrane technology for fuel cells was the program for
which the Committee recommended an addition to the Defense
authorization this year.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Committee for
clarifying this situation.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The DOD authorization.
Mr. HATCH. Thank you, Mr. President. That is what I want to talk
about today, in part.
I rise today to respond to a few of the comments made yesterday by
several of my Democratic colleagues. They have attacked the President
and the administration for not being forthcoming in releasing documents
notwithstanding the fact that the White House just declassified and
released approximately 260 pages of legal memoranda that they sent to
Senator Leahy and myself.
Let me take a moment to review the history.
On June 8, 2004, the Judiciary Committee held an oversight hearing of
the Department of Justice. During the course of the hearing, Senator
Kennedy asked the Attorney General for any legal memoranda that had
been leaked to the public. Contrary to the suggestions of some, the
Attorney General at no time refused to answer any question posed by
Senators on the committee. He just gave answers with which my
Democratic Colleagues did not agree.
Specifically, the Attorney General declined to agree--on the spot--to
produce internal executive branch legal memoranda citing the
President's right to have confidential advice from his staff. The
Attorney General believed he did not have authority to release these
documents. He believed that only the President could release them.
Instead, that same day after the hearing, the Department of Justice
wrote a detailed letter responding to the inquiries of the ranking
Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee on legal issues related to
wartime decisions. The letter summarizes the Justice Department's legal
opinion on whether various statutes and treaties apply on this war on
terror, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Special
Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction, the Military Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction Act, the torture statute, Geneva Conventions, and the War
Crimes Act.
These topics are precisely the subject matter of the documents at
issue in the hearing. The Attorney General is not trying to cover up
anything. There can be no question that the Justice Department wanted
to be responsive to the committee but it was not in a position to
release the documents without further consultation within the
administration, including the White House and the Defense Department.
That is only fair. It is prudent during time of war when some of the
documents reveal potential interrogation techniques.
Yet they made the Attorney General of the United States a punching
bag, which they have done consistently day in, day out in the Judiciary
Committee on various markup days and hearings as well.
It is as though they literally hate the Attorney General of the
United States. A man who I think is doing a bang-up, tremendous job. In
fact, last week the Attorney General and the White House counsel both
assured me that they would work with me to fairly resolve the matter. I
represented that to the committee members and that wasn't enough. I was
sarcastically challenged on that by more than one member of the
committee on the Democratic side. I just calmly said: Give them a
little time. They said they would work with us, and they will. And Mr.
President, they did.
Last Tuesday, the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee
submitted a letter to the Attorney General, not just seeking the three
documents mentioned at the hearing that Senator Kennedy made an issue
of in the hearing, but seeking a total of 23 legal memoranda.
In addition to that, they provided a laundry list of document
requests so broad that it could take a year to search the files of the
entire Federal Government to comply with such a request. We would have
to go all the way back to the Spanish-American War to give every
document that has ever been brought forth, if you followed the kind of
reasoning that they had.

Let me give you some examples. They asked for ``any other memoranda
or documents from Alberto Gonzales, William Haynes, William Howard
Taft, IV, or any senior administration, and in the possession of the
Department of Justice, regarding the treatment or interrogation of
individuals held in the custody of the U.S. Government.''
Any other senior administration official? That involves hundreds, if
not thousands, of people. Come on.
For each of the 23 requested memos, the Democratic Senators wanted to
know what has been redacted and why. They want an explanation for each
classification status, and they want an indication of to whom each was
circulated with copies of all cover letters and transmittal sheets.
When is it going to end? That kind of stuff is way out of bounds. It
was an incredibly imprudent request. It was so broad that nobody in his
or her right mind would try to fulfill it--and certainly not a White
House that is responsible.
In addition to the 23 requested memos, this request includes 19 other
broadly worded questions that require lengthy investigation and
responses. They want all of this by June 30. That is in just 15 days,
as if they were entitled to all of that.
This document request appears to be an old-fashioned fishing
expedition of the lowest order. Any objective observer would have to
conclude that this is not a legitimate exercise of our oversight
function. They just want to use the typical go-to-the mattresses,
scorched earth, litigation-like tactics to bury the Attorney General
with a request so broad that no one could possibly comply with it.
Last Wednesday, before the ink was dry on the document request letter
submitted last Tuesday, the ranking minority member circulated a
proposed resolution to formally subpoena documents from the Department
of Justice.
The Democrats did not even give the Attorney General the courtesy of
a few days to respond to the original document request.
Yet, while the Democrats were engaging in this conspiracy, I was
working with the White House and the Department of Justice. I told the
entire committee of all my efforts last week. In fact, it is because of
my efforts and the efforts of the President and the Department of
Defense and the Justice Department that these documents have been
declassified and disseminated so quickly.
Significantly, the three documents originally at issue in the
Attorney General's hearing have been produced--that is, the actual
documents that they called for in the hearing where you heard so much
bad-mouthing of the Attorney General.
I got the cooperation of both the Attorney General and Alberto
Gonzales himself last week.
I have put up with continual complaints by our friends on the other
side of the aisle on the Judiciary Committee as to how poorly the
committee is being run. I am sick and tired of it.
It is about time we got rid of some of these snotty, ridiculous,
demeaning,

[[Page S7283]]

and below-the-belt type of tactics and start respecting the President
of the United States, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Defense,
our young men and women overseas, and quit undermining what they are
doing. We gave them the three documents they asked for and now there
are all kinds of requests for more. We will never satisfy these types
of voracious, problem-seeking people.
Of course, it is not good enough for some of my colleagues to just
give them the documents they asked for. The administration could have
sent 1,000 memos and some of my Democratic colleagues would still not
have been satisfied. Talk about transparency, their strategy is
transparent. No matter what is sent, some will no doubt scream and
complain it is not good enough, and they will get on this floor, with
their holier-than-thou language, and say we must have transparency
because that is the way we in the United States are.
If that is true, we do not need the CIA, we do not need the 15
intelligence agencies, and we do not need to protect our young men and
women overseas anymore. We just have to have transparency. That is so
ridiculous it is hard for me to believe how the American people can
even give any kind of consideration to that kind of talk. Yet we are
getting that kind of nonsense on the Senate floor almost constantly
from people on the other side of the aisle.
This lack of good faith suggests this is more about trying to attack
the Attorney General and the administration than about obtaining
documents necessary for legitimate exercise of oversight. It is clear
they want to subpoena to build a case to hold the Attorney General in
contempt of Congress. Why they hate this former Member of Congress,
this former Member of the Senate, I will never understand. There is not
a more decent, honorable, religious, kind person I know than John
Ashcroft, but he is being treated like dirt. This threatens to rapidly
devolve into a political witch hunt of the worst order.
It is sad to see this blatant political posturing. It is particularly
sad to see this uncalled-for partisan wrangling over an issue of
national security in an election year. I don't think they are fooling
anybody by their histrionics, and we sure had a lot of them over the
last number of days--even the last couple of weeks. Really, you can go
back in time, ever since President George Bush was elected.
The amendment offered yesterday by the Senator from Nevada and the
amendment offered here is not limited to the three documents that were
at issue in the hearing. Those documents have already been produced. It
has not been limited to the 23 documents listed in the first part of
their document request. It is a broadly worded subpoena that would
encompass all documents and records on this subject since January 20,
2001, regardless of whether the documents were written by someone at
the Department of Justice.
Talk about a fishing expedition, we are talking here about deep sea
fishing--and the worst type. Do you know how many people work at the
Department of Justice? It would take forever just to ask each of the
112,000 individuals at the Justice Department if they possessed any
relevant documents. That is how ridiculous the request is.
Moreover, the Justice Department subpoena is poorly written, as I
have been saying. It requests all documents and records ``describing,
referring, or relating to the treatment or interrogation of prisoners
of war, enemy combatants, and individuals held in the custody or
physical control of the United States Government . . . in connection
with the investigation of terrorist activity.'' And the subpoena is not
limited to Justice Department records but also records possessed by the
Department of Justice, written by other agencies, including the CIA or
any military branch. This is simply too broad and they know it.
In addition, the subpoena requires records relating to the treatment
of prisoners. That broad term would appear to include all the
interrogation or treatment records and all of the medical records of
Zacarias Moussaoui and any other individual DOJ has prosecuted or is
prosecuting on terror-related charges subsequent to 2001. This could
include any interrogation, medical records shared between the
Department of Defense and the FBI relating to detainees held at
Guantanamo Bay or in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere. This information
request can involve hundreds, if not thousands, of POW and other enemy
combatants and hundreds of thousands of pages of records.

That is the type of base political activity that is going on in this
body right now. It demeans, insults, and undermines our young men and
women overseas fighting for us and risking their lives every day. I,
for one, am sick and tired of it. I hope the American people wake up to
this type of foolish conduct all in the interest of Presidential
politics or just politics in general.
I don't see the practical utility of providing all of these records
pertaining to individual detainees to the Judiciary Committee. Under
the proposed subpoena, this information could conceivably include
prosecution strategy memos. Can you imagine? Surveillance materials.
Can you imagine? Information provided by and the identities of
confidential informants. Can you imagine that? As well as FISA, that
is, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act materials. We normally do
not get these types of documents in either Democrat or Republican
administrations. And there is a good reason. Because this place is a
sieve. You can't keep anything secret up here. It is easy to see why
administrations do not like to give confidential, secret, or top secret
or covert information, you name it, classified information, to people
up here.
Their language is simply too broad. I am also troubled by the way in
which the language appears to stray far away from general policy
questions concerning the legal status of certain classes of detainees
such as suspected al-Qaida members into matters affecting ongoing
intelligence gathering and the prosecution of individual terrorist
subjects.
Give me a break. Let's give our country a break. Let's give our
President a break. Let's give our Attorney General a break. Above all,
let's give our young men and women overseas a break from these types of
partisan, political activities.
Let me say when the shoe was on the other foot, the Democrats have
advocated just as I have. Four years ago, when President Clinton was in
office, my colleague from Vermont, advocated the following practice:

Our standard practice should be to issue subpoenas only
when attempts to obtain documents by other means have failed.
At a minimum, we should at least request documents in writing
before attempting to compel their production. . . . As part
of this duty, the Committee should take every reasonable
effort to see whether subpoenas are actually necessary before
publicly requesting them.

That is the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee
from Vermont speaking. Let's go through that one more time. When the
shoe was on the other foot, and our side was asking for some documents,
the quote was:

Our standard practice should be to issue subpoenas only
when attempts to obtain documents by other means have failed.

That is a quote.
The fact is, they didn't even give the Attorney General time to even
think about it before they were slapping a subpoena down in last week's
markup, just a few days after. And then, four years ago my colleague
from Vermont continued:

At a minimum, we should at least request documents in
writing before attempting to compel their production.

I guess 2 days in writing is more than an ample request in their eyes
now that they are in the minority and now that John Ashcroft is
Attorney General.

As part of his duty, the committee should take every
reasonable effort to see whether subpoenas are actually
necessary before publicly requesting them.

No, they pursued a subpoena. We had to vote on it. It was a party-
line vote. I guess they thought they could get at least one Republican
to allow their nefarious scheme to go forward. They did not try to use
every reasonable effort to see whether subpoenas were actually
necessary. And I am sure the reason, they will say, is because John
Ashcroft has not appeared before the committee in a long time.
My gosh, the man almost died this year. And I don't blame anybody for

[[Page S7284]]

not wanting to come up in front of this bunch when all you do is get
demeaned, with implications that you are a liar, that you are not
cooperative, that you are not doing a good job, and many other
implications, as well, that are derogatory in nature.
When are we going to start treating administration people with
respect and dignity? Here the Democrats are not making any reasonable
effort to attempt to obtain any of the documents by other means. They
did not even give the Justice Department a day to respond to their
written questions before drafting a subpoena. What kind of bullying
tactic is that? We know what the Democrats are up to because the
Senator from Vermont told us what the purpose of a subpoena was just 4
years ago.
He said:

[I]ssuing subpoenas may make for a good show of partisan
force by the majority but certainly continues the erosion of
civil discourse that has marked this Congress. Why is that
true then but not now? Let me suggest that my Democratic
colleagues are trying to take this one step further, as well.
The minority is attempting to make a show of partisan force
by distorting the facts for the American public.

Especially where the administration has indicated its willingness to
be cooperative, issuing a subpoena would not merely continue the
erosion of civil discourse; it would accelerate it by exponential
proportions.
To suggest that the Senate issue a subpoena before the deadline to
comply with a document request has even passed irreparably debilitates
the credibility of my colleagues and shows they are merely
grandstanding and not pursuing a legitimate oversight function, in
spite of the holier-than-thou approach that some of them use.
Now, we have seen holier-than-thou approaches on both sides, I
suppose, but I have never seen it worse than it is right now.
Yesterday, the President released not only the three documents at
issue in the DOJ oversight hearing but 260 pages of documents, at my
request--something I said I thought I could get them to do, after
having talked with the Attorney General of the United States and Judge
Gonzales. That was not good enough at the time. They were moaning and
picking and groaning at me, saying they would never do it. But they
did.
Thus far, the administration has released 13 lengthy memoranda
relating to the treatment or interrogation of detainees, including
relevant documents that were not specifically requested by the
committee.
Come on. This administration has bent over backwards, and they will
never satisfy these naysayers on the other side who want to make
political points and who want to damage the Attorney General of the
United States, the Secretary of Defense, and, above all, the President
of the United States. I have to say, they are really good at playing
this political game. They have a lot of help in our media in this
country that seems to just go right along with it.
This may not be the end of the document production by the Departments
of Justice and Defense, et cetera. The Department of Justice has until
June 30, 2004, to respond to the Democrats' document request. It may
well be that after June 30, 2004, there may be additional documents
that we will need to see. But to seek such a broadly worded subpoena
prematurely makes absolutely no sense. It flies in the face of
reasonableness.
But let me say that it appears from what we know now--and I will
expect the administration to correct me if I am wrong on this point--we
have already gotten the most important documents. But I guess they just
have not given the Democrats enough fodder with which they can attack
the Attorney General and the President and others in this
administration. After all, most of them were legal documents, legal
opinions, where you can differ, and in most cases where they say, well,
this is what the law is, but there is another side to it that could be
argued, and the courts might find something to it. That is what you
expect in a legal opinion. But they not only ask for the legal
opinions; they ask for the preparatory documents that were leading up
to the legal opinions.
I heard my colleague from Vermont mention, repeatedly: Like water,
government policy flows downhill. I must say that I agree with him.
Clearly, the most important document of those released by the White
House is the one that the President of the United States signed on
February 7, 2002. You do not get any higher than the President in this
country, from a political standpoint.

In that memo, the President acknowledged that even though he was
advised that he was not legally obligated to provide the protections of
the Geneva Conventions to the Taliban or to the detainees at Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, that he intended to do so anyway.
But that is not enough for them. Here is the now unclassified White
House memorandum for the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the
Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the chief of staff to the
President, the Director of Central Intelligence, the assistant to the
President for National Security Affairs, the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff.
These are documents that are usually never given up by Presidents, by
the way.
The subject: ``Humane Treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees.''
The part shown at the bottom on this page of the letter is in yellow.
Let me read the paragraph just above that. Let me read No. 2:

Pursuant to my authority as Commander in Chief and Chief
Executive of the United States, and relying on the opinion of
the Department of Justice dated January 22, 2002, and on the
legal opinion rendered by the Attorney General in his letter
of February 1, 2002, I hereby determine as follows:

Now, this is a finding, by the way:

a. I accept the legal conclusion of the Department of
Justice and determine that none of the provisions of Geneva
apply to our conflict with al Qaeda in Afghanistan or
elsewhere throughout the world because, among other reasons,
al Qaeda is not a High Contracting Party to Geneva.

I think that sounds pretty logical to a logical person. But look at
this:

b. I accept the legal conclusion of the Attorney General
and the Department of Justice that I have the authority under
the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the United
States and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise that
authority at this time. Accordingly, I determine that the
provisions of Geneva will apply to our present conflict with
the Taliban. I reserve the right to exercise this authority
in this or future conflicts.

There is good reason why he reserved the right to exercise this
authority--a very good reason--and that is, we are not fighting a
conventional war; we are fighting a war in the most unconventional way,
against people who do not wear uniforms, who do not represent a
particular country, who are helter-skelter all over the world, who are
vicious, brutal killers and murderers and terrorists, who have more
than shown us how vicious they are. They do not deserve, in the eyes of
many legal minds, the type of protections that Geneva would provide.
But he is going to provide it to them anyway.
But that is not good enough over here. They have to find something,
in some documents, in these hundreds of pages of documents, that can
help to bring down this President.
Well, look, go to No. 3:

Of course, our values as a nation, values that we share
with many nations in the world, call for us to treat
detainees humanely, including those who are not legally
entitled to such treatment.

Our Nation has been, and will continue to be, a strong supporter of
Geneva and its principles. As a matter of policy, the U.S. Armed Forces
shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent
appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner
consistent with the principles of Geneva.
I do not know how you say it much more clearly than that. But you
have read all the newspapers condemning the President. Yet the
President is following Geneva. But he did. To hear the other side, you
would think that he did not.
Look at No. 5:

I hereby reaffirm the order previously issued by the
Secretary of Defense--

``[P]reviously issued by the Secretary of Defense''--

to the United States Armed Forces requiring that the
detainees be treated humanely and, to the extent appropriate
and consistent with military necessity, in a manner
consistent with the principles of Geneva.

I do not know what my colleagues need further, but that is what the
President signed. My gosh, there is the

[[Page S7285]]

President's signature right at the bottom of this letter.

I hereby direct the Secretary of State to communicate my
determinations in an appropriate manner to our allies, and
other countries and international organizations cooperating
in the war against terrorism of global reach.

My gosh, what is this all about? I will tell you what it is all
about. It is about politics, pure and simple. They cannot win fairly,
so they do it by distorting what is going on.
If they could win by distorting, that would be great, hunky-dory for
them, I suppose. Well, it is not for me.
Paragraph 2b:

I accept the legal conclusion of the Attorney General . . .

This is the fellow they are maligning all the time. This awful
Attorney General, John Ashcroft. But he says:

I accept the legal conclusion of the Attorney General and
the Department of Justice that I have the authority under the
Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the United States
and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise that authority at
this time.

He determines that the provisions of the Geneva will apply.

Of course, our values as a Nation, values that we share
with the other nations in the world, call for us to treat
detainees humanely . . .

The fact is some of our knuckleheads--darn few of them--have treated
detainees inhumanely. You would think the President himself went over
there and did those awful things, or that Donald Rumsfeld, who has done
a fantastic job in helping to change the whole military structure in
many ways in this country for the better, had gone over there and done
this, or General Abizaid.
That letter blows away these types of phony arguments.
After hundreds of pages of analysis, after months of research and
writing, the most severe punishment the Secretary of Defense authorized
is the ``use of mild, noninjurious physical contact such as grabbing,
poking in the chest with the finger and light pushing.''
I could tell you, having studied it, there is a whole panoply of
acceptable Geneva interrogation techniques. I can tell you not all of
them were used. The top level of very stressful ones were not
authorized to be used.
Everything I have seen says that. Why this body would want to issue a
subpoena that, one, failed in committee--they couldn't get it through
committee because everybody there recognized it was a political
exercise, brought very prematurely, without giving the administration a
chance to comply, in disregard of the committee chairman's, my, offer
to bring about a release of documents, and with a release of documents
that is, by any measure, impressive--and two, is not ripe since the
deadline to respond to the document request has not even come and gone.
Why they would do that is beyond me.
I said earlier today I am one of the few people who has gone to and
gone completely through Guantanamo. I can only speak for the time I was
at Guantanamo and that was a few weeks ago. But I went and witnessed
their interrogation techniques. I saw two interrogations that were not
staged for me--one with a very uncooperative al-Qaida member they would
occasionally get something from and another with another one who has
been very cooperative because of the techniques that have been used,
that have been fair and reasonable, within the Geneva Conventions rules
and techniques. I saw how they handled the prisoners. I saw the
incentive systems to get the detainees to try to cooperate.
I saw the assault record of some of these vicious detainees who I
think some on the other side would like to coddle right to bed every
night. Dozens of assaults made against our soldiers, including, since
these are open wire cells, on a number of occasions throwing urine and
feces all over the soldiers who have to walk up and down the halls.
I don't know about you, but if somebody did that to me, I wouldn't be
very happy. If I recall correctly, there have only been three times
where they have had to discipline soldiers because the rest of them
stood and took it, even though that is one of the most offensive things
that could be done to somebody, three times. One was acquitted, the
other two suffered severe punishment.

In other words, we have punished our soldiers for getting mad because
somebody threw feces and urine on them. I would be mad. I am for our
soldiers. I wish--I am not going to second-guess the military courts,
but I wish they had not been punished other than maybe reprimanded.
There are some down there who are so vicious they would kill our
soldiers if they had a chance. And they have done things like this
repeatedly. Dozens and dozens of assaults on our young men and women
down there.
What bothers me, almost more than anything else, is I have described
one of the Presidential findings, and there are others that are being
read on the sides of mountains by Zarqawi and by Osama bin Laden, top
secret documents that have been given up because of these types of
shenanigans. These types of things put our young men and women at risk.
These political games are putting young men and women at risk. To
disclose anything about interrogations puts our young men and women at
risk. That does not mean we should not prosecute those who have
violated the President's order of humane treatment. But interestingly
enough, in the Abu Ghraib prison situation, the minute it became known
these types of activities were going on, investigations started and
prosecutions have resulted. But that is not good enough because there
is a demand that they have to go right up to the top which means even
the President, as if he were over there in Abu Ghraib himself, or
Rumsfeld was over in Abu Ghraib or General Abizaid, they should be
punished, or there should at least be some responsibility on their part
for this aberration of conduct by so few in the Abu Ghraib prison.
Let me tell you, I am getting sick of it. I am getting sick of this
partisan activity. I don't have much of a voice right now because I am
so doggone sick of it. Frankly, it is beneath the dignity of the
Senate. I think there might come a time for subpoenas, if there had
been no cooperation, if there had been plenty of honorable time given
to the administration to comply, if there had been no compliance, if
there hadn't been any effort by the chairman to try and obtain these
documents, if there had been no response by the White House counsel or
the White House itself, or if there had been no desire on the part of
the Attorney General to cooperate. They now have all the documents they
asked for at that hearing. And now we get a request, a broad request
for so many more that would tie up all of these important people to
such a degree that I think it damages our young men and women not only
in Iraq but Afghanistan as well.
Why? Why is it? Why do we hear these holier than thou rantings?
Because we have to make sure this administration does its job because
we don't trust them, I guess. At least that seems to be the tenor of
the argument, and that this administration must be doing something
wrong because it had legal memoranda and legal opinions that indicated
maybe the Geneva Conventions don't apply in this unconventional war,
with unconventional, murderous, and vicious terrorists.
Well, let me say, I am disappointed they ignore these types of
documents. I am disappointed we get all these documents and they are
not satisfactory. I am disappointed there is a call for transparency of
all these things. I guess Osama bin Laden can read these things as
well, or even Zarqawi, and know everything we are thinking, everything
we do. He ought to be able to cut off a lot of heads with the knowledge
we are giving him.

The fact is, almost any time anything is released here, it shows up
in the liberal media. It shows up to the disadvantage of our country,
to the disadvantage of our young men and women over there. I don't
think anybody on this side is saying we should not be transparent in
the ways we should be transparent, but to use that transparent argument
and push it to its ultimate extreme means we should not have 15
intelligence agencies where we have classified information to protect
our country. If you push it to the extreme, that is what you are
saying. I believe it has been pushed to exactly that extreme.
I believe the demands have been extreme. They are unconscionable in
some ways--not all of them. That is

[[Page S7286]]

why the documents are being given to them. It was important to meet the
reasonable requests for those three documents. They have been given. I
don't see anything wrong with that.
I also believe we ought to respect the need to keep some matters from
transparency in the best interests of our young men and women. I have
to say I know that not all of our servants act appropriately. Everybody
makes mistakes. Certainly, the things that happened in Abu Ghraib and
in Afghanistan should never have happened. They need to be
investigated, and, where appropriate, prosecutions have to take place.
Nobody should be spared who participated in those wrongful, illegal
activities that fly in the face of what the President approved and what
the Secretary of Defense approved. I stand with my colleagues on the
other side with regard to that. There is no doubt in my mind about
that.
But when it comes to just playing crass politics and demanding more
and more so it can be released to the public so ``transparency'' can be
had over documents that should not be released to the public, then I
have to call it what it is. It is crass political activity that flies
in the face of what is right. I think directly and indirectly it hurts
our young men and women overseas.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, my
friend, has spoken for about 55 minutes, which leaves little time for
the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the person going to
offer the amendment. I will not offer a unanimous consent agreement
until such time as the manager of the bill or someone from the majority
is able to respond, but I am going to ask unanimous consent that the
Senator from Vermont be allowed to speak until the hour of 9:45.
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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order be
extended to allow the Senator from Vermont to speak for 15 minutes, and
that following his speech, we vote on the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we want to accommodate the Senator.
Whatever happened, happened. We are glad to, in an equitable way, offer
him this time. I will try to take the floor in the area of 9:40, if
that is convenient.
Mr. LEAHY. How about 9:45?
Mr. WARNER. OK. Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate the continuing courtesy of my
dear friend, the senior Senator from Virginia. I said earlier on the
floor of the Senate that he and I have been friends for over a quarter
of a century. I have aged in that time, but he has not. I do appreciate
his continuing courtesies.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. We have served together these 26
years now in this body.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have listened to some of the debate in
the last 30 or 40 minutes, and it is sort of like a tempest in a
teapot--a great deal of shouting and carrying on, but not really
hitting the central point.
I spent years as a prosecutor. It was one of the best jobs I ever
had. I had the great opportunity to try a lot of cases. I was in the
courtroom several days every week in Burlington, VT. We had a saying
there, as we do in many States, that if you have the facts on your
side, you pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, you pound
the law. Of course, if you have neither on your side, you pound the
table. We have heard a lot of table pounding tonight.
The fact is that every American, Republican or Democrat, knows that
some terrible things happened at Abu Ghraib prison. Some apparently
happened in Afghanistan and some in Guantanamo. These are acts that are
beneath a great and wonderful country such as the United States, a
country blessed with a Constitution and laws and values that serve as a
shining beacon for much of the rest of the world.
This did not happen here, and it is not answered by going out and
cashiering a couple of corporals or a couple of privates and saying:
There, look what we have done.
We all know that the 140,000 American men and women serving in Iraq
and in Afghanistan and Guantanamo are obeying the laws, and upholding
the best ideals of the United States. And many of our soldiers have
been told they are going to serve much longer than their Government
originally told them they would have to.
There are some, however, who did the same wrong things in Iraq as
they did in Afghanistan and as they did in Guantanamo. Who gave them
the green light? Don't tell me it is just a handful of bad actors. If
so, those few bad actors must have a wonderful frequent flyer program
to be able to show up in Abu Ghraib one day, Afghanistan the next, and
Guantanamo the next. Somewhere there was some core permission given. It
went to those who were willing to follow a wrong order.
My colleagues can table my amendment, but it will aid the coverup of
what has become an international prisoner abuse scandal. If this
amendment is tabled, as it may be, it says that the Republican Senators
have decided to join the Republican administration in circling the
wagons of the unfolding prisoner abuse scandal.
The American public--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--are
sick and tired of being lied to. They are sick of the secrecy. They are
demanding answers all over this Nation, but the wagons continue to
circle.
My amendment would require the administration to cooperate with a
thorough congressional investigation into the abuse of prisoners in
U.S. custody by releasing all documents relevant to the scandal. We
call for the release of all relevant documents, not a tiny subset of
documents selected by the administration when the political heat was
on.
The question for us as Senators is, Are we content to see the Senate
serve as an arm of the executive branch, or are there some of us--at
least a majority of us--who actually read the Constitution and realize
we are an independent branch of Government? The distinguished senior
Senator from West Virginia has reminded us that we do not serve under
Presidents, we serve with Presidents. He has reminded us that there are
three branches of Government, each independent of the other.
Nonetheless, we hear arguments on the floor that we can't ask for these
documents because the executive branch does not want to show them to
us. But, we are independent Senators, all 100 of us.
Somewhere in the upper reaches of this administration, a process was
set in motion that seeped forward until it produced this awful scandal.
So to put the scandal behind us--which all of us want to do--we have to
understand what happened.
The President of the United States has said they want to get to the
bottom of this. So do I, but you cannot get to the bottom of this until
you have a clear picture of what is on the top. We have heard the party
line on this scandal. The Senator from Alabama argued that the whole
thing boils down to just a few people on the midnight shift in Abu
Ghraib prison who got out of control. He said that a few people came in
at midnight and somehow they got out of control. That line has become
harder and harder to swallow as every day new evidence surfaces that
the abuses were widespread.

The photographs may be limited to a small group of soldiers at Abu
Ghraib, but the abuses were not. It is not right for any of us to claim
this was just a small thing when every one of us has seen how extensive
the photographs are, those that have been revealed to the public and
those that have not.
I question the idea that it was only in Abu Ghraib. As I said,
somebody must be getting frequent flyer miles because the same thing
was happening at Abu Ghraib prison, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo. Just
last week, a Federal grand jury indicted a CIA contractor for brutally
beating a prisoner in Afghanistan in June of last year. Why did they
indict him? Because the prisoner died the day after he was beaten.

[[Page S7287]]

The Army has opened a criminal investigation into injuries suffered
by a U.S. soldier who was posing as an uncooperative detainee during
training with military police at Guantanamo Bay. That soldier suffered
traumatic brain injury. This was a brave American soldier who went into
a training program. Suddenly, apparently, the rules changed, He used a
code word to stop it. He said: I am an American soldier. They kept on
doing what somebody higher up had given them the order to do, and he
suffered traumatic brain injury.
I could go on and on about this. My point is, it is not just a few
bad apples in Abu Ghraib. These things have happened in Afghanistan,
Iraq, and Guantanamo. Does anybody seriously think that the American
public is going to fall for a lie that it is a coincidence that a bunch
of MPs in Iraq were abusing prisoners with the very same tactics that
were being debated at the highest levels of Government, such as the use
of hoods, the use of dogs, the removal of clothing? Do we think these
people are somehow telepathic, that they can read the minds of those at
the White House or the Pentagon?
Yesterday, the White House released a tiny subset of the materials we
sought. This was not all the material we requested. It was a tiny
subset. All of those documents should have been provided earlier to
Congress. Much more remains held back from public view.
The documents that were released raised more questions than they
answered.
After January 2002, did the President sign any other orders or
directives? Did he sign any with regard to prisoners in Iraq? Why did
Secretary Rumsfeld issue and later rescind interrogation techniques?
How did these interrogation techniques come to be used in Iraq even
though the administration has maintained it followed the Geneva
Conventions there?
Why is the White House withholding relevant documents produced after
April 2003?
Where is the remaining 95 percent of the materials requested by
members of the Senate Judiciary Committee?
We have heard on the floor there was a broad-brush request made for
the documents. But it was actually a request for 23 specific documents.
The White House gave 3 of the 23 and said that it had complied.
Incidentally, of those three, two had already appeared on the Internet.
The press had found them out before the White House gave them to us.
So even though they gave only one that had not been made public
before, I will give them credit for all three. Where are the other 20?
When are we, as Senators, going to stop sitting on our hands,
becoming a rubberstamp for an administration cloaked in secrecy?
We have the legal right, we have the constitutional obligation, and I
remind Senators we have the moral authority to ask questions and demand
answers today.
We have been blessed in this country with a great and wonderful
country, but that is a blessing that comes with some responsibilities.
We are not maintaining that responsibility unless we keep the pressure
on, until we get honesty and we get answers.
So I urge my colleagues, vote down the motion to table. Let us show
the Senate is willing to stand up. Let us do what Senators have done in
the past. We did it during the Watergate era. We have done it at other
times. Let us stand up and ask the questions the American public wants
us to ask.
The press seems to be doing it for us. After extensive investigation,
the Guardian uncovered widespread evidence of violent abuse and sexual
humiliation of prisoners at Baghram and other U.S. detention centers
around Afghanistan. We should have found that out, and we should have
stopped it. As I said before, a Federal grand jury indicted a CIA
contractor for brutally assaulting a detainee in Afghanistan June 2003.
We should have found that out. Instead, we turned a blind eye.
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld admitted in November 2003 that he ordered
a prisoner be held incommunicado, off the prison rolls, and out of the
sight of the Red Cross. This ghost detainee got lost in the system for
7 months. Despite his high intelligence value, this ghost detainee
received only a cursory initial interview while in detention.
Major General Taguba later criticized the practice of keeping ghost
detainees as deceptive, contrary to Army doctrine, and in violation of
international law.
The New York Times reported that military lawyers and some colonels
received memos citing complaints of abuse at Abu Ghraib in November
2003, 2 months before photographic evidence of abuse prompted the
military to launch an investigation. At the same time, the letters I
had written to the Department of Defense and others about what we had
heard were not answered.
In fact, it turns out now that the majority of detainees at
Guantanamo Bay are not the worst of the worst, as the administration
asserted, but rather low-level recruits or even innocent men swept up
in the chaos of war. This is why, after years, not a single one has
been brought before a military tribunal. This is not the mark of a
great country. This is not the mark of a moral country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that materials provided under the
amendment be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

The materials provided under the amendment should include,
at a minimum, the following:
(A) Memorandum for Timothy E. Flannigan, Deputy Counsel to
the President, from John Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: The President's
constitutional authority to conduct military operations
against terrorists and nations supporting them (Sept. 25,
2001);
(B) Memorandum for Alberto Gonzales, Counsel to the
President, from Patrick F. Philbin, Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Legality of the use of
military commissions to try terrorists (Nov. 6, 2001);
(C) Memorandum for William J. Haynes, General Counsel,
Department of Defense, from John Yoo, Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, and Patrick F. Philbin, Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Re: Possible habeas jurisdiction over
aliens held in Guantanamo Bay (Dec. 28, 2001);
(D) Draft Memorandum for William J. Haynes, General
Counsel, Department of Defense, from John Yoo, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, and Robert J. Delahunty, Special
Counsel, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Application of treaties
and laws to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees (Jan. 9, 2002),
and any final version of this Draft Memorandum;
(E) Memorandum from William Howard Taft IV, Department of
State Office of Legal Advisor, Re: Response to the January 9
Yoo/Delahaunty memo (Jan. 11, 2002);
(F) Draft Memorandum for the President from Alberto
Gonzales, Counsel to the President, Re: Decision re
application of the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War to
the conflict with al Qaeda and the Taliban (Jan. 25, 2002),
and any final version of this Draft Memorandum;
(G) Memorandum for Alberto Gonzales, Counsel to the
President, from Secretary of State Colin Powell, Re: Response
to the Gonzales draft memo of January 25, 2002 (Jan. 26,
2002);
(H) Memorandum for John Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, Office of Legal Counsel, from James C. Ho, Attorney-
Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Possible
interpretations of Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva
Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
(Feb. 1, 2002);
(I) Memorandum for Alberto Gonzales, Counsel to the
President, from William Howard Taft IV, Department of State
Office of Legal Advisor, Re: Comments on your paper on the
Geneva Convention (Feb. 2, 2002);
(J) Memorandum for William J. Haynes, II, General Counsel,
Department of Defense, from Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Attorney
General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: The President's power
as Commander in Chief to transfer captured terrorists to the
control and custody of foreign nations (Mar. 13, 2002);
(K) Memorandum for Daniel J. Bryant, Assistant Attorney
General, Office of Legal Counsel, from Patrick F. Philbin,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel,
Re: Swift Justice Authorization Act (Apr. 8, 2002);
(L) Memorandum for General James T. Hill from Defense
Secretary Rumsfeld, Re: Coercive interrogation techniques
that can be used with approval of the Defense Secretary (Apr.
2003);
(M) Memorandum from CJTF-7, Re: Applicability of Army Field
Manual 34-52 and sensory deprivation (Sept. 10, 2003);
(N) Directive of Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez entitled
``Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy'' (Sept. 12,
2003);
(O) Memorandum from CJTF-7 on interrogations (Sept. 28,
2003);
(P) Memorandum for MI personnel at Abu Ghraib, Re:
Interrogation rules of engagement (Oct. 9, 2003);
(Q) Memorandum for Commander of MI Brigade from Lt. General
Ricardo Sanchez, Re: Order giving military intelligence
control over almost every aspect of prison conditions at Abu
Ghraib with the explicit aim

[[Page S7288]]

of manipulating the detainees' ``emotions and weaknesses''
(Oct. 12, 2003);
(R) Memorandum for Review and Appeal Board at Abu Ghraib
from Detainee Assessment Branch (Nov. 1, 2003 through Jan.
31, 2004);
(S) Memorandum for MP and MI personnel at Abu Ghraib from
Colonel Mac Warren, the top legal adviser to Lt. General
Ricardo Sanchez, Re: New plan to restrict Red Cross access to
Abu Ghraib (Jan. 2, 2004);
(T) Memorandum for Superiors from Maj. General Antonio
Taguba, Re: Results of investigation into the 800th MP
Brigade's actions in Abu Ghraib (Mar. 12, 2004);
(U) Memorandum from the Department of Justice, Re:
Liability of interrogators under the Convention Against
Torture and the Anti-Torture Act when a prisoner is not in
U.S. custody.
(V) Review, study, or investigation report by LTC
Chamberlain, Re: State of prisons in Iraq (addressing the
high proportion of innocent people in the prisons and the
lack of release procedures for detained Iraqis).

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. The distinguished Senator from Utah will address the
Senate. We are ready to go to votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. I move to table the underlying Leahy amendment and ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will now call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Brownback) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) are
necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from Kansas
(Mr. Brownback) would vote ``yes.''
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman),
the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings) and the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 143 Leg.]

YEAS--45

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Stevens
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--50

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham (FL)
Graham (SC)
Hagel
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCain
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Specter
Stabenow
Wyden

NOT VOTING--5

Bingaman
Brownback
Hollings
Kerry
Sununu
The motion was rejected.

amendment No. 3485

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise this evening in support of
Senator Leahy's second-degree amendment which seeks to compel, by law,
the Executive Branch to provide certain important documents to
Congress.
I wish to focus on one particular issue that has been raised by those
who oppose this effort--that provision of these documents will endanger
our national security by informing our enemies of the details of our
interrogation tactics.
I believe this objection is misplaced and the danger of compromising
national security can be easily and simply eliminated.
I am a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, and as my
colleagues know, that committee regularly receives information of the
highest classification involving our Intelligence community. Similarly,
the Armed Services Committee receives information about the most
sensitive of our military secrets. The Judiciary Committee receives
information about extremely sensitive law enforcement matters. In
short, the Congress and its committees are regularly provided the most
sensitive of our Nation's secrets.
In the present case I accept that some of the documents we have
sought from the Department of Justice and Department of Defense about
the law, policy and procedures governing interrogations may be properly
classified. In other words, I quote from the governing executive order,
Executive Order 12958, which describes ``top secret'' as being
information ``the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be
expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national
security.''
But the question of classification is unrelated to the question of
whether the Congress should have access to information which is needed.
We have procedures, administered by the Office of Senate Security,
which ensures that such information is handled properly, safely, and
securely. simply put, providing information to the Congress is not the
same as making it public, or providing it to terrorists.
As some of my colleagues know, I asked the Attorney General directly
whether any of the material which he was refusing to provide to the
Congress was classified. He did not answer my question, but if the
answer is yes, then the Congress has the ability to receive such
information.
It is important to focus on the issue at hand, which is what
information should, and must, be provided to Congress so it can perform
its constitutional role to legislate and conduct oversight. The issue
is not what information to provide to the terrorists.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Leahy
second-degree amendment. I am proud to cosponsor the Leahy second-
degree amendment. The Leahy amendment would require the administration
to provide the Senate with all documents in the Justice Department's
possession relating to the treatment and interrogation of detainees.
Since the world learned about the horrible abuses at Abu Ghraib
prison, there has been mounting evidence that high-ranking members of
this administration authorized the use of interrogation tactics that
violate our longstanding treaty obligations. There is increasing
pressure on the administration to come clean and provide the Congress
with all documents related to the use of torture.
Yesterday, in a transparent effort to stop the pressure for full
disclosure, the administration provided Congress with a 2-inch stack of
documents. But a cursory review of these documents reveals that the
administration is withholding a lot of crucial information. If
anything, the documents that were released yesterday make it even more
clear that we need complete disclosure from the administration. As the
Chicago Tribune reported today:

The memos left unanswered at least as many questions as
they answered. White House officials acknowledged that the
documents provided only a partial record of the
administration's actions concerning treatment of prisoners.

What do the documents that were released show? In a January 2002
memo, the President concluded that ``new thinking in the law of war''
was needed. Under our Constitution, it is Congress's job to make the
laws. If the President wants to change the law of war, which has served
our country well since the time of President Abraham Lincoln, he must
come to the Congress and ask us, the people's representatives, to
change the law. He cannot change the law by executive fiat. The memo
from the President was stamped for declassification in 2012, so clearly
this administration had no intention to consult with Congress or the
American people about their plans to change the law of war.
In response to the President's mandate, in August 2002, the Justice
Department sent a memo to the White House on the use of torture. It
makes unprecedented claims about the President's power that violate
basic constitutional principles. The Justice Department concludes that
the torture statute, which makes torture a crime,

[[Page S7289]]

does not apply to interrogations conducted under the President's
Commander in Chief authority. They also adopt a new, very restrictive
definition of torture. They state that torture involves:

. . . intense pain or suffering of the kind that is
equivalent to the pain that would be associated with serious
physical injury so severe that death, organ failure, or
permanent damage resulting in a loss of significant body
function will likely result.

This contradicts what Attorney General John Ashcroft told the
Judiciary Committee just 2 weeks ago. He said that it is Congress's job
to define torture and that the administration had not adopted a new
definition of torture.
The Defense Department, relying on the Justice Department's work,
also responded to the President's call for new thinking about the law
of war. In a November 2002 memo, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld approved
the use of coercive interrogation techniques at Gauantanamo Bay. These
included ``removal of clothing,'' using dogs to intimidate detainees,
sensory deprivation, and placing detainees in stress positions,
including forced standing for up to 4 hours. Rumsfeld's only comment on
these procedures was a personal note at the bottom of the approval
memo, ``I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to four
hours?''
Let me answer that question.
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, the heart rate increases, some people faint, and the kidneys
eventually shut down.
After military officers raised moral and legal concerns about the
tactics Rumsfeld has approved, he rescinded his approval while the
Pentagon conducted an internal review.
In an April 2003 memo, Rumsfeld issued revised rules. These allowed
for interrogation tactics with truly Orwellian names. These included:
``Sleep adjustment,'' which the DOD claims is not the same as sleep
deprivation;
``Dietary manipulation,'' which DOD claims is not the same as food
deprivation; and
``Environmental manipulation,'' which DOD acknowledges ``some
nations'' may view as ``inhumane.''
White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales said these memos show that the
administration engaged in a ``thorough and deliberative process'' on
interrogation practices.
There is just one problem: Congress was not involved in the process.
Article 1 of the Constitution says that it is Congress that makes the
laws, not the President. The President cannot change the law of war or
the definition of torture. Only Congress can.
The memos that were released yesterday leave many questions
unanswered. They include directives related to Defense Department
interrogations of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. But they do not tell us
what interrogation techniques were approved for use by the CIA or other
government agencies. They do not tell us what interrogation techniques
were approved for use in Iraq. Yesterday, White House Counsel Gonzales
said, ``We categorically reject any connection'' between the
Administration's torture memos and abuses at Abu Ghraib.
But how can the administration reject these connections when the
techniques that Rumsfeld approved for use in Guantanamo were also used
in Abu Ghraib prison? And what about the Justice Department torture
memo? According to press reports today, the administration is now
disavowing the memo.
But what does that mean? The memo was apparently vetted by the
Justice Department, sent to the White House, and was the basis for the
Defense Department's memos on torture.
Who requested the Justice Department memo and what was done in
response to the memo? Were the legal arguments contained in the memo
used to justify the use of torture?
Yesterday, the President said, ``We do not condone torture. I have
never ordered torture. I will never order torture.''
What definition of torture is the President using? Is it the one that
the Justice Department created? What about other forms of cruel
treatment that are prohibited by the Constitution, treaties and laws of
the United States?
This is a very serious issue for our Nation. The world is watching
us. They are asking whether the United States will stand behind its
treaty obligations in the age of terrorism.
The Senate has an obligation to the Constitution and the American
people to answer these questions The only way to do that is to obtain
all of the relevant documents from the administration.
The great challenge of our age is combating terrorism while remaining
true to the principles upon which our country was founded--liberty and
the rule of law. Our laws must not fall silent during time of war.
I urge my colleagues to support the Leahy amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

Amendment No. 3485

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senate now turns to the second-degree
amendment and an up-or-down vote.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to Amendment No. 3485.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman)
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Brownback) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) are
necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Kansas (Mr. Brownback) would vote ``no.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 144 Leg.]

YEAS--46

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham (FL)
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden

NAYS--50

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--4

Bingaman
Brownback
Kerry
Sununu
The amendment (No. 3485) was rejected.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3387

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
3387.
The amendment (No. 3387) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3468

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I believe the veterans health care
amendment is next; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes of debate evenly divided.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, one of the surprising aspects of the
debate about the amendment now pending has been the testimonials from
some colleagues who say they like the current VA funding system.
If you believe you can look veterans in the eye and tell them they
are well

[[Page S7290]]

served by the current VA health care system, then my amendment is not
for you.
If you are satisfied with telling 500,000 veterans they cannot enroll
at the VA, then this amendment is not for you.
If you think the system is performing well that results in hundreds
of thousands of veterans waiting months, sometimes years, to see a
doctor to get prescription drugs, then vote no on this amendment.
If you feel good about voting to ask veterans to contribute more than
a billion dollars out of pocket for their health care costs and send
out the bill collectors to hunt them down and make sure it works, this
amendment is not for you.
Lastly, if you think it is appropriate to ask hundreds of thousands
of men and women to sacrifice everything for their country and not
ensure that they can get access to health care when they return, my
amendment is not for you.
Those considering opposing my amendment should take a look around.
President Bush's own veterans health care task force, as well as the
chairman and ranking member of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs,
believe the current system is broken and that it urgently needs fixing
and have endorsed the concept underlying this amendment. Every single
veterans group in the country has done so as well.
If you believe we have an obligation to our troops, I urge you to
back it up with action by voting for this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against this
amendment. This amendment creates a new entitlement program, set up by
a formula designed to add benefits based on eligible people. My father-
in-law is eligible, but he doesn't receive VA benefits. Now we are
going to set that up as an entitlement that would cost $300 billion--
three-fourths of the cost of the Medicare bill expansion last year? We
have a lot of people saying we believe in paying for these. This was
not paid for. This would increase the deficit by $300 billion.
We are doing a lot for veterans right now. If you look at it, we
didn't do a lot during the Clinton administration, but we have done a
lot under the Bush administration--up 50 percent in the last few years.
We are going from 2004, $61 billion, to $70 billion in 2005, a 15-
percent increase. Yet some people say that is still not enough.
I think this amendment is not so much about helping veterans. I think
it is trying to help politicians. I urge my colleagues to sustain the
budget point of order.
The pending amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota, Mr.
Daschle, increases mandatory spending and, if adopted, would cause the
underlying bill to exceed the committee's allocation section 302(a)
allocation. Therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment
pursuant to 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to waive the relevant sections of
the Budget Act for my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Brownback) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) are
necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from Kansas
(Mr. Brownback) would vote ``nay.''
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 48, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 145 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Graham (FL)
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Wyden

NAYS--48

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Stevens
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--3

Brownback
Kerry
Sununu
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are
48. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained, and the amendment falls.
The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

Amendment No. 3467 Withdrawn

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the
action on the Ensign second-degree amendment No. 3467 and withdraw it.
That is a technical requirement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

amendment no. 3121

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I have submitted an amendment that
makes sure that military families don't lose eligibility for Head
Start, the School Breakfast and Lunch Programs, Child Care and
Development Block Grants, and the Low Income Energy Assistance Program
when a parent is sent off to war.
Currntly, military families living on the margin, who qualify for
Federal benefits, are at risk of losing those benefits if the service
member in the family qualifies for special pay. If, for example, an
active duty parent is deployed to a combat zone, and begins to receive
additional combat pay, the temporary increase in income may result in
his or her family losing eligibility for vital social services. My
amendment would preclude additional military pay, specifically combat
pay and the family separation allowance, from being counted as income
for purpose of determining eligibility for certain federal benefits.
The Federal programs that are affected are those that are available
to all Americans and where Federal law determines eligibility and
generally provide food, child care, educational, and energy assistance
to needy families. More specifically, the programs that would be
affected are: The School Breakfast and Lunch Programs, Child Care and
Development Block Grants, Head Start, and the Low Income Energy
Assistance Program.
The Subcommittee on Children and Families, which I chair, in
cooperation with the Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel, chaired
by the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, has put a special focus on
helping military parents raising children. Together we have held six
hearings since June of last year--five in the field, and one here in
Washington. A number of issues have come to the attention of Senators
through these hearings. This amendment addresses one of them.
Among the many military personnel I have head from during this
process are Sergeant First Class Luis Rodriguez, his wife Lilliam, and
their two young daughters. Sgt. Rodriguez, with the 101st Airborne,
stationed out of Fort Campbell, and his family line in Clarksville, TN.
When Sgt. Rodriguez and his family moved to Fort Campbell, they tried
to get one of their daughters, who was 4 years old at the time,
enrolled in their local Head Start program before Sgt. Rodriguez

[[Page S7291]]

was shipped out to Iraq. However, the Rodriguezes were informed that
they couldn't access Head Start because they were over-income because
of receiving the special pay. Sgt. Rodriguez left for Iraq and in
November the truck he was driving in Mosul hit an improvised explosive
device, and he lost most of his right leg. Currently, he is recovering
down the road at Walter Reed Medical Center, and Lilliam is spending
her time among traveling up here to see her husband, tending to her
girls in Tennessee, and trying to help provide for her family. I am
sure if you went to Walter Reed and talked to Lilliam or Luis, they
would tell you that there is something wrong when those who wear our
country's uniform and their families can no longer benefit from Head
Start, the School Lunch Program, or some other federal program because
they've become ineligible due to the additional special pay received
when they're off in harm's way protecting our country.
I thank the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee
for his assistance in crafting this amendment. I look forward to
continuing to work with the chairman on the issue of military families,
and how best to help them shoulder the burdens they face.
We rely on our servicemen and women to defend our freedom and
America's interests overseas, but at times, we forget that our soldiers
have a support structure of their own: their families. We should do all
we can to support our service members and their families in these tough
times.

AMENDMENT NO. 3441

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, why is this amendment needed?
Congressional guidance is needed where the Air Force's conduct on its
Tanker Lease Program has, to date, been unacceptable.
First, the Air Force has provided Congress inaccurate information in
an attempt to justify its original proposal to lease 100 Boeing KC-
767As. For example, Air Force Secretary Jim Roche has repeatedly
advised Congress that, in the existing KC-135 fleet, ``corrosion is
significant, pervasive, and represents an unacceptable risk.''
Secretary Roche has also emphasized to Congress increased operating
costs in the current fleet as a basis for entering into the tanker
lease. Air Force leadership has indicated that these elements create an
``urgent'' need to recapitalize the fleet. However, a Defense Science
Board, DSB, task force found that the Air Force's claims of
unmanageable corrosion problems and cost growth were overstated.
Remarkably, the task force recommended that corrosion not be cited as
a justification for tanker recapitalization. As such, the task force
concluded that ``[t]here is no compelling material or financial reason
to initiate a replacement program prior to the completion of the
[Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)] and the [Mobility Capabilities Study
(MCS)].'' Thus, the task force jettisoned the ``dominant reason''
Secretary Roche first cited in his July 10, 2003, report to Congress as
the basis for having taxpayers pay billions of dollars more for leasing
tankers than they would for buying them. The Air Force's
representations on this issue remains a matter of continuing
investigative concern.
In another example, to comply with the original authorizing statute,
the Air Force misrepresented to Congress that its proposal to lease 100
Boeing KC-767 tankers was merely an operating lease. This would have
obviated the requirement that the White House obtain advance budget
authority for the whole lease proposal. But, the DOD-Office of the
Inspector General, OIG, and Program Analysis and Evaluation, PA&E, as
well as the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, and the General
Accounting Office, GAO, found that the procurement of these tankers is,
in fact, a lease-purchase. In addition, facts surrounding the original
lease proposal made it clear that the transaction was a lease-purchase:
under the original proposal, the Air Force conceded that the DOD is
``committed to earmark[ing] an additional $2B in fiscal year 2008 and
fiscal year 2009 for the purchase of aircraft covered by the multiyear
program under the terms of the proposed contract'' to head off a
funding spike over the Future-Years Defense Program.
Second, the DOD-OIG and the National Defense University, NDU,
concluded that the Air Force's commercial item procurement strategy
``prevented any visibility into Boeing's costs and required the Air
Force to use a fixed-price type contract . . . The strategy also
exempted [Boeing] from the requirement to submit cost or pricing data.
The strategy places the Department at high risk for paying excessive
prices and precludes good fiduciary responsibility for DOD funds.'' The
NDU similarly concluded that ``[i]n a sole source, monopoly commercial
environment, the government is not served well with limited price
data'' and suggested that the Air Force neglected its fiduciary/
stewardship responsibilities.
Third, the DOD-OIG and the NDU also concluded that the operational
requirements document, ORD, for tankers was not tailored, as it should
have been, to the requirements of the warfighter, but rather to closely
correlate to the Boeing KC-767A. The DOD-OIG found that senior Air
Force staff directed that the ORD closely correlate to the Boeing KC-
767A that was being developed for a foreign government, in anticipation
of the authorizing legislation. This is particularly troubling where,
according to an internal Boeing document regarding the ORD, Boeing
planned to ``[e]stablish clearly defined requirements in ORD for the
USAF Tanker configuration that results in an affordable solution that
meets the USAF mission needs and will prevent an AOA from being
conducted.'' Under the current proposal, the first 100 tankers produced
will not be capable of, among other things, interoperability with Navy,
Marine, or coalition assets, or simultaneously refueling more than one
receiver aircraft. Rear Adm. Mark P. Fitzgerald recently suggested that
in theater, such a limitation restricts the Navy's long-range striking
capability and fosters a needlessly risky aerial refueling environment.

Finally, documents suggest that the Air Force allowed Boeing to
modify the requirements in the ORD while it was being developed.
Documents also reflect that the Air Force induced the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council, JROC, into approving and validating the
corrupted ORD by falsely representing that it was not tailored to a
specific aircraft. This is of continuing investigative interest to the
Committee.
As I've described, the history of the Air Force's attempt to
recapitalize its tanker fleet has been riddled with corporate scandal,
public corruption and political controversy.
This amendment attempts to make sure that any effort by the Air Force
to replace its fleet of tankers is done responsibly. The amendment
achieves this by doing six things.
First, the amendment seeks to have the Secretary of Defense ensure
that the Air Force Secretary not acquire any aerial refueling aircraft
for the Air Force, by lease or contract, either with full or open
competition, until at least 60 days after the Secretary of Defense has
reviewed all documentation for the acquisition, including the completed
AoA, the completed aerial refueling portion of the MCS, a new,
validated capabilities document and the approval of a Defense
Acquisition Board. And until the Secretary of Defense has submitted to
the congressional defense committees a written determination that the
acquisition is in compliance with all currently applicable laws and
regulations.
Among the authorities with which the acquisition decision must comply
is OMB Circular A-11, revised for 2003. In other words, without
substantial private-party participation, any third-party financing
arrangement, particularly those structured around a ``special purpose
entity,'' will be deemed to be a transaction of the government. So,
under OMB Circular A-11, the transaction must be reflected in the
President's budget the year that obligations arising from it are
incurred. The DOD-OIG, the Congressional Budget Office, the
Congressional Research Service, and others have concluded that the
proposed lease of tankers is a lease-purchase--for which renegotiation
of the current contract or independent authorization may be required.
Therefore, under OMB Circular A-11, budget authority would be needed
for the entire obligation in the first year of the lease term.
Second, not less than 45 days after the Secretary of Defense submits
this

[[Page S7292]]

determination, the Comptroller General and the DOD-OIG shall submit to
the congressional defense committees a report on whether the
acquisition complies with all currently applicable laws and
regulations, as well as the requirements of the amendment itself, and
is consistent with the AoA and the other documentation referred to in
this amendment.

Third, the acquisition by lease or contract of any aerial refueling
aircraft for the Air Force beyond low-rate initial production shall be
subject to (and the Secretary of Defense will comply with) the
requirements of sections 2366 and 2399 of title 10, United States Code.
Fourth, before selecting the provider of integrated support for the
tanker fleet, the Secretary of Defense shall perform all analysis
required by law of the costs and benefits of the alternative of using
Federal Government personnel and contractor personnel to provide such
support. The amendment also requires the Secretary to conduct all
analysis required by law of the core logistics requirements, the use of
performance-based logistics and the length of the contract period. The
Secretary of Defense shall then select the provider on the basis of
fair, full and open competition as defined by the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy Act.
Fifth, before the Secretary of Defense commits to any acquisition of
aerial refueling aircraft, the Secretary shall require the manufacturer
to provide, with respect to commercial items covered by the lease or
contract, information on the prices at which the same or similar items
have been sold that is adequate for evaluating the reasonableness of
the price for those, and other commercial, items.
Finally, the Secretary of the Air Force shall contact the DOD-OIG for
the review and approval of any Air Force use of non-Federal audit
services for any acquisition of aerial refueling aircraft.
A few notes about the amendment.
First, this amendment opens the process to oversight by getting the
DOD-OIG, the DOD-Comptroller General, and the Defense Acquisition
Board, DAB, actively involved in the process. Indeed, everyone who has
independently looked into how the original proposal went through had
major problems with the lack of transparency. For example, DAB was
completely cut out of the process. As the NDU noted, if allowed to
participate, the DAB would have exercised responsibility over the
selection of a preferred system alternative, acceptance of the overall
acquisition strategy, and compliance with applicable policies and
statutes. This amendment deals the DAB back in the process to discharge
its vital function in providing comprehensive senior management review.
As another example, under this amendment, the DOD-OIG will determine,
among other things, whether the data provided by the aircraft and
engine manufacturer is sufficient to determine the reasonableness of
the price of those items. Coupled with the amendment's requirement that
the DOD-OIG approve the Air Force's use of an outside auditor, the
taxpayers' interests will be protected. Furthermore, I believe that the
DOD-OIG's, the NDU's, and Institute for Defense Analyses'
recommendations that the Air Force Secretary negotiate the price of
the engines for the tankers with the engine manufacturers need to be
implemented.

The bottom line here is this. The amendment does much to inject much
needed sunlight in a program whose development has been largely
insulated from public scrutiny. In so doing, the amendment allows us to
discharge our oversight obligations the next time around on this multi-
billion dollar procurement proposal, responsibly and effectively.
Second, the amendment gives the Secretary of Defense sufficient
flexibility to pursue a lease only after, among other things, an AoA is
completed. The Secretary has already committed to not going forward on
replacing the current fleet until an AoA (and a MCS) are completed.
While giving the Secretary appropriate flexibility, the amendment
requires that the Air Force go through certain hoops to make sure that
any acquisition of tankers in the future, is done the right way. These
hoops were loosely drawn from the recommendations of the DOD-OIG, the
DSB, and the NDU, whose input the Secretary specifically asked for. I
will have printed a list of findings, conclusions, and recommendations
by each at the end of this statement. They must all be fully considered
before any decision to recapitalize the tanker fleet is made.
Third, it generally requires the DOD and the Air Force to do nothing
more than comply with currently applicable statutes, regulations and
OMB Circulars. Those who looked into the Air Force's conduct regarding
the original proposal agreed that the Air Force did not comply extant
statutory requirements. This amendment forces the Air Force to do that.
I ask unanimous consent that the list to which I referred be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Department of Defense Inspector Generals Acquisition of the Boeing KC-
767A Tanker Aircraft

recommendations

Fully develop system engineering requirements to convert
the commercial non-developmental aircraft into an integrated
military configuration. Without fully developed system
engineering requirements the Boeing KC-767A Tanker aircraft
may not meet operational requirements for a 40-year service
life as well as command, control, communications computers,
and intelligence (C4I) support plan requirements, etc.
Tailor the first spiral or increment of the Operational
Requirements Document (ORD) to warfighter requirements in the
mission needs statement (MNS) for future aerial refueling
aircraft not a specific aircraft. As a result, the first 100
KC-767A Tankers will not meet the operational requirement for
interoperability and will not meet the mission capabilities
in the Operational Requirements Document to conduct secondary
missions, such as cargo/passenger, aeromedical evacuation
mission, etc.
The Tanker Lease Program must comply with Sections 2366 and
2399 of title 10, United States Code for determining the
operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of
the Boeing 767A tanker aircraft before proceeding beyond low-
rate initial production (LRIP). By not complying with the
statutory provisions in Sections 2366 and 2399, the Boeing
KC-767A tanker aircraft delivered to the warfighter may
not be operationally effective, suitable, and survivable.
Discontinue the commercial item procurement strategy for
the Boeing KC-767A Tanker Lease Program and replace fixed-
price contracts for initial development, modification, and
integrated fleet support with cost or fixed-price incentive
type contracts that would require Boeing to provide cost or
pricing data as appropriate.
Require that Boeing provide cost or pricing data for the
Boeing 767-200ER aircraft, and require DOD to negotiate
prices for aircraft engines directly with the engine
manufacturers.
Require that the Air Force contact the Office of the
Inspector General for the Department of Defense for review
and approval of non-federal audit services in any lease or
other contract.
Reduce the negotiated price calculated for integrated fleet
support by $465 million for the misapplication of KC-10
support costs and ``performance aircraft availability.''
Perform statutory analyses of the costs and benefits of
organic or contractor support, core logistics requirements,
performance based logistics, and contract length before
selecting a provider for integrated fleet support.
Not enter into the proposed lease for 20 Boeing KC-767A
Tanker aircraft until after either obtaining new statutory
authority to enter into a lease-purchase contract or
renegotiating lease terms to meet Office of Management and
Budget Circulars No. A-11 and A-94 requirements for an
operating lease.
Determine whether leasing rather than purchasing 20 Boeing
KC-767A Tanker aircraft represents the best value to the
government.
Ensure the General Counsel of the Department of Defense
review the limitation of earning clause and determine whether
it creates a prohibited cost-plus-a-percentage-of-cost system
of contracting and review clauses C-016 ``Aircraft
Quantity,'' C-024 ``Anti-Deficiency Act,'' and C-103
``Termination for Convenience--Pre-Construction Aircraft'' in
the proposed contract to determine whether the contract
clauses and audit rights provide sufficient controls to
adequately define the extent of the Government's termination
liability and to prevent a possible Anti-Deficiency Act
violation if less than the full quantity of aircraft and
fleet support years are leased and purchased.
Ensure that the Program Director, KC-767A System Program
Office:
Establishes a process to develop a performance metric for
verifying that the tanker aircraft will meet the 40-year
service life requirement.
Revises the system specification for the proposed tanker
aircraft to include a requirement for protective measures to
control corrosion and to include requirements in the
Operational Requirements Document (ORD)

[[Page S7293]]

for interoperability with other systems, integration of
secure communications, and combat identification.
Completes the command, control, communications, computers,
and intelligence support plan for the tanker aircraft;
include it in the statement of work before award of the
contracts and resolve issues identified before the system
acceptance testing.
Ensure that the system specifications developed for the
first spiral of the air refueling aircraft include at least
all key performance parameters (KPPs) and that spiral two and
three requirements are subsequently included in the first 100
and future aerial refueling aircraft.
Comply with the statutory provisions by conducting
operational and survivability testing on production
representative aircraft before committing to the production
of all 100 Boeing KC-767A tanker aircraft.

Defense Science Board Task Force Findings and Recommendations on Aerial
Refueling

Findings

Corrosion can be controlled.
KC-135 tanker Operation and Support (O&S) cost growth is
not as large as was once projected. The Air Force overstated
the case for an increase in these costs for KC-135 tankers.
The total requirement for tankers is uncertain; the
Mobility Capabilities Study (MCS) needs to resolve this
issue.
There is a need to embark on a tanker recapitalization
program upon the completion of the Analysis of Alternatives
(AOA) and the Mobility Capabilities Study (MCS); which
doesn't necessarily mean acquiring new aircraft.

Recommendations

Do not use corrosion as a justification for tanker
recapitalization.
Air Force has a robust corrosion control program.
Depot Major Structural Repairs (MSRs) appear to be
decreasing.
Consensus view on corrosion is that it is manageable--DSB
structural experts, commercial entities (i.e., FEDEX), other
government entities (Department of the Navy (DON), U.S. Air
Force 2001 Extended Service Life Study (ESLS), Congressional
Research Service (CRS), General Accounting Office (GAO)).
Corrosion can be controlled with proper maintenance
procedures to help reduce the cost of replacement.
Basic field level maintenance and inspection;
60-month (or shorter) cycle for depot maintenance;
Innovative procedures have reduced time in maintenance; and
Further improvements possible (i.e., sheltering, basing
rotation, etc.).
It is acceptable to tolerate manageable growth in KC-135
Operation & Support (O&S) costs and defer major near-term
recapitalization investments.
2001 USAF ESLS estimated--0.9% increase in O&S cost per
year.
Corrosion is manageable.
Very recent USAF projection shows O&S peaked in FY04 and
may turn down.
Update Tanker Requirements Study 05 (TRS05) to accommodate
new tanker CONOPS.
Tanker Requirements Study 05 (TRS05) completed in FY01 was
never promulgated.
TRS 05 concluded 500-600 tankers are adequate for current
contingencies.
TRS 05 needs to be updated for changing tanker CONOPS.
Potential increases in requirements--``Efficiency tanking''
for loitering aircraft in kill boxes;
New planning scenarios;
Homeland defense needs--could this requirement be
contracted out (i.e., Omega Air, etc.); and
Potential decreases in requirements (i.e., re-engining of
B-52's, F-22/JSF CONOPS, etc.).
Consider 2001 Defense Science Board Task Force
recommendation to re- engine KC-135Es and February 2004
Defense Science Board Task Force recommendation which
reconfirmed value of B-52 re-engining: 10,000 mile mission
(US to Afghanistan and return) would only require one
refueling versus two; Fuel offload demand declines from 276K
pounds to 118K pounds; and F-22/JSF capabilities may allow
refueling on mission egress only.
No compelling material or financial reason to initiate a
replacement program prior to the completion of the Analysis
of Alternatives (AoA) and the Mobility Capabilities Study
(MCS).
Resolve long-term requirements through a thorough Mobility
Capabilities Study (MCS).
Consider the following near-term options: lease/buy a new
tanker aircraft, re-engine the KC-135Es, convert retired
commercial aircraft, encourage commercial sources for CONUS
tanking.
Consider refurbishing KC-10's in the near-term:
FEDEX has converted retired DC-10s for use as cargo
carriers with 20-year life for $25-$30 million per aircraft.
Northwest Airlines is flying 22 DC-10s with average cycles
less than 20,000.
The design service goal for DC-10s is 42,000 cycles. There
are 37 large DC-10s currently in the desert with average
cycles of only 18,500 cycles. Cost to refurbish KC-10s in the
desert is $1-$7 million.
Aerial refueling capability installation costs based on the
Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) estimate is $20M per
airframe.
We should replace the 63 remaining KC-135Es with 25
refurbished KC-10s. Dutch KDC-10 tanker conversion total cost
approximately $30-$45M each. One KC-10 is the equivalent of
2.4 KC-135Es equivalents.
Consider a potential hybrid recapitalization tanker
program:
Consider retiring 61 KC-135Es in the near-term, under the
USAF plan and make the KC-135E tanker aircraft available to
commercial entities for use as commercial tankers for CONUS
missions such as training and homeland defense operations.
Phase out the remaining 63 KC-135E tankers by FY 2011 and
replace them with converted KC-10s by leveraging the
mothballed DC-10s in the desert and the Northwest Airlines
fleet.
Work with major airframe manufacturers to develop new
tanker options with more modern airframes versus the more
than 20-year old Boeing 767 design.

Industrial College of the Armed Forces, National Defense University
Tanker Lease Program Acquisition ``Lessons Learned'' or ``The
Innovator's Dilemma''

Findings

The enactment of Section 8159 of the FY 2002 Appropriations
Act authorized a previously unarticulated requirement and
specified the use of an operating lease, when it should not
have done so.
The DOD budget process was by-passed with considerable
risk, especially with the lost opportunity of vetting
legitimate competing needs and beginning to identify total
tanker program costs.
Leases, by their very nature, cost more than purchases.
The Operational Requirements Document (ORD) was not
capabilities-based, as it should have been. Contractor
selection was a foregone conclusion and was tailored to the
Boeing 767 in the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC)
based on perceived guidance in the FY 2002 Appropriations
Act, Section 8159.
There is a need to establish a definitive, consistent early
requirements statement addressing warfighter needs founded on
substantive analysis--this was not done in the Tanker Lease
Program.
A program that operates in a sole source, commercial
environment is especially hard pressed to carry out its
charge of ensuring the government receives a fair price.
Defense program personnel do have adequate tools or
training to obtain the fullest understanding of relevant
commercial buying practices in acquisition of military items.
Innovation requires top-level management's constant
involvement including direction, consultation and
responsibility plus timely and frequent meetings of the
empowered and the informed.
It should be clear that certain regulatory/statutory
requirements were waived in the Tanker Lease Program:
testing, independent cost estimates, Analysis of
Alternatives, DAB approval, etc.
The Leasing Review Panel (LRP) was not a substitute for the
Defense Acquisition Board (DAB).

recommendations

Although leasing is not a preferred strategy, if DOD would
pursue a lease, it needs to publish more explicit guidance on
leasing in acquisition policy directives and the FAR/DFAR, at
a minimum, to include the requirement to:
Formulate an early, transparent, comprehensive acquisition
processes to be utilized and those to be bypassed with an
assessment of associated internal and external risks.
Develop an early definitive, consistent requirements
statement founded on substantive analysis and supported by a
subsequent Analysis of Alternatives (AOA).
Establish an acceptable lease financing plan supported by
an independent cost estimate (i.e., DOD IG, Comptroller
General, etc.)
Develop a plan to maximize competition.
In all cases, convene a Defense Acquisition Board to
provide for comprehensive senior management review.
DOD needs to understand when and how commercial buying
practices are appropriate to satisfy military needs, if ever.
There is a need to establish procedures or authority to
require both cost and pricing data for significant sole
source, commercial leases or where supplier monopoly power is
present. The government is not well served with only price
data, particularly in a monopoly-monopsony relationship.
Absent real competitive market forces, one cannot rely on
pricing data to determine the appropriateness of a
transaction. Legitimate monopolies are regulated by detailed
cost data and prices are set on that basis. To do otherwise
is to place too great a reliance for fair dealing on profit
maximizing firms and to ignore the reality that firms
appropriately act in their best interest.
Regardless of the foregoing, due diligence and fiduciary/
stewardship responsibilities cannot be waived.
Ensure that an Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) is completed:
A less than rigorous exploration/evaluation of alternative
solutions than a formal Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) is
unsatisfactory. There is no such thing as an ``informal''
AOA.
Authors of innovation need to develop action plans to
``accommodate'' those internal

[[Page S7294]]

and external stakeholders who have a legitimate interest or
say in the program. Ignoring such stakeholders, even if
allowed by an appropriations act or management direction, is
done with some peril and consequence as the stakeholders'
unanswered or discounted objections may be encountered
later as the program progresses.
There is no one, uniform commercial market. Each market has
unique features that must be understood in order to obtain
the best contract conditions, tailored to each buyer's needs.
Ensure the Leasing Panel focuses on ways and means of
leasing.
The Tanker Lease Program should be approved by a Defense
Acquisition Board (DAB) in accordance with DOD regulations.
A Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) would have exercised
responsibility over the substantive acquisition review issues
such as: The selection of the preferred system alternative;
acceptance of the overall acquisition strategy; compliance
with policy and statute; and would have required a
substantial review and documentation to support analyses.
Relying on Section 8159 of the FY 2002 Defense
Appropriations Act, the USAF/DoD by-passed many elements of
the ``normal'' acquisition system. The Tanker Lease Program
system solution and the acquisition strategy (i.e., Boeing
767 & operating lease scenario) were foregone conclusions
based on Section 8159 of the FY 2002 Appropriations Act. The
Leasing Review Panel was not an adequate substitute for the
Defense Acquisition Board (DAB), which was never convened.
Furthermore, the Leasing Review Panel (LRP) never recommended
the lease of 100 Boeing 767 tankers.
DOD needs to follow cost and pricing guidelines.
There should be discussion and debate, within DOD, whether
a realistic price was arrived at.
The government should not have very limited cost and
pricing data.
The government should expend considerable time and
resources to acquire commercial pricing analysis skills.
The Tanker Lease Program approved by DOD made only limited
use of considerable government buying power and leverage to
obtain maximum discounts.
DOD needs to utilize competitive processes, including
negotiating directly with the engine manufacturer for
engines, the contractor logistics support (CLS) function and
the tanker modification. The USAF appeared to rely on Section
8159 of the FY 2002 Appropriations Act for commercial sole
source authority. Competitive processes were not used in the
February 2002 RFI to Boeing and EADS (also a finding of the
DOD IG), because there was informal information gathering,
and little expectation that Congress would allow leasing of
Airbus aircraft. Competitive processes were not used June
2002 for the JROC briefing and the Operational Requirements
Document (ORD) was written for a specific aircraft. (i.e.,
Boeing KC-767) and not based on the best capabilities for the
warfighter.
Publish explicit DOD guidance on leasing to include policy
directives and the FAR/DFAR.
Innovation requires more, not less up-front planning (e.g.,
development of an acquisition strategy establishing work-
arounds for processes, requirements and stakeholders that are
planned to be by-passed.)
Establish procedures to require both cost and pricing data
on sole source or monopoly, commercial leases.
Big ticket acquisitions is a public process, despite the
level of innovation, managers must always exercise good
stewardship and fiduciary responsibility--this was not the
case in the Tanker Lease Program.
It is prudent, at a minimum, to develop a full operational
testing plan, to perform a much more substantive analysis of
alternatives, and to do an independent cost estimate based on
cost, not price.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a very simple
amendment that everyone should support. This amendment requires the
Inspector General of the Department of Defense, DOD-IG, in consultation
with the Inspectors General of the State Department and the CIA, to
conduct a comprehensive investigation into the programs and activities
of the Iraqi National Congress, INC.
Over the last 10 years, we have seen funds from the United States
Government spent in highly questionable, if not fraudulent, ways
including money spent on oil paintings and health club memberships. But
this is only the tip of the iceberg. A number of serious questions
remain unanswered. Here are a couple of examples:
First, the INC spent millions in setting up offices around the world,
including London, Prague, Damascus, and Tehran. The State Department's
internal documents indicate that they really had no idea of what was
happening in some of these offices--especially Tehran. In light of the
recent press reports about INC intelligence sharing with Iran, I think
the DOD-IG should take a look at this issue and see what was happening
in the Tehran office. We need to get to the bottom of this.
Second, the INC spent millions to set up radio and television
broadcasting inside Iraq. The radio program seemed redundant as the
U.S. Government was, at the time, funding Radio Free Iraq. A New York
Times article questioned the effectiveness of the TV broadcasting
program. Kurdish officials indicated that, despite repeated attempts,
they could never pick up the INC's TV broadcast inside Iraq. This,
again, raises questions about how this money was being spent. The IG
should examine this issue. We need to get to the bottom of this.
Third, the INC's Information Collection Program--funded initially by
the State Department and later by the Defense Department--continues to
be a source of controversy and mystery. I have a memo written by the
INC to Appropriations Committee staff, detailing the INC's Information
Collection Program. In this memo, the INC claims to have written
numerous reports to senior administration officials, who are listed in
this memo, on topics including WMD proliferation. The administration
disputes this claim. Again, we need to get to the bottom of this.
I could go on and on. However, in the interest of time, I will simply
say that there are many serious unanswered questions about the INC's
activities. What was the INC doing with U.S. taxpayer dollars? What was
going on in the Tehran office? Did the Information Collection Program
contribute to intelligence failures in Iraq? Were the broadcasting
programs at all effective in gathering support for U.S. efforts in
Iraq?
To be sure, there have been a few investigations into INC. However,
these have been incomplete offering only a glimpse of what occurred. A
few years ago, the State Department Inspector General issued two
reports the INC. But these reports only covered $4.3 million and
examined only the Washington and London offices. The State Department
IG informed my office yesterday that these are the only two audits they
conducted and have no plans to conduct future audits on this issue.
A GAO report, published earlier this year, summarized the different
grant agreements that the State Department entered into with the INC,
but this report did not attempt to answer the myriad questions that
remain about the INC.
Another GAO report is underway, but this looks only at the narrow
question of whether the INC violated U.S. laws concerning the use of
taxpayer funds to pay for publicity or propaganda.
Finally, according to press reports, the Intelligence Committee is
looking into a few issues related to the INC. My amendment is
consistent with these investigations. The DOD-IG does not have to re-
invent the wheel. It can build off this existing body of work to answer
questions that will remain long after these investigations have been
completed.
My amendment is about transparency. My amendment is about
accountability. My amendment is about getting to the bottom of one of
the most mismanaged programs in recent history. Most importantly, my
amendment is about learning from our mistakes so we do not repeat them
in the past. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

amendment no. 3399, as modified

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the ranking
member of the Armed Services Committee for working with me to accept
this amendment, which represents a first step toward enhancing and
strengthening transition services that are provided to our military
personnel. I also thank my cosponsor, the Senator from Maine, Ms.
Snowe, for her contributions to this amendment.
As we debate the Department of Defense authorization bill today,
thousands of our brave men and women in uniform are in harm's way in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the globe. These men and women
serve with distinction and honor, and we owe them our heartfelt
gratitude.
We also owe them our best effort to ensure that they receive the
benefits to which their service in our Armed Forces has entitled them.
I have heard time and again from military personnel and veterans who
are frustrated with the system by which they apply for benefits or
appeal claims for benefits. I have long been concerned that

[[Page S7295]]

tens of thousands of our veterans are unaware of Federal health care
and other benefits for which they may be eligible, and I have
undertaken numerous legislative and oversight efforts to ensure that
the Department of Veterans Affairs makes outreach to our veterans and
their families a priority.
While we should do more to support our veterans, we must also ensure
that the men and women who are currently serving in our Armed Forces
receive adequate pay and benefits, as well as services that help them
to make the transition from active duty to civilian life. I am
concerned that we are not doing enough to support our men and women in
uniform as they prepare to retire or otherwise separate from the
service or, in the case of members of our National Guard and Reserve,
to demobilize from Active Duty assignments and return to their civilian
lives while staying in the military or preparing to separate from the
military. We must ensure that their service and sacrifice, which is
much lauded during times of conflict, is not forgotten once the battles
have ended and our troops have come home.
For those reasons, last month, I introduced the Veterans Enhanced
Transition Services Act, VETS Act, which would improve transition
services for our military personnel. My legislation would help to
ensure that all military personnel receive the same services by making
a number of improvements to the existing Transition Assistance Program/
Disabled Transition Assistance Program, TAP/DTAP, and to the Benefits
Delivery at Discharge program, by improving the process by which
military personnel who are being demobilized or discharged receive
medical examinations and mental health assessments, and by ensuring
that military and veterans service organizations and State departments
of veterans affairs are able to play an active role in assisting
military personnel with the difficult decisions that are often involved
in the process of discharging or demobilizing.
I am pleased that my original legislation is supported by a wide
range of groups that are dedicated to serving our men and women in
uniform and veterans and their families. These groups include: the
American Legion; the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the
United States; the Paralyzed Veterans of America; the Reserve Officers
Association; the Veterans of Foreign Wars; the Wisconsin Department of
Veterans Affairs; the Wisconsin National Guard; the American Legion,
Department of Wisconsin; Disabled American Veterans, Department of
Wisconsin; the Wisconsin Paralyzed Veterans of America; the Veterans of
Foreign Wars, Department of Wisconsin; and the Wisconsin State Council,
Vietnam Veterans of America. I will continue to work with these and
other veterans and military organizations on these important issues.
The amendment that I am offering today on behalf of myself and
Senator Snowe is based on that legislation. This amendment will require
the General Accounting Office, GAO, to undertake a comprehensive
analysis of existing transition services for our military personnel
that are administered by the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs,
and Labor and to make recommendations to Congress on how these programs
can be improved.
This study will focus on two issues: how to achieve the uniform
provision of appropriate transition services to all military personnel,
and the role of postdeployment and predischarge health assessments as
part of the larger transition program.
I have heard from a number of Wisconsinites and members of military
and veterans service organizations that our men and women in uniform do
not all have access to the same transition counseling and medical
services as they are demobilizing from service in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and elsewhere. I have long been concerned about reports of uneven
provision of services from base to base and from service to service.
All of our men and women in uniform have pledged to serve our country,
and all of them, at the very least, deserve to have access to the same
services in return.
This amendment will require GAO to conduct an analysis of transition
programs, including a history of how the programs were intended to be
used when they were created and how they are being used now; whether
the programs adequately address the specific needs of military
personnel, including members of the National Guard and Reserve; and how
transition programs differ among the services and across military
installations. The GAO will also be required to make recommendations on
how these programs can be improved, including an analysis of additional
information that would be beneficial to members participating in
transition briefings.
Under current law, the Department of Defense, together with the
Departments of Veterans Affairs--VA--and Labor, provide preseparation
counseling for military personnel who are preparing to leave the
service. This counseling provides service members with valuable
information about benefits that they have earned through their service
to our country such as education benefits through the GI Bill and
health care and other benefits through the VA. Personnel also learn
about programs such as Troops to Teachers and have access to employment
assistance for themselves and, where appropriate, their spouses.
Currently, participation in this program is encouraged, but not
mandatory. Thus, most of the responsibility for getting information
about benefits and programs falls on the military personnel themselves.
Participation in preseparation counseling through a TAP/DTAP program is
a valuable tool for personnel as they transition back to civilian life.
The Department of Defense should make every effort to ensure that all
members participate in this important program, and my amendment would
require the GAO to analyze participation rates and make recommendations
on how the Department of Defense could better encourage participation,
and whether participation in a transition program should be mandatory.
In addition, GAO would be required to make recommendations on any
information that should be added to the transition briefings, such as
information on procurement opportunities for veterans with service-
connected disabilities and for other veterans. I thank the Senator from
Maine, Ms. Snowe, the chairman of the Small Business Committee, for
making the important point that Federal law requires that a certain
percentage of contracts be awarded to firms owned by veterans with
service-connected disabilities. Additionally, the Small Business
Administration and other agencies administer programs to make all
veterans aware of procurement opportunities. I agree with her that the
transition process is a commonsense place to make these personnel aware
of these opportunities. For that reason, our amendment also requires
that the Department of Defense include information about these
contracting opportunities in its transition program.
The amendment would also require the GAO to study how the transition
programs administered by the VA and by the Department of Labor fit into
this transition effort. This analysis would include a discussion of the
joint DOD-VA Benefits Delivery at Discharge program, which assists
personnel in applying for VA disability benefits before they are
discharged from the military. This very successful program has helped
to cut the redtape and to speed the processing time for many veterans
who are entitled to VA disability benefits.
In addition, under current law, the Secretary of Defense may make use
of the services provided by military and veterans service organizations
as part of the transition process. But these groups tell me that they
are not always allowed access to transition briefings that are
conducted for our personnel. For that reason, this amendment would
require GAO to include an analysis of the participation of military and
veterans service organizations in preseparation briefings, including
recommendations on how the Department of Defense could make better use
of representatives of veterans service organizations who are recognized
by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for the representation of military
personnel in VA proceedings.
The demobilization and discharge process presents our service members
with a sometimes confusing and often overwhelming amount of information
and paperwork that must be digested and sometimes signed in a very
short period of time. The opportunity to

[[Page S7296]]

speak with fellow veterans who have been through this process and who
have been accredited to represent veterans in VA proceedings by the VA
can be invaluable to military personnel as they seek to wade through
this maze of paperwork. These veterans can offer important advice about
benefits and other choices that military personnel have to make as they
are being discharged or demobilized. I commend the Senator from
Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, for offering an amendment which has already
been accepted to this bill that reaffirms the importance of allowing
veterans service organizations to participate in transition briefings
and that also encourages their involvement in counseling members of the
National Guard and Reserve who have been demobilized. The Landrieu
amendment is consistent with provisions in my legislation, the VETS
Act, and I am pleased that the Senate has gone on record in support of
allowing these dedicated members of our veterans service organizations,
who have taken the time to get accredited by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs in order to counsel and represent their fellow veterans, to
participate in transition briefings.
In addition to the uneven provision of transition services, I have
long been concerned about the immediate and long-term health effects
that military deployments have on our men and women in uniform. I
regret that, too often, the burden of responsibility for proving that a
condition is related to military service falls on the personnel
themselves. Our men and women in uniform deserve the benefit of the
doubt, and should not have to fight the Department of Defense or the VA
for benefits that they have earned through their service to our Nation.
Part of the process of protecting the health of our men and women in
uniform is to ensure that the Department of Defense carries out its
responsibility to provide postdeployment physicals for military
personnel. I am deeply concerned about stories of personnel who are
experiencing long delays as they wait for their postdeployment
physicals and who end up choosing not to have these important physicals
in order to get home to their families that much sooner. I am equally
concerned about reports that some personnel who did not receive such a
physical--either by their own choice or because such a physical was not
available--are now having trouble as they apply for benefits for a
service-connected condition.
I am pleased that the underlying bill contains a provision that would
require postdeployment physicals for military personnel who are
separating from Active-Duty service. I firmly believe, as do the
military and veterans groups that support my VETS Act legislation, that
our men and women in uniform are entitled to a prompt, high quality
physical examination as part of the demobilization process. These
individuals have voluntarily put themselves in harm's way for our
benefit. We should ensure that the Department of Defense makes every
effort to determine whether they have experienced--or could
experience--any health effects as a result of their service.
I am also pleased that the Senate has already adopted an amendment
offered by the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, and the Senator
from Missouri, Mr. Talent, that will help to improve the medical
readiness of our men and women in uniform and to ensure their health is
monitored before, during, and after deployments so that there is a
record of any service-connected conditions or exposures.
Building on this effort, my amendment would require the GAO to
include in its study of transition services an analysis of the use of
postdeployment and predischarge health screenings and whether and how
these screenings and the transition program could be integrated into a
single, coordinated preseparation program for military personnel who
are being discharged or released from active duty. The analysis would
also include information on how postdeployment questionnaires are used,
the extent to which military personnel waive physical exams, and how
and the extent to which personnel are referred for followup health
care.
I am also concerned about the implementation of current law with
respect to the current requirement that postdeployment medical
examinations include a mental health assessment. Our men and women in
uniform serve in difficult circumstances far from home, and too many of
them witness or experience violence and horrific situations that most
of us cannot even begin to imagine. These men and women, many of whom
are just out of high school or college when they sign up, may suffer
long-term physical and mental fallout from their experiences and may
feel reluctant to seek counseling or other assistance to deal with
their experiences.
We can and should do more to ensure that the mental health of our men
and women in uniform is a top priority, and that the stigma that is too
often attached to seeking assistance is ended. To that end, this
amendment requires that GAO include in its analysis a discussion of the
current process by which mental health screenings are conducted,
followup mental health care is provided for, and services are provided
in cases of posttraumatic stress disorder and related conditions in
connection with discharge and release from active duty. This will
include an analysis of the number of persons treated, the types of
interventions, and the programs that are in place for each branch of
the Armed Forces to identify and treat cases of PTSD and related
conditions.
As part of its study on these important issues, GAO is directed to
obtain views from the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the
military departments; the Secretaries of Veterans Affairs and Labor;
military personnel who have received the transition assistance programs
covered by this study and personnel who have declined to participate in
these transition programs; representatives of military and veterans
service organizations; and persons with expertise in health care,
including mental health care, provided under the Defense Health
Program, including personnel from the Departments of Defense and
Veterans Affairs and persons in the private sector.
Finally, in response to concerns I have heard from a number of my
constituents, this amendment also directs the Secretaries of Defense
and Labor to jointly report to Congress on ways in which DOD training
and certification standards could be coordinated with Government and
private-sector training and certification standards for corresponding
civilian occupations.
Again, I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the committee
for working with me to include these provisions in the bill. I will
continue to work to ensure that we provide those serving in our Armed
Forces with the help they need and deserve in making the often-
difficult transition back to civilian life.

military housing privatization

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a very
important matter to me, to my home State of Georgia and to our Nation's
military. A few years ago this Congress authorized the military housing
privatization initiative. This program, which brings to bear private
sector experience and financial strength to improve the quality of life
for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and their families, has been
a resounding success. To date, the U.S. Armed Forces have privatized
over 60,000 housing units, leveraging more than $10 for every
Government dollar invested. Out-dated, and World War II era, housing is
being replaced with modern homes and amenities that our servicemen and
women so richly deserve. This process is taking place across the
country, from Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base in California to Fort
Bragg in North Carolina to Fort Benning, GA.
However, there is an issue which threatens the livelihood and
progress of this program and which the Congress must act now to
address. The way the Congressional Budget Office is scoring
expenditures for this program causes the program to exceed the
authorized spending cap. The CBO scoring assumes that the Government
guarantees and the management of the housing projects in question have
direct budget implications. However, military families sign leases and
rent the units and private companies assume the investment risk, so the
CBO scoring, incorrectly in my opinion, treats these costs as an
obligation on behalf of the Government. I believe we need to either
significantly raise the current cost cap for the program or eliminate
it entirely in order to make available an

[[Page S7297]]

adequate funding stream to see this important project through to
completion.
The Department of Defense has established a master plan which will
privatize approximately 160,000-170,000, or over 70 percent, of
existing family housing units. Currently, DoD is about half way towards
completing that goal. We should allow this well-functioning program to
continue for the benefit of our men and women in uniform, and we should
follow the traditional scoring guidelines which we have used for the
past 5 years in order to accurately determine the actual costs.
I thank the Chair for the opportunity to discuss this very important
issue, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the relevant
committees to resolve this situation in a positive manner.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I support passage of this year's Defense
authorization bill because it contains many provisions that our brave
men and women in uniform need and deserve. But before I go into the
details of why I am supporting this legislation, I must first thank the
members of the United States Armed Forces for their service to our
country. They are performing admirably under difficult circumstances
all over the world. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, along
with their families, are making great sacrifices in service to our
country. I am voting for this legislation to support these people who
are serving the country with such courage.
I strongly support the 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for
military personnel that this bill provides. We must make sure that our
professional military is paid a fair wage. This bill also makes
permanent the increase in family separation allowance and imminent
danger pay, another important policy for our men and women in uniform.
Once again, I was proud to support the expansion of full-time TRICARE
health insurance for our National Guard and Reserve. The reserve
component is being used more than at any other time since World War II.
Forty percent of our troops in Iraq are reserve component troops. These
citizen soldiers face additional burdens when they transition in and
out of their civilian life and providing them and their families with
TRICARE is one way we can ease those burdens.
Another aspect of this bill that I strongly support is the increased
funding for force protection equipment. Last year, concerned
Wisconsinites contacted my office telling me that they or their
deployed loved ones were fighting for their country in Iraq without the
equipment they needed. This situation is unconscionable. I have
repeatedly pressed the Pentagon to fix this situation and I and my
colleagues went a long way in addressing these shortages in the
supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. The $925 million
for additional up-armored HUMVEES and other ballistic protection as
well as the $600 million in force protection gear and combat clothing
in this bill above what was in the President's proposed budget further
ensures that our troops have the equipment they need to perform their
duties on the ground.
I am pleased that the Senate approved my amendment to ensure that the
Inspector General for the Coalition Provisional Authority will continue
to oversee U.S. reconstruction efforts in Iraq after June 30 of this
year as the Special Inspector General for Iraq reconstruction. The
American taxpayers have been asked to shoulder a tremendous burden in
Iraq, and we must ensure that their dollars are spent wisely and
efficiently. Today, the CPA is phasing out, but the reconstruction
effort has only just begun. As of mid-May, only $4.2 billion of the
$18.4 billion that Congress appropriated for reconstruction in November
had even been obligated. With multiple agencies involved and a budget
that exceeds the entire foreign operations appropriation for this
fiscal year, U.S. taxpayer-funded reconstruction efforts should have a
focused oversight effort. My amendment will ensure that the Inspector
General's office can continue its important work even after June 30,
rather than being compelled to start wrapping up and shutting down
while so much remains to be done. This is good news for the
reconstruction effort, and good news for American taxpayers.
I also want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Armed
Services Committee for working with me to accept the amendment that I
offered with the Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, which represents a
first step toward enhancing and strengthening transition services that
are provided to our military personnel. This amendment will require the
General Accounting Office to undertake a comprehensive analysis of
existing transition services for our military personnel that are
administered by the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Labor
and to make recommendations to Congress on how these programs can be
improved. This study will focus on two issues: how to achieve the
uniform provision of appropriate transition services to all military
personnel, and the role of post-deployment and pre-discharge health
assessments as part of the large transition program. I very much look
forward to reviewing the results of this study.
The Senate version of the Defense authorization bill also includes a
provision finally fulfilling a goal for which I have been fighting for
years--making sure that every State and territory has at least one
Weapons of mass Destruction Civil Support Team, WMD-CST. I was
delighted earlier this year when Wisconsin was chosen as one of 12
States to receive a WMD-CST authorized and appropriated for in FY2004,
but I was also disappointed that the President's proposed budget for
FY2005 included funding for only 4 of the 11 outstanding teams. I,
along with 28 of my colleagues, wrote the Senate Armed Services
Committee chairman and ranking member asking them to fully fund all 11
remaining teams. The chairman and ranking member have been very
supportive of my efforts in this area over the years, and I thank them
again this year for funding all 11 remaining WMD-CSTs.
This authorization bill addresses the grave threat our Nation faces
from unsecured nuclear materials. It includes $409 million for the
Cooperative Threat Reduction program and $1.3 billion for the
Department of Energy nonproliferation programs. I was also proud to
cosponsor the amendment offered by Senator Domenici and Senator
Feinstein that authorizes the Department of Energy to secure the tons
of fissile material scattered around the world. This bipartisan
initiative aims to dramatically accelerate current efforts to the
world. This bipartisan initiative aims to dramatically accelerate
current efforts to secure this dangerous material so that it cannot
fall into the hands of those who aim to harm us. Time is of essence,
and I was pleased to hear that the administration is fully supportive
of this efforts through the Global Threat Reduction Initiative.
I also voted for an amendment offered by Senator Reed that boosts the
Army's end strength by 20,000. I did so because it has become clear
that the Army is currently overstretched, and I believe that we need to
ensure readiness to handle threats in the future. A recent Brookings
Institution report says that the military is being stretched so thin
that if we don't expand its size, it could break the back of our all-
volunteer Army. One does not have to support all of the deployment
decisions that brought us to this point today to see that we need to
have the capacity to handle multiple crises with sufficient manpower
and strength. I do not take lightly the decision to lock in a
significant increase in spending. The need is great, however, and the
deliberative defense authorization process, not the emergency
supplemental process, is the place to do it.
I must note that, unfortunately, this bill has many of the same
problems that I've been fighting to fix for years. Once again, we are
spending billions upon billions of dollars for weapons systems more
suited for the Cold War than the fight against terrorism. I was very
disappointed that the Senate did not agree to Senator Levin's amendment
that would have used a small percentage of the over $10 billion
authorized for missile defense for critical unfunded homeland defense
needs. This amendment, which I cosponsored, would have used $515.5
million now slated for additional untested interceptors and spent it
instead on the top unfunded Department of Defense homeland defense
priorities, research and development programs, radiation detection
equipment at seaports, and

[[Page S7298]]

other important defenses against terrorism. Budgeting is about setting
priorities and I am sad to say that when the Senate failed to adopt
Senator Levin's amendment, it missed a golden opportunity to adjust its
priorities in order to face our country's most pressing threat--the
threat of terrorism.
I was disappointed that the Senate failed to reduce the retirement
age for those in the National Guard and Reserve from 60 to 55. Our
country has placed unprecedented demands upon the Guard and Reserve
since September 11, 2001, and will continue to do so for the
foreseeable future. Considering the demands we are placing on them, it
is time that we lower the Guard and Reserve's retirement age to the
same level as civilian Federal employees.
Although my support for reducing the reserve component retirement age
has been unwavering, because of the significant budgetary impact of
this measure I had hoped that Congress would first receive reviews of
reserve compensation providing all of the information that we need to
address this issue responsibly. I patiently waited for several studies
on this issue, including by the Defense Department, but when the
studies came out they called for further study. This matter cannot
continue to languish unaddressed indefinitely. As retired U.S. Air
Force Colonel Steve Strobridge, government relations director for the
Military Officers Association of America, MOAA, put it, ``It is time to
fish or cut bait.'' I agree with MOAA's analysis that, ``Further delay
on this important practical and emotional issue poses significant risks
to long-term (Guard and Reserve) retention'' and I was proud to vote
for the amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Corzine.
I also believe that the Senate missed an opportunity to provide a
small but needed measure of relief to military families when it failed
to adopt my Military Family Leave Act amendment. This amendment would
have allowed a spouse, child, or parent who already qualifies for
Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA benefits--unpaid leave--to use those
existing benefits for issues directly arising from the deployment of a
family member. The Senate adopted a similar amendment by unanimous
consent when I offered it to the Iraq supplemental spending bill. This
amendment has the support of the Military Officers Association of
America, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United
States, the Reserve Officers Association, the National Guard
Association of the United States, the National Military Family
Association, and the National Partnership for Women and Families.
I regret that a harmful second degree amendment was offered to my
amendment and that I was not given the opportunity to have a straight
up or down vote. Rather than taking up the Senate's time in a
protracted debate about the second degree amendment, I withdrew my
amendment so that this important Defense authorization bill could move
forward. However, the need addressed by my amendment remains, and I
will continue to fight to bring some relief to military families that
sacrifice so much for all of us.
I want to bring attention to another element of the Defense
Authorization bill that raises concerns for me. The Defense
Authorization bill includes language that raises troop caps in Colombia
from 400 to 800 military personnel and from 400 civilian contractors to
600. I am disappointed that Senator Byrd's amendment was not approved
by the Senate, which would have limited the increases in these caps to
the levels established by the bill. Most importantly, I worry about
placing more Americans in harm's way in Colombia. Further deployments
bring greater risks to an already overstretched military. We do not
want to risk being drawn further into Colombia's civil war--certainly
not without a thorough debate that the American people can follow. In
addition, many of my constituents and I remain concerned that by
raising these caps, the U.S. devotes greater resources to the military
side of the equation in Colombia without balancing our approach through
greater support for democratic institutions, increasing economic
development, and supporting human rights.
There are other provisions in this bill with which I disagree, and
the Senate rejected a number of amendments that would have made this
bill better. However, on balance this legislation contains many good
provisions for our men and women in uniform and their families and that
is why I will vote for it.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I strongly support the passage of S. 2400,
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. This
legislation funds $422.2 billion for defense programs, which is a 3.4
percent increase or $20.9 billion above the amount approved by Congress
last year. I commend the bill managers, Senators Warner and Levin, for
their leadership both in the Committee and on the floor these past
weeks. This is a very important bill, and I am pleased we are about to
proceed to final passage.
Yesterday, I had a lengthy statement on the Boeing 767 Tanker Lease
Program so I will not take up more of the Senate's time now, except to
say that the amendment that was included in this bill is critical
because congressional guidance is needed where the Air force's conduct
on its Tanker Lease Program has, to date, been unacceptable. With
regard to the Boeing 767 Tanker Lease Program, the Department of
Defense and the Air Force leadership have obfuscated, delayed, and
withheld information from Congress and the taxpayers. Therefore, the
tanker amendment attempts to make sure that any effort by the Air Force
to replace its fleet of tankers is done responsibly. We should expect
no less from the Air Force.
The adopted amendment does much to inject needed sunlight on a
program whose development has been largely insulated from public
scrutiny. It will allow us to discharge responsibly and effectively our
oversight obligations the next time around on this multi-billion dollar
procurement proposal.
The men and women of our nation's Armed Forces put their lives on the
line every day to protect the very freedoms we as Americans hold dear.
It is our obligation to provide key quality of life benefits to the
members of our military. Great strides will be made by this bill
towards accomplishing that goal. For example, this bill authorizes a
3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for all military personnel. It
also repeals the requirement for military members to pay subsistence
charges while hospitalized, and adds $7.8 million for expanded care and
services at the Walter Reed Amputee Patient Care Center. Also included
in the legislation is a permanent increase in the rate of family
separation allowance from $100 per month to $250 per month as well as a
permanent increase in the rate of special pay for duty subject to
hostile fire or imminent danger from $150 per month to $225 per month.
We continue to be increasingly reliant on the men and women of our
Reserve forces and National Guard. In fact, 40 percent of all the
ground troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are composed of National Guard
and Reserve forces as well as nearly all of the ground forces in
Kosovo, Bosnia, and the Sinai. Many of these soldiers and sailors leave
behind friends, families, and careers to defend our Nation.
Accordingly, it is the responsibility of policy makers to ensure that
we look after the needs of these patriots. Included in the legislation
is the authorization for full medical and dental examinations and
requisite inoculations when reservists mobilize and demobilize as well
as a new requirement for pre-separation physical examinations for
members of the reserve component. This provision is critical to
maintain, and in some circumstances, will help to increase the
readiness of the Total Force.
The Senate also adopted an important amendment to authorize an
increase in the size of our Army by 20,000. This increase is absolutely
vital in our Army's ability to carry out its mission in the Global War
on Terror. There is no shortage of evidence supporting an increase in
Army end strength. Recently, the Army pulled 3,600 troops out of South
Korea to fill critical needs in Iraq. The Army is also looking to
deploy to Iraq the 11th Armored Calvary Regiment. This is an elite unit
that serves in desert training exercises. In addition, for the first
time in over 10 years, the Army is pulling people out of the Individual
Ready Reserve to fill critical needs. The Department of Defense should
be able to move troops around as needed to address critical needs,
however, in this instance, we are sacrificing our readiness on the
Korean

[[Page S7299]]

peninsula because we do not have enough soldiers serving in the Army.
After returning home for a short period of time, soldiers and Marines
are already making preparations for their second tour in Iraq or
Afghanistan in as many years. This is not good for morale, this is not
good for retention, this is not good for readiness, and this is not
good for the soldier's families. Eventually, recruitment will be
seriously affected by these trends.
Additionally, the Army recently announced a new stop-loss policy.
While I certainly recognize the Army's authority and necessity to issue
stop loss orders, their issuance in this instance is yet another reason
why we need to increase the size of the Army. For all the benefits in
group cohesion that results from extended tours, the Army will be
facing a serious crisis when it comes time for these soldiers to
reenlist on their own accord. I am concerned about the effect that
these stop-loss orders will have on the morale of our Army. While I
still do not believe that we need a draft, we do need to increase the
size of the Army to carry out important defense missions.
These are some aspects of this legislation that I do not support. For
example, once again, this bill lent the opportunity for protectionist
Buy America amendments. In a similar fashion as last year, the Senate
had to beat back an amendment that sought to protect parochial
interests at the cost of our defense industry and American jobs. It
seems as if every year, we fight the same fight on the Senate floor.
A sound policy which the Senate has adopted in the past is that we
need to provide American servicemen and women with the best equipment
at the best price for the American taxpayer. This is the policy we need
to continue to follow.
The international considerations of this amendment are immense. such
an isolationist, go-it-alone approach would have serious consequences
on our relationship with our allies. Furthermore, our country is
threatened when we ignore our trade agreements. Currently, the U.S.
enjoys a trade balance in defense exports of 6-to-1 in its favor with
respect to Europe, and about 12-to-1 with respect to the rest of the
world. We don't need protectionist measures to insulate our defense or
aerospace industries. If we stumble down the road of protectionist
policies, our allies will retaliate and the ability to sell U.S.
equipment as a means to greater interoperability with NATO and non-NATO
allies would be seriously undercut. Critical international programs,
such as the Joint Strike Fighter and missile defense, would likely be
terminated as our allies reassess our defense cooperative trading
relationship.

On another important policy consideration, the Senate also
successfully defeated an amendment aimed at canceling the upcoming BRAC
round. BRAC has taken on a new significance in the War against Terror.
Never has there been a time in recent memory when it has been more
important not to waste money on non-essential expenditures. To continue
to sustain an infrastructure that exceeds our strategic and tactical
needs will make less funding available to the forces that we are
relying on to destroy the international network of terrorism.
The Department of Defense has come out with very fair and reasonable
criteria used to select what bases are chosen for BRAC. I have every
confidence the Secretary of Defense will carry out this round of BRAC
in a just and consistent manner. Sooner or later, surplus bases must be
closed. Delaying or canceling BRAC would only make the process more
difficult and painful than need be. The sooner the issue is addressed,
the greater will be the savings that will ultimately go toward defense
modernization and better pay and benefits for our hard-working service
members.
I understand some of my colleagues may be concerned about the
potential negative effects a base closure may have on their local
economy. Previous base closure rounds have had many success stories.
For example, after England Air Force Base closed in 1992, Alexandria,
LA, benefited from the creation of over 1,400 jobs--nearly double the
number of jobs lost. Across the U.S., about 60,000 new jobs have been
created at closing military bases. At bases closed more than 2 years,
nearly 75 percent of the civilian jobs have been replaced. This is not
to say that base closures are easy for any community, but it does
suggest that communities can and will continue to thrive.
Americans are blessed with nearly limitless freedoms and liberties.
In exchange for all our country gives to us, it does not demand much in
return. Yet throughout our history, millions of people have volunteered
to give back to their nation through military service. The selfless
acts of courage and sacrifice made by the men and women in our armed
services have elevated our Nation to the greatness we enjoy today.
America is defined not by its power but by its ideals. One of the
great strengths of the American public is the desire to serve a cause
greater than our own self interest. All too often, our younger
generations are accused of selfishness and an unwillingness to
sacrifice. I disagree. I see generations of people yearning to serve
and help their fellow citizens. Each year, thousands of our young
Americans decide to dedicate a few years or even a full career to
protecting the rights and liberties of others. They often do this with
very real risks to their lives. They volunteer to do this not for
profit, nor for self-promotion, but out of a sense of duty, service,
and patriotism.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to thank so many who made possible
the next vote. First, our leadership and the members of our committee,
our committee staff, and particularly my distinguished ranking member,
with a special thanks to both the Democratic whip and the Republican
whip for their special time on the floor.
I ask for the third reading of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and the
third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
Mr. WARNER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the
bill pass?
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Brownback) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) are
necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from Kansas
(Mr. Brownback) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 146 Leg.]

YEAS--97

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (FL)
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NOT VOTING--3

Brownback
Kerry
Sununu
The bill (S. 2400) was passed.
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

[[Page S7300]]

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 2400 as
amended be printed as passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed immediately to the consideration en bloc of S. 2401 through S.
2403--Calendar Order Nos. 504, 505 and 506; that all after the enacting
clause of those bills be stricken and the appropriate portion of S.
2400, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof, according to the
schedule which I am sending to the desk; that these bills be advanced
to third reading and passed; that the motions to reconsider en bloc be
laid upon the table; and that the above actions occur without
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________