[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 48 (Wednesday, April 20, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3965-S4007]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 1268, which the clerk will report.
  The journal clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1268) making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, 
     to establish and rapidly implement regulations for State 
     driver's licenses and identification document security 
     standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws 
     of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for 
     inadmissibility and removal, to ensure expeditious 
     construction of the San Diego border fence, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Feinstein amendment No. 395, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that the text of the REAL ID Act of 2005 should not be 
     included in the conference report.
       Bayh amendment No. 406, to protect the financial condition 
     of members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces who 
     are ordered to long-term active duty in support of a 
     contingency operation.
       Salazar amendment No. 351, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that the earned income tax credit provides critical 
     support to many military and civilian families.
       Reid amendment No. 445, to achieve an acceleration and 
     expansion of efforts to reconstruct and rehabilitate Iraq and 
     to reduce the future risks to United States Armed Forces 
     personnel and future costs to United States taxpayers, by 
     ensuring that the people of Iraq and other nations do their 
     fair share to secure and rebuild Iraq.
       Frist (for Chambliss/Kyl) amendment No. 432, to simplify 
     the process for admitting temporary alien agricultural 
     workers under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act, to increase access to such workers.
       Frist (for Craig/Kennedy) modified amendment No. 375, to 
     provide for the adjustment of status of certain foreign 
     agricultural workers, to amend the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act to reform the H-2A worker program under that 
     Act, to provide a stable, legal agricultural workforce, to 
     extend basic legal protections and better working conditions 
     to more workers.
       DeWine amendment No. 340, to increase the period of 
     continued TRICARE coverage of children of members of the 
     uniformed services who die while serving on active duty for a 
     period of more than 30 days.
       DeWine amendment No. 342, to appropriate $10,000,000 to 
     provide assistance to Haiti using Child Survival and Health 
     Programs funds, $21,000,000 to provide assistance to Haiti 
     using Economic Support Fund funds, and $10,000,000 to provide 
     assistance to Haiti using International Narcotics Control and 
     Law Enforcement funds, to be designated as an emergency 
     requirement.
       Schumer amendment No. 451, to lower the burden of gasoline 
     prices on the economy of the United States and circumvent the 
     efforts of OPEC to reap windfall oil profits.
       Reid (for Reed/Chafee) amendment No. 452, to provide for 
     the adjustment of status of certain nationals of Liberia to 
     that of lawful permanent residence.
       Chambliss further modified amendment No. 418, to prohibit 
     the termination of the existing joint-service multiyear 
     procurement contract for C/KC-130J aircraft.
       Bingaman amendment No. 483, to increase the appropriation 
     to Federal courts by $5,000,000 to cover increased 
     immigration-related filings in the southwestern United 
     States.
       Bingaman (for Grassley) amendment No. 417, to provide 
     emergency funding to the Office of the United States Trade 
     Representative.
       Isakson amendment No. 429, to establish and rapidly 
     implement regulations for State driver's license and 
     identification document security standards, to prevent 
     terrorists

[[Page S3966]]

     from abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify 
     terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, 
     and to ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego 
     border fence.
       Byrd amendment No. 463, to require a quarterly report on 
     audits conducted by the Defense Contract Audit Agency of task 
     or delivery order contracts and other contracts related to 
     security and reconstruction activities in Iraq and 
     Afghanistan and to address irregularities identified in such 
     reports.
       Warner amendment No. 499, relative to the aircraft carriers 
     of the Navy.
       Sessions amendment No. 456, to provide for accountability 
     in the United Nations Headquarters renovation project.
       Boxer/Bingaman amendment No. 444, to appropriate an 
     additional $35,000,000 for Other Procurement, Army, and make 
     the amount available for the fielding of Warlock systems and 
     other field jamming systems.
       Lincoln amendment No. 481, to modify the accumulation of 
     leave by members of the National Guard.
       Reid (for Durbin) amendment No. 443, to affirm that the 
     United States may not engage in torture or cruel, inhuman, or 
     degrading treatment under any circumstances.
       Reid (for Bayh) amendment No. 388, to appropriate an 
     additional $742,000,000 for Other Procurement, Army, for the 
     procurement of up to 3,300 Up Armored High Mobility 
     Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (UAHMMVs).
       Reid (for Biden) amendment No. 537, to provide funds for 
     the security and stabilization of Iraq and Afghanistan and 
     for other defense-related activities by suspending a portion 
     of the reduction in the highest income tax rate for 
     individual taxpayers.
       Reid (for Feingold) amendment No. 459, to extend the 
     termination date of Office of the Special Inspector General 
     for Iraq Reconstruction, expand the duties of the Inspector 
     General, and provide additional funds for the Office.
       Ensign amendment No. 487, to provide for additional border 
     patrol agents for the remainder of fiscal year 2005.
       Byrd amendment No. 516, to increase funding for border 
     security.
       Reid (for Biden) amendment No. 440, to appropriate, with an 
     offset, $6,000,000 for the Defense Health Program for force 
     protection work and medical care at the Vaccine Health Care 
     Centers.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we made good progress on this legislation 
yesterday. We considered a number of amendments. We were able to accept 
some in terms of being able to agree that they be adopted on voice 
vote. We had some rollcall votes on others. We are pleased that 
Senators cooperated with our committee. We hope to complete action on 
this bill today, certainly by tomorrow. But if we move with dispatch to 
consider the amendments that we know about, it is likely we can finish 
today, with the cooperation of all Senators. We appreciate that very 
much.
  I know the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, has an amendment 
relating to PL 480 accounts, and we are prepared to consider that 
amendment at this time if he wishes to send it to the desk and offer it 
for the Senate's consideration.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 380

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 380 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The journal clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. KOHL], for himself, Mr. 
     DeWine, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
     Inouye, Ms. Landrieu, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Coleman, 
     Mr. Obama, and Mr. Corzine, proposes an amendment numbered 
     380.

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

   (Purpopse: To provide supplemental funding for international food 
                              assistance)

       On page 171, line 2 strike ``$150,000,000'' and all through 
     line 6 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
       ``$470,000,000 to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That from this amount, to the maximum extent 
     possible, funding shall be restored to the previously 
     approved fiscal year 2005 programs under section 204(a)(2) of 
     the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 
     1954: Provided further, That of the funds provided under this 
     heading, $12,000,000 shall be available to carry out programs 
     under the Food for Progress Act of 1985: Provided further, 
     That the amount provided under this heading is designated as 
     an emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of the 
     conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th 
     Congress).''.

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, this amendment increases funding for Public 
Law 480 Title II to provide food assistance to people around the world 
where the need is urgent. Senator DeWine joins me as a cosponsor of 
this amendment. I also announce that the amendment is cosponsored by 
Senators Harkin, Durbin, Leahy, Mikulski, Inouye, Landrieu, Murray, 
Dorgan, Coleman, Obama, and Corzine.
  I also ask unanimous consent to add Senators Johnson, Roberts, Dole, 
Lugar, Bingaman, Sarbanes, Nelson of Nebraska, and Hagel as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KOHL. Our amendment increases the food aid amount by $320 million 
for a total of $470 million. This is not an arbitrary figure but, 
rather, was designed to meet three definite objectives.
  First, our amendment is crafted to meet the U.S. share of emergency 
food aid assistance needs that have already been identified for fiscal 
year 2005.
  Second, it restores funds for food aid development programs that are 
vital to end the cycle of starvation in the world's poorest nations. 
These funds were diverted to meet worsening conditions in the Darfur 
region of Sudan, and our amendment simply restores them to their 
original food aid purpose.
  Third, our amendment restores funding for the Food for Progress 
Program for commodities that were diverted to provide assistance to 
victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami.
  Mr. President, I have a letter from President Bush, dated January 13, 
2005, and signed by 43 Senators. It points out the dire shortfall in 
meeting world food aid needs this year. I ask unanimous consent that 
this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, January 13, 2005.
     Hon. George W. Bush,
     President of the United States, The White House, Pennsylvania 
         Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: The December 26 tsunami that struck 
     several countries in the Indian Ocean Basin is now known to 
     have killed over 150,000 people, with hundreds of thousands 
     or even millions of others injured or left homeless by the 
     catastrophe. Many of these people have lost all their 
     possessions and find themselves in dire need of essentials 
     such as food, clean water, medical attention and shelter. 
     Over the past several decades, the food aid programs run by 
     the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. 
     Department of Agriculture have demonstrated their capacity to 
     help people in need, but their fiscal 2005 funding will have 
     to be increased for them to do the job properly.
       Even before the massive tsunami struck, other unanticipated 
     natural disasters and wars had strained these agencies' 
     ability to provide emergency food aid while still maintaining 
     long-term commitments to development assistance projects. 
     According to one estimate provided to the Senate Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry by USAID officials, 
     customary food aid contributions by the United States and 
     other donor countries were expected to fall $1.2 billion 
     short of emergency needs worldwide as of December 9, 2004.
       As part of the supplemental appropriations bill you are 
     planning to submit within the next several weeks to cover the 
     cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, we urge 
     you to include a request for food aid programs to help the 
     tsunami victims in South Asia as well as to address the food 
     aid shortfall generated by pre-existing emergency assistance 
     needs in Africa and elsewhere in the world. A portion of that 
     money should be used to reimburse recent withdrawals from the 
     Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust.
       It is crucial that you take these steps and not attempt to 
     meet the emergency needs by further cutting existing 
     programs. We believe that previous cuts made to developmental 
     food aid programs in this fiscal year should be restored. It 
     would not be appropriate to help the people of South Asia by 
     reducing aid to people in other developing countries. Such a 
     move would be tantamount to feed one group with the seed corn 
     that another group was supposed to sow for crops the 
     following year. We urge you to consider carefully this 
     situation and take whatever actions are necessary to ensure 
     our ability to meet all of our food aid commitments.
           Sincerely yours,
         Tom Harkin; Dick Lugar; Debbie Stabenow; Bill Nelson; 
           Mary Landrieu; Max Baucus; Pat Roberts; Herb Kohl; Jeff 
           Bingaman; E. Benjamin Nelson; Barbara A. Mikulski; and 
           Dick Durbin.

[[Page S3967]]

         Larry E. Craig; Norm Coleman, Dianne Feinstein; Byron L. 
           Dorgan; Tim Johnson; Ken Salazar; Conrad Burns; Kent 
           Conrad; Frank R. Lautenberg; J. Lieberman; Chuck 
           Grassley; Daniel K. Akaka; Barack Obama; and Mike 
           DeWine.
         Kit Bond; Mark Pryor; Lincoln Chafee; Mike Crapo; Russell 
           D. Feingold; Ron Wyden; Chuck Hagel; Elizabeth Dole; 
           Patty Murray; Blanche L. Lincoln; Jon Corzine; and 
           Olympia Snowe.
         Patrick Leahy; Evan Bayh; Christopher Dodd; Jim Talent; 
           and Mark Dayton.

  Mr. KOHL. This letter was signed by Republicans and Democrats alike. 
That is as it should be. Compassion should not be a partisan issue.
  Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record an article from the April 13, 2005, Wall Street Journal that 
makes a very strong case why additional funding for these programs is 
necessary.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, April 13, 2005]

                  Sudan's Farmers Hunger for U.S. Aid

                   (By Scott Kilman and Roger Thurow)

       Seventeen years ago, Philip Majak abandoned his 30-acre 
     farm in southern Sudan, fleeing the ethnic and religious 
     fighting that would kill two million people over two decades, 
     including his first wife. Now, with a tentative peace treaty 
     holding since January, he is itching to go home.
       ``My house is destroyed, and my tractor. My 70 cows were 
     stolen, the land has grown wild,'' he says at a refugee camp 
     outside Khartoum, Sudan's capital. ``I'll need help to start 
     farming again.'' He looks to two sources of support: ``God 
     will provide. And America.''
       Maybe not.
       The U.S. government for years pushed hard for peace in the 
     south of Sudan between the Muslim-dominated government in 
     Khartoum and the rebel group supported by the region's 
     Christian residents. The Americans said that as peace came, 
     so would seeds and tools to help Sudanese farmers rebuild one 
     of Africa's potential breadbaskets.
       But Sudan's reconstruction period is dawning just as budget 
     pressures in Washington are siphoning money from precisely 
     this sort of U.S.-backed development work around the globe. 
     One project now in limbo would have given Sudanese refugees 
     food for rebuilding farms and roads in the Bahr el Ghazal 
     region--Mr. Majak's home--in the southern part of the 
     country.
       The U.S. Agency for International Development is reducing 
     funding this fiscal year for 67 development projects in such 
     far-flung places as Angola, Bolivia and Peru. Those projects 
     represent 80 percent of all international development work 
     financed by USAID's Food for Peace office, the budget for 
     which is shrinking at least 13 percent to $1.4 billion during 
     the fiscal year ending in September.
       The food-aid crunch could worsen next year. The Bush 
     administration, trying to rein in the U.S.'s record federal 
     budget deficit with broad spending cuts, proposes to slice a 
     further 33 percent from US AID's Food for Peace budget in 
     fiscal 2006 to $964 million.
       Food for Peace donates cash and American-grown commodities, 
     such as wheat flour, corn, soybeans, lentils and peas, to 
     humanitarian groups for two types of foreign assistance: 
     emergency feeding and long-term-development work. Development 
     projects help poor nations modernize their farms so they are 
     less vulnerable to famine. Humanitarian groups sell the 
     donated commodities to raise money for such things as 
     repairing farm roads, digging irrigation wells and 
     vaccinating children. Some groups give the commodities to 
     villagers and farmers as pay for work on these projects.
       Chariable groups rely heavily on the Food for Peace program 
     for their hunger-fighting work in the poorest parts of the 
     world. Catholic Relief Services, for example, says USAID is 
     withholding $1.6 million of the $4.4 million in Food for 
     Peace support promised for its work in Angola. As a result, 
     Catholic Relief Services has shelved plans for everything 
     from farming classes to food-for-work projects.
       ``How can a country as wealthy as the U.S. break these 
     sorts of commitments?'' says Marianne Leach, director of 
     government relations in Washington for CARE, which has lost 
     about half of its U.S. funding for development programs in 
     Mozambique and Tajikistan.
       White House budget spokesman Noam Neusner says the Bush 
     administration is ``providing as much support as we can in an 
     effective way. . . . Eradicating hunger is an important 
     priority of this administration.''
       USAID officials say it is all a matter of priorities. Given 
     budget constraints on the Food for Peace program, they are 
     raiding development projects for commodities and cash to 
     respond to a wave of immediate food shortages in places such 
     as Ethiopia, northern Uganda, Chad and Darfur, the western 
     region of Sudan where fighting continues. Last year 35 
     countries needed emergency food aid, according to the United 
     Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization.
       ``We have a budget crunch,'' says Andrew S. Natsios, USAID 
     administrator. ``Our first priority is to save peoples' 
     lives.''
       As the swelling U.S. budget deficit creates momentum in 
     Congress and the White House to cut government spending, the 
     Food for Peace budget is particularly vulnerable because 
     America's food-aid practices are under attack at the World 
     Trade Organization. Rival exporting powers long have 
     complained that Washington uses food aid to dump surplus 
     crops, thereby subsidizing U.S. growers.
       Congress is on record recognizing the importance of 
     development projects in preventing famines. The 2002 Farm 
     Bill that guides U.S. agricultural policy mandates that 75 
     percent of the 2.5 million tons of commodities USAID is 
     supposed to donate through the Food for Peace program goes to 
     non-emergency development projects. But the law gives USAID 
     the power to ignore the mandate during an emergency. As a 
     result, the Bush administration is spending for more of the 
     Food for Peace budget on food emergencies than on development 
     projects.
       Other federal programs beyond Food for Peace sponsor 
     overseas development work, too. USAID plans to spend $562.2 
     million on agricultural development this fiscal year, double 
     what was spent in fiscal 2001 by all of its programs. But 
     much of the increase is going to a few countries, such as 
     Iraq and Afghanistan. A study released this week by two 
     Washington advocacy groups--Partnership to Cut Hunger and 
     Poverty in Africa and Resources for the Future--found that 
     U.S. government support for agricultural development in 
     Africa has stagnated in recent years.
       An exception in Africa is Sudan, where Washington plans to 
     spend more on agricultural development in places where peace 
     takes hold. Donors at an international aid conference 
     yesterday pledged $4.5 billion to rebuild southern Sudan; of 
     that total, $1.7 billion was committed by the U.S., including 
     $850 million already committed.
       But that represents total aid, not just agriculture. Many 
     needs are still going unmet in southern Sudan. Citing tight 
     funds, USAID rejected a request from World Vision Inc. in 
     September for $7.8 million of cash and commodities to use in 
     Bahr el Ghazal for emergency food rations as well as food-
     for-work projects from digging wells to building seed-storage 
     facilities.
       Washington would seem to have a lot riding on the 
     reconstruction of southern Sudan. Beyond its plentiful oil, 
     Sudan presents a test of the Bush administration's ability to 
     bring peace to a region that has been a source of instability 
     and terrorism in Africa. The U.S. has given it about $2.9 
     billion of humanitarian aid since 1983.
       U.S. officials thought long and hard about how to restart 
     the Sudanese economy. A blueprint of sorts is laid out in a 
     2003 report by USAID. Looking beyond a recent history of 
     three famines and several near-famines, it sees a potential 
     breadbasket. Blessed with a diverse climate and abundant 
     arable land for a wide range of crops, a peaceful Sudan 
     could, with help, emerge as an agricultural exporter.

  Mr. KOHL. The simple truth is that current funds are insufficient due 
to worsening conditions in the world. Those conditions include the 
ongoing conflict in Darfur and food shortages in the south of Sudan; 
drought conditions in Ethiopia; flooding in Bangladesh; infestations of 
locusts in western Africa; and ongoing fighting and refugee conditions 
in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Chad, Rwanda, and Uganda.
  By far, the vast majority of spending in this supplemental is to 
support our efforts in Iraq. While it is important we show the world we 
are a strong nation, it is also important we show the world we are a 
compassionate nation.
  In his inaugural address, the President spoke forcefully about ending 
tyranny and spreading democracy. Everyone shares those objectives. We 
also know those objectives cannot be achieved solely by force or 
gesture politics. Instead, they demand a commitment to diplomacy and 
human compassion.
  I am proud this amendment has drawn bipartisan support. I am grateful 
to Senator DeWine and the other cosponsors for their help. I hope this 
amendment will meet with the approval of all Senators, and I ask for 
its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, Senator Kohl has indicated a very 
impressive list of cosponsors who ask that the Senate agree to this 
amendment. I know of no other request for time to debate the amendment. 
I do not want to cut off any Senator, but we are prepared to go to a 
vote on the amendment if there are no Senators who wish to debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 380) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.

[[Page S3968]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 388

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). The Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Senator Bayh and I have an amendment on 
Humvees the floor manager is familiar with. I am going to speak on that 
issue. The amendment is a Bayh-Kennedy amendment. My colleague and 
friend, the Senator from Indiana, intends to address the Senate very 
shortly on this issue. I wanted to take an opportunity, in these final 
hours of consideration of the supplemental, to bring this to the 
attention of the Senate and the American people.
  I am delighted to join my colleague Senator Bayh in sponsoring our 
amendment which increases the funding for the procurement of up-armored 
Humvees for the Army. The Senate is currently debating an 
appropriations bill that will provide $81 billion primarily for the 
ongoing war in Iraq. This funding will bring the total United States 
bill for the war in Iraq to $192 billion and still counting. All of us 
support our troops. We obviously want to do all we can to see that they 
have the proper equipment, vehicles, and everything else they need to 
protect their lives and carry out their missions.
  It is scandalous that the administration has kept sending them into 
battle in Iraq without the proper equipment. No soldier should be sent 
into battle unprotected. That is exactly what happened in Iraq. As 
recently as December 2004, soldiers were still digging through 
landfills to find metal plating to attach to their vehicles for 
protection--their ``hillbilly'' armor, they call it. It has also been 
well documented that parents went in desperation to the local Wal-Mart 
to buy armored plates and mail them to their sons and daughters serving 
in Iraq. That is incomprehensible and unacceptable for our soldiers. 
More than 400 troops have already died in military vehicles, vulnerable 
to roadside bombs, grenades, and other so-called improvised explosive 
devices. Our amendment will provide additional funding to buy up-
armored Humvees and add-on armor kits for the Humvees for the Army.

  As we all know, the Humvee is a highly mobile four-wheel-drive 
vehicle. The up-armored Humvee is a version with bullet-resistant 
windows and steel-plate armor on the doors and underside to protect 
against rifle rounds and explosive blasts. It has additional armor for 
the turret gunner on the roof to protect against artillery, and a 
powerful air conditioning system. The add-on armor kits are mounted on 
the existing Humvees to give almost as much protection.
  According to a Philadelphia Inquirer article 2 weeks ago, the Army 
says all of its 35,000 vehicles in Iraq now have some sort of armor. 
But a third of them are protected with nothing more than crudely cut 
sheets of steel which are inadequate by the Army's own standards, 
according to figures released Friday. The largest threats for vehicles 
are improvised explosive devices, rocket-propelled grenades, small arms 
fire, and landmines.
  Humvees and other military vehicles have become the target of choice 
for insurgents. Shrapnel from roadside bombs or even a simple AK-47 
round can slice through an unprotected Humvee. Some of them have little 
more than vinyl fabric for their roofs and doors. Our troops in 
unprotected Humvees in Iraq would be safer riding in SUVs.
  According to the Center for Army Lessons Learned, the harm to both 
personnel and equipment from improvised explosive devices is greatly 
reduced when traveling in an up-armored Humvee. It has taken far too 
long to solve this problem. We have to make sure we solve it now, once 
and for all. We can't keep throwing money at it and hope it goes away. 
The delay in correcting the problem has cost the lives of many brave 
young men and women killed in combat because they were in unarmored 
vehicles.
  On July 20, 2003, SGT Justin Garvey, a Massachusetts casualty, was 
with the 101st Airborne Division and was killed in Mosul when his 
unarmored Humvee was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade while on patrol.
  A few months later, on September 1, 2003, SSG Joseph Camara and SGT 
Charles Caldwell, Massachusetts natives with the Rhode Island National 
Guard, were killed north of Baghdad when their unarmored Humvee struck 
a mine.
  On October 18, 2003, PFC John Hart of Bedford, MA, was killed in Taza 
in Iraq, when his unarmored Humvee was hit by a rocket-propelled 
grenade. I attended his burial at Arlington National Cemetery on 
November 4, 2003. I still remember the letter the parents showed me 
from that young man saying he was out on patrol and if he did not get 
armor on his Humvee, the chances of his survival were going to be very 
limited. Three weeks later he was lost.
  Last week, a Kentucky National Guard soldier died when shrapnel came 
through the window of his vehicle. A comrade says James A. Sherrill, 
27, could have been saved if antiballistic glass had been installed.
  The saddest part of this story is that the Army could have and should 
have moved more quickly to correct the problem. As retired GEN Paul 
Kern, who headed the Army Materiel Command until last November, said:

       . . . It took too long to materialize. In retrospect, if I 
     had it to do all over again, I would have just started 
     building up-armored Humvees. The most efficient way would 
     have been to build a single production line and feed 
     everything into it.

  In a letter to me dated October 20, 2003, General Abizaid, the 
CENTCOM Commander, said:

       The FY 2004 Supplemental Request will permit the services 
     to rapidly resolve many of the equipment issues that you 
     mentioned to include the procurement of . . . Humvees.

  That goes back to October 20, 2003, General Abizaid saying that the 
2004 appropriations were going to solve this problem.
  In February 2004, General Schoomaker, Chief of Staff of the Army, 
testified at an Armed Services Committee hearing that:

       . . . the army never intended to up-armor every Humvee--
     never until this kind of situation that we have today . . . 
     We have taken armored units, artillery units, all kind of 
     other units and put them into Humvees as motorized 
     formations, which never existed before. And so this is an 
     area where you cannot fix it overnight.

  That is in February of 2004. And we are now in April of 2005. The 
problem still hasn't been fixed.
  On December 8, 2004, during a townhall meeting with the United States 
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld in Kuwait, a young soldier alerted the 
American public to the issue of armor shortages when he asked:

       Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for 
     pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to 
     up-armor our vehicles and why don't we have those sources 
     readily available to us?
  After the applause from the troops, Rumsfeld replied:

       It's essentially a matter of physics. It isn't a matter of 
     money. It isn't a matter on the Army of desire. It's a matter 
     of production and capability of doing it. As you know, you to 
     go war with the army you have, not the army you might want or 
     wish to have at a later time.

  He later remarked in the same townhall meeting:

       You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a 
     tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored Humvee 
     and it can be blown up.

  We have been told for months that the shortage of up-armored Humvees 
was a thing of the past and the Army has enough to ensure that every 
Humvee that left a protected base in Iraq would be an up-armored Humvee 
or a Humvee with an add-on kit. This month, the GAO released a report 
that clearly identifies the struggle the Army has faced. In August 
2003, only 51 up-armored Humvees were being produced a month. It took 
the industrial base a year and a half to work up to making 400 a month.
  Imagine that. It took a year and a half for the United States of 
America to move from 50 a month to 400 a month; a year and a half. I 
don't know how many saw that incredible documentary on the History 
Channel the other night of President Roosevelt talking about the 
gearing up in World War II, where we were producing a victory ship a 
day, over 350,000 planes a year, this country. A victory ship a day we 
were producing, 350,000 planes a year, and it took us a year and a half 
to move from 50 to 400 a month. This wasn't given a priority. Of the 35 
young Americans from Massachusetts who have been killed, a third of 
them have been killed from attacks on Humvees.

[[Page S3969]]

The great majority of those, the veterans say, could have survived if 
they had had the protected Humvees.
  It is obvious the Department has no solution, did not have the 
priority to provide for the up-armor of the Humvees. Secretary of the 
Army Brownlee told the Armed Services Committee in October 2003 that:

       . . . with the up-armored Humvee, it is more of a 
     challenge. If we go strictly with the up-armored Humvee, it 
     could be as late as the summer of '05 before we would have 
     them all.

  This is in October 2003, we are told in the Armed Services Committee 
it is going to be the summer of 2005 before our troops are going to 
have the protection they should. Since it is now spring 2005, it looks 
as though he was right.
  According to the GAO report, there are two primary causes for the 
shortage of up-armored vehicles and add-on armor kits. First, a 
decision was made to ramp up production gradually rather than use the 
maximum available capacity. Second, the funding allocations did not 
keep up with the rapidly increasing requirements. Obviously, the 
Pentagon was still being influenced by its cakewalk mentality.
  The GAO report specifically states that the Pentagon decisionmakers 
set the rate at which both up-armored Humvees and armor kits would be 
produced and did not tell Congress about the total available production 
capacity. The GAO was unable to determine what criteria were used to 
set the pace of production. In both cases, additional production 
capacity was available, particularly for the kits, but not used.
  The funding issue was part of the problem. Funds were available to 
support the planned pace of production of up-armored Humvees. But GAO 
found that four program managers were not aware of the timeframe for 
releasing funds. Although the Army received over $1.4 billion between 
fiscal years 2003 and 2004 to produce 7,500 vehicles, it was not 
released in a timely and predictable way. In August of 2003, the 
managers received requirements for 1,407 vehicles, but had received 
funding to produce less than half of that number.
  By October 2003, program managers had a requirement to produce 3,000 
vehicles, but once again received funding to produce less than half of 
that. Significant differences continued until April of 2004, when 
requirements reached 4,400 vehicles and the program managers received 
funding to produce 4,300 vehicles.
  The major short-term solution to the up-armored Humvee funding issue 
has been the additional funds from congressional increases. Parents and 
spouses of fallen service members contacted Members of Congress to 
demand attention to the problem. For fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the 
Army received over $1.4 billion to produce 7,500 up-armored Humvees to 
meet worldwide requirements, including 8,000 vehicles required for the 
CENTCOM's area of operation.
  In fiscal year 2004, the Army received more than $1 billion to 
produce up-armored Humvees. Compared to the Bush administration's 
budget request for $51 million, the parents and spouses made an 
enormous impact. To meet the continuing needs for force protection, 
Congress recommended $865 million in the 2005 appropriations bill to be 
used by the Army for additional armor for Humvees and other vehicles.
  As part of the Rapid Response Force Protection Initiative, Congress 
intends the funds to be used for a variety of vehicles to respond 
rapidly to the threat of improvised explosive devices and mortar 
attacks against our forces. These are short-term fixes.
  Amazingly, the GAO found that Army officials have still not made 
long-term efforts to improve the availability of up-armored Humvees or 
add-on armor kits. We need to get ahead of this problem. The 
requirements for up-armored Humvees keep changing.
  Of the time I have been in the Armed Services Committee, we have had 
nine different estimates by the military--I will include them in the 
Record--in their testimony before us, going from 30 September 2003, for 
1700; November 2003, 3,000. Then they kept going up by thousands over 
time.
  Young American servicemen who are out on patrols do not have that 
equipment. It is one thing if the insurgents have some surprise 
capability and some technique or technology that we are not prepared to 
deal with, but we know how to uparmor humvees and we know how to make 
armor plating.
  The fact that we have young people who are risking their lives 
without that protection is what this amendment is about. I know we will 
hear from the other side--because I have heard it every time I have 
been part of offering an increase in the funding for the last 3 years--
we have enough, we don't need more. We will hear that here again. But 
we find out that we are still shortchanging the military.
  Gary Motsek, Director of Support Operations for the Army Materiel 
Command in Fort Belvoir, VA, said:

       I'm going to get in trouble, but the real challenge is, 
     there had always been an assumption, quite frankly, that the 
     requirements would continue to tail off.

  Obviously, since we are still losing an average of more than one 
soldier a day since the Iraqi elections in January, those assumptions 
are clearly wrong.
  It is a tragedy that our soldiers are still paying the price for this 
delay. In 2003, when it came time to mass-produce uparmored humvees, 
the Army had only a single source to turn to. It had little interest in 
this work before Iraq and did not shop for others. Pentagon Acquisition 
Chief, Michael Wynne, testified to Congress a year ago:

       It's a sad story to report to you, but had we known then 
     what we know now, we would probably have gotten another 
     source involved. Every day, our soldiers are being killed or 
     wounded in Iraq by IEDs, RPGs, small arms fire. Too many of 
     these attacks are on humvees that are not uparmored. . . . We 
     are directing that all measures to provide protection to our 
     soldiers be placed on a top priority, most highly urgent, 24-
     7 basis.

  That is his recent statement and we welcome it. In his testimony, 
Wynne said: It is a sad story, but had we known what the parents knew 
and what those on the front lines knew, certainly we would have acted 
quicker.
  But 24-7 didn't happen even then until January this year. The plant 
had capacity that the Army never consistently used, as the plant 
manager has said.
  In November 2003, I asked Secretary Brownlee about armor delays, 
noting that the three Massachusetts soldiers had died in unarmored 
humvees. ``Are they running their plant 24 hours?'' Secretary Brownlee 
said the plant in Ohio was running at ``maximum capacity.'' But it 
wasn't. Army documents show the monthly armor production at the plant 
fell after that, from about 55 to 45 humvees a month, in December.
  The plant took its usual week off at Christmas and the armoring plant 
took two 4-day weekends. Owners say they could have built more--if the 
Army had ordered it.
  In early 2004, Members of Congress toured the plant and found that 
its ballistic glass operation was operating on just one shift.
  Now we have an opportunity to end this frustration once and for all. 
Our soldiers in Iraq deserve the very best, and it is our job to make 
sure the Department of Defense is finally getting it right. Too many 
soldiers have died because of these needless delays, but hopefully this 
will be solved by what we do in this bill today.
  The Bayh-Kennedy amendment contributes significantly to this goal. I 
urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. President, I point out that in the House they have found that 
there wasn't sufficient funding for the President's request. The House 
appropriators increased their appropriations by $232 million. They 
thought that was the bare minimum to bring it up on their review of the 
shortage.
  I think the Bayh-Kennedy amendment is much closer to the real need. 
But clearly it is very important that we have an increase in this 
particular funding in this area.
  Mr. President, I hope the committee is willing to accept the 
amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that a paper indicating rising humvee 
requirements be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       Rising Humvee Requirements

30 September 2003.................................................1,723
17 November 2003 (Iraq and Afghanistan)...........................3,142
17 November 2003 (total including backfill).......................3,331
17 November 2003 (potential increase).............................3,600
10 December 2003 CENTCOM requirement..............................3,506

[[Page S3970]]

8 January 2004 CENTCOM requirement................................3,512
30 January 2005 CENTCOM requirement...............................4,149
01 July 2004 CENTCOM requirement..................................8,125
08 April 2005 CENTCOM requirement................................10,079

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                           Amendment No. 380

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, in the Senate just a few minutes ago, we 
passed an amendment offered by Senator Kohl and myself, which was an 
amendment for international aid for $470 million to help provide food 
for the millions of people in the world who are in dire need of food.
  First, I thank Chairman Cochran for working with Senator Kohl and 
myself on this amendment. Senator Cochran is someone who has been a 
leader in this area, a leader in providing food for people around the 
world throughout his career. I thank him for his great work.
  I also thank the cosponsors: Senators Coleman, Hagel, Lugar, Roberts, 
Dole, Harkin, Durbin, Leahy, Mikulski, Inouye, Landrieu, Murray, 
Dorgan, Johnson, Corzine, and Obama.
  Additionally, I thank the Coalition for Food Aid, the U.S. Conference 
of Catholic Bishops, InterAction, and the numerous other groups who 
have been calling offices in the Senate in support of this important 
amendment. Their support has made a difference.
  This past year has been notable for the very high profile 
humanitarian crises we have seen in the world, in the Darfur region of 
Sudan, and the catastrophic tsunami that swept throughout Southeast 
Asia. Little attention, however, has been paid to other horrible crises 
that have occurred, such as the locust damage to crops and livelihoods 
in sub-Saharan Africa, or the devastating floods in Bangladesh and 
Haiti. They have not received nearly as much attention. These crises 
have drained the international food aid system, and clearly this system 
is now in need of replenishment. That is what this deals with.
  This month, the U.N. World Food Program announced that it would be 
forced to cut rations in Darfur. Our own U.S. Agency for International 
Development has been forced to cut food aid programs in such countries 
as the Sudan, Angola, Nicaragua, Ghana, and Eritrea.
  We cannot wait for the regular appropriations cycle to replenish the 
food aid resources that have been expended on the extraordinary 
emergencies that have occurred and are anticipated to occur in the 
remainder of this fiscal year. That is why this amendment was so very 
important. Waiting is simply not an option because lives are on the 
line. Waiting for the regular appropriations cycle will simply be too 
late.
  We have an opportunity with this amendment and this bill to help show 
the hungry people of the world that they are not forgotten. I thank my 
colleagues for their support for this amendment. It is important that 
we maintain it in conference. It will, in fact, make a difference.
  Again, I thank the chairman for his assistance and my colleagues for 
their support.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss what we are doing 
and why we are doing it and the overall evaluation of this bill.
  We are going to run at least a $600 billion deficit this year, a real 
deficit. What is said out there is that it is going to be $410 billion, 
but it is not. We are going to take $150 billion worth of Social 
Security money and spend that, and then we are going to have this 
supplemental, which is now at $81 billion. So we are going to be at 
about $630 billion, $640 billion in deficit.
  What is that deficit? That deficit is money we don't have today, that 
we are going to go borrow, but we are going to ask our grandchildren to 
pay it back. I don't want anybody to have any misunderstanding. I 
believe we need to have an emergency supplemental appropriation right 
now. I believe it ought to be designed for emergencies--true 
emergencies. That is what it is here for. I believe we ought to do 
whatever is needed for our troops and our efforts in the war on 
terrorism. I also believe we need to meet the commitments in terms of 
catastrophic weather events and the tsunami.
  I think we ought to pass out of this body what can truly be spent on 
that in the near term. What I don't think we should be doing--and I 
realize I am in a minority--is spending money and authorizing money to 
be spent from 2007 to 2012 that is surely and obviously not an 
emergency. I will have a hard time going home and looking at some of 
the poor children in Oklahoma when we spend this extra $21 billion out 
of this emergency. Each one of those poor children, when they grow up, 
is going to have to pay back about $5,000. That is what the difference 
is personally to them after 30 years of us borrowing. It is interesting 
to note that we have not truly paid off any of our bills, except for 
one short period of time, around 1999, 2000. So when we borrow the 
money, it continues to go up and it continues to compound and it 
continues to undercut the standard of living of future generations of 
this country.
  If there is anything our heritage teaches us, it is that the prices 
that were paid for us to have the opportunity we have today is 
something that we ought to transmit to future generations.
  I understand there are going to be objections to me bringing up my 
amendments; they aren't germane. I understand I need to have unanimous 
consent to be able to bring those up. I am not going to call for them 
at this time, but I will continue to talk about each one of those 
issues. I think it is important that the American public understand 
what is in this bill.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. COBURN. Yes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I think amendments have been called up in the regular 
order. I ask the Senator why he would have reluctance to call up these 
amendments. If someone objects to it, then I will start objecting to 
the calling up of other amendments, if that is the way Members want the 
Senate to work. I understand this is a pretty straightforward 
amendment. The University of Hawaii's library is going to get $10 
million for free on something that has nothing to do with Afghanistan, 
Iraq, the tsunami, or anything else. If somebody wants to object, I 
would like to inform my colleagues that we will start objecting to 
amendments being called up. It is a pretty straightforward amendment 
that strikes a $10 million earmark for the University of Hawaii library 
and the legislative rider for the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority; 
is that correct?
  Mr. COBURN. That is correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask my friend, why don't we bring them up? If somebody 
objects, then I will object to other amendments being brought up, 
particularly ones that are this straightforward.
  Mr. COBURN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator have a response?
  Mr. COBURN. I will call them up and we will see what happens. I want 
to set the field a little bit more.
  I think it is important that the American people understand what is 
in this bill, and there are legitimate things in this bill that we need 
to have to fund the war on terrorism. I don't want to debate this issue 
or delay it. I want us to pass it. I don't want us to have to vote on 
every amendment I put up.
  I think it is incumbent upon us to be honest with the American 
people. When we call something an emergency, it ought to be an 
emergency. This bill has $21 billion in it that is going to eventually 
cost our children $100 billion in the next 30 years, and it is not an 
emergency. It should go through the regular appropriations process. It 
is important for the American people to also understand if it is 
regular stuff that is in the emergency, the budget rules don't count. 
So we are going to spend $20 billion that should be taken out of next 
year's budget requirement, and we are going to sneak it in now so we 
can spend $20 billion more next year. That is what it is about.
  We need to be honest. We are never going to solve our budgetary 
problems or spending problems, or we are never going to have the 
process work in this country where the pressure comes on this body to 
not spend our children's

[[Page S3971]]

future, unless we are honest about what is in the budget and how the 
appropriations process works.
  Let's take, for example, the embassy in Iraq. This is a $500 million 
embassy--$500 million, a half-billion dollars. It is not just an 
embassy. It is the whole thing there, to give credit. It is going to 
have greater requirements than any other embassy we have, but it is a 
half-billion dollars.
  In this appropriation bill, only $106 million of it is going to be 
spent over the next 2 years; $385 million is going to be spent from 
2007 to 2012. That is not an emergency. What you will hear from the 
Appropriations Committee is they have to let the contracts. It is only 
3 months between now and the time we start the regular appropriations 
process. We can let a contract and the conditional authority for a $500 
million embassy. We should not move that up now.
  There are also some good questions about whether we ought to be 
spending $500 million on an embassy complex in Baghdad. That needs to 
be looked at. That needs to be talked about before we commit our 
children's future. That is one example of the areas in which we need to 
be making sure the American public knows what is going on.
  The purpose of an emergency wartime supplemental is to immediately 
fund ongoing emergency needs for our troops or for disaster--emergency 
needs. My objection to this bill is it has $19 billion to $20 billion 
in it that is not emergency. It does not have anything to do with an 
emergency, but it has to do with outyear spending we can now put into 
this bill which has to pass to fund our troops.
  Let me just give some history. Since September 11, 2001, Congress has 
passed four individual supplemental bills in ongoing efforts to fund 
the war against terror. In those bills was $56 billion that did not 
have anything to do with the war on terror or homeland security. Think 
about that, $56 billion. When we add this up, we are going to be at $72 
billion over the last 4 years in money that is not emergency and money 
that is not about the war on terrorism and that is not money about 
homeland security.
  Why is that? It is because our process is broken. The only way it 
changes is for the American public to become informed about how the 
process works. This is not to question the motives of any of our 
Members. They want us to control spending as well, but they also want 
to satisfy the demands that are placed on them, the office, for all the 
demands that come in from across this country.
  The fact is, we are our own worst enemy because we have trouble 
saying no to those we care about, even though we do not have the money 
to do it or do not recognize we are really stealing a standard of 
living from our children and our grandchildren.
  There is $10 million, as Senator McCain mentioned, for a library. 
There is no question that the University of Hawaii has an emergency. By 
their own quoted statements, the president of the University of Hawaii 
said the damage is about $50 million. With this $10 million and what 
the State legislature has done there, they are going to collect over 
$100 million for a $50 million damage, and with the requirements under 
FEMA for having a 75-percent/25-percent grant, even though it was 
required, we are now going to supply that.
  It may not be a one on one, it may not be their intent, but the fact 
is $10 million is fungible, which is exactly their matching grant to 
get it repaired. Is it an emergency? Is it something that needs to be 
done or is it something that is going to be covered already? Is it 
something we, as Congress, should be supplying or is it something for 
which the people of Hawaii should be responsible? It is a legitimate 
question, and if it should be there, then it ought to go through the 
appropriations process where it can be looked at, not stuck in a bill 
that is a ``must pass'' bill. That is something about which we need to 
talk.

  Mr. President, 6 years ago, the Capitol Police were told they needed 
to move out of their storage and receipt building in southeast 
Washington, DC. We now have $23 million in this bill to move the 
Capitol Police receiving station out of the area so we can build a 
baseball stadium. I have a whole lot of trouble thinking that comes 
anywhere close to the emergency requirements of our troops in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. It is almost laughable that we would put that in as an 
emergency.
  I understand people have a very different opinion of that than I do, 
but I think a baseball stadium pales in comparison to what the need of 
an emergency appropriation is. I think it is wrong to have money in an 
emergency appropriation to do something such as that. It can come 
through the regular order, especially since they have had 6 years to 
have done it.
  I must say the chairman of this committee has been very kind to me in 
answering questions and working with me. I think he has brought what he 
thought the body could pass and get back to the President. I do not 
want to cast any direction against any individual, but I believe we 
have to have a challenge, and one of the reasons I came to the Senate 
is so I can look at what we are doing so I can help educate the 
American people on what is really happening.
  I call up my amendments Nos. 450, 467, 506, and 471, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I object.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be set aside and that I be allowed to call up four 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, I object.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has the floor.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. 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. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be set aside and that I be allowed to call up three 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Amendments Nos. 450, 467, and 471, En Bloc

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I call up amendments Nos. 450, 467, and 
471.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes amendments 
     numbered 450, 467, and 471, en bloc.

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


                           amendment no. 450

             (Purpose: To remove a non-emergency provision)

       On page 166, strike lines 8 through 20.


                           amendment no. 467

              (Purpose: To remove non-emergency spending)

       On page 202, strike lines 1 through 13.


                           amendment no. 471

  (Purpose: To reduce appropriations for the Iraqi embassy to reduce 
        outlays expected to occur in fiscal year 2007 or later)

       On page 172, strike ``$592,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$106,000,000''.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the first amendment deals with contracting 
in the Defense Department. There is no objection or intent to label 
anything other than the process under which we allow $40 million of 
expenditures to go out that does not go through a true competitive 
bidding process. There is no question it will benefit what we are 
doing. There is no question it is a need in terms of what we had. The 
question in bringing this amendment up is because of the process and 
the lack of open, competitive bidding associated with $40 million of 
the taxpayers' money.
  I have no question that possibly the person who has this contract or 
will get this contract under the present bill may be the best, but the 
American people and future generations of this country need to make 
sure that is what happens and it happens every time so that we do not 
spend any money unwisely.

[[Page S3972]]

  I believe it is tremendously prudent on our part, in reassessing 
where we are and the tremendous risks facing our economy from the 
valuation of the dollar, our deficit spending, and the difficulties we 
are going to be facing on Social Security and health care, that we pay 
attention to every detail. This was noted in the report language. There 
may be a much better explanation for it.
  Without losing control of the floor, I yield to my chairman, the 
Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for 
yielding to permit me to respond to the amendment which he has filed.
  When the Senator from Oklahoma commented earlier about the need to 
hold down the deficit, I am in complete agreement with what he had to 
say. The amendment pending does not have any expenditure at all. It is 
a clarification of a preexisting allocation which was in the Omnibus 
appropriations bill last year, and it was in a proper bill. It was not 
designated as emergency spending; it was an appropriations bill.
  This money is being allocated to develop the port facilities in 
Philadelphia to accommodate a very new kind of ship which will compete 
with air travel and which has very substantial military as well as 
commercial purposes.
  There is a long history to this particular item. Originally, there 
was an effort to have the construction undertaken partly in the United 
States, and this $40 million was to be a loan guarantee. Without going 
into a very elongated history, the manufacturers of the ship worked it 
out to have it done overseas. It is a loss to the United States. We had 
a meeting with members of the Armed Services Committee and the 
Secretary of the Navy. Secretary English tried to work it out and could 
not. Then the decision was made that the $40 million that already had 
been appropriated would be directed toward the port facility in 
Philadelphia to accommodate these ships.
  There is no other port facility that can take these ships. This is 
part of a larger expenditure where the Port Authority is putting up $75 
million of its own. So there is nobody in the market here to say we 
have $75 million and we would like to have access to this $40 million 
that has already been allocated.
  In broader terms, I think it is fair to characterize this expenditure 
and reallocation. The Navy is prepared to do it, but they want to have 
the language so they are complying with the congressional direction. 
This is part of the effort to make up for the Philadelphia industrial 
base, what happened when the Philadelphia navy yard was closed some 
years ago. That yard was closed with fraudulent misrepresentations made 
by the Department of the Navy, not something I am saying today for the 
first time. I filed a lawsuit in the Federal court of Philadelphia 
because they had concealed opinions, letters, from two admirals who 
said the navy yard should be maintained but downsized.
  I argued the case personally in the district court and went to the 
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and lost it in the Supreme Court 
where the Supreme Court was faced with the alternative of disallowing 
some 300 base closures if they were to upset the Philadelphia navy yard 
closure. It was the basis of delegation of constitutional authority.
  It would be my hope that my colleagues in the Senate would allow this 
committee report to stand because it is not an expenditure, it does not 
burden the deficit. It is clarification so that the Secretary of the 
Navy can act in accordance with congressional wishes, and it has a 
military as well as a commercial purpose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I happen to have been at the meeting that 
the Senator from Pennsylvania--whom I admire and respect enormously--
had with the Secretary of the Navy. I was so proud of the Secretary of 
the Navy because unequivocally the Secretary of the Navy said: No, we 
do not want this money, we do not have the technology, we do not have 
the design for this, this is not one of our requirements, and we do not 
want to spend $40 million in this fashion. It was as strong a statement 
as I have ever heard from the Secretary of the Navy.
  This is basically a $40 million giveaway of the taxpayers' dollars to 
a private corporation that has nothing to do with the war in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. It has nothing to do with it. The language of the bill 
says ``support'' high-speed military sealift and other military 
purposes.
  Maybe there are other military purposes. There is no design today for 
a high-speed military sealift. I wish there were. It is affordable. But 
the fact is that there is not. The fact is the Navy unequivocally said 
they do not want taxpayers' dollars, defense dollars, spent on this 
port in the city of Philadelphia, another legislative rider.
  This has nothing to do with Afghanistan, it has nothing to do with 
the tsunami, it has nothing to do with Iraq, and it has nothing to do 
with the Navy's requirements for a high-speed military sealift 
capability. This is really an egregious example of what happens in 
appropriations bills because there has never been a hearing before the 
Armed Services Committee nor any consideration in the Armed Services 
Committee of this particular request and would not be because it is not 
something we would rationally consider. But we put it on--$40 million 
worth on an appropriations at a time when the GAO says:

       If we continue on our present path, we'll see pressure for 
     deep spending cuts or dramatic tax increases.

  And Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says:

       It falls on the Congress to determine how best to address 
     the competing claims.

  Which is our trade deficit as well as our burgeoning Federal deficit.
  We do not need to spend the $40 million. I appreciate the efforts 
Senator Specter has made, over many years, for the city of Philadelphia 
and the Navy yard. I can guarantee the Senator from Philadelphia that a 
lawsuit will probably hire some more lawyers. But if he thinks it is 
going to reverse a BRAC decision and reopen the Philadelphia Navy 
Shipyard as a naval shipyard, it will be one of the more fantastic 
outcomes in the history of the United States of America.
  Again, I respect his advocacy for the Port of Philadelphia. I respect 
his belief that somehow we are going to come up with a high-speed 
military sealift. That vision and view is not shared by the Armed 
Services Committee nor by the Secretary of the Navy nor the Secretary 
of Defense. I hope we will be able to pass this, and I am sure we 
probably will not.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am a little at a loss to hear the 
Senator from Arizona talking about reopening the Navy shipyard. Maybe 
it is a good idea but it is not my idea. It is not my idea today.
  This $40 million has already been appropriated. It was done in the 
Omnibus appropriations bill last year in regular order. So contrary to 
what the Senator from Arizona says, we are not talking about 
appropriating $40 million. What we are talking about is clarifying the 
purpose for which $40 million has been appropriated.
  While the Senator from Arizona may not think there is the realism of 
a high-speed military sealift, these fast ships can move military cargo 
as fast as they can be transported by air.
  I hate to repeat myself. I have already done it once. There is no 
outlay of money. This money has been appropriated. It is a direction to 
the Department of the Navy as to how it is being expended for a very 
important purpose.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Pennsylvania is correct. It was in last 
year's Omnibus appropriations bill, it was not in the Defense 
appropriations bill. It was not authorized in the Defense authorization 
bill.
  Let me tell you what is so egregious about it. In the appropriations 
bill, in the Omnibus appropriations bill, it says, blah, blah, blah:

       . . . for a grant to Philadelphia Regional Port Authority, 
     to be used solely for the purpose of construction, by and for 
     a Philadelphia-based company. . . .

  Here we are in an Omnibus appropriations bill we passed last year 
that not only designates $40 million that needs

[[Page S3973]]

to be spent but without competition, without scrutiny, without 
examination:

       . . . by and for a Philadelphia-based company established 
     to operate high-speed, advanced-design vessels for the 
     transport of high-value, time-sensitive cargoes in the 
     foreign commerce of the United States, of a marine cargo 
     terminal and IT network for high-speed commercial vessels 
     that is capable of supporting military sealift requirements.

  Last year, it was astonishing that we would put in an omnibus 
appropriation a requirement that $40 million be spent by and for a 
Philadelphia-based company. In other words, a company in Seattle or a 
company in Charleston or a company in Oklahoma, they couldn't compete 
for this. It had to be a Philadelphia-based company. What is it about 
Philadelphia-based companies that warrants them receiving a $40 million 
contract without competition from anybody else?
  I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, this is egregious. We should 
not be designating certain cities as a base for any company to compete 
for any contract of any kind.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I want to make certain everybody 
understands. This was appropriated. It was not directed clear enough 
for the Department of Defense to want to spend the money. What we are 
seeing is they want a clearer direction. I do not fault the Senator 
from Pennsylvania at all for trying to give them a clearer direction. I 
would like to do that for some companies in my area as well.
  The fact is, it is not the way to run an airline, it is not the way 
to run a company. The omnibus appropriations process is not the way to 
run a country either, and it is my hope we don't get there this year 
either.
  Mr. McCAIN. Is the Senator aware--I misspoke. This is the language in 
this bill designating it for a Philadelphia-based company. Designating 
it for a Philadelphia-based company is in this legislation before us. I 
hope that is clear.
  Mr. COBURN. The reason it is there is because they wanted the 
direction on where to spend it. I understand the intention of the 
Senator from Philadelphia, his purpose. The reason I raise this 
question is I believe this is the wrong way we should be doing things. 
We need to stop. Our future depends on the integrity of a budgeting and 
appropriations process that is not based on politics but is based on 
having the future best will for our country.
  I don't have anything further to say on this, other than the Senator 
has given a great explanation. I understand what it is. He is trying to 
do something. The problem is, the military doesn't necessarily want to 
do that.
  I yield to my chairman, the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, by way of very brief reply: There is no 
other competitor which has $75 million put up and which is in a 
position to accommodate these fast ships. This matter came up last 
year. It seems to me it is a decided matter. It is not quite a 
principle of res judicata. If there is to be an objection--perhaps 
there was an objection. I don't recall last year. There were many 
objections raised to expenditures in the appropriations bill. But if 
there was an occasion to defeat it, that was the time, not on what is 
essentially a technical amendment to accommodate the Department of the 
Navy so they know precisely what they are doing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I view this as a technical amendment to 
last year's bill. Last year, we provided these funds for the maritime 
cargo terminal, primarily because it is going to present us now with 
one of the most high-speed, advance-design capabilities of handling 
military sealift requirements. This provision clarifies the intent of 
the funds provided in prior fiscal years and provides authority to the 
Navy to execute those funds as we intended. The Navy says it needs this 
amendment in order to do that. We tried to clarify this issue in the 
2004 bill but the Navy lawyers again said it wasn't sufficient. They 
want the greater authority to execute the funds in the way that is 
necessary for this port authority. Our language in the bill has been 
now reviewed by the Navy. The Navy now agrees with this language. If we 
finally enact this language, it will be sufficient to carry out our 
original intent.
  I see the Senator from Arizona is on the floor. It is my intention to 
make a motion to table this amendment but I would be pleased to yield 
to the Senator. I do not want to offer my motion in a manner that would 
reduce his right to speak on the amendment.
  Does the Senator wish time on this amendment?
  Mr. McCAIN. I do.
  Mr. STEVENS. I understand the Senator from Oklahoma has four 
amendments--three more?
  Mr. McCAIN. Two more.
  Mr. STEVENS. Two more. I think they are all to the Defense portion of 
the bill. Are they? Is this the only one to the Defense portion of the 
bill?
  Mr. COBURN. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I do not want to take any more of the 
body's time. I would point out this provision appeared in the 
conference report of the Omnibus appropriations bill, which meant I 
never had a chance to propose an amendment to strike that $40 million 
because it was in the conference report. It was never in the original 
omnibus which would have been--or Defense Appropriations Committee bill 
and considered on the floor of the Senate. So I had no opportunity.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania asked why we didn't object then. It is 
because I couldn't. I had an up-or-down vote on a bill that was 
``that'' high. We had, I believe, less than 24 hours to act on that, 
much less read it.
  If there is any objection to me or consternation about me objecting 
to it now, I didn't have the opportunity to object to it because $40 
million, along with tens of billions of dollars of pork, was stuffed in 
it last year in this egregious and outrageous process we have evolved 
into called the Omnibus appropriations bill, and this was stuck in it.
  I want to say again, it is not appropriate to designate ``by and for 
a Philadelphia-based company'' any money, any of our tax dollars. Our 
tax dollars should be competed for.
  With respect to the chairman of the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee, when he says ``the Navy agrees,'' of course the Navy 
agrees because it is there. But the Navy did not agree in a meeting the 
Senator from Pennsylvania and I had with the Secretary of the Navy, 
where they adamantly refused to agree to have this money spent because 
they have no fast ship even on the drawing boards, much less any that 
could be based in Philadelphia.
  We are going to pass this. I do not believe we can beat it. But now 
we are in the practice of designating a locality-based company to spend 
$40 million of American taxpayers' dollars. That is not right.
  I will bet there is expertise around the country--even if this were 
necessary--to be able to compete for this $40 million contract. But now 
we are designating it to the city of Philadelphia. I wonder if people 
out in the county might be able, or maybe someone in Pittsburgh might 
be able to compete for it. Probably not.
  This is a wrong way to legislate. In these times of burgeoning fiscal 
deficits, for us to designate money to be spent by a local-based 
company is just the wrong way to designate, and I think most Americans 
would agree.
  I do not intend to extend this debate any further. I yield the floor.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. I object.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask for a voice vote on the amendment, amendment No. 
450.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not in order to request a voice vote.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I would like to discuss amendment No. 471.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I will.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 450

  Mr. COBURN. I ask for the regular order on amendment No. 450.

[[Page S3974]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment is now the regular order.
  Mr. COBURN. I would like to ask for a voice vote on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 450) was rejected.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 471

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I want to visit amendment No. 471, which 
reduces funding in the supplemental for the Iraqi Embassy. According to 
the report language on this bill, $592 million is to be appropriated 
over the next 7 years for an embassy in Iraq. I do not have any 
objection. I think there ought to be tremendous hearings on the amount 
of money expended on that, but $592 million? Mr. President, $106 
million of that is all that will be expended over the next 2 years. So 
what is going to happen is we are going to have $486 million hanging 
out there that will be rescinded and spent on something else.
  First of all, we had a vote in this body, of which 61 Members of this 
body voting on the Byrd amendment this week agreed that the President 
ought to put everything that he sought for the war in Iraq and for its 
needs in the regular budget and the regular appropriations request he 
sends to the Congress.
  By far, 61 Members out of 100 of this body will agree with the 
principle that I am bringing forward. They voted for it. The idea with 
this amendment is to trim the appropriations from what is expected to 
be spent for the next 2 years. And it is even questionable whether that 
is an emergency.
  I also note that the House, in passing the supplemental bill, 
eliminated the ability of this money to be spent for an embassy. I will 
state that the purpose of the emergency wartime supplemental ought to 
be to fund operations and projects that are emergencies. Money that is 
going to be needed for this embassy and complex in 2007, 2008, 2009, 
2010, 2011, and 2012 can be appropriated at that time. It can be 
authorized before then, but it can be appropriated at the proper time.
  Again, quite simply, the emergency supplemental should only contain 
items we need right now in order to fight the war on terror.
  I will have trouble finding somebody who will actually debate on why 
we need to spend $586 million on an embassy complex, and we need to do 
it now rather than run it through the regular appropriations process.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a response to 
that statement?
  Mr. COBURN. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator suggested he does not know anyone who would 
debate the issue or support the funding that is contained in the bill. 
The Senator is totally incorrect about that. There is a difference of 
opinion as reflected in the House-passed bill and the bill as reported 
by the Senate Committee on Appropriations. We had hearings on this 
issue. We had testimony that was compelling from the Secretary of 
State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice. We had an appeal that was made personally 
to Senators on the committee by the Secretary, which were very 
compelling.
  To give some example of what the Secretary said, we have personnel, 
who are trying to live and stay alive in the Bagdad regions, who are 
representing the interests of the United States, who are trying to 
contribute toward a democracy being established under very difficult 
and dangerous circumstances. Many of them are located in temporary 
shelters, some are in tents, some are in other structures. We have 
people trying to carry on the work of our U.S. Embassy in a palace that 
was formerly occupied by Saddam Hussein that is not safe from mortar 
attacks or other military actions and terrorist activities. There is a 
perimeter that is very difficult to defend that we have all heard about 
and read about in the newspapers and seen on television. And to follow 
the suggestion of the Senator from Oklahoma to do nothing to try to 
establish quarters that are safe, that can be protected, that will 
permit our Ambassador to operate safely in a secure environment, we 
would be neglecting our obligations as representatives of the people of 
this great country.
  To say that they are on their own, to continue to try to manage the 
way they have been for the last year and a half, I think that would be 
an absolute abrogation of responsibility for this Senate.
  Our committee recommended that we approve the request submitted by 
the administration for these funds. I strongly support the 
appropriation. I will defend the action of this committee on this issue 
as long as the Senator wants to debate it.
  So to say there is no one who is willing to argue the point is 
absolutely without basis in fact.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I agree with everything the chairman said 
except he didn't talk about the issue I am raising. The issue I am 
raising is spending $400 million in the years 2007 through 2012 should 
go through the regular appropriations process. I want us to have an 
embassy over there. I want us to do the very things the chairman 
outlined.
  But, again, we are playing a game with the appropriations process. 
The administration is playing the same game by requesting it. We have 
$592 million, and only $106 million is going to be spent in the next 2 
years to accomplish what the honorable chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee said. Why not run the rest through the regular order? Why put 
this to the bottom line and not make us do what we need to do in time 
of parity in how it is spent?
  Again, I think this extra money, this $486 million, ought to go 
through the regular order. We are going to go out and borrow and ask 
our kids and our grandchildren to pay it back. When you ask them to pay 
it back, it is going to be at a rate of about seven or eight times what 
we borrow. We are not paying back money, we are paying interest, and 
then we are paying interest on the interest. That very well equates to 
us abandoning the vision that we want to give the future of this 
country; that is, opportunity and freedom, and we can't do that if we 
continue. All of this money in this bill goes straight to debt. None of 
it goes through the budget process. There is no limit. We are going to 
go out and borrow the money tomorrow. It is going straight to debt.

  I don't disagree with the chairman at all. I appreciate his working 
with me on this committee in terms of learning, of teaching a new 
Senator the ropes. He has been wonderfully kind to me. But the fact is, 
only $106 million is going to be expended over the next 24 months after 
this is put out, and the rest of it ought to go through the regular 
order. That is all I am asking. I am saying it should come through the 
regular appropriations process. That is all I am asking. I am not 
saying don't do it. I am saying do it in a way in which we are held 
accountable, and we are going to hold our children accountable. It 
isn't just about numbers. It is about the future of our country and 
whether we are going to change the process in Washington that truly 
recognizes that we have to start being responsible.
  The South Korean Government, about a month ago, made one little, 
small comment about changing their mix on foreign holdings. The dollar 
fell 1.8 percent that day. We will not be able to hold the value of the 
dollar in the international financial community unless we are seen as 
being competent and secure about solving our problems and not spending 
money we don't have. This is a good first place to start.
  There is nothing wrong with sending it through the appropriations 
process on the regular order. It makes it a little harder for the 
appropriations team; I understand that. They have already done what 
they have been asked by the administration to do. But we need to send a 
signal to the administration to quit asking for money in outyears on 
the appropriations process so we don't look as bad when we count the 
so-called deficit. Remember, this is going against the deficit. It 
won't go against the published numbers. It is outside the rules of the 
game because we call it all an emergency. Money spent on an embassy in 
Iraq in 2011 is not an emergency to anybody in this country I

[[Page S3975]]

know of. I think we would have trouble finding it.
  With that, I will cease discussion on that issue and discuss 
amendment No. 467.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield before he abandons 
this issue?
  Mr. COBURN. I would be happy to yield to the chairman.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I want to point out that the Department of State 
submitted to the committee a letter on April 18, 2005 in justification 
for proceeding with the funding for the embassy compound and pointed 
out the reasons it was important to approve the full funding now. It is 
not something we dreamed up or that we are doing to undermine the 
integrity of our fiscal soundness as a country. It is not irresponsible 
in any way whatsoever.
  Here is what the letter says in part:

       This funding request in the supplemental is more urgent as 
     a result of the highly successful Iraqi elections. Now that 
     it is clear that Iraq is on the road to full sovereignty, 
     building a permanent United States embassy has become 
     imperative. In order to complete compound construction within 
     24 months construction must start now.

  That is why it is an emergency in any sense of the word. That is why 
our committee was impressed with this argument. This argument wasn't 
made very well over on the House side of the Capitol. But it was in 
person by the Secretary in appeals to individual Members. I can recall 
being in my State and getting a telephone call from the Secretary of 
State on this subject to emphasize the importance of doing what we are 
recommending the Senate approve.
  Here is another sentence from this same letter signed by Nicholas 
Burns. I will have it printed in the Record so Senators will be able to 
read the letter in its entirety.

       We need the Committee-recommended level of funding to 
     ensure that we can adequately house and protect U.S. 
     Government staff for our mission in Baghdad. Less than the 
     full Committee-recommended funding level will delay moving 
     our people into more safe, secure, and functional facilities, 
     causing greater risks to U.S. Government personnel.

  That is good enough for me. I think it is good enough for the Senate, 
and I hope the Senate will reject this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter that I referred to 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          Department of State,

                                   Washington, DC, April 18, 2005.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate.
       Dear Mr. Chairman, As the Senate considers the President's 
     FY 2005 Supplemental request, I would like to draw attention 
     to the Committee recommendation of $592 million for funding 
     the New Embassy Compound (NEC) in Baghdad. We appreciate the 
     Senate Appropriations Committee including the funding for the 
     NEC and while each element of the President's request is 
     critical and deserves the full support of Congress, I 
     understand that amendments may be offered that would 
     drastically reduce the funding level recommended by the 
     Appropriations Committee to build the new Embassy.
       On behalf of the Secretary of State, I am writing to 
     support the full funding recommendation of the Senate 
     Appropriations Committee. We need the Committee-recommended 
     level of funding to ensure that we can adequately house and 
     protect U.S. Government staff for our mission in Baghdad. 
     Less than the full Committee-recommended funding level will 
     delay moving our people into more safe, secure, and 
     functional facilities, causing greater risks to U.S. 
     Government personnel. The completed NEC, as currently planned 
     and budgeted, will provide personnel from the Department of 
     State and the other civilian agencies with the best possible 
     security situation under the circumstances. We must begin 
     construction of this compound as soon as possible to improve 
     the safety and security of our U.S. Government employees. The 
     current offices and housing in the Palace complex are 
     operationally inadequate, as the facilities were never 
     designed as offices and are only marginally usable as an 
     Embassy. We need an appropriate, secure facility to carry out 
     the U.S. Government's business in Iraq. Furthermore, the 
     Palace complex has symbolic importance to the Iraqi people. 
     We have agreed to return the Palace and other properties to 
     them and returning the Palace will be a symbol of 
     normalization in our relations.
       This funding request in the supplemental is more urgent as 
     a result of the highly successful Iraqi elections. Now that 
     it is clear that Iraq is on the road to full sovereignty, 
     building a permanent United States embassy has become 
     imperative. In order to complete compound construction within 
     24 months construction must start now. The NEC buildings are 
     being planned with the maximum flexibility so that the 
     mission needs for U.S. Government agencies, including the 
     State Department, can be accommodated upon completion. We 
     have sized the NEC to meet interagency vetted diplomatic, 
     functional, and security requirements. Should we not receive 
     the full Committee recommended funding level in the Senate 
     passed supplemental, we would be unable to build an embassy 
     that meets those safety, security and space requirements. 
     Additionally, without full funding of the Committee 
     recommendation site maintenance costs would be extended and 
     the costs of construction could rise. In the meantime, the 
     high security and operating costs associated with the interim 
     embassy facilities would remain.
       We look forward to continuing to work with the Congress to 
     secure the funding required for this important project. Thank 
     you for your support of this Supplemental request.
           Sincerely,

                                            R. Nicholas Burns,

                                      Under Secretary of State for
                                                Political Affairs.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, again, great words. True. We need to do 
it. But that doesn't address the issue of why that money should not go 
through the regular process on the outyears. I understand the tough job 
the chairman has to do.


                      Amendment No. 467, withdrawn

  With that, I will move, if I may, to the next amendment, No. 467.
  Madam President, this is an amendment that ought not have to be 
brought forward. There is no question that there was, in fact, 
significant damage and flooding at the University of Hawaii. There was, 
in fact, significant loss of records and volumes at the University of 
Hawaii. There was, in fact, over $30 million in FEMA money that was 
sent to the University of Hawaii. There was, in fact, a $10 million 
matching contribution from the State of Hawaii for that matching grant. 
There is at least $25 million in insurance proceeds to go with the 
State assembly that was also trying to actively increase that amount, 
and public statements were made by the president of the University of 
Hawaii outlining the damage assessment, with this $10 million that is 
not truly an emergency anymore in this bill.
  This is not directed toward the Senator from Hawaii in any way. I 
wanted to talk about this, and then I am going to withdraw this 
amendment, if I have a unanimous consent to do it. But I want to use it 
as an example of what we shouldn't be doing.
  The fact is, they haven't even spent all the money that has been sent 
out there for the repair of this facility right now. On an emergency 
basis, we are going to appropriate $10 million more. If you total up 
everything, if you take what the University of Hawaii said and others 
have said about the total cost of the flood, $50 million, there is 
going to be $100 million that goes toward the University of Hawaii for 
a $50 million flood. That is bad enough. But this is not the way we 
ought to be doing this process.
  I am standing on the floor of the Senate today to offer amendments, 
not critical of any one individual but critical of the process because 
I believe if we don't have a functional, structural process change in 
how we appropriate taxpayer dollars in this country, we are going to 
undermine the standard of living for the next few generations. We very 
well could be the first generation of Americans to leave the next 
generation worse off.
  I believe things that are in an emergency bill ought to be truly 
emergencies. No. 1, they ought to have to be spent out in a short 
period of time, and with that comes the authorization for further 
spending so the appropriations committees can have the direction, so 
they don't have to spend it all and then rescind it.
  I believe we need to change things. We look around to our children. 
We see a future, we see hope, we see promise. But we see all of that in 
light of what we see today. We don't think down the road about what 
potentially can happen to our country--now $9 trillion in debt, with 
$600 billion worth of trade deficit every year with multiple poor 
countries in the world that export agricultural products holding large 
amounts of our dollars that are also dependent on our dollars staying 
at a certain value. We have to think long range about how we do this.

  I am challenging how we think, not to make a mark or to direct 
anything

[[Page S3976]]

toward any individual person. We have to change. I will stand on every 
appropriations bill to come in the future and I will personally read 
the appropriations report language to find out what is there, and use 
the privilege granted to me as a Member of this body to raise these 
issues until we change how we do it.
  It is my hope I don't have to do that. I don't want to have to do 
that. But it is very important we start down a new road. It is not a 
partisan issue. It does not have anything to do with Democrats or 
Republicans but it has to do with our children, the future of our 
country, the viability of defending ourselves.
  Every dollar we waste or do not spend appropriately is $1 we cannot 
use to defend ourselves or create the technology to compete in this 
global economy. We have to do what is right for future generations.
  I will withdraw this amendment, as well, but I want to put my fellow 
Members on notice that I will be bringing this up. It is time to 
change. I don't do that with any ill will. I don't do it saying I have 
all the knowledge. But what I do know is I want a future for our 
country and for the children. We cannot continue doing what we are 
doing in terms of spending. We cannot continue either the process or 
the procedure on how we are doing it.
  With that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment numbered 
467.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for withdrawing this 
amendment.
  If I may, for clarification, so the record can be clear, the United 
States historically has responded expeditiously to all disasters--
natural or domestic, manmade--when American communities seek 
assistance. For example, we provided $2 billion for the Midwest floods 
in 1993. We provided $56 million to Oklahoma City for the Murrah 
Federal Building disaster--not for the building itself but for other 
projects, community development, street alignments, and such. We also 
provided over $3 billion for Midwest floods in 1997, and for all of the 
hurricanes.
  This flood in Moanalua Valley on the island of Oahu in Hawaii was one 
of those extraordinary disasters that occurs about once every 100 
years. It went down the valley and literally wiped out parts of the 
University of Hawaii. I point out that the university library has not 
received any FEMA funds. These funds are beyond what the State has put 
in for construction and reconstruction and rebuilding. This is for 
cleanup. This is for restoration of books so our students can continue 
studying. We are not asking for anything more than what other 
communities have been receiving.
  I am most grateful to the Senator from Oklahoma for withdrawing his 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                           Amendment No. 443

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I have an amendment pending numbered 443 
and I would like to speak to it. I will not call it for a vote because 
there may be need for debate in the Senate.
  This is an amendment I am cosponsoring with Senator Levin and Senator 
Feinstein. The amendment requires that none of the funds appropriated 
by this supplemental appropriations bill be expended to subject anyone 
in the custody or control of the United States to torture or cruel, 
inhuman, or degrading treatment.
  I know the managers of the bill are trying to dispense with 
amendments. I understand this amendment has been cleared by the 
managers. However, one Senator or another on the other side of aisle 
has objected, so a rollcall vote might be necessary.
  I ask my colleagues to consider for a moment what could possibly be 
the basis for a Senator objecting to an amendment which says we won't 
spend any American taxpayer funds to torture prisoners. We have signed 
all the treaties. We have passed the laws. This is the law of the land.
  This amendment says, let's remind people again that what happened at 
Abu Ghraib is not American policy. The abuses at Guantanamo Bay are not 
American policy. It is aberrant conduct. It is the kind of conduct 
which we do not condone.
  We should state clearly in this appropriations bill that all the 
money being appropriated--$80 billion plus--is not to be used for the 
purposes of torture.
  This should be an easy amendment. In fact, it has passed twice in the 
Senate by unanimous consent. But now a Senator on the other side of the 
aisle has problems with it. I don't understand. It simply affirms our 
Nation's very important, longstanding obligation not to engage in 
torture or other cruel treatment. That standard is in the U.S. 
Constitution and in many treaties ratified by the United States.
  I wrote this amendment very carefully. I am not putting in any new 
language, new ideas. I am restating existing law that governs the 
conduct of Americans. It is limited to the torture or cruel and inhuman 
or degrading treatment ``that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws 
or treaties of the United States.'' In other words, it prohibits 
conduct already prohibited under U.S. law. It simply restates it. It is 
important we do restate it.
  I am afraid one of the terrible legacies of the invasion of Iraq is 
going to be this whole question of how we treated prisoners. We should 
not mince words. We are opposed to torture and cruel, inhuman, or 
degrading treatment. We have voted that way before. The American people 
support that. We should say so in this supplemental appropriations 
bill.
  This amendment specifically provides:

       Nothing in this section shall affect the status of any 
     person under the Geneva Conventions or whether a person is 
     entitled to protections of Geneva Conventions.

  So the amendment does not extend the protections of the Geneva 
Conventions to anyone who does not already have those protections.
  It is important to note this amendment is virtually identical to an 
amendment I offered to last year's Defense authorization bill and an 
amendment Senators McCain and Lieberman offered to the intelligence 
reform bill. Both of them were adopted by the Senate by unanimous voice 
votes. In fact, this amendment is actually more limited than those 
because it applies only to funds appropriated and does not contain any 
reporting requirements.
  Last year, when he accepted my amendment to the Defense authorization 
bill, Senator Warner, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, 
said in the Senate:

       The unambiguous policy of this and preceding 
     administrations is to comply with and enforce this Nation's 
     obligations under international law. These obligations are 
     embedded in American domestic law.

  Senator Warner continues:

       So I think it is very important we do the codification, as 
     the Senator [from Illinois] recommends.

  Unfortunately, in conference, the Defense authorization amendment was 
revised to a nonbinding sense-of-the-Senate amendment. The intelligence 
reform amendment was eliminated in conference. That is why I am 
offering this amendment today.
  It is important. Many around the world, especially in the Muslim 
world, are watching us, watching the United States, and they want to 
know whether we will stand by our treaty obligations in this age of 
terrorism. With American troops in harm's way, Congress must send a 
clear signal that we are committed to treating all detainees humanely.
  The prohibition on torture and other cruel treatment is deeply rooted 
in American history. The Framers of the Constitution made clear they 
intended the Bill of Rights to prohibit torture and other forms of 
cruel punishment. It was un-American then; it is un-American now.
  These principles guided us during times of war. In the Civil War, 
President Abraham Lincoln asked Francis Lieber, a military law expert, 
to create a set of rules to govern the conduct of U.S. soldiers in the 
field. The result, the so-called Lieber Code, prohibited torture and 
other cruel treatment of captured enemy forces. This was the foundation 
for the modern law of war, which is embodied in the Geneva Conventions.
  After World War II, we discovered what had happened in Nazi Germany. 
Horrified by those abuses, the United

[[Page S3977]]

States and its allies created a new international legal order based on 
respect for human rights. One of the fundamental tenets of this new 
order was a universal prohibition on torture and cruel, inhuman, and 
degrading treatment. The United States took the lead in this effort, 
establishing a number of treaties that banned the use of torture and 
other cruel treatment against all persons at all times. There are no 
exceptions to this prohibition.

  The United States, along with a majority of countries in the world, 
is a party to the Geneva Conventions, the International Covenant on 
Civil and Political Rights, and the Torture Convention, all of which 
prohibit torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, the exact 
words in my amendment.
  Aside from our legal obligations, there are also important practical 
reasons for standing by this commitment.
  Torture is ineffective. It is an interrogation tactic that produces 
unreliable information. People who are being tortured will say almost 
anything to stop the pain.
  Resorting to torture will make it harder for us to defeat terror. In 
the words of the independent 9/11 Commission:

       Allegations that the United States abused prisoners in its 
     custody make it harder to build the diplomatic, political, 
     and military alliances the government will need [to win the 
     war on terrorism.]

  The 9/11 Commission was right.
  Most importantly, engaging in torture or cruel treatment places our 
brave service men and women at risk. The U.S. Army knows this. The Army 
Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation says the following:

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

  Retired RADM John Hutson served our country 28 years. For the last 3 
years he was the Judge Advocate General, the top lawyer in the Navy. 
Last week he sent me a letter in support of this amendment. He wrote as 
follows:

       Clarion opposition to torture and other abuse by the U.S. 
     will help protect U.S. troops who are in harm's way.

  Former Congressman Pete Peterson, a personal friend of mine, a man I 
served with in the House of Representatives, was a prisoner of war in 
Vietnam for 6\1/2\ years. He came to see me recently. He is doing 
great. He was our former Ambassador to Vietnam under President Clinton. 
In a letter of support for this amendment he said:

       Congress must affirm that America stands by its moral and 
     legal obligation to treat all prisoners, regardless of 
     status, as we would want the enemy to treat our own. Our 
     courageous service men and women deserve nothing less.

  As the great American patriot Thomas Paine said:

       He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even 
     his enemy from oppression.

  This year, Congress should affirm that the United States will not 
engage in torture and other cruel treatment.
  I thank the chairman for his leadership on the bill. We are reaching 
a point where there are only four or five identified germane amendments 
and this is one of them. I would like to call this amendment for a 
vote. I know there are some on your side who may want to speak to the 
amendment so I will not try to do it at this time, but I would hope any 
staffers or those listening to the debate who know of opposition to 
this amendment would contact the chairman and let him know when they 
are coming to the floor. I will join them and in short order summarize 
what I have said, answer their comments, and ask for a vote. I know the 
chairman is anxious to get this bill completed to send to the 
President.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am happy to assure the Senator we will 
have an opportunity to vote on any amendments that require votes. There 
are some Senators who are off the premises right now and I ask they be 
given some notice so they can get back. We will confer with the leader 
and I will consult with the Senator from Illinois. I thank the Senator 
for his assurances.


                              REAL ID Act

  Madam President, I rise in opposition to the REAL ID Act. The REAL ID 
Act is a measure the House Republicans attached to the supplemental 
appropriations bill. It has little or nothing to do with appropriations 
for tsunami victims, or appropriations for our men and women in 
uniform. It is a separate immigration matter, and a very controversial 
one.
  They chose this bill because they know we need this bill. It needs to 
be signed by the President. So they are hoping to push through this 
change in immigration law on a bill that is a must-pass bill. We have 
had no hearings, no debate, no votes in the Senate on this so-called 
REAL ID Act.
  The Senate Republican leadership has stated it is opposed to 
including this act in the appropriations bill. I hope they mean it. The 
test will come when this bill returns from the conference committee.
  I want to take a couple minutes to explain why the REAL ID Act is 
something we should debate. The proponents of this act claim it is 
simple, that all it wants to do is prevent illegal immigrants from 
obtaining driver's licenses.
  Several States across America have decided, in their State 
legislatures, to allow the issuance of State driver's licenses to 
people who are not documented. You know the argument: Those people are 
going to drive anyway. It is better they are licensed, that they 
clearly have demonstrated they can drive a truck or a car, and they 
have insurance.
  Now, we can get into that debate, and it would be an interesting one, 
as to whether those States have made the right decision. This bill says 
all the States that have decided to issue the driver's licenses are 
wrong. So it would prohibit those who are undocumented from receiving 
driver's licenses.
  If that were the only issue, it is one we could debate for a little 
while and decide whether we ought to preempt all of these State 
legislatures. But this bill does so much more. The REAL ID Act would 
mean real big problems for the States and a lot of people. It imposes 
very difficult standards for driver's licenses on the States.
  When we passed the intelligence reform bill, we carefully crafted 
language--bipartisan language--to establish standards for States 
issuing driver's licenses. We did not tell the States who could receive 
a driver's license. That has always been a State decision. But we 
required that the Federal Government work cooperatively with the States 
to create minimum Federal standards for driver's licenses. Standards 
will be established for, among other things, documents presented as 
proof of identity, fraud prevention, and security features included in 
driver's licenses.
  The REAL ID bill goes far beyond this intelligence reform provision. 
Its impact will be felt by every American when they go in for a 
driver's license. It requires that the State DMV verify every document, 
including birth certificates, presented by every applicant, including 
American citizens. This means significant expense and long processing 
delays.
  If a State, incidentally, fails to comply with the REAL ID provisions 
included in the House bill, no resident of that State--listen to this 
carefully--no resident of that State will be able to use their driver's 
license for Federal purposes. So what would that mean? The most common 
form of identification in an airport is a driver's license. If you have 
been on an airplane, you know it. People bring out their driver's 
license.
  This provision coming over from the Republican House says if your 
State does not comply with this law, if you are a resident of that 
State, you cannot use your driver's license to get on an airplane. What 
will you use? If you have a passport, I guess you could use it, but 
many people do not have a passport. So it goes way beyond what it needs 
to do to make certain we have secure driver's licenses.
  As I mentioned earlier, we have already addressed the issue of 
driver's license security in the intelligence reform bill. The Federal 
Government is already meeting with State governments to negotiate new 
minimum Federal standards for driver's licenses. The REAL ID Act would 
stop this process dead in its tracks by repealing the

[[Page S3978]]

driver's license provision in the intelligence reform bill.
  Incidentally, the REAL ID Act is opposed strongly by the States. 
Every Senator has received a letter opposing the REAL ID Act from the 
National Governors Association, the National Conference of State 
Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, and the American 
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. They have said clearly, 
this REAL ID Act will ``impose technological standards and verification 
procedures, many of which are beyond the current capacity of even the 
Federal Government.''
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                   March 17, 2005.
     Hon. William H. Frist,
     Majority Leader,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Minority Leader,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Frist and Senator Reid: We write to express 
     our opposition to Title II of H.R. 418, the ``Improved 
     Security For Driver's Licenses and Personal Identification 
     Cards'' provision, which has been attached to H.R. 1268, the 
     fiscal year 2005 supplemental spending measure. While 
     Governors, state legislatures, other state elected officials 
     and motor vehicle administrators share your concern for 
     increasing the security and integrity of the driver's license 
     and state identification processes, we firmly believe that 
     the driver's license and ID card provisions of the 
     Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 
     offer the best course for meeting those goals.
       The ``Driver's Licenses and Personal Identification Cards'' 
     provision in the Intelligence Reform Act of 1004 provides a 
     workable framework for developing meaningful standards to 
     increase reliability and security of driver's licenses and ID 
     cards. This framework calls for input from state elected 
     officials and motor vehicle administrators in the regulatory 
     process, protects state eligibility criteria, and retains the 
     flexibility necessary to incorporate best practices from 
     around the states. We have begun to work with the U.S. 
     Department of Transportation to develop the minimum 
     standards, which must be completed in 18 months pursuant to 
     the Intelligence Reform Act.
       We commend the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives 
     for their commitment to driver's license integrity; however, 
     H.R. 418 would impose technological standards and 
     verification procedures on states, many of which are beyond 
     the current capacity of even the federal government. 
     Moreover, the cost of implementing such standards and 
     verification procedures for the 220 million driver's licenses 
     issued by states represents a massive unfunded federal 
     mandate.
       Our states have made great strides since the September 11, 
     2001 terrorists attacks to enhance the security processes and 
     requirements for receiving a valid driver's license and ID 
     card. The framework in the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 
     will allow us to work cooperatively with the federal 
     government to develop and implement achievable standards to 
     prevent document fraud and other illegal activity related to 
     the issuance of driver's licenses and ID cards.
       We urge you to allow the provisions in the Intelligence 
     Reform Act of 2004 to work. Governors, state legislators, 
     other state elected officials and motor vehicle 
     administrators are committed to this process because it will 
     allow us to develop mutually agreed-upon standards that can 
     truly help create a more secure America.
           Sincerely,
     Raymond C. Scheppach,
       Executive Director, National Governors Association.
     Linda R. Lewis,
       President and CEO, American Association of Motor Vehicle 
     Administrators.
     William T. Pound,
       Executive Director, National Conference of State 
     Legislatures.
     Dan Sprague,
       Executive Director, Council of State Governments.
  Mr. DURBIN. COL Margaret Stock, who is a law professor at West Point, 
points out that military personnel around the world will be 
dramatically impacted if their State driver's licenses are not accepted 
by the Federal Government. It is not simply a matter of getting on an 
airplane. For our men and women overseas it can be much worse. She 
wrote:

       This law threatens to disrupt thousands of routine yet 
     official acts that occur daily on every military post in the 
     world. . . .The proposed law threatens vital functions of the 
     Department of Defense, and promises unforeseen headaches for 
     military personnel and their family members.

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             The ``REAL ID'' Act--A Real Nightmare for DoD

                    (By LTC Margaret D. Stock, USAR)

       If you watched or heard the congressional debate over H.R. 
     418, the ``REAL ID Act of 2005,'' you might have thought this 
     proposed law--which passed the House of Representatives 
     Friday, February 11, 2005, by a vote of 261-161--was all 
     about stopping terrorists from getting on airplanes. But you 
     would be wrong. This bill--which sets new rules for state 
     motor vehicle departments (DMVs)--promises to be more of a 
     nightmare for DoD than a deterrent to any terrorists.
       Consider this language, which is found in the section 
     creating federal standards for state driver's licenses and 
     identification cards:
       ``Beginning 3 years after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, a Federal agency may not accept, for any official 
     purpose, a driver's license or identification card issued by 
     a State to any person unless the State is meeting the 
     requirements of this section.''
       No state currently meets the requirements of the proposed 
     law, and it's unlikely that many will be able to comply 
     within three years. the ``REAL ID'' Act would require, among 
     other things, that each state create an expensive new 
     computer system for issuing state driver's licenses and 
     identification cards; obtain security clearances for its DMV 
     employees; verify with the issuing agency the validity of 
     each document offered by an applicant in support of a 
     driver's license application; put digital photos on all 
     licenses; print the principal residence of the applicant on 
     the face of the license; ensure that all prior licenses have 
     been terminated before issuing a new one; verify the 
     immigration status of all applicants; and color-code licenses 
     to show that the state has complied with the law. While all 
     these goals may be laudable, achieving them any time soon is 
     almost impossible, particularly within three year. And yet 
     any license issued in violation of this law cannot be used 
     ``for any official'' federal purpose unless a special waiver 
     is granted by the secretary of homeland security.
       Here are some ``official'' federal purposes for which state 
     driver's licenses and identification cards are commonly used 
     by military members, their families, and their friends:
       Enlisting in the military; obtaining an initial military 
     identification card; Obtaining a U.S. passport; voting in a 
     federal election; registering a vehicle on a military 
     installation; entering a military installation; driving on a 
     military installation; entering a federal building; writing a 
     check to a federal agency; obtaining federal firearms 
     licenses; boarding an airplane; boarding an Amtrak train; or 
     obtaining federal hunting or fishing licenses.
       If this law passes, military members and their families 
     won't be able to do any of these things with their state 
     driver's licenses and ID cards--unless they are lucky enough 
     to be residents of a state that manages to meet the three-
     year deadline for compliance.
       Military personnel will be harmed by this law in other ways 
     as well: Deployments often prevent soldiers from renewing 
     their licenses in a timely manner, and many states give them 
     ``automatic extensions.'' These extensions would be barred. 
     Many states currently issue licenses to military members that 
     are ``valid without photo.'' This practice will not be barred 
     by federal law. The REAL ID Act on its face also bars 
     military police and other federal law enforcement officials 
     from using state driver's licenses and ID cards to identify 
     criminal suspects.
       At a time when federal and state budgets are under 
     tremendous pressure, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 
     estimates the cost of complying with ``REAL ID'' to be in 
     excess of $120 million--$20 million more than the cost of 
     complying with the legislation enacted last year in Public 
     Law 108-458, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention 
     Act of 2004. This CBO estimate, however, is probably a vast 
     underestimate of the true cost of the proposed law. Worse, 
     Congress has not agreed to pay for the required upgrades to 
     state DMV systems, making ``REAL ID'' yet another ``massive 
     unfunded mandate,'' according to both the National 
     Governor's Association and the American Association of 
     Motor Vehicle Administrators. If the federal government 
     isn't going to pay to implement this law, most states 
     won't be able to pay for it without raising taxes--and all 
     of their residents will be punished accordingly.
       Indirectly, however, DoD will suffer--because this law 
     threatens to disrupt thousands of routine yet official acts 
     that occur daily on every military post in the world. Those 
     who already have military ID cards or who carry a passport 
     around at all times can avoid some of the problems with this 
     law--but a US passport or military ID doesn't give a person 
     the right to drive on a military base. Also, anyone without a 
     passport or other Federal ID prior to the effective date of 
     the law will have difficulty obtaining one unless she can 
     produce some other valid government-issued picture 
     identification, such as a foreign passport. Strangely, this 
     law will make it easier for foreigners or naturalized 
     citizens to travel than native-born Americans: The law allows 
     the use of a foreign passport, but bars the use of American

[[Page S3979]]

     state-issued licenses and identification cards.
       REAL ID's sponsors claim the law will stop terrorists from 
     getting on airplanes. The flaw in this logic is that the 9/11 
     terrorists did not need state driver's licenses to board the 
     airplanes they hijacked--they could have used their foreign 
     passports, and at least one of them did. Is meeting a false 
     ``security gap'' a reason to spend millions forcing the 
     states to conform to the ``REAL ID'' requirements?
       REAL ID's sponsors are seeking support in the Senate. Their 
     bill, however, goes far beyond the common-sense driver's 
     license provisions enacted last year in Public Law 108- 458, 
     the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. 
     The ``REAL ID'' Act almost completely preempts state 
     regulation of driver's licenses and effectively creates a 
     national ID card by federal fiat. The proposed law threatens 
     vital functions of the Department of Defense, and promises 
     unforeseen headaches for military personnel and their family 
     members. The reforms enacted late last year by Congress were 
     sensible and worthy, but the ``REAL ID'' Act is a recipe for 
     chaos.
  Mr. DURBIN. Separate and apart from the driver's license issue, the 
REAL ID Act goes into other equally important and controversial issues. 
It would dramatically raise the standards for receiving asylum. This 
provision is supposedly aimed at terrorists but applies to all asylum 
applicants. Current law already prohibits--already prohibits--suspected 
terrorists from obtaining asylum. That is not an issue.
  In Illinois, there is a wonderful social-services agency called 
Heartland Alliance. One of the things they do is provide assistance to 
refugees who have come to Illinois from all over the world. Heartland 
Alliance is not a political organization. They are down in the trenches 
doing important work for people in need. So when I received a letter 
from them telling me the REAL ID Act would hurt the people they serve, 
I paid attention.
  Let me tell you what they said:

       REAL ID threatens to eliminate relief for immigrants most 
     in need of protection--those fleeing persecution in their 
     home countries. REAL ID is inconsistent with our commitment 
     to international agreements relating to refugees, and it 
     violates some of the rights that we, as a nation of 
     immigrants and a global leader of human rights, cherish.

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           Heartland Alliance,

                                      Chicago, IL, March 25, 2005.
       Dear Senator Durbin: At the opening of the 109th Congress, 
     national security and immigration reform concern Americans as 
     never before. In response to these concerns, the House of 
     Representatives introduced legislation that, if passed into 
     law, would undermine the asylum provisions of immigration law 
     while doing nothing to effectively advance national security 
     REAL ID (HR 418) will not provide the immigration reform 
     needed or advance national security, but it will force us to 
     turn our backs on asylum seekers.
       REAL ID is not Congress' first attempt to dismantle the 
     asylum system in an effort to further national security. 
     These ill-conceived changes to asylum law were proposed as 
     part of the intelligence reform bill last year, but Congress 
     (following the lead of the 9/11 Commission which found no 
     fault with the current asylum system) wisely excluded these 
     changes from the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. 
     Despite the findings of the 9/11 Commission, REAL ID 
     threatens to eliminate relief for immigrants most in need of 
     protection--those fleeing persecution in their home 
     countries. REAL ID is inconsistent with our commitments to 
     international agreements relating to refugees, and it 
     violates some of the rights that we, a nation of immigrants 
     and a global leader of human rights, cherish.
       REAL ID Eviscerates Due Process Protections In the Asylum 
     Adjudication Process:
       Judicial oversight guarantees a full and fair process in 
     proceedings that can literally mean life or death to asylum 
     applicants. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized 
     that ``caseload pressures and . . . resource constraints'' 
     can cause errors in Immigration Courts; the growing dockets 
     make these errors more inevitable. However, because all 
     immigrants are ``entitled to a national analysis of the 
     evidence,'' judicial review must exist to maintain this 
     standard.
       REAL ID would suspend habeas corpus review for many 
     immigrants, denying them one of the most cherished 
     protections from government abuse. This provision would 
     prevent parole for immigrants challenging unwarranted 
     detention or deprivation of fundamental freedoms.
       REAL ID eliminates stays of removal pending judicial 
     review. Stays of removal exist to allow asylum seekers to 
     remain in the United States while petitioning for relief. The 
     7th Circuit has explained that this right is especially 
     ``vital when the alien seeks asylum or contends that he would 
     be subject to torture if returned,'' but by deporting asylum 
     seekers, REAL ID would make it impossible for these asylum 
     seekers to see their case to its judicial end.
       REAL ID Will Result in the Denial of Asylum to Those Who 
     Are Persecuted:
       REAL ID raises the burden of proof for asylum applicants by 
     requiring them to prove that the central reason for their 
     persecution is one of the five protected grounds. Applicants 
     can rarely prove the unspoken intent of their persecutors. 
     Moreover, persecution rarely happens for one specific reason. 
     The current law recognizes this limitation and grants asylum 
     to many individuals who have suffered persecution for complex 
     or multiple reasons. Women fleeing female genital 
     mutilation, domestic violence, and honor killings, and 
     victims from political contexts where economic or sexual 
     violence such as extortion, kidnapping for ransom, and 
     rape are political tools can find safe haven in the United 
     States. REAL ID would eliminate asylum for these and other 
     deserving individuals.
       Under current law and longstanding international authority, 
     individuals may be granted asylum based solely on their 
     credible testimony explaining their well-founded fear of 
     persecution. The law relects the reality that refugees cannot 
     obtain documents from their persecutors. REAL ID would give 
     Immigration Judges wide discretion to deny relief from 
     removal simply because the immigrant lacks corroborating 
     evidence, even when the applicant's testimony is found to be 
     credible. For example, under this provision, a refugee may be 
     denied protection if his country lacks sufficient 
     infrastructure to issue official documentation.
       Because credibility determinations are notoriously 
     subjective, judges must substantiate their findings in 
     reasoned judgments, and they may not make negative 
     credibility findings based on minor inconsistencies in 
     testimony. REAL ID eliminates these safeguards. It would 
     allow judges to determine credibility based on any alleged 
     inconsistency with any prior statements, even if that 
     inconsistency is immaterial to the person's claim. Judges 
     could also use an applicant's demeanor, perceived candor, or 
     responsiveness as a basis for a credibility finding.
       REAL ID will damage asylum seekers' right to protection 
     while doing nothing to enhance our national security. The 
     current U.S. asylum system screens all applicants using 
     thorough background checks and allows the U.S. State 
     Department to comment on all applications. Under the existing 
     system, asylum is granted only to those who establish that 
     they are refugees and who have no ties to criminal or 
     terrorist organizations. If REAL ID is passed in its current 
     form, many deserving applicants will be denied refuge in this 
     country.
       If Congress truly wishes to address the link between 
     immigration and national security, it must turn its full 
     attention to the problem. Because of their piecemeal nature, 
     the asylum provisions of REAL ID are ineffective. 
     Furthermore, attempts to tack on these provisions as 
     amendments to appropriations bills reflect an unwillingness 
     to recognize the need for immigration reform. We need a 
     better system for tracking arriving and departing non-
     citizens; we need to improve security screening while 
     reducing backlogs that keep families separated for years and 
     U.S. employers short of labor. We do not, however, need to 
     throw out an effective system and replace it with harmful 
     provisions in REAL ID.
       As a representative of the people of Illinois and a Senate 
     leader, we appeal to you to vigorously oppose REAL ID and to 
     encourage your colleagues to do the same. We hope you will 
     work as our ally to ensure that the bill docs not pass. 
     Moreover, we hope to continue working with you to ensure 
     comprehensive reform that improves our immigration system, 
     strengthens our national security, and reflects the will of 
     the general public and our common values; REAL ID docs none 
     of these. We would welcome an opportunity to talk to you 
     further about the REAL ID and will contact your office within 
     the next few days to arrange a meeting with you or your 
     staff. In the meantime, if you have any questions or 
     comments, please contact Mary Meg McCarthy, Director of 
     Heartland Alliance's Midwest Immigrant & Human Rights Center 
     at (312) 660-1351 or
     [email protected].
           Sincerely,
         Natalie Spears, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, Co-
           Chair MIHRC Leadership Counsel; Mary Meg McCarthy, 
           Director, Midwest Immigrant & Human Rights Center; 
           William B. Schiller, Davidson & Schiller, LLC Co-Chair 
           MIHRC Leadership Counsel; Brain Neuffer, Winston & 
           Strawn LLP; Lee Ann Russo, Jones Day; David Austin, 
           Jenner & Block LLP; Bart Brown, Chicago-Kent College of 
           Law; Linus Chan, Butler Rubin Saltarelli & Boyd LLP; 
           Sid Mohn, President, Heartland Alliance; Carlina Tapia-
           Ruano, Minsky, McCormick & Hallagan, PC, American 
           Immigration Lawyers Association, First Vice President; 
           Nicole Nehama Auerbach, Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman;
         Terrance Norton, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLC; 
           Amalia Rioja; David Berten, Competition Law Group LLC; 
           Craig Mousin, DePaul University College of Law; James 
           Morsch, Butler Rubin Saltarelli & Boyd LLP; Martin 
           Castro, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP; Terry Yale 
           Fiertag, Mandel Lipton & Stevenson Ltd.; Hugo

[[Page S3980]]

           Dubovoy, Baker & McKenzie LLP; Joseph A. Antolin, 
           Executive Director, Heartland Human Care Services; 
           Elissa Steglich, Asylum Project Managing Attorney, 
           Midwest Immigrant & Human Rights Center; Maria Woltjen, 
           Unaccompanied Children's Advocate Project, Midwest 
           Immigrant & Human Rights Center; Jennifer K. Fardy, 
           Seyfarth Shaw LLP; Marketa Lindt.

  Mr. DURBIN. I agree with Heartland Alliance. Our country has always 
stood with, not against, refugees. I have heard Members of Congress, 
Democrats and Republicans, Senators and Congressmen, step forward and 
talk about religious persecution in other countries. I have heard 
people on both sides of the aisle lamenting some of these human rights 
abuses in other countries where people who are simply expressing their 
points of view are imprisoned.
  We have said, and I believe, that the United States is in favor of 
freedom around the world. So the victims of oppression, the victims of 
tyranny, the victims of dictatorships, when they escape, come to the 
shores of the United States and ask us if we will give them refuge 
until their country changes. And we have done it. It is one thing to 
say you stand for freedom of religion and freedom of speech and freedom 
of the press; it is another to prove it by accepting these refugees.
  This bill, the so-called REAL ID Act, will make it much more 
difficult for those refugees to come to our shores. If this becomes 
law, it will become very difficult for individuals fleeing persecution 
and torture to receive asylum in the United States. If we shut the door 
to the most vulnerable, how can we continue to preach to the rest of 
the world about our commitment to democracy?
  Remember President Reagan's vision of our Nation. He called it ``a 
shining city on a hill.'' Here is what he said:

       If there have to be city walls, the walls have doors and 
     the doors are open to anyone with the will and heart to get 
     here. . . . The city is a beacon . . . a magnet for all who 
     must have freedom, for all pilgrims from all the lost places 
     who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.

  Like me, President Reagan was the son of an immigrant. We had very 
different political philosophies, but President Reagan understood that 
our great country has always been a sanctuary for those fleeing 
persecution and oppression.
  Even the conservative Wall Street Journal is opposed to the REAL ID 
Act. In an editorial they called the driver's license provisions 
``costly and intrusive.'' They said:

       It's not hard to imagine these de facto national ID cards--

  Which they believe this bill would create--

     turning into the kind of domestic passport that U.S. citizens 
     would be asked to produce for everyday commercial and 
     financial tasks.

  They also called the asylum provisions ``dubious.'' That is the Wall 
Street Journal. Listen to what they said:

       The last thing a terrorist would want to do is apply for 
     asylum. Not only would he be bringing himself to the 
     attention of the U.S. government--the first step is being 
     fingerprinted--but the screening process for applicants is 
     more rigorous than for just about anyone else trying to enter 
     the country. . . . Raising the barrier for asylum seekers at 
     this point would only increase the likelihood of turning away 
     the truly persecuted.

  That is the Wall Street Journal, not known as a bleeding-heart 
publication. They think the REAL ID Act makes no sense in fighting 
terrorism.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have the editorial 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 17, 2005]

                           National ID Party

       Republicans swept to power in Congress 10 years ago 
     championing State prerogatives, and one of their first acts 
     was to repeal Federal speed-limit requirements. Another was 
     aimed at ending unfunded State mandates. So last week's House 
     vote to require costly and intrusive Federal standards for 
     State drivers' licenses is a measure of how far the party has 
     strayed from these federalist principles.
       More important, it reveals a mindset among some that more 
     enforcement alone will bring better border security and 
     reduce illegal immigration. The bill that passed the House 
     last week and now goes to the Senate is known as the Real ID 
     Act, and the driver's license requirements may not even be 
     the worst part of the legislation. Also included are 
     unnecessary provisions that would make it much more difficult 
     for foreigners to seek asylum in the U.S.
       House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, who authored 
     the bill, insists that his goal is to reduce the terrorist 
     threat, not immigration. But it just so happens that the 
     bill's provisions have long occupied the wish list of anti-
     immigration lawmakers and activists. Mr. Sensenbrenner 
     produced a photo of Mohammed Atta during the floor debate 
     last week, arguing that the 9/11 hijackers' ability to obtain 
     drivers' licenses and use them to board airplanes represents 
     a security loophole.
       His solution is to force States to issue federally approved 
     drivers' licenses with digital photographs and ``machine-
     readable technology.'' In theory, states can opt out, but if 
     they do their drivers' licenses will no longer be accepted as 
     identification to board planes, purchase guns, enter Federal 
     buildings and so forth. It's not hard to imagine these de 
     facto national ID cards turning into a kind of domestic 
     passport that U.S. citizens would be asked to produce for 
     everyday commercial and financial tasks.
       Aside from the privacy implications of this show-us-your-
     papers Sensenbrenner approach, and the fact that governors, 
     State legislatures and motor vehicle departments have 
     denounced the bill as expensive and burdensome, there's 
     another reality: Even if the Real ID Act had been in place 
     prior to 9/11, it's unlikely that the license provisions 
     would have prevented the attacks.
       That's because all of the hijackers entered the U.S. 
     legally, which means they qualified for drivers' licenses. 
     The Real ID Act wouldn't change that. Moreover, you don't 
     need a driver's license to fly. Other forms of 
     identification--such as a passport--are acceptable and also 
     were available to the hijackers. Nothing in the Sensenbrenner 
     bill would change that, either.
       The biggest impact will be on undocumented workers in the 
     U.S., which is why the immigration restrictionists are 
     pushing for the legislation. But denying drivers' licenses to 
     illegal aliens won't result in fewer immigrants. It will 
     result in more immigrants driving illegally and without 
     insurance.
       Mr. Sensenbrenner's claims that tougher asylum provisions 
     will make us safer are also dubious. The last thing a 
     terrorist would want to do is apply for asylum. Not only 
     would he be bringing himself to the attention of the U.S. 
     government--the first step is being fingerprinted--but the 
     screening process for applicants is more rigorous than for 
     just about anyone else trying to enter the country. In the 
     past decade, perhaps a half-dozen individuals with some kind 
     of terrorists ties have applied for asylum. All were 
     rejected.
       The Real ID Act would raise the bar substantially for 
     granting asylum to people fleeing persecution. But this is a 
     solution in search of a problem. A decade ago the U.S. asylum 
     laws were in fact being abused by foreigners with weak claims 
     who knew they would receive work permits while their cases 
     were pending.
       But in 1994, the Clinton Administration issued regulations 
     to curb this abuse. The law now says that asylum seekers 
     cannot receive work permits until they have won their case. 
     Applications per year subsequently have fallen to about 
     30,000 today from 140,000 in the early 1990s. This was the 
     biggest abuse of the system, and it's been fixed. Raising the 
     barrier for asylum seekers at this point would only increase 
     the likelihood of turning away the truly persecuted.
       But the bigger problem with Mr. Sensenbrenner's bill is 
     that is takes our eye off the ball. Homeland security is 
     about taking useful steps to prevent another attack. It's not 
     about keeping gainfully employed Mexican illegals from 
     driving to work, or cracking down on the imagined hordes 
     gaming our asylum system.
       President Bush realizes this and is pushing for a guest-
     worker program that would help separate people in search of 
     employment from potential terrorists. If the Republican 
     Congress doesn't realize that, perhaps a Presidential veto of 
     the Real ID Act would focus its attention.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, clearly, the REAL ID Act is a Draconian 
piece of legislation that would impose unnecessary hardships on the 
States and the American people and lead us to turn away deserving 
refugees who are fleeing persecution.
  I sincerely hope the Senate Republican leadership, which has said 
they do not want this provision in this bill, will oppose its inclusion 
in the conference report.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.


                           Amendment No. 340

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask for the regular order with 
respect to amendment No. 340.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now the pending question.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I make a point of order that the 
amendment is not germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is well taken and 
sustained. The amendment falls.

[[Page S3981]]

                           Amendment No. 351

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask for the regular order with 
respect to amendment No. 351.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now the pending question.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I make a point of order that the 
amendment is not germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment 
falls.


                           Amendment No. 375

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask for the regular order with 
respect to amendment No. 375.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now the pending question.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I make a point of order that the 
amendment is not germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment 
falls.


                           Amendment No. 395

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask for the regular order with 
respect to amendment No. 395.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now the pending question.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I make a point of order that the 
amendment is not germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment 
falls.


                           Amendment No. 417

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask for the regular order with 
respect to amendment No. 417.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now the pending question.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I make a point of order that the 
amendment is not germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment 
falls.


                           Amendment No. 432

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask for the regular order with 
respect to amendment No. 432.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now the pending question.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I make a point of order that the 
amendment is not germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment 
falls.


                           Amendment No. 445

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask for the regular order with 
respect to amendment No. 445.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now the pending question.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I make a point of order that the 
amendment is not germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment 
falls.


                           Amendment No. 451

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask for the regular order with 
respect to amendment No. 451.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now the pending question.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I make a point of order that the 
amendment is not germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment 
falls.


                           Amendment No. 452

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask for the regular order with 
respect to amendment No. 452.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now the pending question.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I make a point of order that the 
amendment is not germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment 
falls.


                           Amendment No. 456

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask for the regular order with 
respect to amendment No. 456.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now the pending question.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I make a point of order that the 
amendment is not germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment 
falls.


                           Amendment No. 459

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask for the regular order with 
respect to amendment No. 459.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now the pending question.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I make a point of order that the 
amendment is not germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment 
falls.


                           Amendment No. 463

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask for the regular order with 
respect to amendment No. 463.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now the pending question.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I make a point of order that the 
amendment is not germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment 
falls.


                           Amendment No. 499

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask for the regular order with 
respect to amendment No. 499.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now the pending question.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I make a point of order that the 
amendment is not germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment 
falls.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, 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. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 471

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, the Senator from Oklahoma offered an 
amendment No. 471 relating to the Embassy in Iraq. We have had a 
discussion of that amendment. I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays. And I 
ask unanimous consent that the vote be ordered to occur at 1:45.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second. There is a sufficient 
second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on 
another topic and ask that the time be charged.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Burr are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. BURR. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 498

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside and amendment No. 498 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] for himself, Mr. 
     Nelson of Florida, Mr. Allen, and Mr. Talent, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 498.

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

        (Purpose: Relating to the aircraft carriers of the Navy)

       On page 169, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:


                     aircraft carriers of the navy

       Sec. 1122. (a) Funding for Repair and Maintenance of U.S.S. 
     John F. Kennedy.--

[[Page S3982]]

     Of the amount appropriated to the Department of the Navy by 
     this Act, necessary funding will be made available for such 
     repair and maintenance of the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy as the 
     Navy considers appropriate to extend the life of U.S.S. John 
     F. Kennedy.
       (b) Limitation on Reduction in Number of Active Aircraft 
     Carriers.--No funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this Act may be obligated or expended to reduce the number 
     of active aircraft carriers of the Navy below 12 active 
     aircraft carriers until the later of the following:
       (1) The date that is 180 days after the date of the 
     submittal to Congress of the quadrennial defense review 
     required in 2005 under section 118 of title 10, United States 
     Code.
       (2) The date on which the Secretary of Defense, in 
     consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
     certifies to Congress that such agreements have been entered 
     into to provide port facilities for the permanent forward 
     deployment of such numbers of aircraft carriers as are 
     necessary in the Pacific Command Area of Responsibility to 
     fulfill the roles and missions of that Command, including 
     agreements for the forward deployment of a nuclear aircraft 
     carrier after the retirement of the current two conventional 
     aircraft carriers.
       (c) Active Aircraft Carriers.--For purposes of this 
     section, an active aircraft carrier of the Navy includes an 
     aircraft carrier that is temporarily unavailable for 
     worldwide deployment due to routing or scheduled maintenance.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I inquire of the distinguished Presiding 
Officer, is this amendment germane?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. This amendment is germane.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair. The amendment is germane; therefore, 
it can be made a part of the business pending before the Senate and, 
hopefully, it will be acted upon by a record vote and included as a 
part of the underlying bill. I will seek that at an appropriate time.
  Mr. President, this is an amendment that follows on an amendment that 
I earlier put in on this bill, which understandably failed to meet the 
germaneness test, and therefore just early this morning it was 
stricken. Nevertheless, I have carefully crafted this, and now it is 
confirmed by the Parliamentarian that this amendment is germane.
  This amendment applies to the question of the USS John F. Kennedy, a 
very famous and historic ship of the U.S. Navy, which recently was 
designated to be retired by the Department of Defense as a consequence 
of a restricted budget that was placed in the waning hours of the 
budget process on the Department of the Navy. Quite unexpectedly, the 
Department of the Navy departed from its steadfast opinions, published 
statements, and records that this Nation required 12 aircraft carriers 
in our fleet. It came as a complete surprise to the Congress. I didn't 
feel that we had any particular consultation. Nevertheless, the 
executive branch has the right to make budget decisions, so that 
history is behind us.
  I believe it is imperative that the Congress--and now, at this time, 
the Senate--examine this situation and determine whether at this point 
in time this ship should be stricken from the active force and 
designated for mothballs. I say that because the Department of Defense 
is well along in its Quadrennial Defense Review. The Congress has 180 
days, once that is completed, to look at that report. Therefore, the 
purpose of this amendment is to say that this ship stays in the fleet 
in an active status until two things happen: the Department completes 
its Quadrennial Defense Review and the Congress has had 180 days to 
study the results of that review; and the Secretary of Defense 
certifies to the Congress that necessary agreements have been entered 
into with other nations to provide for the permanent forward deployment 
of aircraft carriers in the Pacific necessary to carry out the mission 
within the Pacific Command area of responsibility.
  The reasons I am offering this amendment are simple. Congress has a 
constitutional role and mandate to maintain a navy. I will repeat that. 
Under the Constitution, we raise armies in time of need, but we 
maintain a navy. As I have heard many colleagues say--and I recently 
heard my colleague, Senator McCain, speaking to a group--a warship 
really has two purposes. It has its underlying missions to deter 
aggression and, if necessary, to repel aggression, but it also has a 
very valuable role as a silent ambassador wherever it is beyond the 
shores of the United States. Particularly when the magnificence of an 
American ship is in a harbor beyond our shores, people from that 
country come from all over to take a look. It is a silent way of saying 
America is there to help protect freedom. It is called ship diplomacy. 
It is well documented in the long history of this country. We being, in 
many respects, an island nation, we have always depended upon our 
maritime arm of defense to play a role in diplomacy and, if necessary, 
to take up arms.
  The funds for the Kennedy's scheduled maintenance were authorized and 
appropriated in previous bills. Money to do the work that is necessary 
to keep this ship active in the fleet is in the coffers of the U.S. 
Navy today. For that reason, we are not trying to touch a single dollar 
that is in this bill. We will maintain the Kennedy in the fleet until 
2018. The ship will be quite old; nevertheless, in the opinion of the 
sailors who sail it today and the sailors who will sail it tomorrow, it 
can be an effective ship and be counted upon as a full partner in the 
fleet of some 12 carriers.
  All analyses presented to the Congress, to include the last two 
Quadrennial Defense Reviews, in 1997 and 2001, set the minimum number 
of aircraft carriers at 12. There has been no analysis to support 
reducing the aircraft carrier fleet to 11--that is, formal analysis. I 
realize there are working documents in the Department of the Navy, but 
I have not seen that type of analysis that I believed fully justified a 
decision of this importance. I think that analysis will be done in the 
forthcoming 2005 review.
  Next, the reason the Department submitted the budget request with the 
decommissioning of an aircraft carrier was because the Navy was handed 
a budget cut in December, somewhat unexpectedly. The Navy's original 
budget submission included the Kennedy. I point that out. Throughout 
the budget process, that particular process, and the budget of the 
Department of Defense, the Kennedy was always included with the 12 
carriers. Then, with the flick of a wrist and some very brief analysis 
I have seen, out she went.

  The Kennedy, as I say, is in good material condition. In the words of 
the battle group commander who just returned on this ship from a 6-
month deployment in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom in December, it 
is in ``outstanding material condition.''
  With the scheduled decommissioning of the USS Kitty Hawk in fiscal 
year 2008, the Kennedy would be the only, assuming this amendment 
prevails, conventionally powered aircraft carrier available in the 
Pacific Command area of responsibility where there are nations that 
simply will not allow a nuclear warship to enter its waters.
  Again, I believe Congress should now show its responsibility--I 
repeat, its responsibility--in making force structure decisions and go 
back and review what the Navy has done and say to the Department of the 
Navy: Not at this time should we be decommissioning this ship. We 
should await the normal processes of the QDR, the BRAC process, and 
other ongoing congressional and active procedures until such time, and 
then the decision can be made, in a balanced way, as to the fate of the 
carrier.
  Mr. President, I thank my principal cosponsor, the distinguished 
Senator from Florida. We are joined in this matter by Senator Allen, 
Senator Martinez, and Senator Talent, who is chairman of the Armed 
Services Seapower Subcommittee. This is a bipartisan approach. It is 
not a political matter. We are simply here in the best interests of the 
Department of Defense and this country in suggesting strongly to our 
colleagues we should have a voice in this matter, and to do so, the 
Senator from Florida and I and others are bringing this amendment to 
the attention of the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I express my personal 
appreciation to the senior Senator from Virginia, who has, just like 
the old Navy man he is, risen again to the call to duty of what he 
thinks is in the best defense interest of this country.
  It is one thing for the senior Senator from Florida to make this 
argument when it is perceived as an argument in this Senator's 
parochial interest because the John F. Kennedy aircraft carrier is 
stationed in Mayport in Jacksonville. I could argue all of the 
specifics Senator Warner has, and it would still be interpreted that it 
was

[[Page S3983]]

the position of the Senator from Florida looking out for his 
constituency. Certainly, that is a part of my motivation. But a part of 
my motivation also is that in my title is ``United States Senator,'' 
and a very fortunate and proud member of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, I am trying to make decisions that are in the best defense 
interests of our country.
  That defense interest is clearly that we, the United States, must 
have a carrier homeported in Japan. We simply do not know, since it is 
not a decision of the central Government of Japan--it is a decision of 
the local municipal governments that influence the decision--whether 
they will be receptive to a nuclear-powered carrier. If some time 
between now and 2008, when the conventionally powered carrier, the 
Kitty Hawk, that is residing in Japan, is scheduled to be 
decommissioned, if at some time in that time period Japan says no to a 
nuclear carrier, suddenly we are without an aircraft carrier homeported 
in Japan.
  I remind the Senate what the Chief of Naval Operations, the four-star 
chief admiral of the Navy, testified to before the Senate Armed 
Services Committee: With the rising threat of China, one carrier in 
Japan is worth a great deal to him as opposed to other carriers that 
are stationed elsewhere around the world.
  If I could get the attention of the Senator from Virginia, I want him 
to hear my appreciation because he has, in his independent and expert 
judgment, come to this conclusion. He has stepped forth and offered 
this amendment so it would be led by the chairman of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee and many of his bipartisan membership who have 
joined with him.
  Mr. President, I say to all Senators, listen to the chairman. He 
knows what he is talking about. Then on down the road, if because of 
new capabilities of ships we are able to lessen the carriers from 12 to 
11, we will be in a position where we will not have this window of 
vulnerability for projecting our force structure in the Pacific area of 
operations.
  I plead with the Senate. This should not be a fight. We ought to be 
listening to the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wonder if the time is appropriate for 
the Senator from Florida and me to ask for the yeas and nays on this 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Florida. I think other Senators desire to speak on this amendment. I 
yield to the good judgment and fair judgment of the senior members of 
the Appropriations Committee as to the timing of the vote on this 
amendment. I do urge Senators to come and express their views on this 
important issue.
  Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. 
Therefore, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia, Mr. Warner.


                           Amendment No. 516

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, when Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act in 
2001, the Enhanced Border Security Act of 2002, and the Intelligence 
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Congress recognized, on a 
bipartisan basis, the need to provide more people and more resources to 
patrol and secure our borders.
  The PATRIOT Act called for tripling the number of Border Patrol 
agents and Immigration and Customs investigators on our northern 
border. The Enhanced Border Security Act called for an additional 200 
investigators a year--on top of the PATRIOT Act increases--for fiscal 
years 2003 through 2006. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act authorized the hiring of an additional 2,000 Border 
Patrol agents and 800 new ICE immigration investigators, and provided 
for another 2,000 detention bed spaces per year for 5 years. Together 
these laws reflect a consensus in the Congress that more needs to be 
done. But a consensus and a series of authorization bills produces only 
promises of progress, but promises do not make our borders more secure.
  In written testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on 
February 16, the Department's then-Deputy Secretary, Admiral James Loy, 
cited recently received intelligence as the reason for his concern 
about the threat facing the Mexican border. He said the intelligence 
``strongly suggest(s)'' that al-Qaida ``has considered using the 
Southwest border to infiltrate the United States. Several al-Qaida 
leaders believe operatives can pay their way into the country through 
Mexico and also believe illegal entry is more advantageous than legal 
entry for operational security reasons.''
  On March 10, 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said:

       There is no secret that al-Qaida will try to get into this 
     country. . . . They're going to keep trying on our southern 
     border. They're going to keep trying on our northern border.

  In his December 6, 2004, letter to Congress urging final passage of 
the Intelligence Reform Act, the President said:

       I also believe the Conference took an important step in 
     strengthening our immigration laws by, among other items, 
     increasing the number of border patrol agents and 
     detention beds.
  Remarkably, despite the threat to our borders as enunciated by senior 
administration officials, despite the clear intent of Congress in three 
separate authorization laws, and despite the President's commendation 
of the intelligence reform conferees for increasing the number of 
Border Patrol agents and detention beds, the President included 
virtually nothing in his budget to actually hire and train those Border 
Patrol agents or to hire and train immigration investigators or to 
purchase or construct detention facilities for illegal aliens.
  Our citizens are concerned about the security gaps along our borders. 
It has reached such a fever pitch in some locations that private 
groups, such as the self-proclaimed ``Minutemen,'' are banding together 
to form watch groups along the borders to act as additional ``eyes and 
ears'' and report suspicious border crossings to the Border Patrol for 
appropriate response. While perhaps not reaching the level of vigilante 
activity, this is a clear expression of the frustration felt by many 
citizens along the border areas that the Federal Government is asleep 
at the switch and failing to address a key Federal function.
  Even our military is concerned about border security. According to an 
April 7 CNN report, Marines preparing for combat in Iraq or Afghanistan 
have lost significant amounts of training time because undocumented 
immigrants from Mexico have constantly wandered onto a bombing test 
range at the Marine Corps air station near Yuma, AZ. The range has been 
shut down more than 500 times over this past 6 months for a total of 
1,100 training hours lost. Last year, more than 1,500 illegal 
immigrants were caught in the training area. In the first 3 months of 
this year, more than 1,100 have already been apprehended.
  Today, I am offering a bipartisan amendment, cosponsored by Senator 
Craig of Idaho, that will fund the real work of securing our borders. 
The amendment provides $389.6 million for border security, and the 
amendment is paid for by reducing funding for diplomatic and consular 
programs the Department of State has indicated is not necessary until 
fiscal year 2006.
  The amendment begins to address the security gap on our borders by 
funding the hiring of 650 new Border Patrol agents, and this number may 
fall short of the authorization goals set by the various acts, but it 
is a responsible level which Customs and Border Protection can meet in 
the coming months.
  During an April 4, 2005, interview on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, 
Customs and Border Patrol Commissioner Robert Bonner said, ``The Border 
Patrol is almost . . . being overwhelmed by illegal immigration. This 
is like a sinking ship with a hole in it. You've got to plug the hole. 
You've got to stop the illegal migration into the United States. . . 
.''
  The agency responsible for enforcing our immigration laws, known as 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, has been forced to endure a 
hiring freeze and funding shortfall for more

[[Page S3984]]

than a year. Vehicles are not being replaced. Body armor is not being 
purchased. Travel to pursue immigration investigations has been 
curtailed. ICE continues to lose personnel, and the agency has not been 
able to fill those positions because of a hiring freeze. Through the 
end of January alone, ICE lost a total of 299 personnel.
  My amendment--and it is cosponsored by several senators--would give 
ICE the resources that are so vital to beginning the process of hiring 
and training the personnel it needs to enforce our immigration laws.
  This amendment also provides funds for deploying unmanned aerial 
vehicles along the Southwest border. The Border Patrol has tested and 
operated, for a limited period of time this year, unmanned aerial 
vehicles, UAVs, along the Southwest border. Using funds provided to it 
by the Congress, the Border Patrol conducted successful tests using 
UAVs to assist in the surveillance and detection of individuals 
attempting to enter the U.S. illegally. The operation, known as the 
Arizona Border Control Initiative, used these drones to monitor and 
patrol a 350-mile long swath of the desert border. More than 350,000 
illegal immigrants crossing into the U.S. were apprehended during the 
operation. Regrettably, this program was shut down on January 31 of 
this year. The funds provided in this amendment would allow for the 
immediate resumption of these surveillance and detection operations.
  Finally, the amendment includes funds for the Federal Law Enforcement 
Training Center Border Patrol Academy in Artesia, NM, to train the new 
personnel.
  The case for this amendment is clear; the need for it is critical; 
and the support for it should be bipartisan. This amendment is focused 
and targeted to address key border security shortfalls. The Border 
Patrol's role is to apprehend those illegally entering this country. 
They also work with ICE investigators to crack down on illegal 
immigration. They then turn over those who are here illegally to ICE, 
which needs the detention bed space and to deportation officials to 
hold, process, and then remove these individuals.
  We must start now. This cannot wait.
  The job of our immigration officers is staggering, and their 
resources are meager.
  Along the 2,000 miles of land border with Mexico, the United States 
has deployed only 1,700 agents at any given time. That is one agent, 
just one, guarding more than one mile of border.
  Of the 10 million illegal aliens in the country, 2,000 interior 
enforcement agents are charged with locating and arresting them. That 
is one agent, just one, charged with locating and arresting 5,000 
illegal aliens.
  Of the 10,000 border patrol agents authorized in the Intelligence 
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, the President's budget included 
funds to hire just 210. Of the 4,000 interior enforcement agents 
authorized, the President's budget included funds to hire only 500 of 
them. Of the 40,000 detention beds authorized, the President's budget 
included funding for a mere 5 percent of them. However, in every case, 
the very modest proposed increases for 2006 will barely make up for the 
137 border patrol positions lost during the first two quarters of 
fiscal year 2005, the 299 ICE personnel lost and the 2,000 detention 
beds that do not exist, for lack of funding.
  We ask how and why illegal aliens continue to pour into our country, 
and the answer lies in every border patrol increase we do not fund, 
every agent we do not hire, and every illegal alien we release due to 
lack of detention space.
  This is our opportunity to reverse that sorry record. This is our 
opportunity to strengthen our border defenses. This is our opportunity 
to support a substantive, concrete effort to address the alarming rise 
in illegal immigration.
  Sir Edward Coke wrote that a man's house is his castle, for where 
shall a man be safe if not in his own home?
  The United States is home to 296 million people. They, by right, 
demand that their Government secure their castle against the unknown 
threat seeking to infiltrate its sanctuary.
  I urge adoption of the amendment. It is cosponsored by Senators 
Craig, Baucus, Dorgan, Lieberman, Obama, Leahy and Feinstein.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business 
for 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Thomas are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we will soon have a time for a recorded 
vote. I will yield the floor at the appropriate time, if the Chair will 
notify me when it is time to start that vote.
  Mr. President, there are a series of amendments now that have been 
filed on this bill to earmark money in the portion of the supplemental 
dealing with Defense. Our subcommittee and the full Appropriations 
Committee did not earmark any money in the Defense portion of this 
bill. It was my position and the position of the Senator from Hawaii, 
Mr. Inouye, that this is, after all, supplemental money on an emergency 
basis to deal with the problems of those who are in combat now: Iraq 
and Afghanistan and the war against terror.
  We have urgent needs of those people. This money must be approved and 
must be available to them no later than the first week in May. Under 
those circumstances, I have come to the floor to tell the Senate now we 
are going to oppose any amendment that would earmark money in this 
bill.
  There are some legitimate desires here on the floor for the 
Department to spend some of the money it has for specific purposes. I 
think a sense-of-the-Senate resolution in most of those instances would 
call that matter to the attention of the Department, and to a great 
extent I believe the Department would follow the suggestion of the 
Senate--of the Congress, if you want to make it a sense-of-the-
Congress, as an amendment to this bill. We can change the amendments 
into a sense-of-the-Senate concept. But we cannot start taking these 
amendments. We turned down the amendments that came to us in 
subcommittee. We turned down the amendments that came to us in markup 
in the subcommittee. We turned down the amendments when they came to 
the full committee. Now to have them come to the floor in a cloture 
situation I think exacerbates the situation.

  This is to say it is my intention to move to table any amendment that 
will attempt to earmark money in this bill or elsewhere for 
nonemergency purposes. I know of none of them I have seen that are 
emergencies that have been filed on this bill. But I assure the Senate 
we are sympathetic to many of the amendments. As a matter of fact, I 
think I may have cosponsored one or two of them myself in connection 
with previous bills, the annual appropriations bills for Defense.
  But this is a supplemental. It is primarily designed to provide 
emergency funds. This is not the time for us to be taking up policy 
questions that should be addressed in the authorization bill or 
amendments that should be offered to the bills when we bring the bills 
out of the committee dealing with fiscal year 2006.
  I believe it is almost time for the vote that is scheduled. Again, I 
urge my friends who have offered these amendments to stay on the floor 
and discuss them with us. Again, I say, many of them are very well 
intentioned. I personally would support them in many circumstances, but 
I cannot in good conscience do that now. We should take this bill as 
clean as possible to conference and get it out of conference as quickly 
as possible.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now is 
on agreeing to the motion to table the Coburn amendment No. 471. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 45, as follows:

[[Page S3985]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 104 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Burns
     Cantwell
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Corzine
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Hagel
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     Bayh
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Jeffords
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion to table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  (The remarks of Mr. Leahy, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Baucus are printed in 
today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 466

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 466 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
laid aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby], for himself, and Mr. 
     Dorgan, proposes amendment numbered 466.

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

  (Purpose: To provide for a refundable wage differential credit for 
                     activated military reservists)

       On page 169, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:


 refundable wage differential credit for activated military reservists

       Sec. 1122. (a) In General.--Subpart C of part IV of 
     subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by redesignating section 36 as section 37 and 
     by inserting after section 35 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 36. WAGE DIFFERENTIAL FOR ACTIVATED RESERVISTS.

       ``(a) In General.--In the case of a qualified reservist, 
     there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by 
     this subtitle an amount equal to the qualified active duty 
     wage differential of such qualified reservist for the taxable 
     year.
       ``(b) Qualified Active Duty Wage Differential.--For 
     purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `qualified active duty wage 
     differential' means the daily wage differential of the 
     qualified active duty reservist multiplied by the number of 
     days such qualified reservist participates in qualified 
     reserve component duty during the taxable year, including 
     time spent in a travel status.
       ``(2) Daily wage differential.--The daily wage differential 
     is an amount equal to the lesser of--
       ``(A) the excess of--
       ``(i) the qualified reservist's average daily qualified 
     compensation, over
       ``(ii) the qualified reservist's average daily military pay 
     while participating in qualified reserve component duty to 
     the exclusion of the qualified reservist's normal employment 
     duties, or
       ``(B) $54.80.
       ``(3) Average daily qualified compensation.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `average daily qualified 
     compensation' means--
       ``(i) the qualified compensation of the qualified reservist 
     for the one-year period ending on the day before the date the 
     qualified reservist begins qualified reserve component duty, 
     divided by
       ``(ii) 365.
       ``(B) Qualified compensation.--The term `qualified 
     compensation' means--
       ``(i) compensation which is normally contingent on the 
     qualified reservist's presence for work and which would be 
     includible in gross income, and
       ``(ii) compensation which is not characterized by the 
     qualified reservist's employer as vacation or holiday pay, or 
     as sick leave or pay, or as any other form of pay for a 
     nonspecific leave of absence.
       ``(4) Average daily military pay and allowances.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `average daily military pay and 
     allowances' means--
       ``(i) the amount paid to the qualified reservist during the 
     taxable year as military pay and allowances on account of the 
     qualified reservist's participation in qualified reserve 
     component duty, determined as of the date the qualified 
     reservist begins qualified reserve component duty, divided by
       ``(ii) the total number of days the qualified reservist 
     participates in qualified reserve component duty during the 
     taxable year, including time spent in travel status.
       ``(B) Military pay and allowances.--The term `military pay' 
     means pay as that term is defined in section 101(21) of title 
     37, United States Code, and the term `allowances' means the 
     allowances payable to a member of the Armed Forces of the 
     United States under chapter 7 of that title.
       ``(5) Qualified reserve component duty.--The term 
     `qualified reserve component duty' means--
       ``(A) active duty performed, as designated in the 
     reservist's military orders, in support of a contingency 
     operation as defined in section 101(a)(13) of title 10, 
     United States Code, or
       ``(B) full-time National Guard duty (as defined in section 
     101(19) of title 32, United States Code) which is ordered 
     pursuant to a request by the President, for a period under 1 
     or more orders described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of more 
     than 90 consecutive days.
       ``(c) Qualified Reservist.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `qualified reservist' means an 
     individual who is engaged in normal employment and is a 
     member of--
       ``(A) the National Guard (as defined by section 101(c)(1) 
     of title 10, United States Code), or
       ``(B) the Ready Reserve (as defined by section 10142 of 
     title 10, United States Code).
       ``(2) Normal employment.--The term `normal employment 
     duties' includes self-employment.
       ``(d) Disallowance With Respect to Persons Ordered to 
     Active Duty for Training.--No credit shall be allowed under 
     subsection (a) to a qualified reservist who is called or 
     ordered to active duty for any of the following types of 
     duty:
       ``(1) Active duty for training under any provision of title 
     10, United States Code.
       ``(2) Training at encampments, maneuvers, outdoor target 
     practice, or other exercises under chapter 5 of title 32, 
     United States Code.
       ``(3) Full-time National Guard duty, as defined in section 
     101(d)(5) of title 10, United States Code.
       ``(e) Credit Included in Gross Income.--Gross income 
     includes the amount of the credit allowed the taxpayer under 
     this section.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting before the period ``, or 
     from section 36 of such Code''.
       (2) The table of sections for subpart C of part IV of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     striking the last item and inserting the following new items:

``Sec. 36. Wage differential for activated reservists.
``Sec. 37. Overpayments of tax.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2004.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Dorgan as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak about this 
amendment because I believe it is very important to our Reserve and 
Guard units who have been called upon to serve their country during 
this time of war.
  This amendment is based on a bill I introduced last month with 
Senator Dorgan. It provides a financial safety net for the families of 
our service members proudly serving in our Nation's military Reserve 
and National Guard.
  Today, our National Guard and Reserve units are being called upon, as 
you well know, more than ever and are being asked to serve their 
country in a very different way than they have in the past. The global 
war on terror and the high operational tempo of our military require 
that our Reserve components play a more active role in the total force.
  These long tours and frequent activations have a profound and 
disruptive effect on the lives of these men and women and on the lives 
of their families and loved ones. Many of our reservists suffer 
significant loss of income when they are mobilized, forcing them

[[Page S3986]]

to leave often higher paying civilian jobs to serve their country. Such 
losses can be compounded by additional family expenses associated with 
military activation, including the cost of long distance phone calls 
and the need for additional childcare. These circumstances create a 
serious financial burden that is extremely difficult for reservists' 
families to manage.
  I believe we can and we should do more to alleviate the financial 
burden; therefore, the amendment I am discussing this afternoon would 
provide a completely refundable income tax credit of up to $20,000 
annually to a military reservist called to active duty. The amount of 
the tax credit would be based upon the difference between wages paid by 
the reservist's civilian job and the military wages paid upon 
mobilization. The tax credit would be available to members of the 
National Guard or Ready Reserve who are serving for more than 90 days 
and would vary according to their length of service.
  Now is the time to recognize the service and sacrifice of the men and 
women in the Guard and Reserves. I believe the Congress should focus on 
this issue. It is important to thousands of service members who are 
serving their country and their families who are struggling 
financially.
  Mr. President, I recognize that the emergency supplemental before us 
today may not be the best place to begin a discussion about this 
subject, so I urge my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee 
and the Finance Committee to not only study but to work with me and 
Senator Dorgan to act on this issue this year. This is very important 
to thousands and thousands of families in this country.
  At a time when the Nation is calling our guardsmen and reservists to 
active duty to execute the war in Iraq, fight the war on terrorism, and 
to defend our homeland, I believe it is imperative that Congress 
recognize their vital role and acknowledge that the success of our 
military depends on these troops. It is not too much to ask of our 
Nation and, more importantly, I believe it is the right thing to do.


                      Amendment No. 466, withdrawn

  Mr. President, I want to withdraw my amendment because I don't think 
this is the proper place for it on the supplemental, but it is the 
proper place to begin the debate in the Senate. I ask unanimous consent 
to withdraw my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 481

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, first, I withdraw a pending amendment, 
No. 481, which I offered earlier in this debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 482

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment 482.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln], for herself and 
     Mr. Pryor, proposes an amendment numbered 482.

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

      (Purpose: To require a report assessing the feasibility and 
  advisability of implementing for the Army National Guard a program 
 similar to the Post Deployment Stand-Down Program of the Air National 
                                 Guard)

       On page 169, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:


report on implementation of post deployment stand-down program by army 
                             national guard

       Sec. 1122. Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army shall submit 
     to the congressional defense committees a report containing 
     the assessment of the Secretary of the feasibility and 
     advisability of implementing for the Army National Guard a 
     program similar to the Post Deployment Stand-Down Program of 
     the Air National Guard. The Secretary of the Army shall 
     prepare the assessment in consultation with the Secretary of 
     the Air Force.

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may add 
Senator Pryor as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, first of all, I compliment Chairman 
Cochran for all of his hard work on this bill, and I appreciate so many 
of the Members who I have been able to work with for a better 
understanding in how we approach the ability we have to help our 
service men and women. That is exactly the intention of my amendment--
to provide the Army the ability to study some of the tools that are 
used in other branches of the armed services in order to be able to 
provide the correct direction on the leave policies that they have.
  We all certainly share our pride and our gratitude for the service 
men and women from our Guard units and Reserve units in our home States 
who have portrayed such courage and dedication to our Nation and to the 
freedoms for which they fight. As they return, we want to ensure that 
every opportunity is made available to them, and certainly we want to 
give them everything they need to readjust and transition back into 
their communities. So I am delighted to be able to offer this study. It 
is giving the Army National Guard the opportunity to study what the Air 
National Guard and Air Force do in their leave policy. I hope we can do 
more with the leave policy of our Guard and Reserve as they return 
home.
  I appreciate the work the chairman has done. I look forward to the 
opportunity to be able to move our amendment forward. We got an OK from 
our side and, apparently, got the OK from the other side. Hopefully, we 
can move it forward.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. It is my understanding that the Senator's amendment is 
before the Senate at this time. Would she object to it being set aside 
for the purpose of the consideration of another amendment?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest we adopt the amendment offered 
by the Senator from Arkansas on a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from Mississippi?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 482, offered by 
the Senator from Arkansas.
  The amendment (No. 482) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. 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 Idaho.


                           Amendment No. 475

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 475 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], for himself, Mr. 
     Baucus, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Enzi, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 475.

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

(Purpose: To limit the use of funds to restrict the issuance of general 
    licenses for travel to Cuba in connection with authorized sales 
                  activities, and for other purposes)

       On page 231, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
       Sec. 6047. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, beginning in fiscal year 2005 and thereafter, none of 
     the funds made available by this Act shall be used to pay the 
     salaries or expenses of any employee of any agency or office 
     to implement or enforce section 908(b)(1)(A) of the Trade 
     Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 
     U.S.C. 7207(b)(1)(A)) or any other provision of law in a 
     manner other than a manner that permits payment by the 
     purchaser of an agricultural commodity or product to the 
     seller, and receipt of the payment by the seller, at any time 
     prior to--
       (1) the transfer of the title of the commodity or product 
     to the purchaser; and

[[Page S3987]]

       (2) the release of control of the commodity or product to 
     the purchaser.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     beginning in fiscal year 2005 and thereafter, none of the 
     funds made available by this Act shall be used to pay the 
     salaries or expenses of any employee of any agency or office 
     that refuses to authorize the issuance of a general license 
     for travel-related transactions listed in subsection (c) of 
     section 515.560 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, for 
     travel to, from, or within Cuba undertaken in connection with 
     sales and marketing, including the organization and 
     participation in product exhibitions, and the transportation 
     by sea or air of products pursuant to the Trade Sanctions 
     Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000.
       (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     beginning in fiscal year 2005 and thereafter, none of the 
     funds made available by this Act shall be used to pay the 
     salaries or expenses of any employee of any agency or office 
     that restricts the direct transfers from a Cuban financial 
     institution to a United States financial institution executed 
     in payment for a product authorized for sale under the Trade 
     Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this amendment is very straightforward. Its 
purpose is to limit the use of funds to restrict the issuance of 
general licenses for travel to Cuba in connection with authorized sales 
activities and for other purposes.
  This amendment responds specifically to an action by the Department 
of Treasury in a new rulemaking process that dramatically curtails the 
potential of agricultural trade with the nation of Cuba. A group of 
us--one of my colleagues who is on the Senate floor, Max Baucus, and 
others--sent a letter to our Secretary of Agriculture. We know 
agricultural trade is extremely important for American agriculture. 
Last year, there was a surplus of $9.5 billion. That is going to drop 
precipitously this year to as much as $2.5 billion.
  Trade with Cuba has been growing. This amendment dramatically 
restricts that trade by the unwillingness of the Treasury Department to 
offer the necessary licenses for agricultural traders to travel to Cuba 
for that purpose.
  I hope we can consider it. It is very straightforward. I understand 
my colleague from Montana has a second-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.


                 Amendment No. 549 To Amendment No. 475

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 549, an amendment 
in the second degree.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

   The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for himself and Mr. Craig, 
        proposes an amendment numbered 549 to amendment No. 475.

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

  (Purpose: To clarify the terms of payment under the Trade Sanctions 
               Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000)

       Strike all after ``Sec.'', and insert the following:

     6407. CLARIFICATION OF PAYMENT TERMS UNDER TRADE SANCTIONS 
                   REFORM AND EXPORT ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2000.

       (a) In General.--Section 908(b)(1) of the Trade Sanctions 
     Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 
     7207(b)(1)) is amended by inserting after subparagraph (B) 
     the following:
       ``(C) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term 
     `payment of cash in advance' means the payment by the 
     purchaser of an agricultural commodity or product and the 
     receipt of such payment by the seller prior to--
       ``(i) the transfer of title of such commodity or product to 
     the purchaser; and
       ``(ii) the release of control of such commodity or product 
     to the purchaser.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to sales of agricultural commodities made on or 
     after February 22, 2005.


                     Amendment No. 549, As Modified

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have a modification to my amendment. It 
changes the effective date. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be modified with the text I send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Strike all after ``Sec.'', and insert the following:

     6407. CLARIFICATION OF PAYMENT TERMS UNDER TRADE SANCTIONS 
                   REFORM AND EXPORT ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2000.

       (a) In General.--Section 908(b)(1) of the Trade Sanctions 
     Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 
     7207(b)(1)) is amended by inserting after subparagraph (B) 
     the following:
       ``(C) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term 
     `payment of cash in advance' means the payment by the 
     purchaser of an agricultural commodity or product and the 
     receipt of such payment by the seller prior to--
       ``(i) the transfer of title of such commodity or product to 
     the purchaser; and
       ``(ii) the release of control of such commodity or product 
     to the purchaser.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to sales of agricultural commodities made on or 
     after October 28, 2000.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is an amendment which I think is 
agreeable all the way around. It addresses the basic problem we are 
facing where the U.S. Government is essentially changing the rules of 
the game. I hope the Senate will adopt this amendment so we can 
overturn the Treasury Department ruling.
  This is for farmers, this is for ranchers, this is for agricultural 
cooperatives, and this is for shipping companies and port authorities 
around our country. It is not only my State of Montana but Mississippi, 
Alaska, Alabama, and others. Farmers in all of our States are looking 
for new markets. That is clear. They are asking Congress to expand 
current markets and open up new markets overseas, including the country 
of Cuba.
  Last year alone, Cuba was worth $400 billion of U.S. agricultural 
exports, making it the 25th agricultural export market. This amendment 
I worked on with Senator Chambliss and Senator Craig would overturn a 
recent Treasury Department rule that restricts the payment terms of 
agricultural sales to Cuba. That rule cuts across $200 million worth of 
open contracts, including sales of Montana wheat and beans.
  These contracts are now on hold. The shipments cannot be made. Why? 
Because of the recent Treasury ruling which we all think has gone way 
beyond the intent of legislation. I do not think we should sit idly by 
as Government bureaucrats down at Treasury try to shut down a promising 
export market that, again, Congress purposely opened.
  Congress, in the 2000 act, opened trade to Cuba for agriculture and 
medicine on a cash basis. This amendment does nothing to change that. 
It makes sure we live up to that intent. Congress purposely opened the 
market of Cuba to U.S. exporters when it passed the Trade Sanctions and 
Export Enhancement Act of 2000. While I think there is a lot more we 
can do and should do to make our exporters more competitive in the 
Cuban market, this amendment does nothing more than deal with the 
emergency they are now experiencing.
  Agricultural trade with Cuba will remain on a one-way cash basis 
only. We do not seek to change that here. But why should we turn down 
opportunities to sell even on a cash basis from Cuba? We should not. 
Producers, port authorities, and shipping companies alike urgently need 
this rule overturned if they are going to remain competitive in the 
Cuban market.
  I remind my colleagues, every other country in the world freely ships 
products to Cuba. We are the only country in the world that is 
restricted. Other countries' trade is some indication we should perhaps 
trade as well. This amendment does not deal with lifting the travel 
ban. It does not deal with the embargo or anything else, except it 
makes clear the act we passed in the year 2000 is lived up to. That is 
all this is.
  Our farmers and ranchers face mounting pressures of a tricky trade 
surplus. We should be working to open, not close, export markets with 
them.
  I thank my colleagues for working this out. I see Senator Chambliss 
in the Chamber. I thank him and I thank Senator Craig. I thank the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Cochran, and others 
who are trying to make sure our agricultural producers are able to get 
markets they justly deserve.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment and

[[Page S3988]]

the second-degree amendment thereto. I thank my friend from Montana, 
Senator Baucus, as well as Senator Craig from Idaho. All three worked 
very hard to come to a compromise on this very sensitive issue.
  What we are doing is basically restoring the normal trade discourse 
between our two countries to what it was before this change in a 
regulation that occurred about 2 months ago. We think the regulation 
does not state what Congress intended with the act that was passed 4 
years ago.
  Mr. President, 4 years ago, we did pass the Trade Sanctions Reform 
and Export Enhancement Act which allows sales of food and medicine only 
to Cuba for the first time in nearly four decades. The act did not 
signal an end to the embargo, exactly as Senator Baucus said, or 
efforts to do so but merely exempted food and medicine from unilateral 
sanctions that harm populations.
  U.S. exporters require payment before turning over title and control 
of the goods. That is a standard operating procedure in the shipping 
business. The exporters routinely ship U.S. goods to Cuba where they 
remain under the custody of the seller until such time as the seller 
certifies full payment. Only then are goods released to Cuba. At no 
time is credit extended in any form to Cuba. I cannot overemphasize 
that because that is exactly what the act requires.
  This standard method of doing business has been in practice since 
sales to Cuba began. This amendment will overturn OFAC's new definition 
of ``cash in advance.'' The legislation allows exporters to resume 
normal trading and does not include any extraneous provisions that are 
unrelated to the immediate problem.
  I again thank my colleagues for working on this issue and coming to a 
good resolution to return to the way trading was done prior to the 
arbitrary change in the regulation by OFAC. I thank Senator Cochran for 
his cooperation in letting us get this to the Senate floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I strongly support the second-degree 
amendment. I think it has been well spoken by the ranking member of the 
Finance Committee, Senator Baucus. He has detailed exactly what we 
intend to do. The chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee has 
echoed that very clearly. I support reinstating the 2000 act, in its 
clarity, in its simplicity, to allow agricultural and medical supply 
trade with Cuba. To see that changed by a regulatory process in the 
Treasury Department was not, nor is it, in my opinion, the intent of 
Congress.
  I thank my colleagues for their collective effort in reinstating this 
issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the second degree 
amendment? If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 549, as 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 549), as modified, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to amendment 
No. 475, as amended.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I have been notified that there is a Senator who wants 
to be heard on the issue of germaneness on this amendment--or on the 
issue itself.
  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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 443

  Mr. DURBIN. I ask the pending amendment be set aside temporarily to 
consider my pending amendment No. 443.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment? Without objection, the amendment is set aside.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I urge the adoption of amendment No. 443.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is called up.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 443) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, at this point I return to the pending 
amendment subject to the wishes of the chairman--the previous pending 
amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3:15 
today the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the following 
amendments; provided further that no second-degree amendment also be in 
order to the amendments prior to the vote: the Byrd amendment No. 516 
on border security, the Warner amendment No. 498 on carriers; further, 
that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to each vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, is there any objection 
to add to that list the Landrieu amendments Nos. 414 and 479?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, those amendments have not been offered 
yet. These are amendments that have been offered and debated. We are 
simply proceeding to dispose of them.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, I would like to add 
after that vote Senator Landrieu would be allowed to take up amendments 
Nos. 414 and 479.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I add that as part of the unanimous 
consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The request is so 
modified.
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, Senator Warner has offered an amendment 
relating to delaying the decommissioning of the John F. Kennedy 
aircraft carrier CB-67. Is that the pending amendment?


                           Amendment No. 516

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Byrd amendment, 
No. 516.
  Mr. STEVENS. Is the Warner amendment scheduled for a vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Byrd amendment is scheduled to follow the 
Warner amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent the vote on the Warner amendment 
be scheduled to accompany the next vote requested by the Senate. I have 
been unable to make the statement I wanted to make on this amendment. I 
have been taken away for several other problems. I don't know when the 
next vote will be scheduled. But I do wish some time to discuss the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A vote is currently scheduled on the Warner 
amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that be postponed until the next 
amendment that is scheduled.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, do I have a couple of minutes before the 
vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes equally divided before the 
vote on the Byrd amendment.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. COCHRAN. 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. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Byrd 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays were previously ordered.

[[Page S3989]]

  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 105 Leg.]

                                YEAS--65

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wyden

                                NAYS--34

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Burr
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Jeffords
       
  The amendment (No. 516) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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 Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the name of 
Senator Bingaman be added as a cosponsor of the amendment just agreed 
to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 498

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is the Warner amendment the pending 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That had been the pending amendment. The 
Senator obtained consent to postpone its consideration.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have come to the Senate to oppose this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There were to be 2 minutes equally divided at 
this time on the Warner amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have not had the opportunity to speak 
on this amendment. I seek to oppose it.
  I ask unanimous consent that we have 15 minutes on each side on this 
amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to oblige the distinguished 
chairman. May I hear the request again.
  Mr. STEVENS. I asked unanimous consent that we have 15 minutes on 
each side, and I intend to oppose the amendment. I assume the Senator 
from Virginia would have another 15 minutes on the amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. I am perfectly agreeable to an equal division of the 
time. If the Senator needs 15, we have had the opportunity, Senator 
Nelson, myself, and others, and I believe the Presiding Officer may 
wish to speak, and Senator Allen. So that is agreeable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, will the 
Senator yield for a second first to take care of a procedural matter?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from Alaska 
has the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have two Senators on the floor who wish 
to argue about who gets the floor, but I have the floor. The Senator 
from Nevada wishes to have an opportunity to do something.
  I ask unanimous consent that I be able to allow the Senator from 
Nevada to make his presentation without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is objection. The Senator from Alaska 
retains the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. I regret that the Senator from Nevada is unable to do 
that.
  Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor now to oppose the 
amendment offered by my friend from Virginia. He is the chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee, and I do so very reluctantly. However, at 
hearings held by the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the Secretary 
of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations have opposed the goal of 
this amendment, which is to maintain 12 carriers in our fleet.
  I want to read from that transcript. I said this to the Secretary:

       Are you going to be terribly disturbed if we tell you to 
     keep the Kennedy where it is?

  The Secretary of the Navy said:

       Yes, sir, we would be terribly disturbed to keep the 
     Kennedy where it is. First of all, the money is out for the 
     Kennedy. It is not in our budget. If we have to keep the 
     Kennedy, then something else has to go. So we don't have the 
     money in the budget for the Kennedy. It's gone. It is $1.2 
     billion and it is 40 years old. It has never been through a 
     major upgrade. It is a Reserve carrier. So we have always had 
     the expense and serious issues in keeping the Kennedy 
     properly maintained. Frankly, it is so expensive for us and 
     it has marginal capability. As the CNO said, our carriers are 
     4 times more capable than they were during Desert Storm. We 
     are about to double capability by 2010 and, frankly, we do 
     not need this carrier.

  We have a disagreement of opinion between the Senator from Virginia 
and myself caused by the testimony. Parenthetically, I say to my 
friend, I hope he will look at the amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this time, will you entertain a brief 
question?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator has read from a transcript. We have had a 
discussion about it. Wouldn't you say that the Chief of Naval 
Operations expressed a different view at a different time?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have been so informed by the Senator 
from Virginia, but he has not said that in my presence. Let me note for 
the Senator, the way this amendment is drafted, the money to maintain 
12 carriers would come out of this bill, the supplemental 
appropriations, to be used for nonemergency purposes. Whatever happens 
to my objection, I hope that you will look at this amendment because we 
are informed that this would take $288 million out of the funds in this 
bill.
  From a policy point of view, decommissioning the Kennedy as the Navy 
proposes in the fiscal year 2006 budget will have minimal near-term 
operational impact due to a previously scheduled complex overhaul that 
was scheduled to begin in May of this year. This complex overhaul would 
result in 2 years of nonavailability for the ship.
  Decommissioning the Kennedy also has minimal near-term industrial 
base impacts and allows the Navy to free resources necessary to fight 
the global war on terrorism while preparing to face future challenges.
  The Navy's plan to decommission the Kennedy will save $1.2 billion 
over fiscal years 2006 through 2011. These savings are critical for 
modernizing our Naval forces, and for providing the necessary resources 
for the Navy's shipbuilding account.
  The Kennedy was chosen for decommissioning because of its material 
condition and operational readiness. The Kennedy has never been through 
a major upgrade. It served as a Reserve carrier from 1995 to 1998. The 
Navy has always had expenses and issues keeping the Kennedy properly 
maintained. It is expensive for the Navy and it is of marginal 
capability.
  The Kennedy was scheduled to go through a complex overhaul from May 
2005 to August 2006. It would be 40 years old coming out of this 
overhaul with the intent of extending it to 50 years of age.
  The Navy now believes it would be difficult to maintain this platform 
within reasonable cost even after the complex overhaul given that it 
did not go through a mid-life service life extension program.
  The overhaul risk in reducing the number of carriers from 12 to 11 is 
mitigated by several improvements realized in the multimission 
capabilities

[[Page S3990]]

of today's carrier strike groups. For example, carrier aircraft such as 
the F/A-18E and F/A-18F Super Hornets, are transitioning to the fleet 
with improved capabilities to hit multiple targets on a single sortie.
  Our carriers today are at least four times more capable, as measured 
in number of targets serviced per day, than they were during Desert 
Storm. The Navy is expected to almost double this capability by 2010 as 
we bring on new airplanes, more precision weapons, and increased sortie 
rates with future carriers currently in development.
  The Navy's fleet of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers has significant 
capabilities over conventional carriers, such as the Kennedy. Nuclear-
powered carriers have greater range and speed, and can operate at full 
speed for indefinite periods without the need for refueling.
  During flight operations, conventional carriers will need to refuel 
and re-arm every 2 to 3 days, compared to nuclear-powered carriers 
which will only need to re-arm and refuel every 7 to 10 days. The 
nuclear carriers have the capacity to carry 35 percent more fuel and 
ordnance than conventional carriers. Therefore, nuclear carriers are 
far less reliant on logistics support.
  The Navy is also transforming how they operate and extracting more 
readiness out of the force. The Navy's fleet response plan is 
revolutionary and is providing greater availability of carrier strike 
groups.
  The fleet response plan is supportable with an 11-carrier force as 
the emphasis is on enhanced readiness, speed of response, and increased 
carrier employability. These precepts continue to apply even with fewer 
carriers, as the Navy has ensured me that they will be fully able to 
meet combatant commander's requirements in key regions.
  The Department has already begun to implement mitigation strategy to 
address the impact of the Kennedy's complex overhaul workload 
cancellation. Approximately $28 million has been expended in supporting 
the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility to 
execute required maintenance on the USS John C. Stennis, CVN-74.
  Norfolk Naval Shipyard personnel are also executing work on the USS 
George Washington, CVN-73, currently undergoing a docking phased 
incremental availability at Newport News.
  Approximately $26 million has been obligated to Norfolk Naval 
Shipyard and the private sector to accomplish this additional required 
maintenance.
  Additionally, there are other nonrecoverable costs totaling $47.1 
million. Some of these are planning costs that will be required to be 
spent again if the complex overhaul of the Kennedy is reinstated, 
thereby increasing the original cost estimate of the complex overhaul.
  The Navy also informs me that workload disruptions throughout all 
shipyards would be severe if their workload mitigation plans were 
changed at this point in the fiscal year.
  I repeat that. They have told me workload disruptions throughout all 
naval shipyards would be severe if their workload mitigation plans were 
changed at this point in the fiscal year.
  I will try to respond to my colleagues who suggest the Kennedy would 
be available to replace the USS Kitty Hawk, which is currently forward 
deployed and permanently homeported in Japan, if the Kitty Hawk was not 
available for operations.
  The Navy assures me the Kennedy would not be moved to Japan if 
something happened to the Kitty Hawk. The Navy leadership believes the 
Kennedy does not provide the capabilities required to meet the mission 
for that area of responsibility.
  Although the Kennedy is older than the Kitty Hawk, the Navy provides 
regular upgrades and maintenance on the Kitty Hawk to keep her in 
excellent material condition. If the Kitty Hawk becomes unavailable for 
operations, the Navy will rotate a nuclear carrier into the region 
until the Kitty Hawk would be repaired.
  Finally, I know many Senators are concerned that the retirement of 
the Kennedy will negatively impact base realignment and closure 
decisions, BRAC decisions, regarding Mayport, FL, and possibly leave 
the Nation with only one port facility on the east coast capable of 
supporting large-deck, deep-draft vessels.
  I can tell those Senators the Navy is committed to retaining two 
strategic ports capable of accommodating large-deck, deep-draft ships 
on each coast.
  To this end, Mayport continues to be a critical large-deck-capable 
port. In the near term, the Navy will look at homeporting a large-deck 
amphibious ship in Mayport to mitigate the impact to the community for 
the loss of the Kennedy.
  As I said, I am here to oppose this amendment because of the cost it 
will impose on the Navy and the risk it will impose on future 
capabilities being developed for our naval forces.
  There is no question in my mind this is the wrong way to go. The Navy 
has stated that to us very clearly in statements made to the 
Appropriations Committee, following the time of the comments to the 
Armed Services Committee.
  I want to again say Secretary English, with the Chief of Naval 
Operations sitting by him, said this to our committee:

       So we fully support taking out the Kennedy, and, Mr. 
     Chairman, if we are required to keep the Kennedy, then we're 
     going to have to take money out of someplace else because we 
     do not have the money to keep the Kennedy.

  The impact of this amendment is it will be taking money out of this 
supplemental appropriations for this purpose. My good friend from 
Virginia I do hope will take, in any event, a look at his amendment 
because I do not think this emergency money ought to be diverted to a 
change in a policy decision and overruling the Secretary of the Navy 
with regard to how many carriers there are in our fleet.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my good friend the funds needed, 
to the extent funds are needed, to keep this ship in an operational 
status are in the 2005 budget. The only reason we had to make reference 
with the sentence ``of the amount appropriated for the Department of 
Navy by this act'' was to get it germane so we could get it to the 
floor so the Senate of the United States can make a decision.
  I say to the Senator most respectfully, the funds that are needed to 
put this ship in such condition to continue are there. However, just 
today the admiral, who was the battle fleet commander who brought this 
ship back from its most recent deployment, said as follows:

       If improvements made to the JFK avionics maintenance 
     facility prior to deployment--

  The access to this ship. And he concludes by saying:

       The results from our aggressive self-sufficiency and superb 
     technical support, mostly via aviation technology, enabled us 
     to return from the deployment in outstanding material 
     condition.

  That is the status of the ship. The reason we are trying to keep this 
in is not a political one, it is not relating to our various 
jurisdictions. It is for the interest of this country to keep a ship in 
port in Japan which is nonnuclear, while the Japanese Government and 
the local mayoral government--I think it is called a precept--make the 
decision as to whether they will ever allow a nuclear carrier in there.
  I think there is adequate testimony in our records of the Armed 
Services Committee to the effect the Navy believes keeping a ship in 
that area of operation, particularly at this time of heightened 
tension, is in the interest of our national security and our ability to 
work with our allies and friends in that region.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to underscore so Senator 
Stevens can hear what Senator Warner said. The funds were provided in 
the 2005 Defense appropriations bill. There were funds in excess of 
$300 million in that bill. To the best of my recollection, it was $317 
million for the purpose of dry dock. Some of those funds have already 
been expended for the planning of the dry dock. However, there are 
approximately $288 million already appropriated in the 2005 bill for 
the drydocking of the John F. Kennedy. This is not the expenditure of 
moneys in the supplemental bill.
  I want to underscore also what the distinguished chairman of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee has said in quoting Admiral McCollum, 
the battle

[[Page S3991]]

group commander of the John F. Kennedy, which has just returned from 
operation, and what he quoted from the written testimony of the 
admiral. I was at that committee meeting.
  I just came from a committee meeting. I said: ``Admiral,'' and I read 
the statement the chairman just read to the Senate, ``are you saying 
that the John F. Kennedy is seaworthy?''
  He said: Yes, sir.
  Thirdly, I emphasize what the distinguished chairman has said, and 
that is, this all boils down to a matter of defense of our interests 
with a rising threat from China in the Pacific area of operations. It 
is clear, in testimony after testimony by four-star admirals, we have 
to have a carrier homeported in Japan so they can get to an area of 
conflict quickly. Between now and when the Kitty Hawk is going to 
retire in 2008, we do not have any assurance the municipal government 
in Japan is going to say: We will accept a nuclear-powered carrier. 
Therefore, out of prudent and conservative planning for our projection 
of forces in the Pacific region, we should keep this conventional 
carrier alive.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, can I inquire of the time remaining under 
my control? My understanding is there were 15 minutes to Senator 
Stevens and 15 minutes given to my side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the opinion of the chair that agreement 
on time was never formally reached. However, the Senator from Virginia 
has used 3 minutes and the Senator from Alaska 10.
  Mr. WARNER. I think, in the interest of moving this along, that we 
adhere to the request there be 15 minutes to each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. That was my understanding of the situation at the time. 
I think there have been more requests for time.
  Mr. WARNER. We failed to achieve an agreement. So can I reinstate the 
original request, 15 minutes to each side--it is now less the amount of 
time consumed by both sides--so the Senate can get on with its 
business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to Senator Nelson and my colleagues, 
it is clear this decision to take the Kennedy and put it in a situation 
where it is going into mothballs was made in the final hours of the 
budget process.
  It was driven by the budget. The Chief of Naval Operations had 
testified before our committee, which testimony is before the Senate, 
that he always wanted 12 carriers. If we are to make a decision to go 
from 12 carriers to 11, that should be done in the QDR process which is 
underway now, which will be concluded this year, possibly impacted by 
the BRAC process which likewise is underway, and consequently there are 
orderly procedures legislated by the Congress by which a decision of 
this magnitude should be made.
  There are three Senators who desire to speak, and I will yield 2 
minutes to each of them: Senator Allen, 2 minutes; Senator Martinez, 2 
minutes, and Senator Talent, 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I thank my good colleague Senator Warner 
for his great leadership on this matter. This is a bipartisan effort.
  Let us recall what this amendment is about. It is to provide our Navy 
with the maximum flexibility to project our power in East Asia. The 
Senator's amendment says before we mothball the JFK, two things have to 
happen. There is the Quadrennial Defense Review to determine how this 
mixture should be, and actually 180 days thereafter, and also assure us 
we can have a nuclear carrier ported in Japan, which prohibits nuclear-
powered ships in their land.
  A little over 2 years ago, Admiral Clark said: The current force of 
12 carriers and 12 amphibious groups is the minimum we can have to 
sustain the operations we are in. In the 2002 naval posture statement: 
Aircraft carrier force levels have been set at 12 ships as a result of 
fiscal constraints. However, real-world experience and analysis 
indicate that a carrier force of at least 15 ships is necessary to meet 
the warfighting Commander in Chief's requirements for carrier presence 
in all regions of importance to the United States.
  What has happened in the last 2 years? Nothing to restrain or think 
that these threats are less than they were before. We are still in the 
war on terrorism. China is building up their navy. They are passing 
anticession laws, threatening Taiwan more than ever. So while we are 
standing down, to some extent, our building of a navy, then reducing a 
carrier which would not be available to be in Japan in that theater of 
concern, it is illogical to take away this flexibility of protecting 
our security interests in the Indian Ocean as well as, for that matter, 
the Pacific Ocean. I believe a plan to mothball the Kennedy at this 
time is shortsighted, especially in this time of war and with the rapid 
buildup of the Chinese Navy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has used 2 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. How much time remains?
  Mr. ALLEN. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, might I inquire as to the total time 
remaining under my control?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has 7 minutes 
remaining and the Senator from Alaska has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield 30 additional seconds to the Senator from 
Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. The threats in the western Pacific are greater than they 
were before. Even last year, the funding was put in for this year for 
the refurbishment and the maintenance of the JFK. For the sake of our 
security and the flexibility we need for projecting our power, 
protecting our interests in the Far East, the wise thing to do is 
accept the amendment of the Senator from Virginia, which is shared by 
cosponsors from Florida and elsewhere.
  I yield to the Senator from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Warner's 
amendment. I believe it is of crucial importance to our Nation that we 
maintain the readiness of our carrier force.
  I thank my colleagues from Virginia, and also the senior Senator from 
my State, Mr. Nelson, who has been so dogged in his fight in this 
effort. I believe we have made a lot of progress since we began to talk 
about keeping the Kennedy and keeping 12 carriers in the fleet.
  The thing that has impressed me as this discussion has proceeded is a 
commentary from the Secretary of the Navy, as well as the Chief of 
Naval Operations as they have discussed the need for readiness of 12 
carriers, as well as the fact there is a need for maintaining 
operations on the east coast of the United States with two ports 
available to our Navy.
  I believe as this debate and this discussion has ensued, it has 
become increasingly clear that at a time of great stress upon our Armed 
Forces, at a time when we expect our global reach to be just that, 
global, we cannot make do with 11 carriers to satisfy short-term 
budgetary goals.
  The fact is our Nation is best served by a 12-carrier force. Our 
Nation is also best served by having two ports on the east coast that 
can handle nuclear carriers. I believe we should move forward in that 
regard as well to allow that diversity and that opportunity.
  I yield the remainder of my time and thank the Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for yielding. I am 
the chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee, which is kind of strange 
given that I am from Missouri. It is not as though we have ports or 
shipyards in Missouri, although we do build the planes that go on these 
carriers.
  I want to endorse this amendment, which I have cosponsored, and 
endorse what other Senators have said in support of it and briefly give 
the Senate the broader picture. Several years ago the Chief of Naval 
Operations opined that we needed about 375 ships in the U.S. Navy to 
meet the national military strategy, basically to protect our security. 
We now have around 288.
  A Quadrennial Defense Review is underway. It is going to be completed 
next year. We are looking very carefully in the Armed Services 
Committee

[[Page S3992]]

at how many ships we need and what we need to do to the shipbuilding 
budget and what we need to do to demand more efficiency from our 
shipyards and our shipbuilders.
  I am very hopeful in the next year or so we will move forward with a 
major package in this area. I know the chairman of the full committee 
feels the same way.
  In the meantime, especially given the rising tensions in the western 
Pacific, I think allowing the Navy to go from 12 to 11 carriers would 
send exactly the wrong statement. We need to make the point to everyone 
around the world that we are going to sustain naval strength at the 
level necessary to protect the security of the United States. So we as 
a Congress need to begin resolving now that we are going to do what is 
necessary to accomplish that, which means in part, yes, not allowing 
the number of carriers to shrink, at least not before the Quadrennial 
Defense Review is finished, but also it means sustaining the 
shipbuilding and conversion account at a funding level that is 
necessary to buy the ships we need to sustain a 300-ship or more Navy.
  There is going to be more on this next year. We have to stand by on 
that. I am sympathetic with the concerns of the Senator from Alaska, 
but I sponsored the amendment and I support it now. Passing it would be 
the prudent thing to do.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have 5 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct, the Senator has 5 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Please notify me when I have 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. President, pursuant to rule VI, paragraph 2, I ask unanimous 
consent that Senator Byrd be considered necessarily absent and he be 
excused from any further service of the Senate for the remainder of 
today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment says the money will come 
out of this bill. Now, it is true that for 2005 we did appropriate 
money to the Navy for the CV-67, the John F. Kennedy. But I have in my 
hand the cancellation of the complex overhaul. We know exactly where 
the money has been reallocated. It has been reallocated to a series of 
functions. Some of those functions are already prepared.
  I say to my colleagues, no matter what we do, the money will come out 
of this bill because the money that was allocated in the 2005 bill has 
been used for the Stennis, for the George Washington, support travel 
for the CVN-73 and 74, for the USS Truman, CVN-75, for additional work 
at Hampton Roads, for the USS Charlotte, which is the SSN-766, a 
submarine, and for work inactivation of the carrier at Mayport. As a 
practical matter, they have already spent the $288 million in the 2005 
bill--at least obligated it. The Senator from Virginia, I understand, 
disputes that. But that is the information we have received.
  What I am saying, for our committee I oppose this amendment of 
Senator Warner because it, No. 1, will preserve 12 carriers; No. 2, it 
will take money from this bill or somewhere to go back and reinstate 
the basic complex overhaul which, as I said to the Senate, the Navy now 
believes is unwarranted because of the age of this vessel. This vessel 
is so old and it did not have a midlife service program. So there is no 
reason to suspect it will have 10 years' service after this overhaul is 
completed.
  What this will do, if we spend the money, we are going to delay the 
modernization of the Navy. We know throughout the world nations are 
building more ships. We cannot keep up with them. We cannot keep up 
with them because we are keeping old hulls. It is time we woke up. We 
need smaller, faster, more capable vessels than these vessels we are 
talking about. To prolong their life is wrong.
  The Secretary of the Navy and the CNO have taken a different position 
than they did 6 months ago on this issue. They finally came to the 
conclusion they could not do what they wanted to do, and they told us 
that in our committee. I am reporting that to the Senate.
  The choice of the Senate is to support the Navy's position now as 
expressed by the Secretary and the Chief of Navy Operations and spend 
this money the way they want to spend it for the future, or to go back 
and reverse that decision and try to maintain a 40-year-old carrier and 
extend its life for 10 years when the experts say you can spend all 
this money and it still will not be a serviceable vessel to meet the 
needs of the Navy.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I simply say to my good friend in a very 
dispassionate, calm way, you read from a document that is only 10 days 
old. They learned that I differed with them, and they have done 
everything they can to build a case to stop it. But not a dollar has 
gone out of the Navy Treasury. It is still there. You will see that 
that was done just 10 days ago.
  I say to my good friend, they made the decision to keep this in the 
budget. It was in the budget up until the last 2 days when down came a 
cut in dollars and they decided to go to where they maybe cut a few 
bucks out. They can restore them and that ship can stay alive and that 
ship can be added to address any problem to defend our interests in 
that area for an indefinite period of time because it is in good 
condition as certified today--am I correct, Senator?--by the admiral in 
charge of that ship?
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator is absolutely correct; just 30 
minutes ago from the admiral.
  Mr. WARNER. So as a former Secretary of the Navy myself, I feel very 
strongly. I do not know of any Senator who stood on this floor more 
times to defend the Department of the Navy--I say with a sense of 
humility--than I. But I believe this time the decision was driven by 
the budget, and it is not a correct one given the status of forces in 
that area, given the uncertainty about the ability to continue the 
homeporting of a Navy carrier in our expensive base that we have 
maintained--as a matter of fact, as Secretary I put it together--in 
Yokosuka.
  If there is more time, I yield the time back and suggest the Senate 
work its will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 30 seconds.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I regret being here with this argument 
because I have such deep respect for Senator Warner, the Senator from 
Virginia, the former Secretary of Navy. But I think this year I am 
going to be at this desk saying this again and again. We are in a 
program of reshaping our military. We are looking out to the future, 
based on the lessons we have learned in Afghanistan and Iraq and the 
war on terrorism.
  We note some of the failures of our system. One of them is the 
failure to modernize in time. We got behind. The very fact that this 
40-year-old vessel is out there with overhaul appropriations was wrong 
to begin with. We should be looking to the future and to the needs of 
this Navy. I congratulate the Secretary of the Navy and the CNO for 
being willing to reverse their stand and come to us and say: Please 
oppose this amendment. Keep the schedule we have decided on and let us 
modernize the Navy.
  That is the decision before the Senate. Are we going to go forward 
with the people making the tough decisions? Are we going to do it after 
BRAC? Are we going to do it for the Air Force? We are going to have 
some tough ones for the Air Force. Are we going to do it for the Army? 
We are going to have some tough decisions on the Army. Every single 
part of the military is going to be realigned in terms of spending this 
year, and this is the beginning.
  I leave it to the Senate. Make the decision. Shall we follow the 
Chief of Naval Operations and the Secretary of Navy, their current 
position, or shall we follow the position they had just 6 months ago?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask Senator Collins be added to those as cosponsor, and 
that the list remain open because we

[[Page S3993]]

have received a lot of calls from people who want to support this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad), the Senator from 
Vermont (Mr. Jeffords), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) are necessarily absent.
  The vote was announced--yeas 58, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 106 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

     Akaka
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Martinez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Talent
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner

                                NAYS--38

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burns
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Byrd
     Conrad
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
  The amendment (No. 498) was agreed to.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By previous order, the Senator from Louisiana 
is to be recognized.
  The Senator from Louisiana.


                           Amendment No. 414

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 414.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 414.

  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To encourage that funds be made available to provide 
            assistance to children affected by the tsunami)

       On page 194, line 13, after ``tsunami:'' insert ``Provided 
     further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, 
     not less than $25,000,000 should be made available to support 
     initiatives that focus on the immediate and long-term needs 
     of children, including the registration of unaccompanied 
     children, the reunification of children with their immediate 
     or extended families, the facilitation and promotion of 
     domestic and international adoption for orphaned children, 
     the protection of women and children from violence and 
     exploitation, and activities designed to prevent the capture 
     of children by armed forces and promote the integration of 
     war affected youth:''.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bingaman be 
recognized for 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the Senator from 
Louisiana.


                     Amendment No. 483, as modified

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be 
set aside and that amendment No. 483 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is pending.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send a modification to the amendment 
to the desk and ask that it be considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the amendment being 
modified?
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Reserving the right to object, which amendment is this?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment previously offered by the 
Senator from New Mexico----
  Mr. BINGAMAN. No. 483.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No. 483.
  Mr. ENSIGN. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 202, lines 22 through 24, strike ``recent Supreme 
     Court decisions and recently enacted legislation, 
     $60,000,000'' and insert ``increased immigration-related 
     filings, recent Supreme Court decisions, and recently enacted 
     legislation, $65,000,000''.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this modification would provide that 
instead of the $60 million that is in the bill now for the operation of 
our Federal courts, there would be $65 million, and that the additional 
funding could be used for both responding to recent Supreme Court 
decisions, responding to recently enacted legislation, and responding 
to the increased immigration-related filings in the Federal court. This 
is a good amendment. It is one that is important, particularly for the 
States where these immigration-related filings are happening. I believe 
this is an acceptable amendment to both sides, and I urge my colleagues 
to support it. I believe it can be agreed to on a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 483, as 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 483), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 414, As Modified

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am glad I was able to accommodate our 
colleague. At this time I send a modification to amendment No. 414 to 
the desk and ask unanimous consent that we discuss this slightly 
modified version.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification of the 
amendment?
  Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 194, line 13, after ``tsunami:'' insert ``Provided 
     further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, 
     not less than $25,000,000 should be made available to support 
     initiatives that focus on the immediate and long-term needs 
     of children for protection and permanency, including the 
     registration of unaccompanied children, the reunification of 
     children with their immediate or extended families, 
     assistance to improve the capacity of governments and 
     appropriate private entities to facilitate domestic and 
     international adoption of orphaned children, the protection 
     of women and children from violence and exploitation, and 
     activities designed to prevent the capture of children by 
     armed forces and promote the integration of war affected 
     youth:''.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as we continue to discuss the 
supplemental bill, it is not the largest bill in terms of dollar 
amounts that we have talked about on the Senate floor. Of course, we 
manage to move through 13 appropriations bills most years. That is 
billions and billions of dollars in priorities that we are trying to 
reflect on behalf of our constituents in our States and around the 
Nation.
  One of the important components of this $80 billion supplemental bill 
is about $1 billion for relief for tsunami victims. We remember all too 
vividly and dramatically and traumatically when on Sunday, December 26, 
a wave of about 50 feet hit several countries in the Indian Ocean, 
primarily Indonesia, and within a few hours or a few days, 120,000 
people were dead, some of them children who were simply unable to get 
out of the way of the wave; there was no warning.
  The Senators who have forwarded this supplemental are very aware of 
the needs. I offer this amendment on behalf of Senator Craig and myself 
because part of the effort to reconstruct this region is to help not 
only rebuild

[[Page S3994]]

the roads, rebuild the houses, rebuild the schools, reinvest in the 
health and education infrastructure. I argue that it is most important 
for us to rebuild the families. We talk about nation rebuilding. We 
talk about building nations. We talk about reconstruction. All of that 
is wonderful and terrific, but I don't know if people are understanding 
that nations are built, communities are built, cities are built on 
families.
  When I read through the many pages of this very well put together 
bill, one of the problems was there was not a mention under the title 
for USAID of this Government's efforts to reunite orphans and parents, 
to establish strong programs or initiatives to help reunite children 
with parents who are still alive or with extended family relatives so 
that those family units can be strong.
  I can tell you, I know from experience--and I think every Republican 
and Democrat on this floor would agree with me--you can build the 
strongest buildings in the world. You can build the mightiest 
interstate systems. You could have the finest school buildings and the 
finest universities. But if you don't have strong families, the nation, 
the community, is not going to thrive, and there will be no future. The 
future is passed from parent to child, from grandparent to grandchild, 
not from a bureaucratic government. Governments do a lot of things 
well, but let me stand here on behalf of the Coalition on Adoption, 
which represents 180 Members of Congress, to say, governments do a lot 
of things well. Raising children is not one of them. Parents raise 
children.
  Senator Craig and I--and I see the Senator on the floor, and I would 
like him to add his insights--want to strongly go on the record saying 
that if we are going to spend a billion dollars to help tsunami 
victims, certainly we can carve out of that money, not adding money to 
this, $25 million for the express purpose of strengthening families, 
identifying those children who have been orphaned, working to see if 
some relative would adopt them. If that relative who wants to adopt has 
lost their fishing boat and is no longer able to provide for their 
surviving children and the orphans of the sister or brother who was 
lost next to them in the wave, then these programs we are establishing 
could help to reunite that family and keep them together and not pull 
these children out of these family units and send them to be raised in 
an orphanage or in a boarding school and give them food.
  They need more than food. They need emotional support. They need 
spiritual support. They need care. I could go on and on for hours, 
which I won't do, to give you documents that are alarming to me from 
people whose salaries we pay saying that this is not important.
  I want to say to the Members--and all of us feel it is quite 
important--it is a real problem when these pages do not reflect that 
principle and that priority.
  I know Senator Craig's time may be short. Let me yield at the moment 
to him. He may want to add a word. I am hoping we can get this adopted 
without a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senator from Louisiana has made the 
point so very clearly. We are sending a billion dollars to the tsunami 
region and the tsunami victims. We speak not once about reuniting 
families.
  The Senator from Louisiana traveled with our majority leader to the 
tsunami area immediately following that tragedy. She saw firsthand the 
phenomenal difficulties. I was in India recently on behalf of the 
congressional coalition on adoption and children and once again heard 
about the tremendous problems that are real to this region.
  One of the things that both the Senator from Louisiana and I know, 
because we immediately extended our assistance and opened our arms and 
said, Americans are ready to adopt these orphan children, we got a very 
nice, polite response: No, we will work to take care of our own.
  The reason that response was appropriate was because in those regions 
of that part of our world, in those cultures and religions, the 
extended family is phenomenally important. They work very hard at 
taking care of their own under most difficult situations of the kind we 
have seen. It isn't just that they can reach out their arms for love 
and care; it is that they have the resources to assume those children 
into their families who are part of the extended family.
  I do believe this is an appropriate amendment. It does some targeting 
within. It is not adding money to; it is not taking money away from; it 
is simply defining and shaping a very important use. I would hope we 
could agree on that and accept this amendment of the Senator from 
Louisiana as an appropriate amendment to the underlying bill.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Idaho for his insight and his 
addition to the record. Let me make two additional points. As we know, 
President Bush has asked former President Bush and former President 
Clinton to head up an international private sector effort, so the money 
that we lay down, the $1 billion, is sort of a guide to the private 
dollars being raised.
  This Congress cannot, with the power that we have, let this budget go 
out without a mention or a specific dedication or at least an 
underscore that we in the Congress think families are important, we 
would like to send that message out to private donors saying: Please, 
let's rebuild the highways, let's rebuild the schools, let's rebuild 
the hospitals. But while we are doing that, let's respect the family. 
Let's honor the family. Let's try to keep children within families 
through extended kinship adoption, through adoption domestically and, 
if not, through international adoption with all the proper safeguards.

  Second, we have spent a lot of time coming up with new rules and 
regulations about child trafficking, child exploitation. It is terrible 
to see children sold into the sex trade, and many of these children are 
sold into the sex trade because they don't have parents who are 
watching them and protecting them. Yet in some cultures it is 
unfortunate that even children have children and the parents are not 
strong enough, either economically or in a strong enough physical 
position, to protect these children from these exploitations.
  So I say to my friends in this room, if we want to protect children 
from exploitation, if we want to protect children from child 
trafficking, then, heavens, help them find a parent. Parents do a lot 
better job of protecting children than any army in the world. Nobody 
could get my children out from underneath my watchful eye. So I know. 
We all hover around our children and protect them. The least our 
Government can do is honor the work parents in the United States of 
America do in trying to protect their children, and when their parents 
are killed or separated from them, move them to adoptive parents who 
will protect them and keep them away from the traffickers.
  So I say to the leaders, the managers of the bill, we are not adding 
money to the bill; $25 million is not that much money when you are 
talking about continents and nations and hundreds of thousands of 
families that could benefit. Please consider accepting this amendment. 
If not, you can understand why Senator Craig and I would have to ask 
for a vote. We are not asking for any more money. We have mentioned 
everything in this bill--physical disabilities, mental illness, loss of 
fishing boats, highways, houses, schools. I have read every page of it, 
and I am on the Appropriations Committee. I cannot find a mention in 
here about the U.S. Government--after many of us have traveled to the 
region and taken pictures with orphans and with the families and 
promised aid, I don't see why we cannot earmark and set as a priority 
$25 million, which is a small amount of money, to this end.
  That is basically the argument. I hope the leadership will accept it. 
I thank the chairman, the Senator from Mississippi, for his great help 
and support. I know it is a difficult bill to move through. Whether he 
wants to vote now or if he wants to stack it for later, I am open to 
that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I know of no other requests for debate on 
the amendment. I have no objection to our proceeding to a voice vote on 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.

[[Page S3995]]

  The amendment (No. 414), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ENSIGN. 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 Nevada is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 475

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I call for the regular order with respect 
to amendment No. 475 and make a point of order that the amendment is 
not germane under the provisions of rule XXII.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is well taken and 
sustained. The amendment falls.
  The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me say how disappointed I am that the 
action taken by the Senator from Nevada has just happened. We were 
working very hard to solve a very specific problem that the 
administration had chosen to rule by regulation, what I believe is a 
total subversion of a law that was critically necessary and helpful to 
our agricultural people. But that has now happened, and the Senator was 
in his right, as disappointed as I am, by what I believe is a near 
bushwhack, but then again that is chosen.
  I yield to the Senator from Georgia.


                     Amendment No. 472, As Modified

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, at this time, I ask unanimous consent 
to call up amendment No. 472, as modified, which is at the desk.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Lugar, Roberts, Harkin, Dorgan, Enzi, and Johnson be added as 
cosponsors of amendment No. 472, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
amendments Nos. 388 and 406.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 520

  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 520.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Bayh] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 520.

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

     (Purpose: To appropriate an additional $213,000,000 for Other 
  Procurement, Army, for the procurement of Up-Armored High Mobility 
               Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (UAHMMWVs))

       On page 169, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:


         up-armored high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles

       Sec. 1122. (a) Additional Amount for Other Procurement, 
     Army.--The amount appropriated by this chapter under the 
     heading ``Other Procurement, Army'' is hereby increased by 
     $213,000,000, with the amount of such increase designated as 
     an emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of the 
     conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th 
     Congress).
       (b) Availability of Funds.--Of the amount appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by this chapter under the heading 
     ``Other Procurement, Army'', as increased by subsection (a), 
     $213,000,000 shall be available for the procurement of Up-
     Armored High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles 
     (UAHMMWVs).
       (c) Reports.--(1) Not later 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and every 60 days thereafter until the 
     termination of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees 
     a report setting forth the current requirements of the Armed 
     Forces for Up-Armored High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled 
     Vehicles.
       (2) Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees a report setting forth the most effective 
     and efficient options available to the Department of Defense 
     for transporting Up Armored High Mobility Multipurpose 
     Wheeled Vehicles to Iraq and Afghanistan.

  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I call up this amendment to address what has 
been a chronic and pressing need on the part of our military forces in 
both Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Mr. President, there is an old saying we are all familiar with: Fool 
me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
  Mr. President, fool me nine times, and it qualifies as an emergency 
that must be addressed, particularly when the lives and limbs of our 
military men and women are at stake. Specifically, I refer to the fact 
that the United States Army has now, on nine consecutive occasions, 
underestimated the need for uparmored humvees in the theater of Iraq. 
This has been a matter of some public attention in Newsweek Magazine 
and elsewhere. It is a chronic need we need to address now.
  The figure the Army indicates they currently need--and allegedly have 
met--would not have been met at all if, last year, we had not taken 
similar action to do what I am currently requesting. They would have 
had funding for thousands of fewer vehicles and not met the need that 
currently they suggest is imperative. The figure they are saying is 
sufficient today includes--think about this--a range of attrition of 
226 vehicles throughout the combat in Iraq. They have only lost 226 
uparmored humvees throughout the last 2 years in that theater. This is 
below the attrition rate of 10 to 15 percent, suggesting strongly that 
they are erring yet again--for the tenth time.
  I ask my colleagues, when it comes to something this important, with 
a track record of underestimating the need this clear, should we not 
err on the side of doing more, rather than less, when it comes to 
protecting the lives and safety of our military men and women?
  I note some of my colleagues, who I esteem greatly on the other side 
of the aisle, will suggest the generals are simply saying we don't have 
an additional need at this time. Mr. President, that is not what the 
troops are saying. Do you remember the one brave soldier who brought to 
the attention of the Secretary of Defense the fact that they were 
having to resort to what he called ``hillbilly armor'' for their 
protection? We should not allow this deplorable condition to continue.
  I remind my colleagues again, in spite of what the generals are 
currently saying in a letter circulating, they have been wrong nine 
consecutive times. The credibility on this issue is not that great. It 
is also suggested perhaps we should take our resources--and I 
understand they are scarce--and allocate them instead to have striker 
vehicles instead of uparmored humvees.
  Mr. President, I submit this is a false choice. When it comes to 
protecting our troops, we should do whatever it takes to get the job 
done and not leave some exposed to unnecessary harm while choosing 
instead to protect others. We can afford to do both.
  Mr. President, I conclude my comments by saying how much I respect 
Senator Cochran and Senator Stevens but the track record here is very 
clear. On nine consecutive occasions, the Army has underestimated the 
need. The need wouldn't be met today for the number of vehicles 
suggested in their letter if we had not acted last year. Let us err on 
the side of doing more rather than less. Let us take this action to 
protect our troops. It is the very least we can do when they are in 
harm's way on our behalf.
  Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kennedy, myself, and others, I 
ask we take this action.
  I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the global war on terrorism requirement 
for these uparmored humvees is 10,079 units. I have a letter from the 
Department of the Army signed by David Melcher, Lieutenant General, 
U.S. Army, and James Lovelace, Lieutenant General, Deputy Chief of 
Staff, which states the amount already appropriated and supported in 
reprogramming actions will fund the total requirement of 10,079 humvees 
by June of this year.
  Without any money from this supplemental request, the total 
requirements have been set down for this system for this fiscal year.
  This, after all, is a supplemental request, and we will be dealing 
with the Army's 2006 requirements in the full bill for the fiscal year 
2006. We have appropriated and programmed moneys to

[[Page S3996]]

meet the requirements. As a matter of fact, the funds we put up already 
will exceed that requirement by 266 vehicles. The manufacturer is 
currently producing these humvees at the maximum capacity of 550 per 
month and will exceed the Department's requirements in June.
  I am sad to oppose my good friend from Indiana, but the requirement 
for these uparmored humvees is not going to expand, in our judgment. 
The Army maintains they do not need more uparmored humvees in 
Afghanistan because they are too heavy to maneuver in the mountainous 
Afghan terrain. In the areas where they are capable of being used, we 
are bringing more and more critically needed equipment, such as the 
Strikers, into Iraq.
  We should focus on the total funding for validated global war on 
terrorism requirements. These requirements were validated by the Army 
through its team system. There is no question that the procurement we 
have already paid for is sufficient to meet the total needs of the Army 
through the remainder of this fiscal year.
  As I said, we are going to look at this in terms of 2006. The Army 
procurement request so far for 2005 has been sufficient. We do have 
critical force protection requirements, but we also have the problem of 
recapitalization of equipment used in operation and equipment that is 
coming up for rotation.
  This is a very expensive time for the Army with the rotations that 
are going on. If we fund unvalidated requirements as proposed by this 
amendment at this time, that will come at the expense of validated 
requirements that have not been met.
  We will look at this again in conference, I promise the Senator from 
Indiana. There is no question this is a system we provided in recent 
months for the global war on terrorism. This capacity of 550 per month 
is an enormous amount of production. We commend the manufacturer for 
increasing its rate of production, but what happens when you increase 
rate of production is you get to the end sooner.
  We validated these requirements. We have met the requirements, and we 
do not need any additional money from this emergency bill to be spent 
for uparmored humvees.
  I do not know if anyone else wishes to speak on the matter, but I 
oppose it. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Again, at the request of the Department of Defense and the Department 
of the Army I oppose the Senator's amendment.
  If there is no further debate, I am pleased to have the vote on this 
matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. BAYH. 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. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the rollcall vote ordered 
on this amendment commence at 5:45 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                EPILEPSY AND RETURNING WOUNDED SOLDIERS

  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Alaska for 
joining me to discuss an issue of growing importance for our service 
members wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am pleased to join the Senator from Illinois to 
discuss this issue.
  Mr. OBAMA. Recently, USA Today reported that many of our injured 
soldiers are returning from Iraq with a condition known as traumatic 
brain injury, or TBI. Even though new technology and better body armor 
are helping soldiers survive bomb and rocket attacks, the blasts are 
still causing brain damage to them. As of January, 437 cases have been 
diagnosed in Army hospitals alone, and some doctors are saying that it 
could become the ``signature wound of the Iraq war.''
  TBI is the greatest risk factor for developing epilepsy. In fact, a 
study of Vietnam vets showed that 51 percent of those who suffered TBI 
went on to develop this disorder. That is why I filed an amendment to 
provide $1 million to the Department of Defense Peer Reviewed Medical 
Research Program for epilepsy research--including research on the 
relationship between TBI and epilepsy. The Epilepsy Foundation of 
America supports the amendment.
  However, I understand that this important issue is more appropriately 
addressed in the fiscal year 2006 appropriations process. With that 
understanding, I will not offer the amendment at this time.
  Mr. STEVENS. I appreciate the Senator not offering the amendment at 
this time.
  Mr. OBAMA. I look forward to working with the Senator from Alaska on 
this issue. Because epilepsy is a disorder that remains latent for many 
years, it is important that we work now to better understand the 
relationship between TBI and epilepsy and prevent the onset of epilepsy 
in these service members.
  Mr. STEVENS. I look forward to working with the Senator from Illinois 
on this issue during the appropriations process and ensuring that the 
needs of our service members are being met.
  Mr. OBAMA. I thank the Senator.


                     Amendment No. 440, As Modified

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 440 and ask that 
it be brought before the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is already pending.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification of that 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification? 
Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:


                           amendment no. 440

       On page 169, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:


       sense of senate on funding for vaccine health care centers

       Sec. 1122. It is the sense of the Senate that, of the 
     amount appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
     chapter under the heading ``Defense Health Program'', not 
     less than $6,000,000 should be available for the Vaccine 
     Health Care Centers.

  Mr. STEVENS. I ask that the amendment be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 440), as modified, was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 518, As Modified

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification of 
amendment No. 518.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Bunning, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 518.

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

 (Purpose: To provide funding to meet critical needs for ceramic armor 
                     plates for military vehicles)

       On page 231, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC.  . SILICON CARBIDE ARMOR INITIATIVE.

       Of amounts available to the Department of Defense in this 
     Act, $5,000,000 may be used for the purpose of funding a 
     silicon carbide armor initiative to meet the critical needs 
     for silicon carbide powders used in the production of ceramic 
     armor plates for military vehicles.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification? 
Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the Department of 
     Defense should provide funding sufficient, but not less than 
     $5,000,000, under the Defense Production Act Title III to 
     increase the domestic manufacturing capability to produce 
     silicon carbide powders for use in the production of ceramic 
     armor

[[Page S3997]]

     plates for armored vehicles, personal body armor systems, and 
     other armor needs.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for the adoption of the amendment, 
as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 518), as modified, was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 519, as Modified

  Mr. STEVENS. I send to the desk a modification of amendment No. 519.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Bunning, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 519.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide funding to meet critical needs for urban assault 
                        and structure breaching)

       On page 231, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC.   . RAPID WALL BREACHING KITS.

       Of amounts available to the Department of Defense in this 
     Act, $5,000,000 may be used for procurement of Rapid Wall 
     Breaching Kits.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification of this 
amendment?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the Department of Defense should allocate sufficient 
     funding, but not less than $5,000,000, in Fiscal Year 2005 to 
     procure Rapid Wall Breaching Kits for use in Operation Iraqi 
     Freedom, Operation Ensuring Freedom, and other uses;
       (2) the Department of Defense should submit to Congress an 
     amendment to the proposed Fiscal Year 2006 budget to procure 
     sufficient Rapid Wall Breaching Kits for use in Operation 
     Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and other uses in 
     Fiscal Year 2006; and
       (3) the Department of Defense should include in its budget 
     requests for Fiscal Year 2007 and beyond funds to procure 
     sufficient Rapid Wall Breaching Kits for use in Operation 
     Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and other uses.

  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 519), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the votes, and to lay the motions 
on the table, en bloc.
  The motions to lay on the table were agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 480, as Modified

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification of No. 
480.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Ms. Landrieu, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 480.

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

 (Purpose: To appropriate an additional $17,600,000 for Operation and 
 Maintenance, Army Reserve, and make the amount available for tuition 
          assistance programs for members of the Army Reserve)

       On page 169, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:


            tuition assistance programs of the army reserve

       Sec. 1122. (a) Additional Amount for Operation and 
     Maintenance, Army Reserve.--The amount appropriated by this 
     chapter under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army 
     Reserve'' is hereby increased by $17,600,000, with the amount 
     of such increase designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of the conference report to accompany 
     S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).
       (b) Availability of Funds.--Of the amount appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by this chapter under the heading 
     ``Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve'', as increased by 
     subsection (a), $17,600,000 shall be available for tuition 
     assistance programs for members of the Army Reserve as 
     authorized by law.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to modifying this 
amendment?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 169, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:


                   it is the sense of the senate that

       The amount appropriated by this chapter under the heading 
     ``Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve'' may be increased 
     by $17,600,000, with the amount of such increase designated 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of the 
     conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th) 
     Congress).
       (b) Availability of Funds.--Of the amount appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by this chapter under the heading 
     ``Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve'', as increased by 
     subsection (a), $17,600,000 may be available for tuition 
     assistance programs for members of the Army Reserve as 
     authorized by law.

  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for adoption of that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
480, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 480), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and 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 Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have gone through a series of 
amendments that have been offered to the Defense portion of this bill 
and have been able to work out substantial changes and modifications to 
meet the objectives of the sponsor as well as the urgency to get this 
bill done.
  For the portion of the bill that represents Defense, I urge Members 
to come and discuss with us these amendments so we may find out how we 
can handle them. We are informed there are still three amendments that 
affect the Defense portion of the supplemental. There may be other 
Defense amendments, but those are all we have been notified of so far.
  Again, I urge Members to contact us to see if we can work out these 
remaining Defense amendments.
  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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 444, as Modified

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification of 
amendment No. 444.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to modifying the pending 
amendment?
  Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:


     DEPLOYMENT OF WARLOCK SYSTEMS AND OTHER FIELD JAMMING SYSTEMS

       Sec. _ It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) $60,000,000 may be made available for the rapid 
     deployment of Warlock and other field jamming systems; and
       (2) in conference, the Senate should recede to the House 
     position.

  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for adoption of the amendment. It is now a sense-
of-the-Senate amendment and I urge its approval.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 444), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 416

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and I call up

[[Page S3998]]

amendment No. 416 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 416.

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

(Purpose: To authorize travel and transportation for family members of 
   members of the Armed Forces hospitalized in the United States in 
     connection with non-serious illnesses or injuries incurred or 
                 aggravated in a contingency operation)

       On page 169, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:


  travel and transportation for family of members of the armed forces 
hospitalized in united states in connection with non-serious illnesses 
     or injuries incurred or aggravated in a contingency operation

       Sec. 1122. (a) Authority.--Subsection (a) of section 411h 
     of title 37, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by inserting ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A); 
     and
       (B) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C) and inserting the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) either--
       ``(i) is seriously ill, seriously injured, or in a 
     situation of imminent death (whether or not electrical brain 
     activity still exists or brain death is declared), and is 
     hospitalized in a medical facility in or outside the United 
     States; or
       ``(ii) is not described in clause (i), but has an illness 
     or injury incurred or aggravated in a contingency operation 
     and is hospitalized in a medical facility in the United 
     States for treatment of that condition.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Not more than one roundtrip may be provided to a 
     family member under paragraph (1) on the basis of clause (ii) 
     of paragraph (2)(B).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Heading for amended section.--The heading for section 
     411h of such title is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 411h. Travel and transportation allowances: 
       transportation of family members incident to illness or 
       injury of members''.

       (2) Clerical amendment.--The item relating to such section 
     in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 7 of 
     such title is amended to read as follows:

``411h. Travel and transportation allowances: transportation of family 
              members incident to illness or injury of members.''.

       (c) Funding.--Funds for the provision of transportation in 
     fiscal year 2005 under section 411h of title 37, United 
     States Code, by reason of the amendments made by this section 
     shall be derived as follows:
       (1) In the case of transportation provided by the 
     Department of the Army, from amounts appropriated for fiscal 
     year 2005 by this Act and the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-287) for the 
     Military Personnel, Army account.
       (2) In the case of transportation provided by the 
     Department of the Navy, from amounts appropriated for fiscal 
     year 2005 by the Acts referred to in paragraph (1) for the 
     Operation and Maintenance, Navy account.
       (3) In the case of transportation provided by the 
     Department of the Air Force, from amounts appropriated for 
     fiscal year 2005 by the Acts referred to in paragraph (1) for 
     the Operation and Maintenance, Air Force account.
       (d) Report on Transportation in Excess of Certain Limit.--
     If in any fiscal year the amount of transportation provided 
     in such fiscal year under section 411h of title 37, United 
     States Code, by reason of the amendments made by this section 
     exceeds $20,000,000, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to 
     the congressional defense committees a report on that fact, 
     including the total amount of transportation provided in such 
     fiscal year under such section 411h by reason of the 
     amendments made by this section.


                     Amendment No. 416, as Modified

  Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I send a modification to the desk.
  Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, can we have a copy of 
that.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I sent a copy to the desk.
  Mr. STEVENS. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 416), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 169, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:


  travel and transportation for family of members of the armed forces 
hospitalized in united states in connection with non-serious illnesses 
     or injuries incurred or aggravated in a contingency operation

       Sec. 1122. (a) Authority.--Subsection (a) of section 411h 
     of title 37, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by inserting ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A); 
     and
       (B) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C) and inserting the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) either--
       ``(i) is seriously ill, seriously injured, or in a 
     situation of imminent death (whether or not electrical brain 
     activity still exists or brain death is declared), and is 
     hospitalized in a medical facility in or outside the United 
     States; or
       ``(ii) is not described in clause (i), but has an illness 
     or injury incurred or aggravated in a contingency operation 
     and is hospitalized in a medical facility in the United 
     States for treatment of that condition.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Not more than one roundtrip may be provided to a 
     family member under paragraph (1) on the basis of clause (ii) 
     of paragraph (2)(B).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Heading for amended section.--The heading for section 
     411h of such title is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 411h. Travel and transportation allowances: 
       transportation of family members incident to illness or 
       injury of members''.

       (2) Clerical amendment.--The item relating to such section 
     in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 7 of 
     such title is amended to read as follows:

``411h. Travel and transportation allowances: transportation of family 
              members incident to illness or injury of members.''.

       (c) Funding.--Funds for the provision of transportation in 
     fiscal year 2005 under section 411h of title 37, United 
     States Code, by reason of the amendments made by this section 
     shall be derived as follows:
       (1) In the case of transportation provided by the 
     Department of the Army, from amounts appropriated for fiscal 
     year 2005 by this Act and the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-287) for the 
     Military Personnel, Army account.
       (2) In the case of transportation provided by the 
     Department of the Navy, from amounts appropriated for fiscal 
     year 2005 by the Acts referred to in paragraph (1) for the 
     Operation and Maintenance, Navy account.
       (3) In the case of transportation provided by the 
     Department of the Air Force, from amounts appropriated for 
     fiscal year 2005 by the Acts referred to in paragraph (1) for 
     the Operation and Maintenance, Air Force account.
       (d) Report on Transportation in Excess of Certain Limit.--
     If in any fiscal year the amount of transportation provided 
     in such fiscal year under section 411h of title 37, United 
     States Code, by reason of the amendments made by this section 
     exceeds $20,000,000, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to 
     the congressional defense committees a report on that fact, 
     including the total amount of transportation provided in such 
     fiscal year under such section 411h by reason of the 
     amendments made by this section.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. My amendment is designed to correct a flaw in the 
current law that unintentionally but severely restricts the number of 
families of injured servicemembers that qualify for assistance to 
travel to the bedside of their wounded loved ones.
  This issue came to my attention when Tina Justice, the wife of 
Wisconsin Army National Guard 1LT Christopher Justice, contacted my 
office late last fall. First Lieutenant Justice and eight other members 
of Company B of the 118th Medical Battalion were traveling in a three 
vehicle convoy near Baghdad on September 12, 2004 and were waiting to 
clear a roadblock when they noticed a suspicious vehicle racing towards 
them. Members of Company B quickly responded, but the driver was still 
able to blow up his vehicle. The swift reaction undoubtedly saved many 
lives that day, but eight of the nine members of Company B still 
sustained injuries from the powerful blast, three severe enough to 
require evacuation to the United States.
  First Lieutenant Justice was one of the three soldiers seriously 
injured and evacuated, first to Germany, and finally to Walter Reed, 
where he underwent several surgeries for his injuries. All three 
injured Wisconsin guardsmen received exceptional medical care from the 
outstanding medical staff at Walter Reed. The guardsmen were also very 
grateful to be able to see their families who quickly rushed to be with 
them during this very traumatic time. Tina Justice was one of those who 
immediately went to Walter Reed to be with

[[Page S3999]]

her husband, bringing along her 4-year-old daughter and 1-year-old son.
  Congress has enacted legislation to help family members of injured 
servicemembers like First Lieutenant Justice. We have passed a law that 
provides Federal assistance to help pay for the travel and 
transportation costs of family members of very seriously or seriously 
ill or injured servicemembers. With her husband being injured seriously 
enough to require evacuation to Germany and then Walter Reed, Mrs. 
Justice naturally assumed that she would qualify for help under this 
provision. However, she found something quite different. According to 
the Army, her husband's injuries, which required evacuation to Europe 
and then to the U.S., did not qualify as ``serious,'' and therefore she 
would not be eligible for reimbursement. Despite her many attempts to 
reverse this decision, the Army continued to deny her claim.
  After much frustration, Mrs. Justice contacted my office. When I 
heard about the case, I believed there must have been some sort of 
bureaucratic mix-up. After all, it makes no sense that the Army would 
spend all that money to evacuate personnel out of the theater, on to 
Germany, and finally to the United States if that person was not 
seriously injured. However, my inquiries to the Army and to Secretary 
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld did not satisfactorily resolve Mrs. 
Justice's problem.
  The Justices are not alone. I was also recently contacted by the 
Carter family from Ladysmith, WI. Their son, SPC Andrew Carter, 
sustained shrapnel injuries to his legs and feet while serving his 
country in Iraq and was evacuated to Walter Reed. He and his family 
were also frustrated by the fact that they did not qualify for travel 
cost reimbursement because Specialist Carter's injuries weren't 
classified as serious by the Army.
  The Army Surgeon General's office finally helped shed some light on 
the problem. Although the law provides travel benefits for family 
members of very seriously or seriously injured military personnel, what 
constitutes a very serious or serious injury to the Army is very 
different from what the average American may think. The Army's 
technical definition of very seriously ill or injured, VSI, is that the 
soldier is in imminent danger of death. In order to be classified as 
seriously ill or injured, SI, the soldier must require a very high 
level of care, such as being in the intensive care unit, but be 
expected to survive. All other injuries, including those that may 
require extensive and multiple surgeries and months of hospital care 
are listed as not seriously ill or injured, NSI.
  Now I think that the average American would agree with the VSI 
classification. However, if someone has taken major shrapnel and other 
wounds from a suicide car bomber requiring several surgeries and is 
evacuated all the way to the United States from Iraq, my guess is that 
the average American would call that pretty serious. I know I did and I 
know that Mrs. Justice, the Carters, and others have as well. I also 
think that Congress, in passing laws to allow family members to visit 
their injured loved ones, had a definition of VSI and SI in mind more 
closely aligned to that of the average American rather than the 
technical definition used by the Army. What we have, therefore, is a 
well-intentioned law that is creating expectations that just aren't 
being met because our definitions don't match up.

  The denial of travel benefits, known as Invitational Travel Orders, 
ITO, to families like the Justices and Carters, because their loved 
ones' injuries aren't bad enough comes at the absolute worst time for 
the injured men and women and their families. They are in the midst of 
an extremely traumatic time, trying to come to grips with what has 
happened and working to heal physically and emotionally. They need to 
be concentrating on these important tasks, not worrying about whether 
or not they can even afford to be there and fighting the bureaucracy 
for travel cost reimbursement.
  The unfortunate and avoidable aftereffect of the current policy is 
that the injured troops and their families feel unappreciated by the 
Defense Department and by the country for which the servicemember 
almost lost their life.
  The amendment I introduce today will help rectify this problem and 
more closely align expectations with what families are provided. This 
legislation would make an addition to current law by allowing for one 
ITO for up to three family members of a servicemember medically 
evacuated from a war zone to the United States, whether that injured 
person is listed as VSI, SI or NSI. It is important that families get 
this first trip and don't have to worry about whether or not they can 
afford to pay for it. This amendment would provide that first trip.
  During that first trip, families can also acquaint themselves with 
the many fantastic public and private programs there to help them. The 
Red Cross, Fisher House, Operation Hero Miles, many veterans and 
military service organizations, the list goes on, all provide those 
injured in the line of duty and their families with many resources. 
Families can use that first trip to learn about and tap into these 
resources to assist them with future needs. I know the Justices and 
Carters deeply appreciated the help from these and other organizations.
  Some may be worried that this amendment will simply crowd out the 
good work being done by private organizations with another Government 
program. This is an understandable concern. However, after consulting 
with some of these organizations, I am confident that this legislation 
will not do so. It will, in fact, complement current private efforts to 
assist servicemembers and their families. The experiences of the 
Justices and Carters also show that this proposed legislation fills a 
void in the current assistance efforts.
  We are all very conscious of supporting our troops and making sure 
that those who have been injured receive the best possible medical 
care. This should be a priority. At the same time, we must not forget 
the families of these servicemembers. They, too, make great sacrifices 
and must cope with the changes in their lives brought about by the 
injuries and recovery of their loved ones. The amendment I introduce 
today will help reduce some of the burden faced by injured troops and 
their families so that they can concentrate on the important work of 
healing.
  I ask the managers if they are willing to accept this amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we commend the Senator for his 
modification and this necessary amendment. It deals with travel by 
dependents and loved ones with those who are seriously ill or injured 
or in a situation of imminent death. I do think the modification meets 
the increasing needs of our service men and women and their families. 
So we are pleased to accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senators for their support. 
I hope they will be willing to work to keep this small but important 
amendment in the conference report.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 416), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I again thank the managers very much. I 
would like to make a brief statement about another amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator mind reconsidering that amendment at 
this time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 459

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I also want to speak very briefly 
regarding an amendment that I had filed, amendment No. 459. Chairman 
Cochran raised a point of order against the amendment today, but I want 
to spend just a few minutes to explain what this amendment was about, 
because it concerns the success or failure of the U.S. effort in Iraq, 
and it concerns every American taxpayer.

[[Page S4000]]

  In 2003 I offered an amendment to the supplemental bill for Iraq and 
Afghanistan that established an inspector general for the Coalition 
Provisional Authority so that there would be one auditing body 
completely focused on ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and 
efficiently, and that this effort is free of waste, fraud, and abuse.
  Then the CPA phased out and, happily, Iraqi sovereignty was 
transferred back into Iraqi hands. Congress agreed that continued 
oversight of the reconstruction effort was important, and agreed to an 
amendment that I offered last year to turn the CPAIG into the Special 
Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. But even today, many months 
after that change, in many ways the reconstruction effort has only just 
begun. According to the Congressional Research Service, as of about a 
month ago, only a little more than $6 billion of the nearly $21 billion 
reconstruction fund had actually been expended. The work of the Special 
Inspector General must continue.
  My amendment is simple and largely technical. This amendment would 
adjust the termination date for the Special IG to link to expenditures 
rather than obligated funds. Obligations are dramatically outpacing 
expenditures in the reconstruction effort today. If we let the Special 
IG sunset after the bulk of the money is obligated but not expended, we 
will not have a clear picture of what these billions of U.S. taxpayer 
dollars actually achieved on the ground. The imminent disappearance of 
auditors can also create a real incentive for cutting corners in 
actually implementing projects. So we need to make sure that Congress 
signals its support for the Special IG continuing to see this 
reconstruction effort through.
  Transparency and accountability in the reconstruction effort is not 
about finding new things to criticize. It is about responsible 
stewardship of taxpayer resources, and it is about getting 
reconstruction right. Ultimately, it is about achieving our goals in 
Iraq. Congress appropriated reconstruction funds in an emergency 
supplemental. Congress created this IG in an emergency supplemental. It 
is entirely appropriate to make these technical changes to the IG's 
mandate in this supplemental to ensure that Congressional intent--which 
is to have ongoing, vigorous, focused oversight of the reconstruction 
effort--is respected.
  I am deeply disappointed that the managers of this bill did not see 
fit to devote any effort to this important amendment. The amendment had 
been cleared on the Democratic side, but apparently there was some 
problem, or some lack of interest, that prevented this amendment from 
being accepted. This is troubling. It is difficult to understand why 
anyone would oppose solid oversight of the reconstruction effort. The 
IG's team needs some sense of certainty as the obligation rate soars 
and their termination grows closer and closer, yet the bulk of 
reconstruction funds remain unexpended. The Senate addressed this issue 
in the $87 billion 2003 supplemental for Iraq, and then made an 
important adjustment by unanimous consent last year while we considered 
the DOD Authorization bill. This needs to get done, and I will continue 
to work to make sure that happens.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 5:45 
having arrived, the Senate will proceed to a vote on the Bayh 
amendment.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll to ascertain the 
presence of a quorum.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be 
rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 418, As Further Modified

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification of 
amendment No. 418.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification? 
Without objection, the amendment is further modified.
  The amendment (No. 418), as further modified, is as follows:

       On page 169, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:


    prohibition on termination of existing joint-service multiyear 
              procurement contract for C/KC-130J aircraft

       Sec. 1122. No funds in this Act may be obligated or 
     expended to terminate the joint service multiyear procurement 
     contract for C/KC-130J aircraft that is in effect on the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. STEVENS. I urge the adoption of the amendment as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? The question is on 
agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 418), as further modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, 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. COCHRAN. 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.


                     Amendment No. 493, As Modified

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to send to the desk a modification of amendment No. 493 in 
behalf of Senator Leahy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to modifying the amendment? 
Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. Leahy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 493, as modified.

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

       On page 176, line 12, after the colon insert the following:
       Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading, not less than $5,000,000 should be made available 
     for assistance for families and communities of Afghan 
     civilians who have suffered losses as a result of the 
     military operations:
       On page 183, line 23, add the following new section:


                  marla ruzicka iraqi war victims fund

       Sec.   . Of the funds appropriated by chapter 2 of title II 
     of PL 108-106 under the heading ``Iraq Relief and 
     Reconstruction Fund'', not less than $30,000,000 should be 
     made available for assistance for families and communities of 
     Iraqi civilians who have suffered losses as a result of the 
     military operations. Provided, That such assistance shall be 
     designated as the ``Marla Ruzicka Iraqi War Victims Fund''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  Is there further debate? If not, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 493), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 489, As Modified

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send to the desk another modification 
in behalf of Senator Durbin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification? 
Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. Durbin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 489, as modified.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 489), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 194, line 9, after the colon insert the following:
       Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading, not less than $10,000,000 should be made available 
     for programs and activities which create new economic 
     opportunities for women:

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 489), as modified, was agreed to.

[[Page S4001]]

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


                     Amendment No. 342, As Modified

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send to the desk another modification 
of an amendment in behalf of Senator DeWine, No. 342.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Is there objection to the modification? Without objection, the 
amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 342), as modified, is as follows:
       On page 183, after line 23, add the following:


                          ASSISTANCE FOR HAITI

       Sec.   . Of the funds appropriated by title II, chapter 2 
     of this Act, not less than $20,000,000 shall be made 
     available for assistance for Haiti: Provided, That this 
     assistance should be made available for election assistance, 
     employment and public works projects, and police assistance: 
     Provided further, That the obligation of such funds shall be 
     subject to prior consultation with the Committees on 
     Appropriations.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment, as 
modified? If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 342), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 425, As Modified

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send to the desk another modification 
to amendment No. 425, in behalf of Mr. Bennett.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification of the 
amendment? Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. 
     Bennett, proposes an amendment numbered 425, as modified.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 425), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 194, line 13, after ``tsunami:'' insert ``Provided 
     further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, 
     not less that $20,000,000 should be made available for 
     microcredit programs in countries affected by the tsunami, to 
     be administered by the United States Agency for International 
     Development:''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment, as 
modified? If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 425), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, 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. ISAKSON. 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. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate for 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized.


                      Amendment No. 429 Withdrawn

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, as the Senate is aware, I proposed an 
amendment identified as No. 429, which is still pending in the Senate. 
That amendment is verbatim the amendment that came out of the House of 
Representatives with regard to the REAL ID and came to us on the 
supplemental appropriations emergency bill.
  I am about to ask unanimous consent to withdraw that amendment. Prior 
to doing so, I want to be clear for the record I believe the House 
position on the REAL ID, the 9/11 Commission position, which is where 
that came from, and the security of our borders is truly an emergency 
situation and an appropriate place for that amendment to be on the 
emergency supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan.
  I respect those who had differences, and I respect those who have 
withdrawn amendments to this bill. Because of that, and because we are 
reaching a conclusion, I will respectfully ask unanimous consent my 
amendment be withdrawn with the express understanding that I sincerely 
hope the conferees and the conference committee, before this bill 
finally comes to rest, will have agreed that position is correct; that 
REAL ID will have been included, and they will have addressed the 
security of our borders and the identification of those entering the 
United States of America.
  I ask unanimous consent amendment No. 429 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 429) was withdrawn.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I rise in opposition to the 
inclusion of the so-called REAL ID bill in the emergency supplemental 
appropriations conference report. That bill is harmful and unnecessary. 
The Intelligence Reform Act we approved overwhelmingly last year 
provides real border security solutions. The so-called REAL ID bill 
contains controversial provisions we rejected last year and should 
reject again. It's a false solution on border security. There's no need 
to revisit these issues again, and they serve no purpose except to push 
an anti-immigrant agenda.
  The supporters of the REAL ID bill continue to say that loopholes 
exist in our immigration and asylum system that are being exploited by 
terrorists, and this bill will close them. In fact, it does nothing to 
improve national security, and leaves other big issues unresolved.
  Asylum seekers would find no refuge. Battered women would be exposed 
to abuse. Many Americans would have problems getting driver's licenses, 
and law enforcement would be outsourced to bounty hunters. All of our 
laws, including labor laws, would be waived to build a wall. For the 
first time since the Civil War, habeas corpus would be prohibited.
  Each year, countless refugees are forced to leave their countries, 
fleeing persecution. America has always been a haven for those 
desperate for that protection. At the very beginning of our history, 
the refugee Pilgrims seeking religious freedom landed on Plymouth Rock. 
Ever since we've welcomed refugees, and it's made us a better nation. 
They represent the best of American values. They have stood alone, at 
great personal cost, against hostile governments for fundamental 
principles like freedom of speech and religion. With this legacy, we 
have a responsibility to examine our asylum policies carefully, to see 
that they are fair and just.
  The REAL ID bill would trample this noble tradition and make it 
devastating for legitimate asylum-seekers fleeing persecution. It would 
make it more difficult for victims fleeing serious human rights abuses 
to obtain asylum and safety, and could easily lead to their return to 
their persecutors.
  Supporters of the REAL ID bill want us to believe that its changes 
will keep terrorists from being granted asylum. But current immigration 
laws already bar persons engaged in terrorist activity from asylum. 
Before they receive asylum, all applicants must also undergo extensive 
security checks, covering all terrorist and criminal databases at the 
Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the CIA.
  Another section of the REAL ID bill contains a provision that would 
complete the US-Mexico border fence in San Diego. But it goes much 
further than that. It would require DHS to waive all laws necessary to 
build such fences, not just in San Diego, but anywhere else along our 
2,000 mile border with Mexico and our 4,000 mile border with Canada. 
This unprecedented and unchecked power covers all Federal or State law 
deemed necessary to build the barriers, even child labor laws, worker 
health and safety laws, minimum wage laws, and environmental laws. It 
would even take away the rights of Native Americans to control their 
land.
  The cost of building such fences is into the hundreds of millions of 
dollars, and still won't stop illegal immigration. Immigrants who can 
find jobs in the U.S. and have no legal visas to

[[Page S4002]]

enter will simply go around these walls. What we need are safe and 
legal avenues for immigrants to come here and work, not more walls.
  The REAL ID driver's license provisions don't make us safer either. 
The Intelligence Reform Act sets up a process for States and the 
Federal Government to work together to establish Federal standards for 
driver's licenses and identification cards, and progress is being made 
to implement these important measures. The REAL ID bill would repeal 
the driver's license provisions and replace them with highly 
problematic and burdensome requirements. According to the National 
Conference of State Legislatures, the REAL ID prescribes ``unworkable, 
unproven, costly mandates that compel States to enforce federal 
immigration policy rather than advance the paramount objective of 
making State-issued identity documents more secure and verifiable.''
  The bill does nothing to address the threat of terrorists or to 
address legitimate security concerns. It would not have prevented a 
single 9/11 hijacker from obtaining a driver's license, or a single 
terrorist from boarding a plane. All 13 hijackers could have obtained 
licenses or IDs under this proposal, and foreign terrorists can always 
use their passports to travel.
  The REAL ID bill contains other broad and sweeping changes to laws 
that go to the core of our national identity. If enacted, it would deny 
judicial review and due process which could result in devastating 
consequences for immigrants and refugees.
  By restricting judicial review and habeas corpus, it could force 
people to be deported before they can challenge basic errors made in 
their cases. It would deny the constitutionally protected writ of 
habeas corpus, which has not been changed since the Civil War. Habeas 
corpus is a fundamental principle of American justice. It's called the 
``great writ'' for a reason--because it's brought justice to people 
wrongly detained.
  Just as absurd, the bill will outsource law enforcement by giving 
``bounty hunters'' unprecedented authority to apprehend and detain 
immigrants, even if a bond has not been breached. Bonding agents would 
be given the discretion and decision-making power that belongs to 
judges who have the necessary legal training to make these 
determinations.
  A major additional problem in the REAL ID bill is that it could 
result in the deportation even of long-time legal permanent residents, 
for lawful speech or associations that occurred twenty years ago or 
more. It raises the burden of proof to nearly impossible levels in 
numerous cases.
  A person who made a donation to a humanitarian organization involved 
in Tsunami relief could be deported if the organization or any of its 
affiliates was ever involved in violence. The burden would be on the 
donor to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he knew nothing 
about any of these activities. The spouse and children of a legal 
permanent resident could also be deported too based on such an 
accusation, because of their relationship to the donor.
  The provision could be applied retroactively, so that a permanent 
resident who had once supported the lawful, nonviolent work of the 
African National Congress in South Africa, Sinn Fein in Northern 
Ireland, the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, or the contras in 
Nicaragua would be deportable. It would be no defense to show that the 
only support was for lawful nonviolent activity. It would be no defense 
to show that the United States itself supported some of these groups.
  More than 600 organizations across the political spectrum oppose this 
legislation. A broad coalition of religious, immigrant, human rights, 
and civil liberties groups have expressed their own strong opposition. 
Also opposing the bill are the National Governors Association, the 
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, and the National 
Conference of State Legislators, and a 9/11 family group, the September 
11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows.
  In these difficult times for our country, we know that the threat of 
terrorism has not ended, and we must do all we can to enact genuine 
measures to stop terrorists before they act, and to see that law 
enforcement officials have the full support they need. The REAL ID bill 
will not improve these efforts. It will not make us safer or prevent 
terrorism and it is an invitation to gross abuses.
  It is a false solution to national and border security. I urge the 
Senate to oppose the REAL ID bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, there are many Members on both sides of the 
aisle with strong objections to the REAL ID Act, which the House 
included in its version of the emergency supplemental and which Senator 
Isakson has offered as an amendment. I oppose the REAL ID Act because I 
value our Nation's historic commitment to asylum, and do not want to 
see severe restrictions placed on the ability of asylum seekers to 
obtain refuge here. I oppose it because I value States rights, and side 
with the National Governors Association, the National Conference of 
State Legislatures, and the Council of State Governments in objecting 
to the imposition of unworkable Federal mandates on State drivers 
license policies. And I oppose the REAL ID Act because I support 
environmental protection and the rule of law, both of which the act 
would subvert by requiring the DHS Secretary to waive all laws, 
environmental or otherwise, that may get in the way of the construction 
of border fences or barriers, and by forbidding judicial review of the 
Secretary's actions.
  Although I oppose the REAL ID Act, I respect Senator Isakson's desire 
to debate it in the Senate. The Senate should have a debate and vote on 
his amendment, and state clearly where we stand. I fear that if we do 
not, the Senate's silence will be treated as acquiescence by the 
Republican conferees from both Chambers. As a result, we will see this 
highly objectionable legislation included in an unamendable conference 
report. Such a backdoor approach may be the preferred course of action 
for the Senate's Republican leadership, but it is no way for us to 
conduct our business.
  In addition to my substantive objections to the Isakson amendment, I 
oppose it because it would deprive the Judiciary Committee of the 
opportunity to consider and review these wide-ranging provisions. If 
the majority party believes this is good legislation, it should 
schedule committee consideration and move it through the regular order.
  The majority leader has indicated in recent weeks that the Senate 
will be considering immigration reform this year. The provisions in the 
REAL ID Act should be considered at that time and in conjunction with a 
broader debate about immigration. We should consider the Isakson 
amendment and we should vote it down.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the 
House legislation known as the REAL ID Act and to urge that it not be 
included in the conference report for this spending bill. Last year 
Congress enacted comprehensive antiterrorism legislation, the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, which implemented the 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Some of the most important 
provisions we enacted strengthen our borders against terrorist 
infiltration and provide the government with new weapons in tracking 
terrorist travel around the globe. The act also requires minimum 
Federal standards to ensure that State-issued drivers' licenses are 
always secure and reliable forms of identification.
  The REAL ID Act would repeal much of our work from last year, and 
replace it with provisions that impose on State governments unworkable 
standards for drivers' licenses. The REAL ID Act also includes punitive 
immigration provisions that we rejected last year, and that have no 
place on an emergency spending bill. Do not be fooled. Our nation is 
safer if we implement the protections we passed just last December. We 
must not allow an ideological debate over immigration policy to derail 
initiatives vital to the war against terrorism.
  Last year I was privileged to work with my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle and in both Chambers to develop antiterrorism and 
intelligence reform legislation of which we can all be proud. Among 
other things, the Intelligence Reform Act called for large increases in 
the numbers of Border Patrol agents, immigration enforcement agents, 
and detention beds. It strengthened consular procedures for screening

[[Page S4003]]

visa applicants. It closed a gaping vulnerability by requiring people 
entering the United States at our land borders to show a passport. And 
it required minimum Federal standards to ensure that State-issued 
drivers' licenses are always secure and reliable forms of 
identification.
  At the same time, I joined with my fellow conferees to ensure that 
the intelligence reform bill focused on genuine antiterrorism measures 
and excluded extraneous measures. In particular, in conference we 
rejected a number of antiasylum and anti-immigration provisions. The 
REAL ID Act simply recycles several of the controversial immigration 
provisions which we rejected last year. When the REAL ID Act was 
debated on the House floor this year many of its supporters claimed 
that these provisions had been recommended by the 9/11 Commission, and 
are essential to the war on terrorism. That is simply not the case.
  Last October, the 9/11 Commissioners made clear that the immigration 
provisions in the House bill were irrelevant to fighting terrorism. I 
would like to quote from a letter the conferees received from Gov. 
Thomas Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, a letter that reflected the 
unanimous view of the commissioners. Referring to the House provisions 
on immigration, they said, ``We believe strongly that this bill is not 
the right occasion for tackling controversial immigration and law 
enforcement issues that go well beyond the Commission's 
recommendations. We note in this regard that some of these provisions 
have been advocated in response to Commission recommendations. They are 
not Commission recommendations.'' The commissioners then added, ``We 
believe we are better off with broad bipartisan agreement on key 
recommendations of the Commission in support of border security than 
taking up a number of controversial provisions that are more central to 
the question of immigration policy than they are to the question of 
counterterrorism.''
  As the commissioners made clear, the provisions in the REAL ID Act 
have more to do with immigration than with national security. These are 
controversial provisions that need to be fully considered by our 
Judiciary Committee. The legislation would make it harder for refugees 
fleeing oppressive regimes to get asylum. That provision does not 
target terrorists because current law already states that no member of 
a terrorist organization can be eligible for asylum. The REAL ID Act 
would suspend habeas corpus review in deportation proceedings. Not 
since the Civil War has habeas corpus been suspended. The House bill 
would allow the Department of Homeland Security to waive all laws so 
that fences and barriers can be built on any of our land borders. There 
is no limitation as to what laws can be waived environmental laws, 
labor laws, laws allowing property owners to be compensated for the 
confiscation of their land. These provisions have serious negative 
consequences and should be more carefully considered. I do not believe 
they could ever be enacted if they were carefully considered with our 
normal procedures.
  I would also like to address the provisions in the REAL ID Act that 
would establish new Federal standards for drivers' licenses. My 
colleagues no doubt remember that just last December Congress enacted 
standards for drivers' licenses, as recommended by the 9/11 Commission, 
to ensure drivers' licenses are secure and identities are verified. The 
standards are now being implemented through a rulemaking, in which 
state governments are given a seat at the table to share their 
expertise. These legislative standards were a great accomplishment, a 
result of fine work done by Senators McCain, Durbin, Collins, 
Alexander, and other colleagues. Last year the administration declared 
that the Senate's provisions were preferable to those drafted by the 
House, and the 9/11 Commission endorsed them.
  The REAL ID Act would repeal the work Congress did last year. It 
would replace our provisions with much more rigid provisions from last 
year's House bill. The provisions are so unrealistic that States could 
not implement them. All Americans applying for drivers' licenses would 
have to wait for weeks while State DMVs tried to confirm the 
authenticity of paper birth certificates and other records, records 
filed away at county offices across the country. State governments 
would have no opportunity to provide input for the regulations, as they 
have under current law.
  That is why the State government organizations think the REAL ID Act 
is a terrible idea. The National Governors' Association, the National 
Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, and 
the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators have all 
announced their strong opposition to the REAL ID Act. The organizations 
have written to congressional leadership that the REAL ID Act would 
impose requirements on state governments which, ``are beyond the 
current capacity of even the federal government.'' The State government 
groups have asked that the law we passed last December be given a 
chance to work. I ask unanimous consent that a joint letter from these 
four organizations be printed in the Congressional Record following the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, when the State governments of our 
Nation say that these drivers' license provisions are unworkable, we 
need to take notice. State governments have been issuing drivers' 
licenses for decades. They are the experts, and we will need their 
input and coordination if we are going to implement the drivers' 
license standards recommended by the 9/11 Commission.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the REAL ID Act. We must ask our 
Senate conferees not to allow such a controversial measure to be pushed 
through Congress on an emergency spending bill. The REAL ID Act 
contradicts our historic identity as a nation that provides a haven for 
the oppressed. The REAL ID Act would not make us safer. It would make 
us less safe. It would repeal provisions enacting a central 
recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, and it would undermine a vital 
counterterrorism initiative.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                   March 17, 2005.
     Hon. William H. Frist,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Frist and Senator Reid: We write to express 
     our opposition to Title II of H.R. 418, the ``Improved 
     Security For Driver's Licenses and Personal Identification 
     Cards'' provision, which has been attached to H.R. 1268, the 
     fiscal year 2005 supplemental spending measure. While 
     Governors, state legislatures, other state elected officials 
     and motor vehicle administrators share your concern for 
     increasing the security and integrity of the driver's license 
     and state identification processes, we firmly believe that 
     the driver's license and ID card provisions of the 
     Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 
     offer the best course for meeting those goals.
       The ``Driver's Licenses and Personal Identification Cards'' 
     provision in the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 provides a 
     workable framework for developing meaningful standards to 
     increase reliability and security of driver's licenses and ID 
     cards. This framework calls for input from state elected 
     officials and motor vehicle administrators in the regulatory 
     process, protects state eligibility criteria, and retains the 
     flexibility necessary to incorporate best practices from 
     around the states. We have begun to work with the U.S. 
     Department of Transportation to develop the minimum 
     standards, which must be completed in 18 months pursuant to 
     the Intelligence Reform Act.
       We commend the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives 
     for their commitment to driver's license integrity; however, 
     H.R. 418 would impose technological standards and 
     verification procedures on states, many of which are beyond 
     the current capacity of even the federal government. 
     Moreover, the cost of implementing such standards and 
     verification procedures for the 220 million driver's licenses 
     issued by states represents a massive unfunded federal 
     mandate.
       Our states have made great strides since the September 11, 
     2001 terrorists attacks to enhance the security processes and 
     requirements for receiving a valid driver's license and ID 
     card. The framework in the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 
     will allow us to work cooperatively with the federal 
     government to develop and implement achievable standards to 
     prevent document fraud and other illegal activity related to 
     the issuance of driver's licenses and ID cards.
       We urge you to allow the provisions in the Intelligence 
     Reform Act of 2004 to work. Governors, state legislators, 
     other state elected officials and motor vehicle 
     administrators are committed to this process because it will 
     allow us to develop mutually

[[Page S4004]]

     agreed-upon standards that can truly help create a more 
     secure America.
           Sincerely,
     Raymond C. Scheppach,
       Executive Director, National Governors Association.
     William T. Pound,
       Executive Director, National Conference of State 
     Legislatures.
     Linda R. Lewis,
       President and CEO, American Association of Motor Vehicle 
     Administrators.
     Dan Sprague,
       Executive Director, Council of State Governments.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 563

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to laying aside the pending 
amendments?
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair and ask unanimous consent that be done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 563.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Labor to convey the Detroit 
                Labor Building to the State of Michigan)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. The Secretary of Labor shall convey to the State 
     of Michigan, for no consideration, all right, title, and 
     interest of the United States in and to the real property 
     known as the ``Detroit Labor Building'' and located at 7310 
     Woodward Avenue, Detroit, Michigan, to the extent the right, 
     title, or interest was acquired through a grant to the State 
     of Michigan under title III of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 501 et seq.) or the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49 et 
     seq.) or using funds distributed to the State of Michigan 
     under section 903 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1103).

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, may I enquire of the Senator from Michigan 
what his amendment seeks to accomplish?
  Mr. LEVIN. My amendment will release the 55-percent equity position 
of the Department of Labor in the State-owned Detroit Labor Building in 
anticipation of its sale.
  Mr. ENZI. It is my understanding that the equity the Department of 
Labor has acquired is attributable to Federal grants extended to the 
State and used for leasehold improvements over the last 50 years. These 
grants were provided under the auspices of Federal jobs programs 
including job training and unemployment compensation. Before consenting 
to this amendment, I seek assurance that the portion of the sale 
proceeds in question be used solely for job training purposes by the 
State of Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I have been assured by the Office of the Governor of 
Michigan that should my amendment be accepted, the entirety of the 55 
percent of the proceeds from the sale of the building that would have 
otherwise been remitted to the Federal Government will instead be used 
by the State of Michigan to provide job training grants.
  Mr. ENZI. With that assurance, I do not object to this amendment. I 
thank the Senator from Michigan for addressing my concerns.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I understand this amendment has been 
cleared on both sides. I know it has been cleared by Senator Enzi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 563) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my dear friend from Mississippi for 
his understanding of this matter. I know it held up the Senate for a 
few minutes. I greatly appreciate it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.


                           Amendment No. 537

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with respect 
to amendment No. 537.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I make the point of order that the amendment is not 
germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained, and the 
amendment falls.


                           Amendment No. 454

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Colorado, 
Mr. Salazar, I call up amendment No. 454 and ask that it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. 
     Salazar, proposes an amendment numbered 454.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To ensure that Afghan security forces who receive training 
 provided with United States assistance are professionally trained and 
                that certain minimum standards are met)

       On page 169, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:


               REPORT ON AFGHAN SECURITY FORCES TRAINING

       Sec. 1122. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     not later than 60 days after the date on which the initial 
     obligation of funds made available in this Act for training 
     Afghan security forces is made, the Secretary of Defense, in 
     conjunction with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a report that includes 
     the following:
       (1) An assessment of whether the individuals who are 
     providing training to Afghan security forces with assistance 
     provided by the United States have proven records of 
     experience in training law enforcement or security personnel.
       (2) A description of the procedures of the Department of 
     Defense and Department of State to ensure that an individual 
     who receives such training--
       (A) does not have a criminal background;
       (B) is not connected to any criminal or terrorist 
     organization, including the Taliban;
       (C) is not connected to drug traffickers; and
       (D) meets certain age and experience standards;
       (3) A description of the procedures of the Department of 
     Defense and Department of State that--
       (A) clearly establish the standards an individual who will 
     receive such training must meet;
       (B) clearly establish the training courses that will permit 
     the individual to meet such standards; and
       (C) provide for certification of an individual who meets 
     such standards.
       (4) A description of the procedures of the Department of 
     Defense and Department of State to ensure the coordination of 
     such training efforts between these two Departments.
       (5) The number of trained security personnel needed in 
     Afghanistan, an explanation of how such number was 
     determined, and a schedule for training that number of 
     people.
       (6) A description of the methods that will be used by the 
     Government of Afghanistan to maintain and equip such 
     personnel when such training is completed.
       (7) A description of how such training efforts will be 
     coordinated with other training programs being conducted by 
     the governments of other countries or international 
     organizations in Afghanistan.
       (b) Not less frequently than once each year the Secretary 
     of Defense, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, shall 
     submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees 
     that describes the progress made to meet the goals and 
     schedules set out in the report required by subsection (a).
       (c) In this section the term ``appropriate congressional 
     committees'' means the Committee on Appropriations, the 
     Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Appropriations, 
     the Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on 
     International Relations of the House of Representatives.


                     Amendment No. 454, As Modified

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk to 
amendment No. 454, and I ask unanimous consent that the modification of 
the amendment be considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 183, line 23 after the period, insert the 
     following:

               REPORT ON AFGHAN SECURITY FORCES TRAINING

       Sec. 112. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     not later than 90 days after

[[Page S4005]]

     the date on which the initial obligation of funds made 
     available in this Act for training Afghan security forces, 
     including police, border security guards and members of the 
     Afghan National Army, is made, the Secretary of State, in 
     conjunction with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to 
     the appropriate congressional committees a report that 
     includes the following:
       (1) An Assessment of whether the individuals who are 
     providing training to Afghan security forces with assistance 
     provided by the United State have proven records of 
     experience in training law enforcement or security personnel.
       (2) A description of the procedures of the Department of 
     State and Department of Defense to ensure that an individual 
     who receives such training--
       (A) does not have a criminal background;
       (B) is not connected to any criminal or terrorist 
     organization, including the Taliban;
       (C) is not connected to drug traffickers; and
       (D) meets certain age and experience standards.
       (3) A description of the procedures of the Department of 
     State and Department of Defense that--
       (A) clearly establish the standards an individual who will 
     receive such training must meet;
       (B) clearly establish the training courses that will permit 
     the individual to meet such standards; and
       (C) provide for certification of an individual who meets 
     such standards.
       (4) A description of the procedures of the Department of 
     State and Department of Defense to ensure the coordination of 
     such training efforts between these two Departments.
       (5) A description of methods that will be used by the 
     Government of Afghanistan to maintain and equip such 
     personnel when such training is completed.
       (6) A description of how such training efforts will be 
     coordinated with other training programs being conducted by 
     the governments of other countries or international 
     organizations in Afghanistan.
       (b) In this section the term ``appropriate congressional 
     committees'' means the Committee on Appropriations, the 
     Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Appropriations, 
     the Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on 
     International Relations of the House of Representatives.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on this amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 454), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 517, As Modified

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send a 
modification of amendment No. 517 to the desk and that it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. 
     Corzine, proposes an amendment numbered 517.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To impose sanctions against perpetrators of crimes against 
           humanity in Darfur, Sudan, and for other purposes)

       On page 183, after line 23, insert the following:


                         darfur accountability

       Sec. 2105. (a) It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the atrocities unfolding in Darfur, Sudan, have been 
     and continue to be genocide;
       (2) the United States should immediately seek passage at 
     the United Nations Security Council of a resolution that--
       (A) imposes additional sanctions or additional measures 
     against the Government of Sudan, including sanctions that 
     will affect the petroleum sector in Sudan, individual members 
     of the Government of Sudan, and entities controlled or owned 
     by officials of the Government of Sudan or the National 
     Congress Party in Sudan, that will remain in effect until 
     such time as the Government of Sudan fully complies with all 
     relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions;
       (B) establishes a military no-fly zone in Darfur and calls 
     on the Government of Sudan to immediately withdraw all 
     military aircraft from the region;
       (C) urges member states to accelerate assistance to the 
     African Union force in Darfur, sufficient to achieve the 
     expanded mandate described in paragraph (5);
       (D) calls on the Government of Sudan to cooperate with, and 
     allow unrestricted movement in Darfur by, the African Union 
     force, the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS), 
     international humanitarian organizations, and United Nations 
     monitors;
       (E) extends the embargo of military equipment established 
     by paragraphs 7 through 9 of United Nations Security Council 
     Resolution 1556 and expanded by Security Council Resolution 
     1591 to include a total prohibition of sale or supply to the 
     Government of Sudan; and
       (F) expands the mandate of UNMIS to include the protection 
     of civilians throughout Sudan, including Darfur, and 
     increases the number of UNMIS personnel to achieve such 
     mandate;
       (3) the United States should not provide assistance to the 
     Government of Sudan, other than assistance necessary for the 
     implementation of the Sudan North-South Peace Agreement, the 
     support of the southern regional government in Sudan, or for 
     humanitarian purposes in Sudan, unless the President 
     certifies and reports to Congress that the Government of 
     Sudan has fully complied with all relevant United Nations 
     Security Council resolutions and the conditions established 
     by the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act of 2004 (Public Law 
     108-497; 118 Stat. 4018);
       (4) the President should work with international 
     organizations, including the North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization (NATO), the United Nations, and the African 
     Union to undertake action as soon as practicable to eliminate 
     the ability of the Government of Sudan to engage in aerial 
     bombardment of civilians in Darfur and establish mechanisms 
     for the enforcement of a no-fly zone in Darfur;
       (5) the African Union should extend its mandate in Darfur 
     to include the protection of civilians and proactive efforts 
     to prevent violence;
       (6) the President should accelerate assistance to the 
     African Union in Darfur and discussions with the African 
     Union, the European Union, NATO, and other supporters of the 
     African Union force on the needs of the African Union force, 
     including assistance for housing, transportation, 
     communications, equipment, technical assistance such as 
     training and command and control assistance, and 
     intelligence;
       (7) the President should appoint a Presidential Envoy for 
     Sudan to support peace, security and stability in Darfur and 
     seek a comprehensive peace throughout Sudan;
       (8) United States officials, at the highest levels, should 
     raise the issue of Darfur in bilateral meetings with 
     officials from other members of the United Nations Security 
     Council and other relevant countries, with the aim of passing 
     a United Nations Security Council resolution described in 
     paragraph (2) and mobilizing maximum support for political, 
     financial, and military efforts to stop the genocide in 
     Darfur; and
       (9) the United States should actively participate in the UN 
     Committee and the Panel of Experts established pursuant to 
     Security Council Resolution 1591, and work to support the 
     Secretary-General and the United Nations High Commissioner 
     for Human Rights in their efforts to increase the number and 
     deployment rate of human rights monitors to Darfur.
       (b)(1) At such time as the United States has access to any 
     of the names of those named by the UN Commission of Inquiry 
     or those designated by the UN Committee the President shall--
       (A) submit to the appropriate congressional committees a 
     report listing such names;
       (B) determine whether the individuals named by the UN 
     Commission of Inquiry or designated by the UN Committee have 
     committed the acts for which they were named or designated;
       (C) except as described under paragraph (2), take such 
     action as may be necessary to immediately freeze the funds 
     and other assets belonging to such individuals, their family 
     members, and any associates of such individuals to whom 
     assets or property of such individuals were transferred on or 
     after July 1, 2002, including requiring that any United 
     States financial institution holding such funds and assets 
     promptly report those funds and assets to the Office of 
     Foreign Assets Control; and
       (D) except as described under paragraph (2), deny visas and 
     entry to such individuals, their family members, and anyone 
     the President determines has been, is, or may be planning, 
     carrying out, responsible for, or otherwise involved in 
     crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide in Darfur, 
     Sudan.
       (2) The President may elect not to take action described in 
     paragraphs (1)(C) and (1)(D) if the President submits to the 
     appropriate congressional committees, a report--
       (A) naming the individual named by the UN Commission of 
     Inquiry or designated by the UN Committee with respect to 
     whom the President has made such election, on behalf of the 
     individual or the individual's family member or associate; 
     and
       (B) describing the reasons for such election, and including 
     the determination described in paragraph (1)(B).
       (3) Not later than 30 days after United States has access 
     to any of the names of those named by the UN Commission of 
     Inquiry or those designated by the UN Committee, the 
     President shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees notification of the sanctions imposed under 
     paragraphs (1)(C) and (1)(D) and the individuals affected, or 
     the report described in paragraph (2).
       (4) Not later than 30 days prior to waiving the sanctions 
     provisions of any other Act with regard to Sudan, the 
     President shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a report describing the waiver and the reasons for 
     such waiver.

[[Page S4006]]

       (c)(1) The Secretary of State, in conjunction with the 
     Secretary of Defense, shall report to the appropriate 
     congressional committees on efforts to deploy an African 
     Union force in Darfur, the capacity of such force to 
     stabilize Darfur and protect civilians, the needs of such 
     force to achieve such mission including housing, 
     transportation, communications, equipment, technical 
     assistance, including training and command and control, and 
     intelligence, and the status of United States and other 
     assistance to the African Union force.
       (2)(A) The report described in paragraph (1) shall be 
     submitted every 90 days during the 1-year period beginning on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, or until such time as 
     the President certifies that the situation in Darfur is 
     stable and that civilians are no longer in danger and that 
     the African Union is no longer needed to prevent a resumption 
     of violence and attacks against civilians.
       (B) After such 1-year period, and if the President has not 
     made the certification described in subparagraph (A), the 
     report described in paragraph (1) shall be included in the 
     report required under section 8(b) of the Sudan Peace Act (50 
     U.S.C. 1701 note), as amended by section 5(b) of the 
     Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-497; 
     118 Stat. 4018).
       (d) In this section:
       (1) The term `appropriate congressional committees' means 
     the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on 
     International Relations and the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives.
       (2) The term ``Government of Sudan'' means the National 
     Congress Party-led government in Khartoum, Sudan, or any 
     successor government formed on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this title.
       (3) The term ``member states'' means the member states of 
     the United Nations.
       (4) The term ``Sudan North-South Peace Agreement'' means 
     the comprehensive peace agreement signed by the Government of 
     Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Army/Movement on 
     January 9, 2005.
       (5) The term ``those named by the UN Commission of 
     Inquiry'' means those individuals whose names appear in the 
     sealed file delivered to the Secretary-General of the United 
     Nations by the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur 
     to the United Nations Security Council.
       (6) The term ``UN Committee'' means the Committee of the 
     Security Council established in United Nations Security 
     Council Resolution 1591 (29 March 2005); paragraph 3.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification? 
Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 183, after line 23, insert the following:


                         darfur accountability

       Sec. 2105. (a) It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the atrocities unfolding in Darfur, Sudan, have been 
     and continue to be genocide;
       (2) the United States should immediately seek passage at 
     the United Nations Security Council of a resolution that--
       (A) imposes additional sanctions or additional measures 
     against the Government of Sudan, including sanctions that 
     will affect the petroleum sector in Sudan, individual members 
     of the Government of Sudan, and entities controlled or owned 
     by officials of the Government of Sudan or the National 
     Congress Party in Sudan, that will remain in effect until 
     such time as the Government of Sudan fully complies with all 
     relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions;
       (B) establishes a military no-fly zone in Darfur and calls 
     on the Government of Sudan to immediately withdraw all 
     military aircraft from the region;
       (C) urges member states to accelerate assistance to the 
     African Union force in Darfur, sufficient to achieve the 
     expanded mandate described in paragraph (5);
       (D) calls on the Government of Sudan to cooperate with, and 
     allow unrestricted movement in Darfur by, the African Union 
     force, the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS), 
     international humanitarian organizations, and United Nations 
     monitors;
       (E) extends the embargo of military equipment established 
     by paragraphs 7 through 9 of United Nations Security Council 
     Resolution 1556 and expanded by Security Council Resolution 
     1591 to include a total prohibition of sale or supply to the 
     Government of Sudan; and
       (F) expands the mandate of UNMIS to include the protection 
     of civilians throughout Sudan, including Darfur, and 
     increases the number of UNMIS personnel to achieve such 
     mandate;
       (3) the United States should not provide assistance to the 
     Government of Sudan, other than assistance necessary for the 
     implementation of the Sudan North-South Peace Agreement, the 
     support of the southern regional government in Sudan, or for 
     humanitarian purposes in Sudan, unless the President 
     certifies and reports to Congress that the Government of 
     Sudan has fully complied with all relevant United Nations 
     Security Council resolutions and the conditions established 
     by the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act of 2004 (Public Law 
     108-497; 118 Stat. 4018);
       (4) the President should work with international 
     organizations, including the North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization (NATO), the United Nations, and the African 
     Union to undertake action as soon as practicable to eliminate 
     the ability of the Government of Sudan to engage in aerial 
     bombardment of civilians in Darfur and establish mechanisms 
     for the enforcement of a no-fly zone in Darfur;
       (5) the African Union should extend its mandate in Darfur 
     to include the protection of civilians and proactive efforts 
     to prevent violence;
       (6) the President should accelerate assistance to the 
     African Union in Darfur and discussions with the African 
     Union, the European Union, NATO, and other supporters of the 
     African Union force on the needs of the African Union force, 
     including assistance for housing, transportation, 
     communications, equipment, technical assistance such as 
     training and command and control assistance, and 
     intelligence;
       (7) the President should appoint a Presidential Envoy for 
     Sudan to support peace, security and stability in Darfur and 
     seek a comprehensive peace throughout Sudan;
       (8) United States officials, at the highest levels, should 
     raise the issue of Darfur in bilateral meetings with 
     officials from other members of the United Nations Security 
     Council and other relevant countries, with the aim of passing 
     a United Nations Security Council resolution described in 
     paragraph (2) and mobilizing maximum support for political, 
     financial, and military efforts to stop the genocide in 
     Darfur; and
       (9) the United States should actively participate in the UN 
     Committee and the Panel of Experts established pursuant to 
     Security Council Resolution 1591, and work to support the 
     Secretary-General and the United Nations High Commissioner 
     for Human Rights in their efforts to increase the number and 
     deployment rate of human rights monitors to Darfur.
       (b)(1) At such time as the United States has access to any 
     of the names of those named by the UN Commission of Inquiry 
     or those designated by the UN Committee the President shall--
       (A) submit to the appropriate congressional committees a 
     report listing such names;
       (B) determine whether the individuals named by the UN 
     Commission of Inquiry or designated by the UN Committee have 
     committed the acts for which they were named or designated;
       (C) except as described under paragraph (2), take such 
     action as may be necessary to immediately freeze the funds 
     and other assets belonging to those named by the UN 
     Commission of Inquiry and those designated by the UN 
     Commission, their family members, and any assets or property 
     that such individuals transferred on or after July 1, 2002, 
     including requiring that any United States financial 
     institution holding such funds and assets promptly report 
     those funds and assets to the Office of Foreign Assets 
     Control; and
       (D) except as described under paragraph (2), deny visas and 
     entry to those named by the UN Commission of Inquiry and 
     those designated by the UN Commission, their family members, 
     and anyone the President determines has been, is, or may be 
     planning, carrying out, responsible for, or otherwise 
     involved in crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide 
     in Darfur, Sudan.
       (2) The President may elect not to take action described in 
     paragraphs (1)(C) and (1)(D) if the President submits to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a report--
       (A) naming the individual or individuals named by the UN 
     Commission of Inquiry or designated by the UN Committee with 
     respect to whom the President has made such election, on 
     behalf of the individual or the individual's family member or 
     associate; and
       (B) describing the reasons for such election, and including 
     the determination described in paragraph (1)(B).
       (3) Not later than 30 days after United States has access 
     to any of the names of those named by the UN Commission of 
     Inquiry or those designated by the UN Committee, the 
     President shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees notification of the sanctions imposed under 
     paragraphs (1)(C) and (1)(D) and the individuals affected, or 
     the report described in paragraph (2).
       (4) Not later than 30 days prior to waiving the sanctions 
     provisions of any other Act with regard to Sudan, the 
     President shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a report describing the waiver and the reasons for 
     such waiver.
       (c)(1) The Secretary of State, in conjunction with the 
     Secretary of Defense, shall report to the appropriate 
     congressional committees on efforts to deploy an African 
     Union force in Darfur, the capacity of such force to 
     stabilize Darfur and protect civilians, the needs of such 
     force to achieve such mission including housing, 
     transportation, communications, equipment, technical 
     assistance, including training and command and control, and 
     intelligence, and the status of United States and other 
     assistance to the African Union force.
       (2)(A) The report described in paragraph (1) shall be 
     submitted every 90 days during the 1-year period beginning on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, or until such time as 
     the President certifies that the situation in Darfur is 
     stable and that civilians are no longer in danger and that 
     the African Union is no longer needed to prevent a resumption 
     of violence and attacks against civilians.

[[Page S4007]]

       (B) After such 1-year period, and if the President has not 
     made the certification described in subparagraph (A), the 
     report described in paragraph (1) shall be included in the 
     report required under section 8(b) of the Sudan Peace Act (50 
     U.S.C. 1701 note), as amended by section 5(b) of the 
     Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-497; 
     118 Stat. 4018).
       (d) In this section:
       (1) The term `appropriate congressional committees' means 
     the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on 
     International Relations and the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives.
       (2) The term ``Government of Sudan'' means the National 
     Congress Party-led government in Khartoum, Sudan, or any 
     successor government formed on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this title.
       (3) The term ``member states'' means the member states of 
     the United Nations.
       (4) The term ``Sudan North-South Peace Agreement'' means 
     the comprehensive peace agreement signed by the Government of 
     Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Army/Movement on 
     January 9, 2005.
       (5) The term ``those named by the UN Commission of 
     Inquiry'' means those individuals whose names appear in the 
     sealed file delivered to the Secretary-General of the United 
     Nations by the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur 
     to the United Nations Security Council.
       (6) The term ``UN Committee'' means the Committee of the 
     Security Council established in United Nations Security 
     Council Resolution 1591 (29 March 2005); paragraph 3.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on this amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 517), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following list of cosponsors to the Corzine amendment be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Co-Sponsors of the Corzine Darfur Accountability Amendment

       Brownback, DeWine, Bill Nelson, Mikulski, Kerry, Johnson, 
     Bingaman, Schumer, Coleman, Leahy, Wyden, Feinstein, 
     Lautenberg, Murray, Jeffords, Obama, Ben Nelson, Boxer, 
     Specter, Kohl, Landrieu, Feingold, Bayh, Levin, Durbin, 
     Lieberman, Clinton, Salazar, and Talent.


                           Amendment No. 488

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator McConnell, I call up 
amendment No. 488.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. 
     McConnell, proposes an amendment numbered 488.

  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 183, line 23 after the period insert the following:

                          CANDIDATE COUNTRIES

       Sec.  . Section 616(b)(1) of the Millennium Challenge Act 
     of 2003 (Public 108-199) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 
     606(a)(1)''; and,
       (2) inserting in lieu thereof ``subsection (a) or (b) of 
     section 606''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 488) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased, on behalf of the leader, to 
present the following agreement that has been cleared.
  I ask unanimous consent that the only remaining amendments to the 
bill be the Ensign amendment No. 487 and the Bayh amendment No. 520; 
provided further, that all time be considered expired under rule XXII, 
with the exception of 15 minutes prior to the votes; provided further, 
that on Thursday, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, 
after consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate resume 
consideration of the bill and that there be 15 minutes for debate 
equally divided between the chairman and Senator Bayh or his designee 
prior to votes in relation to the remaining amendments, and that 
following the disposition of the amendments, the bill be read a third 
time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage, with no intervening 
action or debate; finally, I ask unanimous consent that following 
passage of the bill, the Senate insist on its amendments, request a 
conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint the 
Appropriations Committee as conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak up to 25 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________