[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 100 (Thursday, July 21, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8602-S8660]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1042) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2006 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed 
     Forces, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Warner Amendment No. 1314, to increase amounts available 
     for the procurement of wheeled vehicles for the Army and the 
     Marine Corps and for armor for such vehicles.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the Warner amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I see the distinguished majority leader. 
My understanding is he wishes to lay down an amendment, for which I am 
grateful. We would be happy to lay aside the pending amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1342

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. Also, I 
send to the desk a list of cosponsors of the amendment, and I ask 
unanimous consent they be added as such.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Frist], for himself, and 
     others, proposes an amendment numbered 1342.

  Mr. FRIST. 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:

  (Purpose: To support certain youth organizations, including the Boy 
 Scouts of America and Girl Scouts of America, and for other purposes)

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

     SEC. 1073. SUPPORT FOR YOUTH ORGANIZATIONS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Support 
     Our Scouts Act of 2005''.
       (b) Support for Youth Organizations.--
       (1) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       (A) the term ``Federal agency'' means each department, 
     agency, instrumentality, or other entity of the United States 
     Government; and
       (B) the term ``youth organization''--
       (i) means any organization that is designated by the 
     President as an organization that is primarily intended to--

       (I) serve individuals under the age of 21 years;
       (II) provide training in citizenship, leadership, physical 
     fitness, service to community, and teamwork; and
       (III) promote the development of character and ethical and 
     moral values; and

[[Page S8603]]

       (ii) shall include--

       (I) the Boy Scouts of America;
       (II) the Girl Scouts of the United States of America;
       (III) the Boys Clubs of America;
       (IV) the Girls Clubs of America;
       (V) the Young Men's Christian Association;
       (VI) the Young Women's Christian Association;
       (VII) the Civil Air Patrol;
       (VIII) the United States Olympic Committee;
       (IX) the Special Olympics;
       (X) Campfire USA;
       (XI) the Young Marines;
       (XII) the Naval Sea Cadets Corps;
       (XIII) 4-H Clubs;
       (XIV) the Police Athletic League;
       (XV) Big Brothers--Big Sisters of America; and
       (XVI) National Guard Youth Challenge.

       (2) In general.--
       (A) Support for youth organizations.--No Federal law 
     (including any rule, regulation, directive, instruction, or 
     order) shall be construed to limit any Federal agency from 
     providing any form of support for a youth organization 
     (including the Boy Scouts of America or any group officially 
     affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America) that would result 
     in that Federal agency providing less support to that youth 
     organization (or any similar organization chartered under the 
     chapter of title 36, United States Code, relating to that 
     youth organization) than was provided during the preceding 
     fiscal year.
       (B) Types of support.--Support described under this 
     paragraph shall include--
       (i) holding meetings, camping events, or other activities 
     on Federal property;
       (ii) hosting any official event of such organization;
       (iii) loaning equipment; and
       (iv) providing personnel services and logistical support.
       (c) Support for Scout Jamborees.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (A) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the 
     United States commits exclusively to Congress the powers to 
     raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and 
     make rules for the government and regulation of the land and 
     naval forces.
       (B) Under those powers conferred by section 8 of article I 
     of the Constitution of the United States to provide, support, 
     and maintain the Armed Forces, it lies within the discretion 
     of Congress to provide opportunities to train the Armed 
     Forces.
       (C) The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to defend 
     our national security and prepare for combat should the need 
     arise.
       (D) One of the most critical elements in defending the 
     Nation and preparing for combat is training in conditions 
     that simulate the preparation, logistics, and leadership 
     required for defense and combat.
       (E) Support for youth organization events simulates the 
     preparation, logistics, and leadership required for defending 
     our national security and preparing for combat.
       (F) For example, Boy Scouts of America's National Scout 
     Jamboree is a unique training event for the Armed Forces, as 
     it requires the construction, maintenance, and disassembly of 
     a ``tent city'' capable of supporting tens of thousands of 
     people for a week or longer. Camporees at the United States 
     Military Academy for Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts provide 
     similar training opportunities on a smaller scale.
       (2) Support.--Section 2554 of title 10, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i)(1) The Secretary of Defense shall provide at least 
     the same level of support under this section for a national 
     or world Boy Scout Jamboree as was provided under this 
     section for the preceding national or world Boy Scout 
     Jamboree.
       ``(2) The Secretary of Defense may waive paragraph (1), if 
     the Secretary--
       ``(A) determines that providing the support subject to 
     paragraph (1) would be detrimental to the national security 
     of the United States; and
       ``(B) reports such a determination to the Congress in a 
     timely manner, and before such support is not provided.''.
       (d) Equal Access for Youth Organizations.--Section 109 of 
     the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
     5309) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence of subsection (b) by inserting 
     ``or (e)'' after ``subsection (a)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Equal Access.--
       ``(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `youth 
     organization' means any organization described under part B 
     of subtitle II of title 36, United States Code, that is 
     intended to serve individuals under the age of 21 years.
       ``(2) In general.--No State or unit of general local 
     government that has a designated open forum, limited public 
     forum, or nonpublic forum and that is a recipient of 
     assistance under this chapter shall deny equal access or a 
     fair opportunity to meet to, or discriminate against, any 
     youth organization, including the Boy Scouts of America or 
     any group officially affiliated with the Boy Scouts of 
     America, that wishes to conduct a meeting or otherwise 
     participate in that designated open forum, limited public 
     forum, or nonpublic forum.''.

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this amendment deals with an issue I have 
been working on with a number of Senators for a long period of time, 
many months. It deals with an organization I have been involved with 
for my entire life--myself and my three boys. The organization is the 
Boy Scouts of America.
  I am proud to offer the Support Our Scouts Act of 2005 as an 
amendment to the Defense authorization bill. This legislation will 
ensure that the Defense Department will continue to provide the Scouts 
the type of support it has provided in the past, including jamborees on 
bases.
  Pentagon support for Scouts is currently authorized in U.S. law.
  This bill also ensures Scouts have equal access to public facilities, 
forums, and programs that are open to a variety of other youth 
organizations and community organizations. Boy Scouts, like other 
nonprofit youth organizations, depend on the ability to use public 
facilities and to participate in these programs and forums. Why am I 
offering this legislation? Since the Supreme Court decided Boy Scouts 
of America v. Dale, Boy Scouts of America's relationships with 
government at all levels have been the target of multiple lawsuits.
  The Federal Government has been defending a lawsuit brought by the 
ACLU aimed at severing the ties between Boy Scouts and the Departments 
of Defense and HUD. The ACLU of Illinois claims that Defense Department 
sponsorship violates the first amendment because the Scouts are a 
religious organization. This is a red herring.
  The Scouts are a youth organization that is committed to developing 
qualities, such as patriotism, integrity, loyalty, honesty, and other 
values, in our Nation's boys and young men. Part of that development is 
asking them to acknowledge a higher authority regardless of 
denomination.
  We do this every day in the Senate when we open the Senate floor each 
morning, when we take our oaths of office, when our young men and women 
enlist in the Armed Forces--and the list goes on. Such acknowledgement 
and respect is an integral part of our culture, our values, and our 
traditions.
  A decision was recently reached in this case. A U.S. district court 
in Chicago ruled that Pentagon support of the Scouts violates the 
establishment clause and, therefore, the Defense Department is 
prohibited from providing support to the Scouts at future jamborees.
  The timing of this ruling simply could not be worse. On Monday, July 
25, thousands of Scouts from around the country will be arriving at 
Fort AP Hill, close by, in Virginia. The event will draw 40,000 Scouts 
and their leaders and many more proud families, moms and dads.
  This latest ruling is part of a series of attempts to undermine 
Scouting's interaction with government in America at all levels. The 
effect of these attempts of exclusion at the Federal, State, and local 
levels could be far-reaching. Already, it has had a chilling effect on 
government relationships with Scouts, and it is the greatest legal 
challenge facing Boy Scouts today.
  The Support Our Scouts Act of 2005 addresses these issues. To begin 
with, my amendment makes clear that the Congress regards the Boy Scouts 
to be a youth organization that should be treated the same as other 
national youth organizations.
  Second, this bill asserts the view of the Congress that Pentagon 
support to the Scouts at their jamborees, as well as similar support to 
other youth organizations, is important to the training of our Armed 
Forces. It contributes to--it does not detract from--their readiness.
  Third, my amendment removes any doubt that Federal agencies may 
welcome Scouts to hold meetings, go camping on Federal property, or 
hold Scouting events in public forums at any level.
  The Scout bill has been discussed with the Defense Department. While 
it includes language that establishes baseline Pentagon support for 
Scouting activities, it also offers the Secretary of Defense some 
flexibility in its application.
  Since 1910, Boy Scout membership has totaled more than 110 million 
young Americans. Today, more than 3.2 million young people and 1.2 
million adults are members of the Boy Scouts and are dedicated to 
fulfilling the Boy Scouts' mission. This unique American institution is 
committed to preparing

[[Page S8604]]

our youth for the future by instilling in them such values as honesty, 
integrity, and character. Through exposure to the outdoors, hard work, 
and the virtues of civic duty, the Boy Scouts has developed millions of 
Americans into superb citizens and future leaders.
  Today, there are more than 40 Members of the Senate and more than 150 
Members of the House of Representatives who have been directly involved 
in Scouting. I was a Boy Scout. As I mentioned, my three boys, 
Harrison, Jonathan, and Bryan, all were Scouts as well. Scouting is a 
great American tradition that has been shared by countless families 
over many decades.
  I believe this amendment will receive broad, bipartisan support in 
both the Senate and the House. I believe we will pass it this year. It 
currently has over 50 cosponsors in this body. I encourage others to 
come and cosponsor this bill and to come to the floor and speak on 
behalf of our Scouts.
  I encourage Scout supporters--indeed, all Americans--to contact their 
Senators and Representatives and ask them to support the Support Our 
Scouts Act of 2005. I do urge all my Senate colleagues to vote for the 
young boys and girls who are following in the worthy Scouting 
tradition. A vote for this amendment will be a vote for them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished majority 
leader, and I associate myself with his remarks and this report.
  I just looked at one thing, and the staff advised me that the terms 
``Boy Scouts'' and ``Girl Scouts'' embrace what is known as the Cub 
Scouts. I want to make sure my understanding is correct that was the 
intention of our distinguished leader, because a lot of families are 
very active in those organizations.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, indeed it is, Mr. 
Chairman. The Cub Scouts badges and uniform is one I wore and, indeed, 
my three boys wore, Harrison, Jonathan, and Bryan. It is that 
introduction to Scouts that most of us first experience. Indeed, it is.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished leader. I, too, 
have had a very modest career in the Scouts. I was sort of attenuated 
when I left and joined the Navy in World War II. So I never attained 
any special recognition. But I must say that the training that was 
given to me helped me enormously in my early training in the military 
because first you learned discipline, then you learned regimentation. 
You learned the concept of sharing with others, the need to work with 
your fellow Scouts. It is a magnificent organization. I am so glad you 
have done this.
  I also must say I have attended the rally in Virginia to which you 
referred. I will never forget waiting, as one of the several speakers. 
I was a most inconsequential speaker because a world-famous baseball 
player attended. As far as the eye could see, there were clouds of 
dust. They looked like the Roman legions marching in. Tens of thousands 
of Scouts assembled at this rally, all carrying their banners, and the 
parents were all seated under the trees watching this rally. It was a 
spectacle to behold. It was a marvelous experience.
  So again, Mr. President, I encourage other Senators to join our 
distinguished leader in support of this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am an original cosponsor of Senator 
Frist's legislation, which we call the Save Our Scouts Act of 2005. I 
will take a minute to say to my colleagues why I think the bill is 
important and why I am glad to be an original cosponsor. I grew up in 
Maryville, TN, at the edge of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park--
then a town of about 15,000. Every Monday night, all year long, as soon 
as I was 11 years old, we went down to the new Providence Presbyterian 
Church at 7 p.m. for a meeting of Troop 88 of the Boy Scouts of 
America. There wasn't a lot of nonsense. It started at 7 and was over 
at 8. Our primary goal was to get organized for outdoor activities. At 
least once a month--sometimes twice a month--we were away from the 
church and were very active. Most often, we went into the Great Smoky 
Mountains National Park. Sometimes we went down the road to the 
Cherokee National Forest.
  I can remember on several occasions when we went to the Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory, which was a source of great wonderment to us that 
close to the end of World War II. Sometimes we went to Knoxville to the 
Tennessee Valley Authority, another government agency known worldwide. 
We learned from that. I can remember several times we went to the Air 
Force base, another Federal installation. There are a lot of State and 
local government places we would go in Troop 88. Sometimes we met at 
West Side Elementary School or Maryville High School. Sometimes we went 
to the courthouse. I remember seeing a great attorney, Ray Jenkins, 
waving a bloody wrench in his hand trying to convict a murderer as a 
special prosecutor in a family dispute. I was cowering behind the jury 
box watching this great lawyer carry on. We were there in a public 
building. Sometimes we camped in the city parks. Sometimes we went to 
the State parks.
  My point is that all of these places we went in Troop 88, whether it 
was the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, or any of the others I 
mentioned, those are public places. Ever since the Supreme Court made 
its decision in the Boy Scouts of America v. Dale case, the 
relationship of the Boy Scouts of America with government at all levels 
has been the target of multiple lawsuits. That is not just the case for 
boys growing up in Maryville, TN.
  For the last 25 years, our family has gone up to Ely, MN, on the 
Canadian border. It is a million acres of territory that you have to 
take a canoe into. It is very restricted wilderness area. It is the 
center of one of the Boy Scouts' most important adventure outdoor 
programs. Whether they are there in the winter, when it is 20 below, or 
in July, when there are a lot of mosquitos, these young men learn to 
take care of themselves outdoors.
  Every year for as long as I can remember, the Boy Scouts have looked 
forward to going to the jamborees, which are often held on Federal 
property. It is often a highlight in the lives of these young men. They 
look forward to it for several years. The adult scoutmasters go with 
them.
  Mr. President, it makes no sense whatsoever to restrict, in any way, 
the Boy Scouts from using national parks, national forests, the Oak 
Ridge National Laboratory, Air Force bases, State parks, and city 
parks.
  What do the Boy Scouts do? I tell you what it did for me. It tried to 
build some character. I can still say the words: Trustworthy, loyal, 
helpful, friendly, courteous, kind. There are 12 of them. I did not 
always live up to them, but they were taught to me.
  The Boy Scouts taught me about my country. I earned my God and 
Country award before I got my Eagle Scout. It taught me about this 
country and what it means to be an American. It taught me to love the 
great American outdoors, which I have always kept and imparted to my 
children because we spent almost every weekend in the Great Smoky 
Mountains National Park or Cherokee National Forest.
  I don't want the young men of the day and their volunteer leaders to 
be kept out of the Great Smokies and the TVA and the schools and the 
city parks. I don't want those volunteer leaders, who are small 
business people in Maryville, TN, who work at the Alcoa plant--they 
don't have the money or time to go to court to argue with people about 
whether those young boys have a right to go there.
  This is a very important piece of legislation. In this country today, 
most people would say, when looking at our children, there is nothing 
they need more than mentors, and the Boy Scouts, just like the Girl 
Scouts, provide that. Look at our schools today. Our worst score of 
high school seniors is in U.S. history. At least in the Boy Scouts you 
learn something about the principles that unite us as Americans.
  Our outdoors are under constant threat. In the Boy Scouts of America, 
we are constantly building tens of thousands of young men who love the 
outdoors, know how to take care of it, have an environmental ethic and 
use that for the rest of their lives.
  I am glad we have a majority leader who is a Boy Scout. I am glad we 
have more than half the Senate who are cosponsors of this legislation. 
I hope the result of this legislation will remove

[[Page S8605]]

any doubt that Federal agencies may welcome Boy Scouts to hold meetings 
and go camping on Federal property, just as we did. And it says to 
State and local governments that in denying equal access to the public 
venues to scouts, they will risk some of their Federal funds if they 
continue to do that.
  The Boy Scouts of America is one of the preeminent valuable 
organizations in this country, and I am proud to be an original 
cosponsor of the Support Our Scouts Act of 2005.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to thank our distinguished 
colleague from Tennessee. I listened carefully to his remarks. It did 
evoke memories of this humble Senator when I had a rather inauspicious 
career in the Boy Scouts. Nevertheless, they did a lot more for me than 
I did for them.
  I remember the jamborees. I can remember very well on our first 
encampment filling a tick bag full of barn straw which we used for a 
mattress. I was greatly impressed with that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me also join Senator Frist in this 
legislation. I believe it is very significant. I spoke last April on 
the Senate floor on behalf of this issue, and I am proud to do so again 
with this amendment.
  Sadly, since my previous speech, there has been a recent Federal 
court ruling against the Pentagon's support for the National Boy Scout 
Jamboree, which occurs every 4 years and attracts about 40,000 people. 
It will be taking place on July 25.
  In her decision, a Federal judge in Chicago ruled that a statute 
permitting the military to lend support for the National Scout Jamboree 
violates the establishment clause of the Constitution.
  In short, the judge ruled that Pentagon funding is unconstitutional 
because the Boy Scouts are a religious organization as it requires 
Scouts to affirm a belief in God. I will speak more on this later.
  However, it is clear to me that for more than 90 years, the Boy 
Scouts have benefited our youth and helped produce some of the best and 
brightest leaders in our country. I believe we must reaffirm our 
support for the vital work they have done and continue to do. Like many 
of my friends here, I was a Boy Scout many years ago.
  As a result of the great work they do, I was pleased to be an 
original cosponsor of S. 642, the Support Our Scouts Act of 2005, as 
well as this amendment.
  I had at one time considered introducing my own bill on this very 
important matter. However, I was so pleased with the substance of this 
bill that I was proud to add my name as a cosponsor, and I again thank 
Senator Frist for his efforts on this issue.
  As you may know, this bill, and now this amendment, address efforts 
by some groups to prevent Federal agencies from supporting our Scouts. 
This bill would remove any doubts that Federal agencies can welcome 
Scouts and the great work they do.
  Sadly, as the following excerpt from a July 20, 2005, Wall Street 
Journal editorial demonstrates, these great organizations have come 
under attack. The column from this respected publication explains that:

       Because the Scouts require members to ``privately exercise 
     their religious faith as directed by their families and 
     religious advisors,'' the ACLU petitioned the court to 
     declare the organization ``theistic'' and ``pervasively 
     sectarian.'' Judge Blanche Manning didn't go quite that far 
     last month, but she did rule it an overtly religious 
     association because it ``excludes atheists and agnostics from 
     membership.'' She ordered the Army to expel the next Jamboree 
     from Fort A.P. Hill in 2010, by which time we trust the 
     Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals will have overturned her 
     decision.

  I hope this unfortunate decision is overturned as well.
  As Senator Frist has said, this legislation will specifically ensure 
that the Department of Defense can and will continue to provide the 
Scouts the type of support it has provided in the past. Moreover, the 
Scouts would be permitted equal access to public facilities, forums, 
and programs that are open to a variety of other youth or community 
organizations.
  It is enormously regrettable to me that the Scouts have come under 
attack from aggressive liberal groups blatantly pushing their own 
social agendas and become the target of lawsuits by organizations that 
are more concerned with pushing these liberal agendas than sincerely 
helping our youth.
  Rather than protecting our religious freedoms, these groups are 
clearly bent on discriminating against any organization that has faith 
as one of its tenets.
  Thus, today, the Federal Government continues to defend the lawsuit 
aimed at severing traditional ties between the Boy Scouts and the 
Departments of Defense and Housing and Urban Development.
  What is more, Scouts have been excluded by certain State and local 
governments from utilizing public facilities, forums and programs, 
which are open to other groups.
  It is certainly disappointing and, frankly frustrating that we have 
reached a point where groups such as the ACLU are far more interested 
in tearing down great institutions like the Boy Scouts than helping 
foster character and values in our young men. I am tired of these 
tactics. It is very disturbing to me that these groups unabashedly 
attack organizations, regardless of the good they do or the support 
they have from the vast majority of Americans, simply to further their 
own subjective social agendas.
  I, for one, am saddened that the Boy Scouts of America has been the 
most recent target of these frivolous lawsuits. I reject any arguments 
that the Boy Scouts is anything but one of the greatest programs for 
character development and values-based leadership training in America 
today.
  We should seek to aid, not impede, groups that promote values such as 
duty to God and country, faith and family, and public service and 
sacrifice, which are deeply ingrained in the oath of every Scout. To 
fail to support such values would allow the very fabric of America, 
which has brought us to this great place in history, to be destroyed.
  Today, with more than 3.2 million youth members, and more than 1.2 
million adult volunteers, we can certainly say that the Boy Scouts of 
America has positively impacted the lives of generations of boys, 
preparing them to be men of great character and values. Remarkably, Boy 
Scout membership since 1910 totals more than 110 million.
  I am proud to report that in Oklahoma we have a total youth 
participation of nearly 75,000 boys; and in Oklahoma City alone, we 
have about 7,000 adult volunteers.
  These young men have helped serve communities all over our State with 
programs such as Helping Hands for Heroes, a program where Scouts help 
military families whose loved ones are serving overseas. These young 
men have cut grass, cleaned homes, taken out the garbage, and walked 
dogs. What a great service for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and 
marines and their families. Our Boy Scouts have also served as ushers 
and first-aid responders at the University of Oklahoma football games 
for more than 50 years.
  Notably, Scouts in my State have also shared a long and proud history 
of cooperation and partnership with military installations in Oklahoma. 
Furthermore, events, such as the National Jamboree, allow an 
opportunity to expose large numbers of young Americans to our great 
military in a time when fewer and fewer receive such exposure. I 
believe this is a very good thing, and I will fight to see that it 
continues.
  Given all this, I hope my colleagues will join me in defending this 
organization and others like it. We must not be afraid to support our 
youth and organizations like the Boy Scouts that support them.
  As the Wall Street Journal editorial that I mentioned previously 
argued:

       The values the Scouts embody are vital to the national good 
     and in need today, more than ever.

  I agree and am proud to rise in support today and always for this 
great cause.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
 Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Boy 
Scouts of America and the Support Our Scouts Act of 2005 amendment 
being offered by majority leader Frist.
  I support the Boy Scouts of America and its goals. I was fortunate to 
be able to have most of the same experiences and training offered by 
the Boy Scouts

[[Page S8606]]

as I grew up. My boyhood on a ranch in Walden, CO, offered me the 
chance to develop the outdoor skills and nature appreciation that are 
so much a part of Scouting. As a child I also learned much about 
patriotism, community service, religion, political involvement and 
civic responsibility--the intellectual development stressed by the Boy 
Scouts. As a veterinarian I often served as an advisor to the Scouts on 
a variety of issues relating to animal care and health. Americans all 
over our Nation contribute and are touched by this great organization.
  On July 25 through August 3, Boy Scouts from all over the Nation will 
gather at Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia for their National Scout Jamboree. 
This opportunity is time to celebrate scouting and the strong ideals it 
instills in it's youth.
  Boy Scouts of America, like other nonprofit youth organizations, 
depend on the use of these public facilities for various programs and 
forums. Boy Scouts of America have had a long and positive relationship 
with the Departments of Defense and Housing and Urban Development. This 
relationship has fostered responsible fun and adventure to the more 
than 3 million boys and 1 million adult volunteers around the country.
  However, since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Boy Scouts of America, 
BSA v. Dale, the Boy Scout's relationships with Government has been the 
target of frivolous lawsuits. Currently, State and local Governments 
are actively excluding Boy Scouts from using public facilities, forums, 
and programs. These are resources that are available to a variety of 
other youth or community organizations. Today access by the Scouts has 
been unfairly limited because of the Boy Scout's unwavering 
acknowledgment of God.
  As we fight to prevent court involvement from changing our founding 
documents and other symbols of our national heritage we must also 
support and protect the heritage of Boy Scouts of America. Citizenship, 
service, and leadership are important values on which the Boy Scouts of 
America was built. The ability of the Boy Scouts to instill young 
people with values and ethical character must remain intact for future 
generations. The Boy Scouts of America is a permanent fixture in our 
culture and no court ruling can or should attempt to diminish their 
rights to equal access.
  This amendment's mission is to ensure that the Boy Scouts are treated 
equally. I feel the Boy Scouts have been unfairly singled out. It is 
important to guarantee their right to equal access of public 
facilities, forums, and programs so that the Boy Scout of America can 
continue to serve America's communities and families for a better 
tomorrow.
  Please join me in supporting the Boy Scouts of America and majority 
leader Frist's Support Our Scouts amendment to the Defense 
Appropriations bill.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment No. 1342, the 
Support Our Scouts Act, offered by my distinguished colleague from 
Tennessee, Senator Frist. The amendment was intended to be simple and 
straightforward in its purpose, to ensure the Department of Defense can 
continue to support youth organizations, including the Boy Scouts of 
America, without fear of frivolous lawsuits. The dollars that are being 
spent on litigation ought to be spent on programs for the youth. Every 
time we see a group like the Boy Scouts, that will teach character and 
take care of the community, we ought to do everything we can to promote 
it.
  This Saturday, over 40,000 Boy Scouts from around the Nation will 
meet at Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia for the National Scout Jamboree. 
This event provides a unique opportunity for the military and civilian 
communities to help our young men gain a greater understanding of 
patriotism, comradeship, and self-confidence.
  Since the first jamboree was held at the base of the Washington 
Monument in 1937, more than 600,000 Scouts and leaders have 
participated in the national events. I attended the jamboree at Valley 
Forge in 1957.
  Boy Scouts has been a part of my education. I am an Eagle Scout. I am 
pleased to say my son was in Scouts. He is an Eagle Scout. Boy Scouts 
is an education. It is an education in possibilities for careers. I can 
think of no substitution for the 6 million boys in Scouts and the 
millions who have preceded them. There are dozens on both sides of the 
aisle who have been Boy Scouts. I say it is part of my education 
because each of the badges that is earned, each of the merit badges 
that is earned, is an education. I tell schoolkids as I go across my 
State and across my country that even though at times I took courses or 
merit badges or programs that I didn't see where I would ever have a 
use for them, by now I have had a use for them and wish I had paid more 
attention at the time I was doing it.
  I always liked a merit badge pamphlet on my desk called 
``Entrepreneurship.'' It is the hardest Boy Scout badge to earn. It is 
one of the most important ones. I believe small business is the future 
of our country. Boy Scouts promote small business through their 
internship merit badge. Why would it be the toughest to get? Not only 
do you have to figure out a plan, devise a business plan, figure how to 
finance it, but the final requirement for the badge is to start a 
business.
  I could go on and on through the list of merit badges required in 
order to get an Eagle badge. There are millions of boys in this country 
who are doing that and will be doing that. They do need places to meet. 
They are being discriminated against. They are being told they cannot 
use military facilities, even for their national jamborees.
  These jamborees have become a great American tradition for our young 
people, and Fort A.P. Hill has been made the permanent site of the 
gatherings. But now the courts are trying to say that this is 
unconstitutional.
  It isn't just military facilities; it is Federal facilities. A couple 
of years ago, we had an opportunity to debate this again on floor, and 
it had to do with the Smithsonian.
  Some Boy Scouts requested they be able to do the Eagle Scout Court of 
Honor at the National Zoo and were denied. Why? The determination by 
the legal staff of the Smithsonian that Scouts discriminate because of 
their support for and encouragement for the spiritual life of their 
members. Specifically, they embrace the concept that the universe was 
created by a supreme being, although we surely point out Scouts do not 
endorse or require a single belief or any particular faith's God. The 
mere fact they asked you to believe in and try to foster a relationship 
with a supreme being who created the universe was enough to disqualify 
them.
  I read that portion of the letter twice. I had just visited the 
National Archives and read the original document signed by our Founding 
Fathers. It is a good thing they hadn't asked to sign the Declaration 
of Independence at the National Zoo.
  This happens in the schools across the country. Other requests have 
been denied. They were also told they were not relevant to the National 
Zoo.
  That is kind of a fascinating experiment in words. I did look to see 
what other sorts of things had been done there and found they had a 
Washington Singers musical concert, and the Washington premiers for 
both the ``Lion King'' and ``Batman.'' Clearly, relevance was not a 
determining factor in those decisions.

  But the Boy Scouts have done some particular things in conservation 
that are important, in conservation tied in with the zoo. In fact, the 
founder of the National Zoo was Dr. William Hornaday. He is one of the 
people who was involved in some of the special conservation movements 
and has one of the conservation badges of Scouts named after him.
  If the situations did not arise, this amendment would not come up. 
But they do.
  In 2001, I worked with Senator Helms to pass a similar amendment 
requiring that the Boy Scouts are treated fairly, as any other 
organization, in their efforts to hold meetings on public school 
property. This amendment clarified the difference between support and 
discrimination, and it has been successful in preventing future 
unnecessary lawsuits. The Frist amendment is similar to the Helms 
amendment and will help prevent future confusion.
  Again and again, the Scouts have had to use the courts to assure that 
they were not discriminated against. I am pretty sure everybody in 
America recognizes if you have to use the courts to get your rights to 
use school buildings,

[[Page S8607]]

military bases, or other facilities, it costs money. It costs time. 
This amendment eliminates that cost and eliminates that time, to allow 
all nationally recognized youth organizations to have the same rights.
  The legal system is very important in the country but it has some 
interesting repercussions. Our system of lawsuits, which sometimes are 
called the legal lottery of this country, allow people who think they 
have been harmed to try to point out who harmed them and get money for 
doing that. It has had some difficulties for the Boy Scouts.
  I remember when my son was in the Scouts their annual fundraiser was 
selling Christmas trees. One of the requirements when they were selling 
Christmas trees was that the boys selling trees at the lot had to be 
accompanied by two adults not from the same family.
  I did not understand why we needed all of this adult supervision. It 
seemed as if one adult helping out at the lot would be sufficient. The 
answer was, they have been sued because if there was only one adult 
there and that adult could be accused of abusing the boys. Two adults 
provided some assurance that a lawsuit would not happen.
  The interesting thing is, it was just me and my son at the lot and we 
still had to have another adult in order to keep the Boy Scouts from 
being sued.
  They run into some of the same difficulties with car caravans.
  So the legal system of this country has put them in the position 
where they are doing some of the things that they are doing. The legal 
system of the country has caused some of the discrimination that is 
done.
  It is something we need to correct. This discussion of the Frist 
amendment is timely. U.S. District Judge Blanche Manning recently ruled 
that the Pentagon could no longer spend Government money to ready Fort 
A.P. Hill for the National Boy Scout Jamboree. The Frist amendment 
would assure that our free speech protections would also apply to the 
Boy Scouts of America.
  The Boy Scouts of America is one of the oldest and largest youth 
organizations in the United States and the world today. The 
organization teaches its members to do their duty to God, to love their 
country, and serve their fellow citizens. The Boy Scouts have formed 
the minds and hearts of millions of Americans and prepared these boys 
and young men for the challenges they are sure to face the rest of 
their lives. It is an essential part of Americana. I urge my colleagues 
to join me in defending the Boy Scouts from constitutional 
discrimination by supporting the Helms amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have no objection that I know of to this 
amendment. It does not purport to limit the jurisdiction of a Federal 
court in determining what the Constitution means. So we do not have any 
objection to it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The Senator from Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 1314

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in consultation with the majority leader 
and the distinguished Senator from Michigan, as to the amendment by 
Senator Frist, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be laid aside 
and that we return to my amendment No. 1314.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. On that matter, it is contemplated now that we will have 
a vote in relation to the Warner amendment regarding the wheeled motor 
vehicles, armored, today at 12:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we very strongly support the Warner 
amendment. I ask unanimous consent that I be listed as a cosponsor of 
the Warner amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we understand there will be no second-
degree amendments to the Warner amendment now.
  I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Kennedy be listed as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we are checking on Senator Bayh right now.
  Mr. WARNER. I think it is important. Senator Bayh has been very 
active on this issue.


                    Amendment No. 1314, as Modified

  Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification to my amendment in 
the nature of a technical modification. I believe it has been examined 
by the other side. This modification identifies an offset of $445.4 
million from the Iraqi Freedom Fund for this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 303, strike line 3 and all that follows through 
     page 304, line 24, and insert the following:
       (3) For other procurement $376,700,000.
       (b) Availability of Certain Amounts.--
       (1) Availability.--Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by subsection (a)(3), $225,000,000 shall be 
     available for purposes as follows:
       (A) Procurement of up-armored high mobility multipurpose 
     wheeled vehicles (UAHs).
       (B) Procurement of wheeled vehicle add-on armor protection, 
     including armor for M1151/M1152 high mobility multipurpose 
     wheeled vehicles.
       (C) Procurement of M1151/M1152 high mobility multipurpose 
     wheeled vehicles.
       (2) Allocation of funds.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the Secretary 
     of the Army shall allocate the manner in which amounts 
     available under paragraph (1) shall be available for the 
     purposes specified in that paragraph.
       (B) Limitation.--Amounts available under paragraph (1) may 
     not be allocated under subparagraph (A) until the Secretary 
     certifies to the congressional defense committees that the 
     Army has a validated requirement for procurement for a 
     purpose specified in paragraph (1) based on a statement of 
     urgent needs from a commander of a combatant command.
       (C) Reports.--Not later than 15 days after an allocation of 
     funds is made under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall 
     submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
     describing such allocation of funds.

     SEC. 1404. NAVY AND MARINE CORPS PROCUREMENT.

       (a) Navy.--Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated 
     for fiscal year 2006 for the procurement accounts of the Navy 
     in amounts as follows:
       (1) For aircraft, $183,800,000.
       (2) For weapons, including missiles and torpedoes, 
     $165,500,000.
       (3) For other procurement, $30,800,000.
       (b) Marine Corps.--Funds are hereby authorized to be 
     appropriated for fiscal year 2006 for the procurement account 
     for the Marine Corps in the amount of $429,600,000.
       (c) Navy and Marine Corps Ammunition.--Funds are hereby 
     authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2006 for the 
     procurement account for ammunition for the Navy and the 
     Marine Corps in the amount of $104,500,000.
       (d) Availability of Certain Amounts.--
       (1) Availability.--Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by subsection (b), $340,400,000 shall be 
     available for purposes as follows:
       (A) Procurement of up-armored high mobility multipurpose 
     wheeled vehicles (UAHs).
       (B) Procurement of wheeled vehicle add-on armor protection, 
     including armor for M1151/M1152 high mobility multipurpose 
     wheeled vehicles.
       (C) Procurement of M1151/M1152 high mobility multipurpose 
     wheeled vehicles.
       (2) Allocation of funds.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the Secretary 
     of the Navy shall allocate the manner in which amounts 
     available under paragraph (1) shall be available for the 
     purposes specified in that paragraph.
       (B) Limitation.--Amounts available under paragraph (1) may 
     not be allocated under subparagraph (A) until the Secretary 
     certifies to the congressional defense committees that the 
     Marine Corps has a validated requirement for procurement for 
     a purpose specified in paragraph (1) based on a statement of 
     urgent needs from a commander of a combatant command.
       (C) Reports.--Not later than 15 days after an allocation of 
     funds is made under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall 
     submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
     describing such allocation of funds.

     SEC. 1404A. REDUCTION IN AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION FOR 
                   IRAQ FREEDOM FUND.

       The amount authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 
     2006 for the Iraq Freedom Fund is the amount specified by 
     section 1409(a) of this Act, reduced by $445,400,000.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
DeWine and Senator Collins be added as cosponsors to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this amendment was debated yesterday. I 
see other Senators seeking recognition. From my perspective, the debate 
has been satisfied, unless there are other Senators.

[[Page S8608]]

  Has the Chair ruled on the vote at 12:30? I ask unanimous consent 
that the vote in relation to the Warner amendment No. 1314 regarding 
wheeled vehicle armor occur today at 12:30 with no second-degree 
amendments in order prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I had approached the chairman to ask if I 
could speak for a few minutes as in morning business and if it would be 
possible at this time for me to speak for up to 10 minutes as in 
morning business.
  Mr. WARNER. I bring to the Senator's attention, we did have that 
discussion. I didn't, at the time, recognize the imminence of the vote. 
I see a colleague who does have an amendment in relation to the bill. 
Therefore, I am hesitant to grant UC to go off the bill. Could I 
inquire of the Senator from Oklahoma?
  Mr. INHOFE. I respond to the distinguished chairman that I do have 
three amendments that are prepared and I am ready to bring them up and 
get them into the system. I also have two UC requests. If I could be 
recognized for that purpose, I would appreciate that.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, are there other colleagues who wish to 
address the Defense bill? Hopefully, we can accommodate our colleague 
from Oregon. Let's determine, procedurally, the order in which matters 
in relation to this bill should be brought up.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I inform the distinguished chairman that 
I was seeking 8 minutes to speak on the underlying bill.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator from Maine.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I inform the chairman I would like to 
speak for 4 minutes on the Boy Scout amendment discussed, if time is 
available after other Senators speak on the underlying bill.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Senator from Tennessee. I bring 
to his attention that that measure has been laid aside. It doesn't 
preclude his speaking to it, but we will see what we can do.
  I ask my colleagues on this side, the Senator from Oregon, do you 
want 10 minutes or 8 minutes?
  Mr. WYDEN. If the chairman could allow that, I would be appreciative.
  Mr. WARNER. I wonder if the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma could 
proceed, followed by the Senator from Maine, and then prior to the 
vote, if you desire to do it before 12:30?
  Mr. WYDEN. If that is at all possible. Perhaps I will ask unanimous 
consent to speak for up to 10 minutes after the vote; would that be 
acceptable?
  Mr. WARNER. I would like to ask my colleague, the Senator from 
Michigan, to concur in that UC, that following the vote, the Senator 
from Oregon be recognized for a period of not to exceed 10 minutes, and 
we will go off the bill for that purpose.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. LEVIN. We appreciate that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if we could lock in an additional speaker. I ask 
unanimous consent that immediately prior to the vote on the Warner 
amendment at 12:30, Senator Kennedy be recognized for 5 minutes at 
12:25.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Reserving the right to object, I would like to be in 
the queue before 12:30.
  Mr. WARNER. I assure you that you will have 5 minutes in that period 
of time. If the Senator from Oklahoma could present his amendments, 
followed by the Senator from Maine, the Senator from Tennessee, and 
then Senator Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am afraid I didn't hear that request. Are 
the speakers that have been identified speaking on the pending 
amendment?
  Mr. WARNER. Not the pending. In other words, I desire not to go off 
the bill to accommodate our friend from Oregon. He has now been 
accommodated. We are looking at a period of roughly 40 minutes to be 
allocated among three Senators who wish to speak to matters in relation 
to this bill and reserving at 12:25 that Senator Kennedy be recognized 
for a period of 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that we add to that request that 
Senator Lautenberg then be recognized to offer an amendment immediately 
after the speakers who have been identified.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we will do our very best to at least 
introduce an amendment at that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to Senator Lautenberg being 
added at the end of the three previous speakers?

  Mr. WARNER. Might I inquire as to the amount of time the 
distinguished Senator from New Jersey might wish?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like a half-hour evenly divided on the 
amendment. We have 50 minutes left before a vote. If I might say, could 
our distinguished colleague be accommodated immediately after the vote, 
following the Senator from Oregon?
  Why don't I just lay it down and take a couple minutes to talk about 
it.
  Mr. WARNER. Five minutes then.
  Mr. LEVIN. He would just lay down an amendment prior to Senator 
Kennedy speaking and then he would pick up after the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, I thank the distinguished chairman 
of the Senate Armed Services Committee for allowing me to offer these 
amendments. I will stay within a timeframe that will allow other 
speakers under the UC to be heard. I have three amendments I will be 
bringing up.
  I first ask unanimous consent that Senator Collins be added as a 
cosponsor to amendment No. 1312 and that Senator Kyl be added as a 
cosponsor to amendment No. 1313.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1311

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, is it necessary to set aside the pending 
amendment for me to offer my amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set 
aside, and I send an amendment to the desk, No. 1311, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1311.

  Mr. INHOFE. 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:

  (Purpose: To protect the economic and energy security of the United 
                                States)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:


                      ECONOMIC AND ENERGY SECURITY

       Sec. _. Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 
     (50 U.S.C. App. 2170) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
       (B) by striking ``The President'' and inserting ``(1) In 
     General.--The President'';
       (C) by inserting ``, including national economic and energy 
     security,'' after ``national security'';
       (D) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Notice and wait requirement.--
       ``(A) Notification of approval.--The President shall notify 
     the appropriate congressional committees of each approval of 
     any proposed merger, acquisition, or takeover that is 
     investigated under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Joint resolution objecting to transaction.--
       ``(i) Delay pending consideration of resolution.--A 
     transaction described in subparagraph (A) may not be 
     consummated until 10 legislative days after the President 
     provides the notice required under such subparagraph. If a 
     joint resolution objecting to the proposed transaction is 
     introduced in either House of Congress by the chairman of one 
     of the appropriate congressional committees during such 
     period, the transaction may not be consummated until 30 
     legislative days after such resolution.
       ``(ii) Disapproval upon passage of resolution.--If a joint 
     resolution introduced under clause (i) is agreed to by both 
     Houses of Congress, the transaction may not be 
     consummated.'';
       (E) in paragraph (1)(B) (as so designated by this 
     paragraph), by striking ``shall'';
       (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``subsection (d)'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (e)'';

[[Page S8609]]

       (3) in subsection (e), by striking ``subsection (c)'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (d)'';
       (4) in subsection (f)(3), by inserting ``, including 
     national economic and energy security,'' after ``national 
     security'';
       (5) in subsection (g)--
       (A) by striking ``Report to the Congress'' in the heading 
     and inserting ``Reports to Congress'';
       (B) by striking ``The President'' and inserting the 
     following: ``(1) Reports on determinations.--The President'';
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Reports on considered transactions.--
       ``(A) In general.--The President or the President's 
     designee shall transmit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees on a monthly basis a report containing a detailed 
     summary and analysis of each transaction the consideration of 
     which was completed by the Committee on Foreign Acquisitions 
     Affecting National Security since the most recent report.
       ``(B) Content.--Each report submitted under subparagraph 
     (A) shall include--
       ``(i) a description of all of the elements of each 
     transaction; and
       ``(ii) a description of the standards and criteria used by 
     the Committee to assess the impact of each transaction on 
     national security.
       ``(C) Form.--The reports submitted under subparagraph (A) 
     shall be submitted in both classified and unclassified form, 
     and company proprietary information shall be appropriately 
     protected.''; and
       (D) by striking ``of this Act'';
       (6) in subsection (k)--
       (A) by striking ``Quadrennial'' in the heading and 
     inserting ``Annual''; and
       (B) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``upon the expiration of every 4 years'' 
     and inserting ``annually'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``; and'' and 
     inserting a semicolon;
       (iii) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the 
     end and inserting ``; and''; and
       (iv) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) evaluates the cumulative effect on national security 
     of foreign investment in the United States.''; and
       (7) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(l) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In 
     this section, the term `appropriate congressional committees' 
     means--
       ``(1) the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 
     the Committee on Armed Services, the Select Committee on 
     Intelligence, and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate; and
       ``(2) the Committee on Financial Services, the Committee on 
     Armed Services, the Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence, and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives.
       ``(m) Designee.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the designee of the President for purposes of this 
     section shall be known as the `Committee on Foreign 
     Acquisitions Affecting National Security', and such committee 
     shall be chaired by the Secretary of Defense.''.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as a practical and timely step toward 
addressing problems with China, I am introducing amendment No. 1311. 
This amendment addresses the review process of foreign acquisitions in 
the U.S. The review of controversial buys, such as the CNOOC, currently 
falls to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, 
CFIUS. I will state this simply: CFIUS has not demonstrated an 
appropriate conception of U.S. national security. I understand that 
Representatives Hyde, Hunter and Manzullo expressed similar views in a 
January letter to Treasury Secretary John Snow, the chairman of CFIUS. 
Of more than 1,500 cases of foreign investments or acquisitions in the 
U.S., CFIUS has investigated only 24. And only one resulted in actually 
stopping the transaction. This lone disapproval, in February 1990, 
occurred with respect to a transaction that had already taken place--it 
took President George H.W. Bush to stop the transaction and safeguard 
our national security.
  Another example of CFIUS falling short is with Magnequench 
International Incorporated. In 1995 Chinese corporations bought GM's 
Magnequench, a supplier of rare earth metals used in the guidance 
systems of smart bombs. Over 12 years, the company has been moved 
piecemeal to mainland China, leaving the U.S. with no domestic supplier 
of neodymium, a critical component of rare-earth magnets. CFIUS 
approved this transfer. The United States now buys rare earth metals, 
which are essential for precision-guided munitions, from one single 
country--China.
  Some experts believe that China's economic policy is a purposeful 
attempt to undermine the U.S. industrial base and likewise, the defense 
industrial base. Perhaps it is hard to believe that China's economic 
manipulation is such a threat to our Nation. In response, I would like 
to read from the book ``Unrestricted Warfare'', written by two PLA, 
People's Liberation Army, senior Colonels:

       Military threats are already no longer the major factors 
     affecting national security . . . traditional factors are 
     increasingly becoming more intertwined with grabbing 
     resources contending for markets, controlling capital, trade 
     sanctions and other economic factors.

  I have outlined in my earlier speeches how China is a clear threat. I 
believe it is. But I also believe that this threat can be addressed and 
allow a healthy, mutual growth for both our countries. The CFIUS 
process is at the heart of this issue. Chairman of the US-China 
Economic and Security Review Commission, Dick D'Amato, stated this 
morning that the CFIUS process is ``broken.'' This amendment is a step 
toward fixing the problems, enabling the foreign review to carry out 
its function and truly protect our national security.
  First, it clearly charges the commission with measuring energy and 
economic security as fundamental aspects of national security.
  Second, it brings congressional oversight into the foreign investment 
review process. After a 10-day review period, an oversight committee 
chairman can extend the review period to 30 days. Congress then has the 
option to pass a resolution of disapproval and thus stop an acquisition 
harmful to our country.
  Third, the amendment calls for a report on the security implications 
of transactions on a monthly basis. There will also be a yearly report 
to the proper congressional committees that will review the cumulative 
effect of our sales with China.
  The amendment also changes the name of the review mechanism to 
reflect the national security focus that it should be emphasizing. The 
new name would be Committee on Foreign Acquisitions Affecting National 
Security, or CFAANS. Further, the designated chairman of the process 
would become the Secretary of Defense, also reflecting the security 
focus that the process should be based on.
  The foreign investment review process is vital to providing for U.S. 
security, particularly in relation to countries such as China. However, 
it is in need of attention and changes no less drastic than I have 
suggested here.
  We are going to have to do something about the performance of this 
organization. To do it, we will have to change the structure. I am 
going to be recommending that the chairman of CFIUS no longer be the 
Secretary of the Treasury but be the Secretary of Defense, since they 
deal with very critical national security issues.


                           Amendment No. 1312

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside, and I send amendment No. 1312 to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], for himself and Ms. 
     Collins, proposes an amendment numbered 1312.

  Mr. INHOFE. 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:

 (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that the President should 
       take immediate steps to establish a plan to implement the 
  recommendations of the 2004 Report to Congress of the United States-
             China Economic and Security Review Commission)

       At the end of title XII, insert the following:

     SEC. 1205. THE UNITED STATES-CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY 
                   REVIEW COMMISSION.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The 2004 Report to Congress of the United States-China 
     Economic and Security Review Commission states that--
       (A) China's State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) lack adequate 
     disclosure standards, which creates the potential for United 
     States investors to unwittingly contribute to enterprises 
     that are involved in activities harmful to United States 
     security interests;
       (B) United States influence and vital long-term interests 
     in Asia are being challenged by China's robust regional 
     economic engagement and diplomacy;

[[Page S8610]]

       (C) the assistance of China and North Korea to global 
     ballistic missile proliferation is extensive and ongoing;
       (D) China's transfers of technology and components for 
     weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their delivery systems 
     to countries of concern, including countries that support 
     acts of international terrorism, has helped create a new tier 
     of countries with the capability to produce WMD and ballistic 
     missiles;
       (E) the removal of the European Union arms embargo against 
     China that is currently under consideration in the European 
     Union would accelerate weapons modernization and dramatically 
     enhance Chinese military capabilities;
       (F) China's recent actions toward Taiwan call into question 
     China's commitments to a peaceful resolution;
       (G) China is developing a leading-edge military with the 
     objective of intimidating Taiwan and deterring United States 
     involvement in the Strait, and China's qualitative and 
     quantitative military advancements have already resulted in a 
     dramatic shift in the cross-Strait military balance toward 
     China; and
       (H) China's growing energy needs are driving China into 
     bilateral arrangements that undermine multilateral efforts to 
     stabilize oil supplies and prices, and in some cases may 
     involve dangerous weapons transfers.
       (2) On March 14, 2005, the National People's Congress 
     approved a law that would authorize the use of force if 
     Taiwan formally declares independence.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--
       (1) Plan.--The President is strongly urged to take 
     immediate steps to establish a plan to implement the 
     recommendations contained in the 2004 Report to Congress of 
     the United States-China Economic and Security Review 
     Commission in order to correct the negative implications that 
     a number of current trends in United States-China relations 
     have for United States long-term economic and national 
     security interests.
       (2) Contents.--Such a plan should contain the following:
       (A) Actions to address China's policy of undervaluing its 
     currency, including--
       (i) encouraging China to provide for a substantial upward 
     revaluation of the Chinese yuan against the United States 
     dollar;
       (ii) allowing the yuan to float against a trade-weighted 
     basket of currencies; and
       (iii) concurrently encouraging United States trading 
     partners with similar interests to join in these efforts.
       (B) Actions to make better use of the World Trade 
     Organization (WTO) dispute settlement mechanism and 
     applicable United States trade laws to redress China's unfair 
     trade practices, including China's exchange rate 
     manipulation, denial of trading and distribution rights, lack 
     of intellectual property rights protection, objectionable 
     labor standards, subsidization of exports, and forced 
     technology transfers as a condition of doing business. The 
     United States Trade Representative should consult with our 
     trading partners regarding any trade dispute with China.
       (C) Actions to encourage United States diplomatic efforts 
     to identify and pursue initiatives to revitalize United 
     States engagement with China's Asian neighbors. The 
     initiatives should have a regional focus and complement 
     bilateral efforts. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation 
     forum (APEC) offers a ready mechanism for pursuit of such 
     initiatives.
       (D) Actions by the administration to hold China accountable 
     for proliferation of prohibited technologies and to secure 
     China's agreement to renew efforts to curtail North Korea's 
     commercial export of ballistic missiles.
       (E) Actions to encourage the creation of a new United 
     Nations framework for monitoring the proliferation of WMD and 
     their delivery systems in conformance with member nations' 
     obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the 
     Biological Weapons Convention, and the Chemical Weapons 
     Convention. The new monitoring body should be delegated 
     authority to apply sanctions to countries violating these 
     treaties in a timely manner, or, alternatively, should be 
     required to report all violations in a timely manner to the 
     Security Council for discussion and sanctions.
       (F) Actions by the administration to conduct a fresh 
     assessment of the ``One China'' policy, given the changing 
     realities in China and Taiwan. This should include a review 
     of--
       (i) the policy's successes, failures, and continued 
     viability;
       (ii) whether changes may be needed in the way the United 
     States Government coordinates its defense assistance to 
     Taiwan, including the need for an enhanced operating 
     relationship between United States and Taiwan defense 
     officials and the establishment of a United States-Taiwan 
     hotline for dealing with crisis situations;
       (iii) how United States policy can better support Taiwan's 
     breaking out of the international economic isolation that 
     China seeks to impose on it and whether this issue should be 
     higher on the agenda in United States-China relations; and
       (iv) economic and trade policy measures that could help 
     ameliorate Taiwan's marginalization in the Asian regional 
     economy, including policy measures such as enhanced United 
     States-Taiwan bilateral trade arrangements that would include 
     protections for labor rights, the environment, and other 
     important United States interests.
       (G) Actions by the Secretaries of State and Energy to 
     consult with the International Energy Agency with the 
     objective of upgrading the current loose experience-sharing 
     arrangement, whereby China engages in some limited exchanges 
     with the organization, to a more structured arrangement 
     whereby China would be obligated to develop a meaningful 
     strategic oil reserve, and coordinate release of stocks in 
     supply-disruption crises or speculator-driven price spikes.
       (H) Actions by the administration to develop and publish a 
     coordinated, comprehensive national policy and strategy 
     designed to meet China's challenge to maintaining United 
     States scientific and technological leadership and 
     competitiveness in the same way the administration is 
     presently required to develop and publish a national security 
     strategy.
       (I) Actions to revise the law governing the Committee on 
     Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), including 
     expanding the definition of national security to include the 
     potential impact on national economic security as a criterion 
     to be reviewed, and transferring the chairmanship of CFIUS 
     from the Secretary of the Treasury to a more appropriate 
     executive branch agency.
       (J) Actions by the President and the Secretaries of State 
     and Defense to press strongly their European Union 
     counterparts to maintain the EU arms embargo on China.
       (K) Actions by the administration to restrict foreign 
     defense contractors, who sell sensitive military use 
     technology or weapons systems to China, from participating in 
     United States defense-related cooperative research, 
     development, and production programs. Actions by the 
     administration may be targeted to cover only those technology 
     areas involved in the transfer of military use technology or 
     weapons systems to China. The administration should provide a 
     comprehensive annual report to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress on the nature and scope of foreign military sales to 
     China, particularly sales by Russia and Israel.
       (L) Any additional actions outlined in the 2004 Report to 
     Congress of the United States-China Economic and Security 
     Review Commission that affect the economic or national 
     security of the United States.

  Mr. INHOFE. In October of 2000, Congress established the United 
States-China Security Economic Review Commission to act as a bipartisan 
authority on how our relationship with China affects our economy and 
industrial base and China's military and weapons proliferation. I have 
read these recommendations. I have given four 1-hour speeches on the 
floor of the Senate concerning the recommendations. I think it is 
appropriate that we have those recommendations incorporated into the 
Defense authorization bill under consideration at this time. My 
amendment 1312 puts these recommendations into place that I have spoken 
on before in the Senate Chamber.
  As I said, in October of 2000 Congress established the U.S.-China 
Security Economic Review Commission to act as the bipartisan authority 
on how our relationship with China affects our economy, industrial 
base, China's military and weapons proliferation, and our influence in 
Asia. For the past 5 years the commission has been holding hearings and 
issuing annual reports to evaluate ``the national security implications 
of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the United 
States and the People's Republic of China.'' Their job is to provide us 
in Congress with the necessary information to make decisions about this 
complex situation. However, I fear their reports have gone largely 
unnoticed.
  In the most recent report, dated June 2004, the commission makes this 
alarming opening statement:

       Based on our analysis to date, as documented in detail in 
     our Report, the Commission believes that a number of the 
     current trends in U.S.-China relations have negative 
     implications for our long-term economic and national security 
     interests, and therefore that U.S. policies in these areas 
     are in need of urgent attention and course corrections.

  As their report and recent news headlines show, China has continued 
on an alarming course of expansion, in some aspects threatening U.S. 
national security. I have found the recommendations in the commission's 
2004 Report objective, necessary, and urgent, and I am introducing an 
amendment to express our support for these viable steps. This amendment 
expresses the sense of the Senate that: China should revaluate its 
manipulated currency level and allow it to float against other 
currencies. In the Treasury Department's recent Report to Congress, 
China's monetary policies are described as ``highly distortionary and 
pose a risk to China's economy, its trading partners, and global 
economic growth.''
  Appropriate steps ought to be taken through the World Trade 
Organization

[[Page S8611]]

to hold China accountable for its dubious trade practices. Major 
problem issues such as intellectual property rights have yet to be 
addressed.
  The U.S. should revitalize engagement in the Asian region, broadening 
our interaction with organizations like ASEAN. Our lack of influence 
has been demonstrated by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization recently 
demanding that we set a pullout deadline in Afghanistan.
  The administration ought to hold China accountable for proliferating 
prohibited technologies. Chinese companies such as CPMIEC or NORINCO 
have been sanctioned frequently and yet the Chinese government refuses 
to enforce their own nonproliferation agreements.
  The U.N. should monitor nuclear/biological/chemical treaties and 
either enforce these agreements or report them to the Security Council. 
The U.S.-China Commission has found that China has undercut the U.N. 
many areas, undermining what pressure we've tried to apply on 
problematic states such as Sudan or Zimbabwe.
  The administration ought to review the effectiveness of the ``One 
China'' policy in relation to Taiwan to reflect the dynamic nature of 
the situation.
  Various energy agencies should encourage China to develop a strategic 
oil reserve so as to avoid a disastrous oil crisis if availability 
should become volatile.
  The administration should develop and publish a national strategy to 
maintain U.S. scientific and technological leadership in regards to 
China's rapid growth in these fields.
  The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, CFIUS, 
should include national economic security as a criterion for evaluation 
and the chairmanship to be transferred to a more appropriate chair, 
allowing for increased security precautions.
  The administration should continue in its pressure on the EU to 
maintain its arms embargo on China.
  Penalties should be placed on foreign contractors who sell sensitive 
military use technology or weapons systems to China from benefiting 
from U.S. defense-related research, development and production 
programs. The administration should also provide a report to Congress 
on the scope foreign military sales to China.
  And finally, we should provide a broad consensus in support of the 
Commission 2004 Report's recommendations.
  The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission have done an 
outstanding job providing us with a clear picture of a very complex and 
serious situation. Unless our relationship with China is backed up with 
strong action they will never take us seriously. We will certainly see 
more violations of proliferation treaties. They will continue to 
manipulate regional and global trade through currency undervaluation 
and other unhealthy practices. They will develop unreliable oil sources 
and energy alliances with countries that threaten international 
stability. They will continue to escalate the situation over Taiwan, 
raising the stakes in a game neither country can win. In today's world 
we see how the unpaid bills of the past come back to haunt us in full; 
ignoring these problems is unacceptable. As the China Commission 
states,

       We need to use our substantial leverage to develop an 
     architecture that will help avoid conflict, attempt to build 
     cooperative practices and institutions, and advance both 
     countries' long-term interests. The United States cannot lose 
     sight of these important goals, and must configure its 
     policies toward China to help make them materialize . . . If 
     we falter in the use of our economic and political influence 
     now to effect positive change in China, we will have 
     squandered an historic opportunity.

  The U.S.-China Commission was created to give us in Congress a clear 
picture about what is going on--they have done their job. Now let's do 
ours.


                           Amendment No. 1313

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside for the purposes of consideration of amendment 
No. 1313 which I send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], for himself and Mr. 
     Kyl, proposes an amendment numbered 1313.

  Mr. INHOFE. 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:

(Purpose: To require an annual report on the use of United States funds 
  with respect to the activities and management of the International 
                      Committee of the Red Cross)

         At the end of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 1205. ANNUAL REPORT ON THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE ON 
                   THE RED CROSS.

       (a) Annual Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually 
     thereafter, the Secretary of State shall, with the 
     concurrence of the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney 
     General, submit to Congress the activities and management of 
     the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) meeting 
     the requirements set forth in subsection (b).
       (b) Elements of Reports.--(1) Each report under subsection 
     (a) shall include, for the one-year period ending on the date 
     of such report, the following:
       (A) A description of the financial contributions of the 
     United States, and of any other country, to the International 
     Committee of the Red Cross.
       (B) A detailed description of the allocations of the funds 
     available to the International Committee of the Red Cross to 
     international relief activities and international 
     humanitarian law activities as defined by the International 
     Committee.
       (C) A description of how United States contributions to the 
     International Committee of the Red Cross are allocated to the 
     activities described in subparagraph (B) and to other 
     activities.
       (D) The nationality of each Assembly member, Assembly 
     Council member, and Directorate member of the International 
     Committee of the Red Cross, and the annual salary of each.
       (E) A description of any activities of the International 
     Committee of the Red Cross to determine the status of United 
     States prisoners of war (POWs) or missing in action (MIAs) 
     who remain unaccounted for.
       (F) A description of the efforts of the International 
     Committee of the Red Cross to assist United States prisoners 
     of war.
       (G) A description of any expression of concern by the 
     Department of State, or any other department or agency of the 
     Executive Branch, that the International Committee of the Red 
     Cross, or any organization or employee of the International 
     Committee, exceeded the mandate of the International 
     Committee, violated established principles or practices of 
     the International Committee, interpreted differently from the 
     United States any international law or treaty to which the 
     United States is a state-party, or engaged in advocacy work 
     that exceeded the mandate of the International Committee.
       (2) The first report under subsection (a) shall include, in 
     addition to the matters specified in paragraph (1) the 
     following:
       (A) The matters specified in subparagraphs (A) and (G) of 
     paragraph (1) for the period beginning on January 1, 1990, 
     and ending on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (B) The matters specified in subparagraph (E) of paragraph 
     (1) for the period beginning on January 1, 1947, and ending 
     on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (C) The matters specified in subparagraph (F) of paragraph 
     (1) during each of the Korean conflict, the Vietnam era, and 
     the Persian Gulf War.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``Korean 
     conflict'', ``Vietnam era'', and ``Persian Gulf War'' have 
     the meaning given such terms in section 101 of title 38, 
     United States Code.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. We have 
talked about some of the problems that have existed with the ICRC, the 
International Committee on the Red Cross. I would like to make sure 
people understand we are not talking about the American Red Cross. 
There have been problems that have come up. My first concern is for the 
American troops. The ICRC has been around since 1863 and has been there 
for American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines through two world 
wars. I thank them for that good work they did. Likewise, I thank all 
Americans for their military service to America. I did have occasion to 
be in the Army. That was one of the best things that happened in my 
life.
  In my continuing preeminent concern for American troops, however, I 
am compelled to note some concerns and pose some questions about the 
drift in focus of the ICRC. In spite of some of the things that have 
been very good that they have done in the past, there have been some 
very serious problems. I think they need to be called to the attention 
of the Senate and be made a part of this bill.
  Specifically, the ICRC has engaged in efforts to reinterpret and 
expand international law so as to afford terrorists and insurgents the 
same rights and privileges as military personnel of

[[Page S8612]]

states party to the Geneva Convention. They have advocated, lobbied for 
arms control, issues that are not within the organization's mandate, 
and inaccurately and unfairly accused the United States of not adhering 
to the Geneva Conventions when the ICRC itself has demonstrated 
reluctance to ensure that the Geneva Convention protections are 
afforded U.S. prisoners of war.
  Neither the American Red Cross nor any other national Red Cross or 
Red Crescent Society is consulted by the ICRC or is in any way involved 
in the ICRC's policy decisions and statements. The Government has 
remained the ICRC's single largest contributor since its founding in 
1990. The Government has provided more than $1.5 billion in funding for 
the ICRC. Congress should request from the administration and the GAO 
an examination of how the ICRC spends the U.S. taxpayers' dollars to 
determine whether the entire annual U.S. contribution to the ICRC 
headquarters--in other words, the ICRC operations--is advancing 
American interests.
  Additionally, Congress should request that the State, Defense, and 
Justice Departments jointly certify that the ICRC's operations and 
performance have been in full accord with its Geneva Conventions 
mandate. The administration strongly advocates for full transparency of 
all ICRC documents relating to the organization's core and noncore 
activities and the administration argues for a change in the ICRC 
statute so as to allow non-Swiss officials to be a part of the 
organization and directing bodies of the ICRC.
  Indeed, I fear that the ICRC may be harming the morale of our 
American troops by unjustified allegations that detainees and prisoners 
are not being properly treated.
  For example, an ICRC official visited Camp Bucca, a theater 
internment facility for enemy prisoners of war that is, as of January 
2005, being operated by the 18th Military Police Brigade and Task Force 
134, near Umm Qasr in southern Iraq. As of late January 2005, the 
facility had a holding capacity of 6,000 prisoners but only held 5,000. 
These prisoners were being supervised by 1,200 Army MPs and Air Force 
Airmen.
  According to the Wall Street Journal, citing a Defense Department 
source, the ICRC official told U.S. authorities, ``you people are no 
better than and no different than the Nazi concentration camp guards.''
  The ICRC and the State Department have confirmed that this ICRC 
official is now transferred from the Iraq assignment in the wake of her 
comment. Such a comment is obviously damaging to the morale of our 
American troops and offended the soldiers and airmen present.
  The Senate Armed Services Committee has now held 13 hearings on the 
topic of prisoner treatment.
  Sometimes we get bogged down in all the detail and we forget about 
the overall picture, the big picture. And I'm shocked when I found, 
only last Tuesday, from the Pentagon's report, that after 3 years and 
24,000 interrogations, there were only three acts of violation of the 
approved interrogation techniques authorized by Field Manual 3452 and 
DOD guidelines.
  The small infractions found were found by our own government, 
corrected and now reported. In all the cases no further incidents 
occurred. We have nothing to be ashamed of. What other country attacked 
as we were would exercise the same degree of self-criticism and 
restraint.
  Most, if not all, of these incidents are at least a year old. I'm 
very impressed with the way the military, the FBI, and other agencies 
have conducted themselves. The report shows me that an incredible 
amount of restraint and discipline was present at Gitmo.
  Having heard a lot about the Field Manual 3452, I asked, ``Are the 
DOD guidelines, as currently published in that manual, appropriate to 
allow interrogators to get valuable information, intelligence 
information, while not crossing the line from interrogation to abuse?'' 
The answer from Gen. Bantz J. Craddock, Commander of U.S. Southern 
Command was, ``I think, because that manual was written for enemy 
prisoners of war, we have a translation problem, in that enemy 
prisoners are to be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions--
that doesn't apply. That's why the recommendation was made and I 
affirmed it. We need a further look here on this new phenomenon of 
enemy combatants. It's different, and we're trying to use, I think, a 
manual that was written for one reason in another environment.''
  Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt, the senior investigating officer said, 
``Sir, I agree. It's critical that we come to grips with not hanging on 
a Cold War relic of Field Manual 3452, which addressed an entirely 
different population. If we are, in fact, going to get intelligence to 
stay ahead of this type of threat, we need to understand what else we 
can do and still stay in our lane of humane treatment.''
  Brig. Gen. John T. Furlow, the investigating officer, stated, ``Sir, 
in echoing that, F.M. 3452 was originally written in 1987, further 
updated and refined in 1992, which is dealing with the Geneva question 
as well as an ordered battle enemy, not the enemy that we're facing 
currently. I'm aware that Fort Huachuca's currently in a rewrite of the 
next 3452, and it's in a draft form right now.''
  It is clear that our military has humane treatment placed at the 
forefront of their concerns.
  At the same time I want to ask, ``What other country would freely 
discuss interrogation techniques used against high-value intelligence 
detainees during a time of war when suicide bombers are killing our 
fellow citizens?
  Why would we freely explain the limitations placed on our 
interrogators, when we know that our enemy trains his terrorists in 
methods to defeat our interrogations?
  We're handing them new information on how to train future terrorists. 
What damage are we doing to our war effort by parading these relatively 
minor infractions before the press and the world again and again and 
again while our soldiers risk their lives daily and are given no mercy 
by the enemy?
  Our enemies exploit everything we do and everything we say. Al-
Zarqawi, the other day, said to his followers, quote, ``The Americans 
are living their worst days in Iraq now. Even Members of Congress have 
announced that the u.S. is losing the war in Iraq.''
  Let us stop demoralizing our troops. I say let us support our troops 
in their continuing humane treatment of the detainees at Gitmo.
  While we have done more than enough examining of ourselves, I believe 
it is fair to pose some questions to others as well.
  In this amendment, I am requesting, with my cosponsors, simply a 
report to the Congress about activities of the ICRC.
  In the past 15 years the United States has provided more than $1.5 
billion dollars in funding to the ICRC. I would like to ask for some 
accountability for the use of this money and a modicum of oversight. 
For example, I think it is fair to ask:
  ``How is our money being spent?''
  ``What are the activities of the ICRC to determine the status of 
American POW's/MIA's unaccounted for since World War II?''
  ``What are the efforts of the ICRC to assist American POW's held in 
captivity during the Korean War, Vietnam War, and any subsequent 
conflicts?''
  ``Has the ICRC exceeded its mandate, violated established practices 
or principles, or engaged in advocacy work that exceeds the ICRC's 
mandate as provided for under the Geneva Conventions?''
  Please join with me in supporting this simple, fair request for such 
a report.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator's amendment will be considered 
on the floor in due time. But I assume that at least two of the 
amendments involve another committee, the Banking Committee, other than 
the Armed Services Committee; would I be correct in that?
  Mr. INHOFE. I am aware that only one affects the Banking Committee. 
The national security ramifications of the performance and the 
functions of CFIUS are far greater than any banking function. I would 
be happy to deal with the chairman of the Banking Committee and talk 
about the proper jurisdiction.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator. As to the other two amendments, is 
it his judgment that they are solely within the jurisdiction?

[[Page S8613]]

  Mr. INHOFE. That is my judgment.
  Mr. WARNER. I accept that.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the good Senator will also share the amendment 
with the chairman and the ranking member in the Banking Committee, 
both.
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes, that is a fair request.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this time I believe our colleague from 
Maine has an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from Maine is 
recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
National Defense Authorization Act of 2006. This legislation authorizes 
critical programs for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines 
serving our country around the world--programs such as those that 
provide vital protective gear, military pay raises, and increased 
bonuses and benefits, and the advanced weapons systems on which our 
troops rely.
  Let me thank and recognize the extraordinary efforts of our chairman 
of the committee and the ranking member for putting together an 
excellent bill. I commend Senator Warner and Senator Levin also for 
their strong commitment to our Armed Forces, to making sure that our 
military's needs are met.
  This legislation authorizes $9.1 billion for essential shipbuilding 
priorities, and it includes a provision to prohibit the use of funds by 
the Navy to conduct a ``one shipyard winner-take-all'' acquisition 
strategy to procure the next generation of destroyers, the DD(X). Not 
only does this legislation fully fund the President's request for the 
DD(X) program, but it also provides an additional $50 million for 
advanced procurement of the second ship in the DD(X) class at General 
Dynamic's Bath Iron Works in my home State of Maine. I am, 
understandably, very proud of the fine work and the many contributions 
of the skilled shipbuilders at Bath Iron Works to our Nation's defense.
  The high priorities placed on shipbuilding in the Senate version of 
the Defense authorization bill stand in stark contrast to the House 
version of the Defense authorization. The House bill, unwisely and 
regrettably, slashes funding for the DD(X) program, in contrast to the 
President's budget. Moreover, it actually rescinds funding for the 
DD(X) that was provided last year.
  Just this week, in testimony before a House Armed Services 
Subcommittee, the Chief of Naval Operations testified that the Navy 
must have the next generation destroyer, the DD(X). Admiral Clark, in 
what is undoubtedly one of his final, if not the final, appearances as 
Chief of Naval Operations before his retirement, stated before the 
subcommittee:

       For the record, I am unequivocally in full support of the 
     DD(X) program. . . . The failure to build a next-generation 
     capability comes at the peril of the sons and daughters of 
     America's future Navy.

  In response to the House addition of $2.5 billion to the shipbuilding 
budget to buy two additional DDG Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in 
fiscal year 2006, the CNO clearly stated, ``I have enough DDGs.'' It is 
essential that we proceed with the DD(X) destroyer program.
  The DD(X) will have high-tech capabilities that do not currently 
exist on the Navy's surface combatant ships. These capabilities include 
far greater offensive and precise firepower; advanced stealth 
technologies, numerous engineering and technological innovations that 
allow for a reduced crew size; and sophisticated, advanced weapons 
systems, such as a new electromagnetic rail gun.
  Unfortunately, instability and dramatic changes have held back the 
progress on the DD(X) program. Initially, the Pentagon planned to build 
12 DD(X)s over 7 years. To meet budget constraints, the Department 
slashed funding and now proposes to build only five DD(X)s over 7 
years, even though the Chief of Naval Operations has repeatedly stated 
on the record before the Armed Services Committee, in both Chambers, 
that the warfighting requirements remain unchanged and dictate the need 
for the greater number--12 DD(X)s.

  We have heard a lot about the cost growth in the DD(X) program and, 
indeed, the increase in the anticipated cost of constructing these 
vital destroyers is troubling to us all. But, ironically, one of the 
primary drivers of cost growth in shipbuilding is instability. This 
lack of predictability in shipbuilding funding only increases the cost 
to our Nation's shipbuilders because they cannot effectively and 
efficiently plan their workload. And, of course, ultimately, it 
increases the cost to the American taxpayer.
  The Congress and the administration should be trying to minimize 
shipbuilding costs by ensuring a predictable, steadier, year-to-year 
level of funding. Regrettably, that has not been done.
  Mr. President, the key to controlling the price of ships is to 
minimize fluctuations in the shipbuilding account. It is crucial that 
we not only have the most capable fleet but also a sufficient number of 
ships--and I add, shipbuilders--to meet our national security 
requirements. Avoiding budget spikes affords more than ships; it 
provides stability in Naval ship procurement planning and offers a 
steady workload at our shipyards.
  When budget requests change so dramatically from year to year, even 
when the military requirement stays the same, shipbuilders cannot plan 
effectively, and the cost of individual ships is driven upward. The 
national security of our country is best served by a competitive 
shipbuilding industrial base, and this legislation before us today 
fully supports our Nation's highly skilled shipbuilding employees.
  This important legislation also provides much-needed funds for other 
national priorities. It includes an important provision that builds 
upon my work and the work of other committee members last year and this 
year to authorize an increase in the death gratuity payable to the 
survivors of our military who have paid the ultimate price. It also 
authorizes an increase in the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance 
benefit. Surely, that is the least we can do for our brave service men 
and women.
  This bill also improves care of our military by recommending a 
provision that would strengthen and extend health care coverage under 
TRICARE Prime for the children of an Active-Duty service member who 
dies while on active duty.
  This authorization bill is good for our Navy, good for our men and 
women in uniform who are serving our country all around the world, and 
I am pleased to offer my full support.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Cantwell and Snowe be added as cosponsors to the amendment of the 
Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to make certain the Senator from 
Virginia is added as a cosponsor to the Frist amendment now pending at 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, I believe, 
under the UC is about to address the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the unanimous consent agreement, the 
Senator from New Jersey is to be recognized next, is my understanding.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, can we have a clarification?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I understand my friend from New Jersey has a unanimous 
consent request to make. I will be glad to yield.


                           Amendment No. 1351

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
  I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I understand I will be able to have 
some time after the vote to discuss the amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is very clear. The Senator from New 
Jersey seeks up to how much time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. If I can have 15 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Can we enter into a time agreement equally divided?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. If we have time equally divided, then I ask the 
Senator from Virginia to allow a half hour equally divided.

[[Page S8614]]

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think we will have to enter into that 
agreement later, but I will work toward that goal.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. With no second degrees possible.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Is the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey now at 
the desk?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], for himself, 
     Mr. Corzine, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Feingold, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1351.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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 stop corporations from financing terrorism)

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

                  TITLE XXXIV--FINANCING OF TERRORISM

     SEC. 3401. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Stop Business with 
     Terrorists Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 3402. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Control in fact.--The term ``control in fact'', with 
     respect to a corporation or other legal entity, includes--
       (A) in the case of--
       (i) a corporation, ownership or control (by vote or value) 
     of at least 50 percent of the capital structure of the 
     corporation; and
       (ii) any other kind of legal entity, ownership or control 
     of interests representing at least 50 percent of the capital 
     structure of the entity; or
       (B) control of the day-to-day operations of a corporation 
     or entity.
       (2) Person subject to the jurisdiction of the united 
     states.--The term ``person subject to the jurisdiction of the 
     United States'' means--
       (A) an individual, wherever located, who is a citizen or 
     resident of the United States;
       (B) a person actually within the United States;
       (C) a corporation, partnership, association, or other 
     organization or entity organized under the laws of the United 
     States, or of any State, territory, possession, or district 
     of the United States;
       (D) a corporation, partnership, association, or other 
     organization, wherever organized or doing business, that is 
     owned or controlled in fact by a person or entity described 
     in subparagraph (A) or (C); and
       (E) a successor, subunit, or subsidiary of an entity 
     described in subparagraph (C) or (D).
       (3) Foreign person.--The term ``foreign person'' means--
       (A) an individual who is an alien;
       (B) a corporation, partnership, association, or any other 
     organization or entity that is organized under the laws of a 
     foreign country or has its principal place of business in a 
     foreign country;
       (C) a foreign governmental entity operating as a business 
     enterprise; and
       (D) a successor, subunit, or subsidiary of an entity 
     described in subparagraph (B) or (C).

     SEC. 3403. CLARIFICATION OF SANCTIONS.

       (a) Prohibitions on Engaging in Transactions With Foreign 
     Persons.--
       (1) In general.--In the case of a person subject to the 
     jurisdiction of the United States that is prohibited as 
     described in subsection (b) from engaging in a transaction 
     with a foreign person, that prohibition shall also apply to--
       (A) each subsidiary and affiliate, wherever organized or 
     doing business, of the person prohibited from engaging in 
     such a transaction; and
       (B) any other entity, wherever organized or doing business, 
     that is controlled in fact by that person.
       (2) Prohibition on control.--A person subject to the 
     jurisdiction of the United States that is prohibited as 
     described in subsection (b) from engaging in a transaction 
     with a foreign person shall also be prohibited from 
     controlling in fact any foreign person that is engaged in 
     such a transaction whether or not that foreign person is 
     subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
       (b) IEEPA Sanctions.--Subsection (a) applies in any case in 
     which--
       (1) the President takes action under the International 
     Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) or the 
     Trading with the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App.) to prohibit a 
     person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from 
     engaging in a transaction with a foreign person; or
       (2) the Secretary of State has determined that the 
     government of a country that has jurisdiction over a foreign 
     person has repeatedly provided support for acts of 
     international terrorism under section 6(j) of the Export 
     Administration Act of 1979 (as in effect pursuant to the 
     International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 
     et seq.)), or any other provision of law, and because of that 
     determination a person subject to the jurisdiction of the 
     United States is prohibited from engaging in transactions 
     with that foreign person.
       (c) Cessation of Applicability by Divestiture or 
     Termination of Business.--
       (1) In general.--In any case in which the President has 
     taken action described in subsection (b) and such action is 
     in effect on the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     provisions of this section shall not apply to a person 
     subject of the jurisdiction of the United States if such 
     person divests or terminates its business with the government 
     or person identified by such action within 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Actions after date of enactment.--In any case in which 
     the President takes action described in subsection (b) on or 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the provisions of 
     this section shall not apply to a person subject to the 
     jurisdiction of the United States if such person divests or 
     terminates its business with the government or person 
     identified by such action within 1 year after the date of 
     such action.
       (d) Publication in Federal Register.--Not later than 90 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act, the President 
     shall publish in the Federal Register a list of persons with 
     respect to whom there is in effect a sanction described in 
     subsection (b) and shall publish notice of any change to that 
     list in a timely manner.

     SEC. 3404. NOTIFICATION OF CONGRESS OF TERMINATION OF 
                   INVESTIGATION BY OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS 
                   CONTROL.

       (a) Requirement for Notification.--The Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 42. NOTIFICATION OF CONGRESS OF TERMINATION OF 
                   INVESTIGATION BY OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS 
                   CONTROL.

       ``The Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control 
     shall notify Congress upon the termination of any 
     investigation by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the 
     Department of the Treasury if any sanction is imposed by the 
     Director of such office as a result of the investigation.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in 
     subsection (b) of such Act is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 42. Notification of Congress of termination of investigation by 
              Office of Foreign Assets Control.''.

     SEC. 3405. ANNUAL REPORTING.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that investors and the public should be informed of 
     activities engaged in by a person that may threaten the 
     national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United 
     States, so that investors and the public can use the 
     information in their investment decisions.
       (b) Regulations.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission 
     shall issue regulations that require any person subject to 
     the annual reporting requirements of section 13 of the 
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) to disclose 
     in that person's annual reports--
       (A) any ownership stake of at least 10 percent (or less if 
     the Commission deems appropriate) in a foreign person that is 
     engaging in a transaction prohibited under section 3403(a) of 
     this title or that would be prohibited if such person were a 
     person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; and
       (B) the nature and value of any such transaction.
       (2) Person described.--A person described in this section 
     is an issuer of securities, as that term is defined in 
     section 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 
     78c), that is subject to the jurisdiction of the United Sates 
     and to the annual reporting requirements of section 13 of the 
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m).

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask that the amendment now be laid aside 
for purposes under the UC agreement so that the Senator from 
Massachusetts may address the Senate, I believe for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.


                           Amendment No. 1314

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am delighted to join our chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee and others in cosponsoring the chairman's 
amendment. I commend him for his impressive leadership in bringing it 
before the Senate as one of the first amendments on this extremely 
important bill.
  The amendment increases funding by $340 million for the Marine Corps 
and $105 for the Army for more and better armored vehicles for our 
troops in Iraq.
  This issue has been divisive for far too long. All of us support our 
troops. We obviously want to do all we can to see that they have proper 
equipment, vehicles, and everything else they need to protect their 
lives and carry out their missions.
  More than 400 troops have already died in military vehicles 
vulnerable to roadside bombs, grenades, and other notorious improvised 
explosive devices.
  Many of us have visited soldiers and marines at Walter Reed and 
Bethesda

[[Page S8615]]

and seen the tragic consequences of inadequate armor. We want to ensure 
that parents grieving at Arlington National Cemetery no longer ask, 
``Why weren't more armored humvees available?''
  It is scandalous that the administration has kept sending them into 
battle year after year in Iraq without adequate equipment. It is 
scandalous that desperate parents and spouses here at home have had to 
resort to Wal-Mart to try to buy armor and mail it to their loved ones 
in Iraq to protect them on the front lines. Secretary Rumsfeld has 
rarely been more humiliated than on his visit to Iraq, when a soldier 
had the courage to ask him why the troops had to scavenge scrap metal 
on the streets to protect themselves. The cheer that roared out from 
troops when he asked that question said it all.
  We have been trying to make sure the Army and Marine Corps has had 
the right amount of funding for vehicles for over 2 years. Last year, 
we tried to get additional funding in committee and faced resistance, 
but ultimately added money to the supplemental.
  This past spring, we were successful in getting the Army $213 million 
for uparmored humvees. That amendment was adopted, but it was a very 
narrow vote.
  The Marine Corps leadership clearly understated the amount and types 
of ground equipment it needs. In April, we were told in a hearing that 
based on what they knew from their operational commanders, the Marine 
Corps had met all of the humvee requirements for this year, which was 
398 uparmored humvees.
  Less than a month later, the Inspector General of the Marine Corps 
conducted a readiness assessment of the their ground equipment in Iraq. 
One of the key findings was that the requirement for additional 
upamored humvees would continue to grow. Based on that report and other 
factors, the Marine Corps reversed itself and testified the need was 
almost triple the original amount.
  The inspector general's teams inspected many humvees in Iraq that had 
been damaged by mines and other explosive devices. In nearly every 
case, they found that the cabin was well protected despite significant 
damage to the engine compartment wheels.

  The inspector general also found that even with recommended changes, 
including replacing damaged vehicles, the war will continue to take a 
toll on the marines' equipment. Nearly all of its fighting gear is 
ready for combat this year, they found but it would drop to less than 
two-thirds by the middle of 2008. 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 hoping the problem will somehow go away.
  We have been told for months that the Army's shortage of uparmored 
humvees was a thing of the past. In a letter last October, General 
Abizaid said:

       The fiscal year 2004 Supplemental Request will permit the 
     services to rapidly resolve many of the equipment issues you 
     mentioned to include the procurement of . . . humvees.

  The Army could have and should have moved much more quickly to 
correct the problem. As retired General Paul Kern, who headed the Army 
Materiel Command until last November, said:

       It took too long to materialize.

  He said:

       In retrospect, if I had it to do all over, I would have 
     just started building uparmored humvees. The most efficient 
     way would have been to build a single production line and 
     feed everything into it.

  In April, GAO released a report that clearly identifies the struggles 
the Pentagon has faced. In August 2003, only 51 uparmored humvees were 
being produced a month. It took the industrial base a year and a half 
to work up to making 400 a month. Now the Army says they can now get 
delivery of 550 a month. The question is, Why did it take so long? Why 
did we go to war without the proper equipment? Why didn't we fix it 
sooner, before so many troops have died?
  We need to get ahead of this problem. It is a tragedy for which our 
soldiers are still paying the price for this delay. As 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 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.

  But 24/7 didn't happen even then until January this year. The plant 
had capacity that the Pentagon never consistently used, as the plant's 
general manager has said.
  The delay was unconscionable. Without this amendment, the production 
rate of uparmored humvees could drop off again later this year. That is 
the extraordinary thing. We need to guarantee that we are doing 
everything possible to get the protection to our troops as soon as 
possible. We owe it to them, to their families here at home and to the 
American people.
  We have an opportunity now to end this frustration once and for all. 
Our soldiers and marines deserve the very best, and it is our job in 
Congress to make sure the Department of Defense is finally getting it 
right. Too many have died because of these needless delays, but 
hopefully, this will be solved by what we do in this bill.
  The amendment contributes significantly to this goal, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. WARNER. I will be happy to share my brief time for remarks with 
my colleague. The Senator has joined our bill and I appreciate him 
expressing confidence in this amendment of the Senator from Virginia. I 
commend the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, the Senator from 
Indiana, Mr. Bayh, and many others who worked in this area of the up-
armoring of our military vehicles. But I must take issue with the 
Senator's observations that in any way the Department of Defense is 
open to criticism because it has been a constantly evolving 
requirements issue before the combatant commanders.
  When we look at this record in a careful manner, we will see that the 
Department has responded very quickly to the communication from the 
combatant commanders to adjust through the military departments, 
primarily the Department of Army, the procurement of the necessary 
equipment.
  This Senator from Virginia and others are very conscious of the IED 
problem. I just visited Quantico and looked at their research and 
development facilities dealing with the IED question. Our committee 
periodically, at least every 60 to 90 days, has the general in charge 
of the overall responsibility of IEDs in the Department to brief us on 
what are his needs and are they fully met financially and in every 
other way.
  I frankly think the record shows that the Department of Defense is 
doing its very best for a quickly evolving and changing set of facts 
requiring the addition of up-armored vehicles.
  Mr. President, is the amendment the pending business for the purpose 
of a vote at 12:30?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will be at 12:30.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me also commend the Senator from 
Massachusetts and the Senator from Indiana. They have been stalwarts in 
terms of urging we address this armor question.
  Our service men and women continue to die and suffer grievous wounds 
in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by far the major casualty producer is the 
roadside bomb or mine--what the military calls an improvised explosive 
device or IED. The services are working to counter that threat through 
a variety of means--better intelligence, innovative tactics, techniques 
and procedures, the use of jamming devices, and of course, adding armor 
to Army and Marine Corps HMMWVs and other trucks. On my recent visit to 
Iraq, met with the Marines in Fallujah and viewed and discussed the 
various levels of armor protection on their HMMWVs and the new armor 
package for their heavy truck.
  The armor issue is both a good news and a bad news story. The good 
news is that in just over 2 years, the Army and Marine Corps have gone 
from only a few hundred armored trucks to nearly 40,000 and 6,000 
respectively. Many people have worked night and day to make that 
happen, and we commend and thank them for doing so. Congress has

[[Page S8616]]

consistently provided all the funding requested and, in several 
instances, has provided funding ahead of any request. In fact, the 
fiscal year 2005 Defense emergency supplemental added $1.2 billion for 
various force protection equipment, most notably for uparmored HMMWVs 
and add-on armor for HMMWVs and other trucks. As of last month, all 
known requirements for truck armor for Iraq and Afghanistan were 
funded, and the Army and Marine Corps were on track to complete those 
requirements for HMMWVs by July and September respectively, and for 
other trucks by December of next year.
  The bad news is that military commanders have been slow to recognize 
the growing threat to thin-skinned HMMWVs and other trucks in Iraq and 
Afghanistan and determined requirements for armored trucks slowly and 
incrementally. For instance, in May of 2004, my staff sent me a memo 
which said:

     The current Central Command requirement for [up-armored 
     HMMWVs in Iraq and Afghanistan is 4454. This appears to be an 
     ever-increasing number over the last year, having been 
     increased from 253 to 1233 to 1407 to 2957 to 3142 to 4149 to 
     4388, and finally to 4454. We have no confidence that it will 
     not be increased again in the future.''

  That was a prescient statement because over the next year, the 
requirement for uparmored HMMWVs continued to increase--to 10,079 for 
the Army and 498 for the Marine Corps. The story was similar for the 
requirements to armor other Army and Marine Corps trucks. These 
incremental increases in requirements have led to inefficient 
acquisition and unnecessary delays in getting armored trucks for our 
troops.
  It has also caused a lot of confusion and some fingerpointing, 
particularly between the Army and the Marine Corps on the one hand 
O'Gara Hess, the company which produces the uparmored HMMWV, On the 
other. A recent New York Times article reported that ``in January, when 
it [referring to the Army] asked O'Gara to name its price for the 
design rights for the armor, the company balked and suggested instead 
that the rights be placed in escrow for the Army to grab should the 
company ever fail to perform.'' With respect to the Marine Corps' 
uparmored HMMWV requirement, the same article further reported that, 
``asked why the Marine Corps is still waiting for the 498 humvees it 
ordered last year, O'Gara acknowledged that it told the Marines it was 
backed up with Army orders, and has only begun filling the Marines' 
request this month. But the company says the Marine Corps never asked 
it to rush.''
  I questioned the Army Chief of Staff and the Commandant of the Marine 
Corps on these issues in a hearing on June 30. I asked the Army Chief 
of Staff for an answer for the record as to whether or not it was true 
that the Army sought to purchase the design rights so that we could 
produce the uparmored HMMWVs a lot more quickly and that the company 
balked. I also asked the Commandant of the Marine Corps for an answer 
for the record as to whether the Marine Corps ever asked O'Gara to rush 
its order for uparmored HMMWVs. Just this morning, I received a formal 
response from the Army on the design rights. The Marine Corps has 
informally asserted that it did ask the company for accelerated 
production.
  In its defense, Armor Holdings, the parent company of O'Gara Hess, 
has said that at the time of the Marine Corps' inquiry in September of 
2004 relating to potential production of additional uparmored HMMWVs, 
the company indicated its interest in and its ability to produce those 
vehicles, and that as soon as the order was actually placed by the 
Marines in February 2005, it began to work on and has already begun to 
deliver those vehicles. What is still unclear is whether the Marine 
Corps ever coordinated a request for accelerated production through the 
Army's Tank Automotive and Armaments Command which handles all of the 
contract actions for upamored HMMWVs, and if it did, why the company 
was not issued a contract to increase the production rate over and 
above the increase from 450 to 550 a month that the Army requested in 
December of 2004.
  With respect to the technical data package, TDP--the ``design 
rights'' discussed in the New York Times article--the Army says it 
requested, for informational purposes only, that O'Gara Hess submit a 
cost proposal for procurement of the technical data package in order to 
obtain a price for a TDP complete enough for any firm to manufacture 
the current uparmored HMMWV. The company has argued that the TDP was 
developed by Armor Holdings, with its own money, under its own 
initiative; that a formal request was never made by the Army to 
purchase that TDP as required under Federal Acquisition Regulations; 
that the company responded to an informal e-mail inquiry to that effect 
in January 2005 by offering to place the TDP in escrow and in so doing, 
allow the Army instant access to the design information if the company 
ever failed to meet the Army's request. In the company's view, it saw 
no logic to the inquiry because it had met or exceeded every production 
requirement and schedule, was ready and willing to produce more, and 
consequently there was no need for the Army to obtain alternative 
production sources.
  What is not clear is why the Army would request the rights to the TDP 
for the uparmored HMMWV in January 2005, since already contracted for a 
the uparmored HMMWVs it planned to procure in fiscal year 2006--the 
last year that it intends to procure uparmored HMMWVs as it moves to 
implement its long-term armor strategy of procuring removable armor 
kits. I am expecting further information from the Army and the Marine 
Corps soon to clear up these matters.
  This illustrates the continued confusion surrounding uparmored HMMWVs 
that has frustrated so many of us in Congress.
  Given this background, and in light of the uncertainty as to whether 
requirements would continue to increase, the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, in the markup of the fiscal year 2006 authorization bill, 
added $120 million for the Army to continue to procure uparmored HMMWVs 
or add-on armor for HMMWVs and other trucks, even though the known 
requirements for Iraq and Afghanistan had been met with fiscal year 
2005 emergency supplemental funding.
  Now, however, it appears that the requirements have once again 
changed. Central Command is currently considering a request from the 
Southern European Task Force commander for additional uparmored HMMWVs 
for Afghanistan. And the Marine Corps has decided to upgrade and 
``pure-fleet'' all 2,814 Marine Corps HMMWVs in the CENTCOM area of 
operations to the uparmored HMMWV configuration. Based on current, on-
hand quantities, the Marine Corps could be short 1,826 uparmored 
HMMWVs.
  To compound the potential problem, the Army plans to end all 
production of the uparmored HMMWV as it ramps up the production of a 
new HMMWV model with a heavier chassis that is ready to accept an 
integrated, bolt-on/off armor kit. However, the fiscal year 2006 
President's budget only funds 90 of these vehicles with the armor kit. 
This would not appear to be a prudent approach, given the history to 
date of ever increasing requirements for truck armor.
  The pending amendment would do two things: it would add $340 million 
to fund the 1,826 shortfall in the newest Marine Corps requirement for 
uparmored HMMWVs, and it would add $225 million to the Army for truck 
armor, an increase from the $120 million currently in the authorization 
bill. That is enough for the Army to procure the add-on armor kits for 
the 4,037 M1152 HMMWVs that will currently be fielded without armor in 
fiscal year 2006. With this funding and these additional armor kits, by 
the end fiscal year 2006 the Army will have fielded 16,768 HMMWVs with 
the highest--Level 1--armor protection.
  I whole-heartedly support this amendment and urge my colleagues to do 
likewise. I also urge the Department of Defense to thoroughly review 
Army and Marine Corps long-term truck armor strategies and ensure that 
all requirements are identified in a timely manner, and that sufficient 
funding is requested in a timely manner so that we can ensure our 
troops get the equipment they need and deserve as quickly as possible.
  Mr. President, to reiterate, lack of armor for our troops has been 
truly one of the most discouraging elements of the Iraq war. Partly it 
is because of what the Senator from Virginia said.

[[Page S8617]]

There has been a change in requirements along the way. Partly it has 
been administrative failures along the way inside the Department.
  Listen to a New York Times article that has a conflict between the 
Army and Marines on the one hand and our producer, O'Gara Hess, on the 
other hand. The New York Times article says:

       In January, when the Army asked O'Gara to name its price 
     for the design rights for the Army, the company balked and 
     suggested instead that the rights be placed in escrow for the 
     Army to grab should the company ever fail to perform.

  So we have the Army asking the manufacturer how much would it cost to 
buy the design rights so we could have a second line, so we could have 
a second source, we are short of armor. And the Army says they never 
got the answer. The producer says it was never asked formally. In the 
meantime, men and women are dying in Iraq because of that kind of 
confusion.
  So, yes, the requirements have changed, but there have also been 
administrative failures as well.
  Then the Marines say they asked the company to rush the orders. The 
company denies it ever got the request to rush the orders.
  Yes, the chairman is right, there have been changes in the 
requirements, the numbers needed, but I am afraid the Senator from 
Massachusetts is also right, that there have been some true failures 
and incompetence in the administration of the armor program. The 
differences in the conflicts that exist between the stories told by the 
Army and Marines on the one hand and the company that produces the 
humvees on the other, it seems to me, are evidence of those failures.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for 30 seconds?
  Mr. LEVIN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I know the time has run out. I want to mention the 
family of Mr. Hart, from Dracut, MA, who lost a son in Iraq. I remember 
seeing the letter that his son wrote that said: Unless we get an up-
armored, I am not going to last very long. And 30 days later he was 
killed. Mr. Hart has been tireless in trying to make sure other service 
men and women in Iraq receive the kind of protection they need. I have 
to mention his name associated with the increase in the protection for 
American servicemen because here is an individual who has made an 
extraordinary difference for our service men and women.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I think the vote is scheduled for 12:30. I 
ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wholeheartedly support this amendment. I 
commend our chairman for it and urge our colleagues to support the 
amendment. In addition to that, I hope the Department of Defense will 
thoroughly review the Army and Marine Corps long-term truck armor 
strategies so we can identify requirements in a timely manner, 
sufficient funding be requested in a timely manner so we can assure our 
troops that they will get the equipment they need and deserve in time 
to meet the threat.
  I know this Congress, under this chairman's leadership, has over and 
over again told the Defense Department: We will give you every dollar 
you need. There are no financial constraints when it comes to 
supporting our troops.
  We have told them that over and over again. It should not be 
necessary to add this money, but it is. I wholeheartedly support it, 
and I thank the chairman for his leadership.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bayh of Indiana, who I know is 
trying to get to the floor to support this amendment because of his 
leadership in this area, be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I believe the vote is in order at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1314, as modified.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 199 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 1314), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. 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. WARNER. Before the Senator from Oregon addresses the Senate, I 
wish to speak for 2 minutes and thank colleagues for their strong 
support of this amendment. We do not often get 100 votes. It was not 
put up here in mind that there would be 100 votes. It is very 
reassuring to send this strong messages to our Armed Forces and indeed 
throughout the world that the Senate stands behind those measures which 
will strengthen our ability to fight terrorism in the world.
  At this point in time in the struggle against terrorism, not only 
with our country but the coalition of nations, the type of weapons 
being employed, while basic in nature, are lethal in nature, and it 
requires the modification of our military equipment. This amendment 
provides the funds to do it.
  I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                         Judge John G. Roberts

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in this Congress, no issue has riveted the 
attention of the American people like the heart-wrenching circumstances 
of the late Terri Schiavo. No issue has generated more public debate, 
more heated controversy, or more passion than that tragedy. On the eve 
of the Easter recess, I blocked the effort in this Senate to dictate 
from the Senate a specific medical treatment in that end-of-life 
tragedy.
  I did that for two major reasons. First, I believe that under the 
Constitution, the Founding Fathers intended for our citizens and their 
families to have the privacy to decide these types of matters. Second, 
under the Constitution, to the extent government has a defined role in 
medical practice, it is a matter for the States and certainly not a 
subject that should prompt Federal intrusion and meddling.
  In my opinion, the events that unfolded in the Senate over Terri 
Schiavo need to be remembered as the Senate begins the consideration of 
the nomination of Judge John Roberts to serve as an Associate Justice 
of the United States Supreme Court.
  It is important for the Senate to reflect on those events because 
while the Court ultimately did not take up the Schiavo case, it was not 
for lack of effort on the part of those who read the Constitution very 
differently than the intent of the Founding Fathers and longstanding 
legal precedent prescribe.
  I have come to the Senate today because I believe there will be many 
more end-of-life cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court. Current 
demographic trends, the advancement of medical technologies, and 
certainly the

[[Page S8618]]

passions this issue has generated ensure that the Court will be 
confronted again and again with end-of-life issues.
  Therefore, in my opinion, the Senate--under the advice and consent 
clause--has an obligation to inquire into how Judge Roberts sees end-
of-life issues in the context of the Constitution.
  I don't believe in litmus tests for Federal judges, but I intend to 
weigh carefully Judge Roberts' judicial temperament in this regard.
  Moreover, I have a longstanding policy, begun first with our 
legendary Senator, Mark Hatfield, and continued with my good friend, 
Senator Gordon Smith, that I will work in a bipartisan way to select 
Federal judges from our State for the President's consideration. 
Repeatedly, Oregon judges have been confirmed with whom I have 
disagreed on a number of issues and with whom Senator Gordon Smith has 
disagreed on a number of issues. I have put the ``no litmus test'' 
policy to work often here in the Senate. I want to make clear that I 
hold to that principle today, but I will follow Judge Roberts' views on 
end-of-life issues carefully as his nomination is considered.
  My statement today is also not an attempt to tease out a preview of 
how Judge Roberts might rule on end-of-life cases that come before the 
Court. I do believe, however, that the Senate would be derelict, given 
the importance of this issue, not to ask the nominee questions that 
will shed light on how he interprets the Constitution as it relates to 
end-of-life medical care.
  End-of-life health care presents American families with immensely 
difficult choices. In a country of 290 million people, our citizens 
approach these choices in dramatically different ways. Their judgments 
about end-of-life care often blend religion, ethics, quality-of-life 
concerns, and moral principles together and as the Senate found out 
this spring, these judgments are considered extraordinarily personal 
and are passionately held.
  What the Senate learned last spring in the Schiavo case is that the 
American people want what the Constitution envisioned as their right--
just to be left alone. Privacy law is complicated, and surely Senators 
have differing interpretations about the meaning of legal precedent in 
this area but the American people spoke loudly last spring that they 
considered the congressional action to mandate a specific medical 
treatment for Terri Schiavo to be a gross overreach. I said at the time 
that I agreed. I do not believe the Constitution should be stretched so 
as to crowd the steps of the Congress with families seeking settlement 
of their differences about end-of-life medical care. However, the U.S. 
Supreme Court is another matter. That body will most definitely see 
more such end-of-life appeals. That is why the views of Judge Roberts 
on this issue are so important.

  Even as the Constitution envisioned a wide berth for individuals to 
decide these private matters, it also provides parameters if there is 
to be any government involvement at all. Those parameters are guided by 
the 10th amendment to our Constitution. The 10th amendment stipulates 
that the powers not delegated to the United States--the Federal 
Government--by the Constitution are reserved for the States. 
Historically and correctly, that includes the determination of medical 
practice within a State's own borders. There are few medical practice 
decisions more wrenching than those at the end of life.
  Once again, in the Schiavo case, the Congress sought to overstep its 
constitutional bounds. What I want to know is whether Judge Roberts is 
similarly inclined to stretch our Constitution or whether he will 
consider end-of-life issues with respect for our hallowed Constitution 
and the doctrine of stare decisis.
  Finally, as we approach these issues, I make clear that I do not 
intend to prejudge the outcome of the confirmation process, but ask 
only that the Senate weigh carefully these important issues and that 
questions about end-of-life care be posed to the nominee.
  I look forward to learning about the nominee's views, not just on 
end-of-life care, but on a variety of other critical matters and look 
forward to the Judiciary Committee beginning its thorough and careful 
evaluation in the days ahead. I have tried to make bipartisanship a 
hallmark of my service in the Senate. I certainly intend to use that 
approach as the Senate goes forward and considers the nomination of 
Judge Roberts.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1351

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. This 
amendment shuts down a source of revenue that flows to terrorists and 
rogue regimes that threaten our security.
  President Bush has made the statement that money is the lifeblood of 
terrorist operations. He could not be more right. Amazingly, some of 
our corporations are providing revenue to terrorists by doing business 
with these rogue regimes. My amendment is simple. It closes a loophole 
in the law that allows this to happen, that allows American companies 
to do business with enemies of ours. This will cut off a major source 
of revenue for terrorists. What we need to do is to starve these 
terrorists at the source. By using this loophole, some of our companies 
are feeding terrorism by doing business with Iran, which funds Hamas, 
Hezbollah, as well as the Islamic Jihad.

  I want to remind my colleagues that it was Iran that funded the 1983 
terrorist act in Beirut that killed 241 United States Marines--241 
Marines killed by Iranian terror--and yet we are currently allowing 
United States corporations to provide revenues to the Iranian 
Government. It has to stop.
  So how do U.S. companies get around terrorist sanctions laws? Because 
we have those laws that are supposed to prevent contact and opportunity 
for those nations that support terrorism. The process is simple. These 
companies run the Iranian operations out of a foreign subsidiary.
  I have a chart here that shows the route that is taken to get these 
funds to these companies that do business with Iran. The U.S. 
corporation sets up a subsidiary, sets up a foreign subsidiary. They do 
business directly with Iran. And again, support for Hezbollah and Hamas 
is common knowledge with Iran.
  Our sanctions laws prohibit United States companies from doing 
business with Iran, but the law contains a loophole. It enables an 
American company, a U.S. company's foreign subsidiaries, to do business 
prohibited by the parent. As long as this loophole is in place, our 
sanctions laws have no teeth. My amendment would close this loophole 
once and for all. It would say foreign subsidiaries controlled by a 
U.S. parent, American parent, would have to follow U.S. sanctions 
laws--pretty simple.
  The Iranian Government's links to terrorism are, as you know, Mr. 
President, substantial. In addition to the 241 Marines who were 
brutally murdered in their sleep in 1983 in Beirut, Iranian-backed 
terrorists killed innocent civilians in Israel.
  A constituent of mine, Sarah Duker, 22 years old, from the town of 
Teaneck, NJ, was riding a bus in Jerusalem. The bus was blown up in 
1996 by Hamas, and Hamas receives funding support from the Iranian 
Government. We were able to create an opportunity for American citizens 
to bring action against Iran, and they did that, and there was a 
resolution of significant proportion that holds Iran responsible and 
has them owing substantial sums of money to the victim's family. We 
also have to worry, however, about providing revenue to Iran because of 
its well-known desire--we see it now. It worries us all. We have all 
kinds of conversations about what we do as Iran tries to build a 
nuclear bomb and other weapons of mass destruction. Well, we don't want 
to help them, we don't want to help provide revenues, opportunities for 
them to continue this crazy pursuit.
  The 911 Commission, which established the intelligence organization 
reform, concluded in their report, and I quote:

       Preventing the proliferation of WMD warrants a maximum 
     effort.

  Everybody in our country shares that view. Allowing American 
companies to provide revenue to rogue WMD programs is clearly not part 
of a maximum effort.
  Some think this is an isolated problem, but it is not. A report by 
the Center for Security Policy says there is a large number of 
companies doing business with Iran and other sponsors of terror. Think 
about it. Here we have

[[Page S8619]]

130,000, 140,000 of our best young people over there fighting to bring 
democracy to Iraq while Iran is funding terrorist activities, people 
who come in there and help those who would kill our troops. The terror 
they fund has killed hundreds of Americans. Iran continues to seek to 
develop nuclear weapons, and yet American companies are utilizing a 
loophole in the law in order to do business with the Iranian 
Government. It is wrong but not yet illegal. And we want to make it 
illegal. This amendment would change that.
  It is inexcusable for American companies to engage in any business 
practice that provides revenues to terrorists, and we have to stop it. 
Here we have a clear view of what happens. We have a chance to stop it 
with this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and 
close the terror funding loophole.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on our side we will at an appropriate time 
interject our opposition to this amendment. We have just gotten the 
amendment, and it requires some further study. So until such time as I 
get some additional material, I will have to defer my statement in 
opposition.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I hope my distinguished colleague and friend from 
Virginia, without having a chance to do the examination he would like, 
has not suggested opposition even though there hasn't been time for a 
thorough review.
  I know the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee 
very well, and we have visited sites of war, and he, like I, served in 
World War II, and we are veterans. I hope I could encourage the Senator 
from Virginia and colleagues across the aisle to join us to shut down 
this loophole that permits American companies to do business indirectly 
through sham corporations and to earn profits as there are attempts to 
kill our young people. I hope the distinguished manager of the bill 
would give us a chance to talk about the amendment and not register 
opposition before having a chance to study it.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as I said, in due course I will have 
further to say. But again it comes down to separation of powers between 
the executive and legislative branches, and given those situations--and 
I respect my good friend's evaluation of the tragedy associated with 
people in those lands and the potential for some dollars being funded 
toward that purpose. But the President has to look at this situation 
constantly, every day, 365 days a year. Situations change. And for the 
Congress to lay on a blanket prohibition on Presidential power to 
exercise his discretion of where and when and how to disrupt the flow 
of dollars, as pointed out by my colleague from New Jersey, we are very 
much hesitant to do that. So at the appropriate time I will have 
further to say about this amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I commend our colleague from New Jersey for 
this amendment. It is ironic--the person who is presiding at this 
moment will understand this reference--that when it comes to Cuba, the 
sanctions not only apply to companies that would deal with Cuba under 
our law but also apply to their subsidiaries. And yet when it comes to 
the subsidiaries of companies that are dealing with terrorism, which 
have sanctions against them for different reasons, we don't cover the 
subsidiaries. So with Cuba, the subsidiaries are covered when it comes 
to sanctions, but when it comes to dealing with states that are on a 
terrorist list where the President of the United States decides to 
exercise his discretion to impose sanctions against a country and where 
companies are not thereby allowed to do business with that country, we 
don't cover the subsidiaries of the corporations, only the corporations 
themselves.
  It is not only a loophole which has been pointed out by my friend 
from New Jersey, but it is a very inconsistent treatment. What the 
Senator from New Jersey is saying is let's do the same for the 
subsidiaries of corporations that deal with terrorist states and 
terrorist organizations and groups as we cover subsidiaries that deal 
with Cuba. I thank him for pointing out the loophole. If we are going 
to be serious about our war on terrorism, we have to be serious about 
providing sanctions against states that support terrorism. We have to 
be serious about telling American companies they cannot deal with those 
states or with those entities, and that we are truly serious. We have 
to also tell companies when we say you may not deal with terrorist 
states, you may not do business with terrorist states when the 
President so determines, that we are also applying this to your 
subsidiaries as well.
  So it is an important amendment. We had a vote on a very similar 
amendment I believe a year ago or so. It almost passed this body. I 
think it came within one vote, and I hope that, given what we have seen 
in the last year, we can only reinforce the point which the Senator 
from New Jersey made in his amendment previously, that we can pick up 
the additional votes this time and pass this very important amendment. 
I commend him on it.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Michigan.
  The question is why we would want to protect the opportunity for an 
American company to help fund terrorists directly and indirectly, those 
who want to kill our people. If you ask the average person who are the 
worst enemies America has, they would, I am sure, list Iran, North 
Korea, among those that would develop weapons of mass destruction, and 
we don't even want there to be the slightest opportunity for cash to 
flow into their development of a weapons program based on the fact that 
an American company is helping to fund the development of those 
weapons.
  Heaven knows what we are fighting in Iraq is a battle not against a 
uniformed army, organized military, but against insurgents, terrorists, 
and all one has to do is look at the death toll and see it continuing 
to mount. We care mostly about Americans, but we also don't like to see 
what happens in Iraq to infants and families. These terrorists bring 
their violence into the country, ripping limbs off. I don't want to get 
too detailed, but the horror that is brought from these insurgent 
attacks is beyond description. And to permit--by the way, I will say 
this--encourage American companies to do business with Iran is 
outrageous. In the war the Senator from Virginia and I were in, anybody 
who did business with the enemy would be pilloried, called traitors. 
And here, because it is a loophole, there is a roundabout way of 
getting these funds over there, we are saying, no, no, we don't want to 
interrupt that process.
  I hope my colleagues on both sides will say no to this practice, and 
shut it down. The last thing we want to do in this room is abet and 
help companies that do business in Iran because the profit is not worth 
it. There is no way those profits can be enjoyed by shareholders, by 
employees, anyone.
  I thank the Senator from Virginia, and I thank my friend from 
Virginia for being so patient in listening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is always a pleasure to hear my old 
friend and colleague in the Senate of so many years. At the appropriate 
time I and others will put forth our case on this issue.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Lautenberg amendment 
be laid aside and that time be granted to our distinguished colleague 
and very valued member of the committee, the Senator from Rhode Island, 
Mr. Reed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator kindly yield so I can 
inform the Senate of the desire on behalf of this side of the aisle?
  Mr. REED. Yes.
  Mr. WARNER. I will wait to propound the unanimous consent request 
until the other side responds. I am going to ask unanimous consent--but 
I will wait until we get a response from the other side--that a vote on 
or in relation to the Frist amendment No. 1342, regarding supporting 
our Boy Scouts, and others, occur at 2:15 today, with no second-degree 
amendments in order prior to the vote; provided further that there be 2 
minutes equally divided for debate prior to the vote. So I

[[Page S8620]]

say there is the strong likelihood that request will be granted.
  I thank the Senator for his courtesy.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, let me begin by commending Chairman Warner 
and Senator Levin for the way they have brought this bill to the floor. 
It is a collaborative effort, a collegial effort which has brought to 
the floor a very good bill, which we hope can be improved by the 
amendment process. But we begin, I think, in a position of great 
strength and great unified support for our military forces across the 
globe, these young and women who make us so proud and do so much to 
protect our country.
  I would like to step back for a moment and try to have an assessment 
in the context of our deliberations today with respect to the Defense 
authorization bill. It has been 28 months since the war in Iraq began. 
It has been 26 months since President Bush declared ``mission 
accomplished'' onboard the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. And it has 
been almost 13 months since the sovereignty of Iraq was handed over 
from the Coalition Provisional Authority to the people of Iraq.
  It is time, I think, for an assessment. It is time for an assessment 
in the context of our deliberations today with respect to this very 
important legislation governing the conduct of our military forces 
around the globe.
  In October 2002, I was one of 23 Members of this body who voted 
against the congressional authorization to use force against Iraq. 
Regardless of how we voted that day, on this day we are united in 
support of our forces in the field. We have to give them what they need 
to do the job they were called upon to perform.
  Back in October 2002, I was not convinced there were weapons of mass 
destruction that could be used effectively by the Iraqis. I was also 
concerned that our stay in Iraq would not be tranquil, that we would 
not be greeted as liberators, but we would literally be sucked into a 
swirling vortex of ethnic and sectarian rivalries, of ancient feuds, of 
economic problems, of infrastructure problems, which I think should 
have provided us a more cautionary view of our preemptive attack.
  Again, despite our forebodings then, our mission now is to be sure we 
provide the resources necessary for our soldiers and sailors and 
marines and airmen and airwomen to carry the day for us.
  What we have seen since that day, in my view, has been a series of 
mistakes and errors by the administration in carrying out their 
policies, and also an inability to recognize some of these mistake and 
to take effective corrective action. I think this inability to 
recognize what has gone wrong--to admit it and to correct it--still 
acts to interfere with the successful implementation of our objectives 
in Iraq.
  One of the most glaring and most obvious aspects of our runup to the 
war in Iraq is the fact that the American people were told one thing 
and in reality it turned out to be something quite different. The 
administration argued that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the Nation, 
which we all know today is simply not true, and some of us then 
believed was not true.

  In his State of the Union to the American people in January 2003, the 
President talked about Saddam Hussein seeking significant quantities of 
uranium from Africa.
  Those assertions proved unsubstantiated. In his address to the U.N. 
Security Council, Secretary of State Powell claimed Iraq had seven 
mobile biological agent factories. That, too, proved to be inaccurate.
  In a February 2003 statement, President Bush stated:

       Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met 
     at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent 
     bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al 
     Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and 
     biological weapons training.

  Again, these assertions have not been substantiated in the 
intervening days. Many leaders in the administration stated that Iraq 
attempted to buy high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear 
weapons production. These assertions also proved to be without major 
substantiation.
  Based on these statements by our Nation's leaders, the majority of 
the Congress and the American people supported our operations in Iraq 
in October 2002. But it was not long until these misstatements became 
clearer to the American public.
  The CIA sent two memos to the White House 3 months before the State 
of the Union Address expressing doubts about Iraq's attempt to buy 
yellowcake from Niger.
  In 2002, the CIA produced a report that found inconclusive evidence 
of links between Iraq and al-Qaida and was convinced that Saddam 
Hussein never provided chemical or biological weapons to terrorist 
networks.
  Experts at the Department of Energy long disputed the assertion that 
the aluminum tubes were suitable for nuclear weapons production.
  The administration's use and misuse of prewar intelligence has caused 
an upheaval in the intelligence community and made Congress, the 
American people, and the world community skeptical of actions with Iraq 
and other countries of concern.
  I believe this mistake will take years to overcome. What it has done, 
I think, is provide a sense of skepticism in the American public about 
the justifications for our operations in Iraq. This skepticism has 
slowly been eating away, as reflected in the polls, the view of the 
American public as to the usefulness of our operations in Iraq. Once 
again, what is heartening is the fact that this skepticism has not 
translated into anything other than unconditional support for our 
American soldiers and military personnel. That is critical to what they 
do and critical to what we should be encouraging here.
  We are now engaged in this war. People are skeptical and critical of 
the premises advanced by the administration. But we must, in fact, stay 
until the job is done, until a satisfactory outcome is achieved.
  The military phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom was brilliantly 
executed and a great success. It shows the extraordinary preponderance 
of military power we can wield in a conventional conflict where we are 
sending task forces of tanks and mechanized infantry against other 
conventional military forces.
  Perhaps, however, the most important part of the operation was not 
defeating the enemy in the field but winning the peace in Iraq. That 
larger task has not gone as well as we all had hoped. One reason is 
because we did not plan for operations after our conventional success. 
According to an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, when a lieutenant 
colonel briefed war planners and intelligence officials in March 2003 
on the administration's plans for Iraq, the slide for the rebuilding 
operation, or phase 4-C, as the military denotes it, read ``To Be 
Provided.'' We went in with a plan to defeat the military force in Iraq 
but no plan to occupy and reconstruct the country.

  What makes this lack of a plan worse is that the experts knew and 
told the Pentagon what to expect. The same Philadelphia Inquirer 
article states there was a ``foot high stack of material'' discussing 
the probability of stiff resistance in Iraq. A former senior 
intelligence official said:

       It was disseminated. And ignored.

  There was ample planning done but not used. We have had, as all 
military forces, contingency plans dating back many years for possible 
operations in Iraq, including occupation operations. They were ignored. 
There was a feeling--an erroneous feeling--we would be greeted as 
liberators, that it would be basically a parade, rather than the 
struggle we have seen today.
  The results are clear as to this lack of planning. The insurgency 
today is robust, and it continues to inflict damage not only against 
American military personnel but also against Iraqis who are struggling 
to develop a democratic country.
  In May there were about 700 attacks against American forces using 
IEDs, the highest number since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The surge 
in attacks has coincided with the appearance of significant advancement 
in bomb design. This is not only a robust insurgency, it is a very 
adaptable insurgency. They are learning as they fight, and that makes 
them a formidable foe.
  Improvised explosive devices now account for about 70 percent of 
American casualties in Iraq. Recent U.S. intelligence estimates put the 
insurgents'

[[Page S8621]]

strength at somewhere between 12,000 and 20,000. I would note that in 
May 2003, insurgent strength was estimated to be about 3,000 persons. 
So this is not the last gasp of the insurgency. This is an insurgency 
that has momentum, has personnel, and increasingly has technical 
sophistication.
  As of today, July 21, 1,771 American soldiers have been killed, and 
13,189 have been wounded. I say American soldiers. I will use that as a 
shorthand for valiant marines, Navy personnel, Air Force personnel, 
because every service has suffered in Iraq.
  One of the reasons the insurgency may be stronger is because most of 
the 300-mile border with Syria remains unguarded because of a lack of 
sufficient troops, allowing insurgents and foreign fighters to freely 
move back and forth between the countries. This insurgency is also 
allowed to move freely within the country because there are 
insufficient troops to break insurgent strongholds.
  We have seen operations, very successful operations, such as the 
tremendously valiant and skillful operations of marines reducing the 
number of insurgents in Fallujah. But then at the end of the day, or 
days later, Marine forces withdraw or pull back, and Fallujah again is 
a source of at least incipient resistance to the central Government of 
Iraq.
  In addition, these insurgents continue to have ample ammunition 
because it is estimated that even today approximately 25 percent of the 
hundreds of munitions dumps have not yet been fully secured. I was 
amazed, in my first trip to Iraq--one of five I have taken--to be up in 
the area of operations of the 4th Infantry Division with General 
Odierno, and also at the time with General Petraeus, then the commander 
of the 101st, when they pointed out there were hundreds and hundreds 
and hundreds of ammunition dumps unsecured by any military personnel, 
international, American, or Iraqi.
  If you want to know where all this ammunition and explosives are 
coming from, well, it was there. It was stolen. It was diverted. It was 
hidden away. And now it is being used against our soldiers.
  To me, that is a glaring example of why we should have had more 
troops on the ground at the beginning and, indeed, more troops on the 
ground today. But that was not done.
  Perhaps the most well-known consequence of undermanning is the abuses 
at Abu Ghraib. It was a prison out of control, and one primary reason 
was the lack of U.S. military personnel. In 3 weeks, the population of 
this prison rose from 700 prisoners to 7,000. Yet the number of Army 
personnel guarding these prisoners remained at 90 personnel.
  As former CPA Administrator Paul Bremer stated in October 5, 2004:

       The single most important change, the one thing that would 
     have improved the situation, would have been having more 
     troops in Iraq at the beginning of the war and throughout.

  Subsequently, he might have modified or somehow explained this 
comment, but I think that is an accurate assessment. On October 5, 
2004, that was his assessment. Today, months after President Bush 
declared the end of major combat operations and predicted that troop 
levels would be at 105,000, over 138,000 troops are still stationed in 
Iraq and are likely to be there for some time. I would argue that that, 
in fact, is not sufficient force. When we cannot secure the borders, 
when we cannot secure ammunition dumps, when we cannot do many things 
that are central to stability in Iraq, then we need more forces on the 
ground.
  One of the more frustrating aspects of the administration's 
unwillingness to adjust troop levels was that Congress was ready and 
willing to help. You can't have additional forces on the ground in Iraq 
unless you have additional forces in the Army and the Marine Corps, our 
land forces. Senator Hagel and I first raised concerns about this issue 
in October 2003. We offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2004 
emergency supplemental to raise the end strength of the Active-duty 
Army by 10,000. The amendment was passed by this body, but it was 
dropped in conference, primarily because of the opposition of the 
administration. Then again in 2004, Senator Hagel and I offered an 
amendment to the fiscal year 2005 Defense authorization bill which was 
passed by concerned Senators by a vote of 94 to 3. This amendment 
raised Army end strength by 20,000 personnel and the Marines' end 
strength by 3,000.
  However, the President's budget request this year did not acknowledge 
these end-strength increases. We will therefore try again. The bill 
which we are presently considering authorizes an end strength of 
522,400 personnel for the active Army, 40,000 more than the President 
requested, and 178,000 active personnel for the Marines, 3,000 more 
than requested. I hope, in fact, we might be able to augment even these 
end-strength numbers.
  In addition, I hope we can finally pay for these increased regular 
soldiers not through supplemental appropriations but in the regular 
budget itself. We are deluding ourselves to think that we can live for 
the 5 or 10 years we will have a significant engagement in Iraq--and 
that is roughly along the lines of even admissions by the Department of 
Defense--unless we are prepared to have not a temporary fix to the end 
strength but a permanent fix, paid for through the budget and not 
through supplementals.
  One other aspect, in addition to the notion of end strength and the 
number of personnel on active duty, is how do we recruit and retain 
these soldiers to maintain overall end strength. This issue is of acute 
concern because unless we are able to attract new soldiers and Marines 
and unless we are able to retain the seasoned veterans, we will no 
longer have the kind of force we need.
  When Senator Hagel and I first offered our amendment in October 2003 
to increase end strength, there was a headline which said quite a bit. 
Its words were, ``Another Banner Military Recruiting and Retention 
Year.'' Back in 2003, we could attract soldiers, Marines to the 
service, much more so than today. That was the time period to act. Not 
only was the need obvious, but the means to obtain objective, willing 
recruits were also much more evident.
  Since the administration has refused to raise the numbers of troops 
overall--and the number of troops in particular in Iraq--the Army has 
been worn down by repeated deployments and a persistent insurgency. 
Now, ironically, even if we raise end-strength numbers, it is going to 
be very difficult for the Army to recruit these new soldiers. The Army 
missed its February through March 2005 recruiting goals. In June, the 
Army recruited 6,157 soldiers, 507 over their goal. However, the June 
2005 goal was 1,000 fewer soldiers than the preceding year. One might 
think that the goalposts were moved.
  As of June 30, the Army recruited 47,121 new soldiers in the year 
2005, but that is just 86 percent of its goal. General Schoomaker, 
Chief of Staff, said the Army will be hard pressed to reach its goal of 
80,000 Active-Duty recruits by the end of the fiscal year in September.
  Despite the improvement in June, the Army has only 3 months left to 
recruit soldiers; that is, it will have to recruit on an average of 
11,000 soldiers a month, which is a target way beyond the expectation 
of anyone. The June numbers were also not anywhere near the 8,086 
recruits the Army brought in during January. This recruiting problem is 
persistent, and it is causing extreme difficulty.
  These are Active-Duty recruits. The Army National Guard also has its 
challenges in recruiting. The Army National Guard is the cornerstone of 
U.S. forces in Iraq. I am extraordinarily proud of my Rhode Island 
Guard men and women. They have served with great distinction. During 
the first days of the war, the 115th and the 119th military police 
companies and the 118th military police battalion were in the thick of 
the fight in Fallujah and Baghdad. Since that time, we have had our 
field artillery unit, the 103rd field artillery unit, deployed. We have 
had a reconnaissance unit, the 173rd, deployed. The 126th aviation 
battalion, the Blackhawk battalion, has been deployed. They have done a 
magnificent job. The Army National Guard, however, is also seeing the 
effects of this operation and the strains are showing.
  The Guard missed its recruiting goal for at least the ninth straight 
month in June. They are nearly 19,000 soldiers below authorized 
strength. The Army Guard was seeking 5,032 new soldiers in June, but 
signed up roughly 4,300. It is more than 10,000 soldiers behind its

[[Page S8622]]

year-to-date goal of almost 45,000 recruits, and it has missed its 
recruiting target during at least 17 of the last 18 months. Lieutenant 
General Blum, Chief of the National Guard Bureau, said it is unlikely 
that the Guard will achieve its recruiting goal for fiscal year 2005, 
which ends September 30.

  Today our Army is one Army. It is not an active force with reservists 
in the background. A significant percentage of the forces today in Iraq 
are National Guard men and women. We cannot continue to operate our 
Army, not only to respond to Iraq but to other contingencies, if we do 
not have a fully staffed National Guard and Reserves.
  Looking at the Army Reserve, the story is the same. So far this year, 
the Army Reserve has only been able to recruit 11,891 soldiers. Their 
target is roughly 16,000. At this point, they are about 26 percent 
short of their goal.
  One Army recruiting official noted that since March, the Army has 
canceled 15 basic training classes for the infantry at Fort Benning 
because it did not have the soldiers, 220 to 230 of them for each those 
classes. Now they will begin processing smaller classes of about 180 to 
190.
  Complementing the recruiting effort, of course, is the retention 
effort. Retention is a ``good news'' story. Retention rates are high. 
But they won't address certain key personnel vacancies which are being 
discovered within the military.
  From October 1 to June 30, the Army reenlisted about 53,000 soldiers, 
6 percent ahead of its goal. At that pace, the Army would finish this 
fiscal year with 3,800 troops ahead of the targeted 64,000. However, 
that still is a 12,000-troop shortfall when you look at the recruiting 
and retention numbers together.
  One method the Army is using to maintain retention levels is the so-
called stop-loss procedure, where someone who might be able to leave 
the service at the end of enlistment, if their unit is notified to go 
to Iraq, they cannot leave during that notification period and during 
that deployment period. That adds to retention a bit, but it is not 
something that, over time, year in and year out, can be sustained.
  So we have a situation now where our Army is deeply stressed, and 
this stress is demonstrated very clearly in recruitment, very clearly 
in making end-strength numbers which we are trying to increase.
  The Army is also trying to deal with this issue of recruitment and 
retention by looking at their standards. One of the dangers--and it 
hasn't become manifest yet but it certainly has been in previous 
conflicts--is that there is a huge effort or tension, if you will, to 
reduce standards in order to get people to come in. I don't think that 
has happened yet, but that is looming over the horizon. I think we have 
to be conscious in this body to look carefully at the numbers, not just 
in terms of how many soldiers enlisted but also that we are continuing 
to maintain adequate quality within the forces. I think we are, but I 
am afraid that continued pressure on the forces will force military 
personnel to begin to look at ways they can attract forces by weakening 
the criteria.
  We are in a situation where we have to be very conscious of the 
stress that is on the Army, and we also have to do more to support the 
Army, particularly in recruiting and retaining. The Congressional 
Research Service has determined that approximately 50 new incentives 
have been signed into law since the United States invaded Iraq. These 
are positive tools to enhance recruitment and retention. But while 
these incentives are needed, we must acknowledge the cost the 
Government is paying is a significant sum. We must pay that sum, but we 
must recognize that this is an expensive proposition of recruiting 
volunteers in a time of war.
  The other aspect that we should be concerned about is the fact that 
we have seen a situation in Iraq where now we are discovering shortages 
of key personnel, complaints that the soldiers in the field, the units 
in the field, were not fully resourced, had inadequate training, again, 
most demonstrably the Abu Ghraib situation where the lack of resources 
and training were singled out. What we have found though is that, going 
back, no one seemed to be complaining--at least to us--about these lack 
of resources.
  One fear I have is that there essentially has been a chilling effect 
by Secretary Rumsfeld with respect to advice flowing from the field 
into the Pentagon and to him. The most notorious example of this might 
be the treatment of General Shinseki, as we all recall. He was asked--
he did not volunteer--about the size of the force needed in Iraq. And 
he said something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers. He 
was immediately castigated by the Secretary, who said his estimate was 
far from the mark. Secretary Wolfowitz called the estimate outlandish, 
and then, in his few remaining days in the Army, General Shinseki felt 
shunned by the civilian leadership of the Pentagon. In fact, General 
Shinseki's observation was more accurate than any of the plans being 
advanced by the Secretary of Defense.
  This aspect of criticizing professional officers who come forward 
publicly at our request and give their professional opinion does not 
create the kind of environment that is conducive to bringing forward 
advice and to recognizing problems and to providing the kind of 
leadership which is necessary.
  It wasn't just limited to General Shinseki. The former Secretary of 
the Army, Secretary Thomas White, defended the Army on several 
occasions, disagreed with the Secretary. He was, for all intents and 
purposes, cashiered. That sends a bad signal, and it has a chilling 
effect. We are living with that chilling effect today, unfortunately.

  Then again, as I mentioned, as we look at Abu Ghraib, that is one of 
most serious issues we face here, this lack of resources, the lack of 
training. All of that was not apparently diagnosed and reported in 
adequate ways so it could be corrected in a timely way. We have seen 
how this incident has caused tremendous implications in the Islamic 
world. It has questioned our conduct. It has set us up for criticism, 
and it has been--in terms I used with Secretary Rumsfeld when he 
appeared before us--a disaster for us. Still, I don't think we have 
fully accounted for what happened. I don't think we adequately 
understand how techniques that were developed for use at Guantanamo, 
which was deemed by the President to be not under the legal control of 
the Geneva Convention, how those techniques might relate to Iraq which, 
according to the President, was fully subject to the Geneva 
Conventions. How did those techniques move from one area to another 
area? It wasn't simply five or six individual soldiers; it was 
something more than that. We have had several snapshots. We have had 12 
reports, but they have looked at various pieces. I don't think we have 
a comprehensive view of what happened.
  More importantly, I think we have yet to be able to step back and 
determine, in a careful and thoughtful way, what the rule should be. As 
I talk to senior officers, one of their demands is: Give us clear 
rules. Give us the policy. And that policy has to be produced not in 
the secretive corridors of the Pentagon but here--and perhaps not here, 
directly in the Congress, but through a commission that we can adopt 
that will look at what happened, put all the pieces together and then 
recommend what changes we must make so that we can conduct this war on 
terror without sacrificing our principle dedication to international 
laws and also without putting our troops in danger. Because 
unfortunately what we do, even if it is the aberrant acts of a few 
soldiers, could easily be emulated by others when our soldiers fall 
into their hands. That would be terrible.
  Now, there is another aspect of the problem. We can win a military 
victory in Iraq, but unless we restore the country economically and 
help them develop a viable political process, we will not succeed. The 
reconstruction activities to date have been sadly lacking and lagging. 
We have approximately $18.1 billion committed to the effort, but these 
dollars have not been spent well or wisely. Most of the money is going 
to what they call ``security premiums'' because of the instability in 
Iraq.
  My colleagues, including Senator Lautenberg, were talking about some 
of the aspects of what appears to be excessive billing by our 
contractors. And, of course, more and more attention is being paid to 
the issue of corruption and bribery within the context of the Iraqi 
economy. All of this suggests that we have a long way to go before we 
can demonstrate to the Iraqi people those palpable benefits which I 
believe

[[Page S8623]]

can help them and force their allegiance to their government more 
quickly.
  One of the areas of concern is oil production. There were those in 
Washington, before the invasion, who said that within a few months we 
will be pumping oil and it will be a profit center, it will pay for the 
whole war, and we don't have to worry about anything. We are not nearly 
paying for this war with the proceeds of Iraqi oil production.
  The goal was to export a certain number, and we are falling short of 
that number of barrels per day. Iraqi oil revenue will be $5 billion to 
$6 billion short this year. That revenue pays for many things--
subsidies for petroleum in Iraq, food, civil service, and it pays for 
infrastructure. Who is going to make up that shortfall? If we leave in 
a situation when the Iraqis cannot generate enough money to pay their 
own budget, what is going to happen to that country?
  So we have huge economic problems. Another manifestation of the 
economic problems of the Iraqi Government is electricity. It is the key 
to stability. There are places in Baghdad today that are enjoying fewer 
hours of electricity than they did under Saddam Hussein. As a result, 
there are brownouts and blackouts. It is a direct reminder to the 
people that things are not going so well. We need to get that situation 
in order.
  Now, as General Abizaid pointed out:

       Military forces, at the end of the day, only provide the 
     shield behind which politics takes place.
       Providing politics that are open, transparent, and 
     legitimate, we have been trying to do that.

  There has been established a process to draft a constitution. We hope 
by August 15, 2005, a draft is presented to the nation and can be voted 
on by October 15. If the constitution is approved, a permanent 
government can be elected by December 15 and take office by December 
31, the end of this year. But it is a very difficult process. If you 
look at the headlines today, Sunni members of the parliamentary 
commission are at least temporarily boycotting it because of fears for 
their safety. There are suggestions that some provisions of the 
constitution would be difficult for us to support--they are heavily 
allied with Islamic law, or they don't provide for a robust secular 
sector in Iraq.
  For all these reasons, we still have a long way to go in the 
political process and the economic process that will provide us the 
final means to leave the country, to take out significant military 
forces.
  There is one other aspect of the political process and of the 
economic process, and that is the role not of our military forces but 
of our State Department personnel. One of the things that struck me 
when I was in Iraq last Easter was the comment by soldiers in the field 
that they needed more State Department support, not in Baghdad but in 
the field--Fallujah, Mosul, and those towns--to carry out the 
reconstruction, provide political advice, and be the confidants and 
advisers of Iraqi civilian officials. The sad story is that we don't 
have enough State Department personnel outside of Baghdad to do these 
jobs.
  In Baghdad, the State Department authorized 899 positions but has 
only filled 665. The State Department has then authorized 169 for the 
rest of the country--in fact, I suggested that the level should be 
higher--but only 105 of those have been filled. Iraq is short about 298 
needed State Department personnel. These are the people who are doing 
what is so critical at this juncture--providing political mentoring, 
providing technical assistance, providing those resources that 
complement military operations. Without them, military operations would 
not ultimately be successful.
  There are several reasons for this situation with the State 
Department. First, the tour for State Department personnel in Iraq is 
not 3 years, but 6 months or a year, so State is running through people 
at a very rapid rate.
  There is a general shortage of mid-level officers for the State 
Department worldwide, and those are the officers who would be placed 
outside Baghdad. They have the experience and expertise to operate 
independently. The problem is opening up too many new posts. We have 
situations in which new nations evolved. They have to be supported by 
State Department personnel.
  Secretary Powell did a great job in engaging new personnel to come to 
the State Department, but these are entry level personnel, and the 
midlevel, key midlevel personnel are inadequate in terms of numbers, 
not in terms of skills or talents--certainly not that--but in terms of 
numbers.
  There is another obvious reason. It is very dangerous to be outside 
the green zone in Iraq. All of these State Department personnel need to 
be protected, and that is slowing down their ability to deploy into the 
field.
  I understand also there are incentives being considered by the State 
Department to get more people there. However, unless we have a robust 
complement of AID officials, State Department experts to help support 
our military efforts, we will not be able to obtain a satisfactory 
resolution in Iraq. I hope we can do more to do that.
  This is a very perilous time in Iraq. Just this week, a Shi'a leader 
stated that Iraq was slipping into civil war. If it does, then we will 
have a terrible burden with our forces deployed in the midst of a civil 
war. Some others have said there has been an incipient civil war for 
months now and one of a more major characteristic ready to break out. 
We do need to respond to these issues.
  There is another policy impact with respect to Iraq, and that is the 
impact on its other worldwide missions, like our ability to maintain 
our successes in Afghanistan and keep open all options with regards to 
North Korea and Iran.
  The war in Iraq also has tremendous impact on our economy. We are a 
great power, and that is a function of several components. One is 
military power, but also economic power. If we are not able to support 
and afford these efforts over the 5 years, 10 years, or more this 
global war on terror is going to take place--and all observers see this 
as a generational struggle, not an episodic one--then we are not going 
to have the economic staying power.
  Frankly, our economy is performing in a fitful fashion. We have a 
huge fiscal deficit that is draining our ability to fund needed 
programs--not just military programs but domestic programs also. We 
have a huge current accounts deficit which, again, will come home one 
day when those foreigners who are lending us money will ask for the 
money back with interest. These economic forces will, I think, not 
support indefinitely the kind of expenditures we need to protect 
ourselves.
  So along with reforming and strengthening our military, we have to 
reform and strengthen our fiscal policies in the United States. We 
cannot continue to spend in supplementals billions of dollars a year. 
We have to recognize that and we have to take steps, and we have to 
ultimately pay for this war.
  It seems to me in this context illogical, if not absurd, to advancing 
huge additional tax cuts at a time when we are struggling to conduct a 
war. If that had been our attitude in World War II, we never would have 
succeeded. We would have been bankrupt before 1945. At that time, we 
responded, as we have in every major conflict. We asked all Americans 
to share the sacrifice, not just those in uniform, but those on the 
homefront, those who can help pay for the war, as well as those who are 
fighting the war.
  Yet today we are advancing two, in my mind, almost contradictory 
proposals. We are going to stay the course in Iraq, we are going to 
take a generation, if necessary, to defeat global terror, we are going 
to do it not only with military resources, but we are going to have to 
mobilize resources of the world to change the social and political 
dynamics of countries across the globe, particularly Islamic 
countries--all that very expensive--but, of course, we are going to cut 
taxes dramatically. We have to decide in a very significant way whether 
we can afford this dramatic contradiction. I don't think we can.
  We have a great deal to do in the next few days with respect to this 
legislation. I think it is important to get on with it. I hope not only 
do we stay the course in Iraq, but we stay the course on this 
legislation. The majority leader has suggested he is prepared to leave 
this bill in midcourse to turn to legislation with respect to gun 
liability immunity. That would, in my

[[Page S8624]]

view, be moving from the national interest to one very special self-
interest, the self-interest of the gun lobby.
  We have soldiers in the field. We have sailors, marines, air men and 
women who are risking their lives. I think they would like us to finish 
our job before moving on to something else. I hope we don't move off 
this bill. Stay the course on this legislation. We will have 
amendments, debate them, hopefully we will adopt those to improve the 
bill, and then we will send, I hope, to conference a good piece of 
legislation of which we can be proud and, more importantly, that can 
assist our soldiers, sailors, marines, and air men and women in the 
field.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his comments. 
Senator Reed is an esteemed member of the committee.
  I assure the Senator, I have been in consultation with our leadership 
and presumably the Senator's leadership about this bill. We brought it 
up with the understanding that there may be matters that require the 
attention of the Senate, at which time we do not do anything but put it 
aside for a brief period of time and then bring it up again. This is my 
27th time I have had the privilege of being engaged in one level or 
another the managing of the Defense bill. I can recall one time it took 
us 4\1/2\ weeks to get it through. But it was a leadership decision and 
the managers of our bill recognize from time to time we have to accede.
  I am not here to try and prejudge what legislation may or may not be 
brought up, but I assure the Senator, I am in total support of the 
leader making those decisions.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, if I may respond, I appreciate not only the 
leadership of the chairman, but also his incredible commitment to our 
military forces. My point is very simple. I think we should finish this 
bill. We have waited weeks to go on it. But I also point out that if 
other matters come before the Senate, as Senators we have the full 
right to use all of the procedures, we have the right to debate. I 
would hate to be in a situation--and I hope that is not the case--where 
if we attempt, let's say, next week to engage in extensive and 
productive debate about a particular issue, we are not reminded that we 
are holding up the Defense authorization bill; that no one will suggest 
our ability to debate an issue which, frankly, is on the agenda not 
through our desires but others', would somehow be interpreted as 
slowing down our ability to respond to the needs of our soldiers, 
sailors, marines, air men and women.
  I am on record saying I would like to see us finishing this bill 
without interruption, but if there is an interruption, then this Senate 
and our colleagues have to have the right to fully debate any measure 
that comes before the floor, and I don't think we should be--and maybe 
I am anticipating something that will not evolve--be put in the 
position of being hurried off the floor because the Defense bill has to 
come back.
  We have the bill before us now. I think we should stick to the bill.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. If the Senator 
participated in many of these bills before--for example, tonight, I am 
not being entirely popular with a number of individuals because I am 
requesting of the leadership the right to go on into the night with 
votes, as late as we can possibly go, and then tomorrow morning have 
more votes and continue tomorrow. After the votes, presumably, if they 
are scheduled in the morning, it may well be we will continue on the 
bill with some understanding among Members that the votes we desire, as 
a consequence of the other work on Friday, will be held on Monday some 
time.
  I assure the Senator from Rhode Island, I am working as hard as I can 
to get this bill passed. I thank the Senator for his cooperation.
  Mr. REED. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WARNER. 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. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Unanimous-Consent Request

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in concurrence with my distinguished 
ranking member, I advise the Senate that we will have a vote on 
amendment No. 1342, regarding supporting the Boy Scouts, occurring at 
2:30, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote; 
provided further, there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided before 
the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I 
understand that is a delay being requested from 2:15 to 2:30, so that 
everybody can understand.
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, is the Senator from 
Virginia prepared to discuss the Frist amendment? I am reading it for 
the first time. There is a section I would like to ask him about.
  Mr. WARNER. I am prepared to discuss it.
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, I call the attention of 
the Senator to page 3. If the underlying purpose of this amendment is 
to allow the Boy Scouts of America, or similar organizations, to have 
their annual jamboree--which I understand they use military facilities 
and continue to do so, and I have no objection to that. Could I ask the 
chairman of this committee to please read with me on page 3, starting 
with line 16, the paragraph that follows, and ask him if he would 
explain this to me. As I read it, it says:

       No Federal law shall be construed to limit any Federal 
     agency from providing any form of support for a youth 
     organization that would result in that agency providing less 
     support to that youth organization than was provided during 
     the preceding fiscal year.

  As I read that, the Appropriations Committee could not appropriate 
less money for a youth organization next year than they did this year 
if we pass this permanent law. Is that how the Senator from Virginia 
reads it?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for raising this 
question. The distinguished Senator from Michigan discussed it with me 
earlier. You have read it and you have interpreted it correctly. It is 
to sustain the level of funding and activities that have been 
historically provided by the several agencies and departments of the 
Government heretofore.
  Mr. DURBIN. I further ask--I have no objection to the Boy Scouts 
gathering at a jamboree or using the facilities. I have no objection to 
the appropriation of money for that purpose. But are we truly saying 
that you could never, ever reduce the amount of money that was given to 
them?
  Mr. WARNER. I say to my good friend, that is the way the bill reads, 
and there 60-some cosponsors who, presumably, have addressed that. I 
brought it to the attention of the staff of the leader a short time ago 
and indicated this, asking do I have a clear understanding, and the 
Senator has recited the understanding that I have.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator from Illinois yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I read this the same as the Senator from Illinois. It is 
not just that there be no possibility ever of any agency reducing any 
funding that goes to the Boy Scouts, which is the purported purpose of 
this, but it is any youth organization because it says any form of 
support for a youth organization. That means any youth organization, 
including the Boy Scouts. As I read this, it would make it impossible 
for any youth organization, no matter how bad it was managing its 
books, no matter what there might be in terms of fraud and abuse--we 
are talking about every single youth organization that gets funding 
from the Federal Government, no matter what the reduction in the number 
of members of that youth organization is, you could not reduce, 
apparently, a grant from a Federal agency to any youth organization. I 
think that goes way beyond the stated purpose of this amendment, which 
is to protect the Boy Scouts, which I agree with and understand and 
support.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I may say to my colleagues, in no way 
does this bind the Appropriations Committee to exercise such discretion 
as it may so desire in that level of funding. If it was brought to 
their attention that there was malfeasance or inappropriate 
expenditures at some point in

[[Page S8625]]

any program, they are perfectly within their authority to limit or 
eliminate the funding altogether.
  Mr. LEVIN. My reference was to any Federal agency, which means any 
grant agency, not just Appropriations, which the Senator from Illinois 
referred to, but any Federal agency, which means any agency that makes 
any grant to any youth organization cannot reduce that grant, no matter 
what the reason is, next year. That is the way I read this. It is so 
overly broad, it ought to be modified or stricken or something.
  I think all of us want to support the Boy Scouts and their jamboree, 
using the facilities or the support of the Secretary of Defense and the 
armed services, as they have done before, but this is way broader than 
that.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this issue was raised and the legal 
counsel drew this up. I must say, you raise a point, but I am sure if 
there are any improprieties associated with these programs, the 
appropriators have full authority to curtail or eliminate the funding.
  Mr. DURBIN. If I may say, I know the Senator has a pending unanimous-
consent request. I would like to amend that request to allow language 
to be added to amend this particular section stating that if you have a 
youth organization that is guilty of wasting or stealing Federal funds, 
that youth organization is not automatically going to receive the same 
amount of funds in the next year. That is malfeasance at its worst and 
a waste of taxpayer dollars. I am sure the Senator from Virginia and 
the Senator from Michigan and I don't want to be party to that.
  If I may reserve the right to offer a second-degree amendment to that 
section, I would be happy to allow the unanimous-consent agreement.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, what I suggest in the parliamentary 
situation is that I withdraw the unanimous-consent request at this 
time. In the interval, until we raise the question to vote again, the 
Senator presumably will engage with the leader's office regarding these 
concerns. So I withdraw the request at this time rather than amend it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is withdrawn.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the amendment--we call it generically the 
Boy Scout amendment--offered by the distinguished majority leader is 
being looked at in the full expectation that it can be resolved and 
voted on at an appropriate time this afternoon. For the moment, I 
believe the distinguished Senator from South Carolina and the Senator 
from New York have an amendment, and I think we should proceed with 
that debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if we could reach a time agreement 
on this amendment to give everybody an idea as to time. We are hoping 
it will be accepted. It is a terrific amendment. I am wondering if the 
chairman might consider a time limit.
  Mr. WARNER. Yes. I thank my colleague. In view of the fact that there 
is a strong indication by myself and my distinguished ranking member 
that it be accepted, can we reach a time agreement?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Is 20 minutes OK?
  Mr. WARNER. Equally divided between yourself and the Senator from New 
York? Then I think 10 minutes for Senator Levin--let us assume that we 
can do it in 30 minutes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Let us make it 30 minutes so that we can get everybody 
in, equally divided. I believe Senator Leahy wants to speak on it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Is Senator Leahy a supporter or opponent of the amendment?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Supporter.
  Mr. LEVIN. I do not know of any opposition.
  Mr. GRAHAM. That would be great.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that the time agreement for the 
amendment offered by the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator 
from New York be 45 minutes, 30 minutes to the proponents, and 15 
minutes reserved to the managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1363

  Mr. GRAHAM. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
laid aside.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Graham], for himself, 
     Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. DeWine, Mr. 
     Kerry, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Reid, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Dayton, Mr. 
     Allen, Ms. Cantwell, and Ms. Murkowski proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1363.

  Mr. GRAHAM. 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 expand the eligibility of members of the Selected Reserve 
                       under the TRICARE program)

       At the end of subtitle A of title VII, add the following:

     SEC. 705. EXPANDED ELIGIBILITY OF MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED 
                   RESERVE UNDER THE TRICARE PROGRAM.

       (a) General Eligibility.--Subsection (a) of section 1076d 
     of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(a) Eligibility.--A member'' and 
     inserting ``(a) Eligibility.--(1) Except as provided in 
     paragraph (2), a member'';
       (2) by striking ``after the member completes'' and all that 
     follows through ``one or more whole years following such 
     date''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a member who is 
     enrolled, or is eligible to enroll, in a health benefits plan 
     under chapter 89 of title 5.''.
       (b) Condition for Termination of Eligibility.--Subsection 
     (b) of such section is amended by striking ``(b) Period of 
     Coverage.--(1) TRICARE Standard'' and all that follows 
     through ``(3) Eligibility'' and inserting ``(b) Termination 
     of Eligibility Upon Termination of Service.--Eligibility''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Such section is further amended--
       (A) by striking subsection (e); and
       (B) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (e) and 
     transferring such subsection within such section so as to 
     appear following subsection (d).
       (2) The heading for such section is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec. 1076d. TRICARE program: TRICARE Standard coverage for 
       members of the Selected Reserve''.

       (d) Repeal of Obsolete Provision.--Section 1076b of title 
     10, United States Code, is repealed.
       (e) Clerical Amendments.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking the item relating to section 1076b; and
       (2) by striking the item relating to section 1076d and 
     inserting the following:

``1076d. TRICARE program: TRICARE Standard coverage for members of the 
              Selected Reserve.''.

       (f) Savings Provision.--Enrollments in TRICARE Standard 
     that are in effect on the day before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act under section 1076d of title 10, United 
     States Code, as in effect on such day, shall be continued 
     until terminated after such day under such section 1076d as 
     amended by this section.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will try to keep this very short. This 
amendment is not new to the body. This is something that I have been 
working on with Senator Clinton and other Members for a very long time. 
It deals with providing the Guard and Reserves eligibility for military 
health care.
  As a setting or a background, of all the people who work for the 
Federal Government, surely our Guard and Reserves are in that category. 
Not only do they work for the Federal Government, sometimes on a very 
full-time basis, they are getting shot at on behalf of the Federal 
Government and all of us who enjoy our freedom. Temporary and part-time 
employees who work in our Senate offices are eligible for Federal 
health care. They have to pay a premium, but they are eligible. Of all 
the people who deal with the Federal Government and come to the Federal 
Government when they are needed, the Guard and Reserve, they are 
ineligible for any form of Federal Government health care. Twenty-five 
percent of the Guard and Reserve are uninsured in the private sector. 
About one in five who have been called to active duty from the Guard 
and Reserve have health care problems that prevent them from going to 
the fight immediately.
  So this amendment will allow them to enroll in TRICARE, the military 
health care network for Active-Duty

[[Page S8626]]

people and retirees. Under our legislation, the Guard and Reserve can 
sign up to be a member of TRICARE and have health care available for 
them and their families. They have to pay a premium. This is not free. 
This is modeled after what Federal employees have to do working in a 
traditional role with the Federal Government. So they have to pay for 
it, but it is a deal for family members of the Guard and Reserves that 
I think helps us in three areas: retention, recruiting, and readiness.
  Under the bill that we are about to pass, every Guard and Reserve 
member will be eligible for an annual physical to make sure they are 
healthy and they are maintaining their physical status so they can go 
to the fight.
  What happens if someone has a physical and they have no health care? 
To me, it is absurd that we would allow this important part of our 
military force's health care needs to go unaddressed, and it showed up 
in the war. We have had problems getting people into the fight because 
of health care problems. If we want to recruit and retain, the best 
thing we can do as a nation is to tell Guard and Reserve members and 
their families, if they will stay in, we are going to provide a benefit 
to them and their families that they do not have today that will make 
life better.
  I ask unanimous consent that a USA Today article entitled ``Army 
Finds Troop Morale Problems in Iraq,'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                          [From the USA Today]

                Army Finds Troop Morale Problems in Iraq

                           (By Paul Leavitt)

       A majority of U.S. soldiers in Iraq say morale is low, 
     according to an Army report that finds psychological stress 
     is weighing particularly heavily on National Guard and 
     Reserve troops.
       The report said 54% of soldiers rated their units' morale 
     as low or very low. The comparable figure in an Army survey 
     in the fall of 2003 was 72%.
       Soldiers' mental health improved from the early months of 
     the insurgency, and the number of suicides in Iraq and Kuwait 
     declined from 24 in 2003 to nine last year, the report said. 
     The assessment is from a team of mental health specialists 
     the Army sent to Iraq and Kuwait last summer.
       The report said 13% of soldiers in the most recent study 
     screened positive for a mental health problem, compared with 
     18% a year earlier. Symptoms of acute or post-traumatic 
     stress remained the top mental health problem, affecting at 
     least 10% of all soldiers checked in the latest survey.
       In the anonymous survey, 17% of soldiers said they had 
     experienced moderate or severe stress or problems with 
     alcohol, emotions or their families. That compares with 23% a 
     year earlier.
       National Guard and Reserve soldiers who serve in 
     transportation and support units suffered more than others 
     from depression, anxiety and other indications of acute 
     psychological stress, the report said. These soldiers have 
     often been targets of the insurgents' lethal ambushes and 
     roadside bombs.

  Mr. GRAHAM. This is a survey. It states: A majority of U.S. soldiers 
in Iraq say morale is low, according to an Army report that finds 
psychological stress is weighing particularly heavily on National Guard 
and Reserve troops.
  The last paragraph states: National Guard and Reserve soldiers who 
serve in transportation support units suffered more than others from 
depression, anxiety, and other indications of acute psychological 
stress, the report stated. These soldiers have often been targets of 
the insurgents' lethal ambushes and roadside bombs.
  Last month and the month before last were the most deadly for the 
Guard and Reserve since the war started. The role of the Guard is up, 
not down. It is more lethal than it used to be, and families are being 
stressed.
  What we did last year, thanks to Chairman Warner, was a good start. 
We provided relief for Guard and Reserve members who had been called to 
active duty since September 11, and their families. If you were called 
to active duty for 90 days since September 11 to now, you were eligible 
for TRICARE for 1 year. If you served in Iraq for a year, you would get 
4 years of TRICARE. The problem is, some people are going to the fight 
voluntarily and don't meet that criteria. Two-thirds of the air crews 
in the Guard and Reserve have already served 2 years in some capacity 
involuntarily. They keep going to the fight voluntarily and their 
service doesn't count toward TRICARE eligibility.
  The bottom line is we have improved the amendment. We need to reform 
it even more. We have reduced the amount of reservists eligible to join 
this program to the selected Reserves. Since I am in the indefinite 
Reserve status as a reservist, I am not eligible for this, nor should I 
be. But if you are a selected Reserve under our amendment, you are 
eligible for TRICARE. We have reduced the number of reservists 
eligible. We have reduced the amount of premiums the Reserve and Guard 
member would have to pay. We have reduced it from $7.1 billion to $3.8 
billion over 5 years. We have made it more fiscally sound.
  But the bottom line is for me, you cannot help these families enough, 
and $3.8 billion over 5 years is the least we can do. What does it cost 
to have the Guard and Reserve not ready and not fit to go to the fight? 
What does it cost to have about 20 percent of your force unable to go 
to the fight because of health care problems? This is the best use of 
the money we could possibly spend. There is all kinds of waste in the 
Pentagon that would more than pay for this, and our recruiting numbers 
for the Guard and Reserve are not going to be met this year because the 
Guard and Reserve is not a part-time job any longer. It is a real quick 
ticket to Iraq and Afghanistan.
  The people who are in the Guard and Reserves are helping us win this 
war just as much as their Active-Duty counterparts, who are doing a 
tremendous job. Their families don't have to worry about health care 
problems; guardsmen and reservists do.
  I have statements from the National Governors Association, the 
National Guard Association of the United States, the Military Officers 
Association of America, the Fleet Reserve Association, the Reserve 
Enlisted Association, and the Air Force Sergeants Association that I 
would like to submit for the Record, saying directly to the Congress:
  This is a good benefit. If you will enact it, it would improve the 
quality of life for our Guard and Reserve members and their families. 
It will help recruiting and retention, and it is needed.
  I ask unanimous consent to have those letters printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               National Governors Association,

                                   Washington, DC, March 17, 2005.
     Hon. Lindsey O. Graham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham and Senator Clinton: The nation's 
     Governors join with you in your bipartisan legislative 
     efforts to improve healthcare benefits for members of the 
     National Guard and Reserves by allowing them to enroll in 
     TRICARE, the military healthcare system. We believe ``The 
     Guard and Reserve Readiness and Retention Act of 2005,'' will 
     improve readiness and enhance recruitment and retention.
       The men and women in our National Guard and Reserves are 
     playing an increasingly integral role in military operations 
     domestically and around the world. Their overall activity 
     level has increased from relatively modest annual duty days 
     in the 1970s to the current integration, making up 
     approximately 40 percent of the current troop force in Iraq. 
     Surely these patriotic men and women deserve support for 
     complete health benefits for themselves and their families.
       As our nation makes more demands on the National Guard and 
     Reserve, we must make every effort to keep their health 
     benefits commensurate with their service. We encourage your 
     colleagues to support this legislation, which will allow our 
     National Guard and Reservist members and their families the 
     opportunity to participate in the TRICARE program.
       As Commanders-in-Chief of our nation's National Guard 
     forces, we look forward to working closely with you and other 
     Members of Congress to ensure that this legislation passes 
     during the first session of the 109th Congress.
           Sincerely,
     Governor Dirk Kempthorne,
       Idaho, Lead Governor on the National Guard.
     Governor Michael F. Easley,
       North Carolina, Lead Governor on the National Guard.

[[Page S8627]]

     
                                  ____
                                        National Guard Association


                                         of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, July 21, 2005.
     Hon. Lindsey Graham,
     U.S. Senator,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: I write today to express this 
     association's strong support for expanded TRICARE coverage 
     for Guardsmen and Reservists as included in the Graham/
     Clinton amendment to the FY06 defense authorization bill. The 
     National Guard Association of the United States appreciates 
     the long-standing support from both sides of the Senate aisle 
     for equity in Guard and Reserve health care coverage and 
     believe your amendment reflects our collective commitment to 
     that coverage.
       Whether a member of the Guard is attending monthly drill or 
     in combat in Iraq, that man or woman should have access to 
     this coverage. As the war on te1Tor continues, the line 
     between Guard member and active duty member has become 
     indistinguishable. The Secretary of Defense, has said 
     repeatedly, ``the War on Terror could not be fought without 
     the National Guard''. Battles would not be won, peace would 
     not be kept and sorties would not be flown without these 
     soldiers and airmen.
       Over the past two years, the Senate has included a 
     provision in the defense authorization bill allowing a member 
     of the National Guard or Reserve, regardless of status, to 
     participate in the TRICARE medical program on a contributory 
     basis. This year, the United States Senate has another 
     opportunity to give TRICARE access to any member of the 
     National Guard who wishes to use TRICARE as their primary 
     health care provider, even when not in a mobilized status.
       The National Guard Association of the United States urges 
     the United States Senate to adopt the Graham/Clinton 
     amendment and allow all members of the National Guard and 
     their families access to TRICARE coverage on a cost-share 
     basis, regardless of duty status.
           Sincerely,

                                             Stephen M. Koper,

                                  Brigadier General, USAF, (Ret.),
     President.
                                  ____

                                                 Military Officers


                                       Association of America,

                                    Alexandria, VA, July 15, 2005.
     Hon. Lindsey Graham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: On behalf of the nearly 370,000 
     members of the Military Officers Association of America 
     (MOAA), I am writing to express our deepest gratitude for 
     your leadership in securing needed legislation for America's 
     servicemembers. Your planned amendment to S 1082 that would 
     authorize permanent, fee-based TRICARE eligibility for all 
     members of the Selected Reserve is one of MOAA's top 
     legislative priorities for 2005.
       Extending permanent cost-share access to TRICARE for all 
     Selected Reserve members will help demonstrate Congress's and 
     the nation's commitment to ensuring fair treatment for the 
     citizen soldiers and their families who are sacrificing so 
     much to protect America.
       A few weeks ago, during a Fox News Channel interview, I was 
     asked what might be done to address Guard and Reserve health 
     care access problems being reported in the media. I said the 
     most important action right now is your legislative fix to 
     offer these families permanent and continuous health care 
     coverage, and that all Americans should ask their legislators 
     to support your effort.
       In the meantime, MOAA has sent letters to all members of 
     the Senate requesting their vote in favor of your amendment.
       MOAA is extremely grateful for all of your support on this 
     and other issues, and we pledge to work with you to do all we 
     can to secure your amendment's inclusion in the FY2006 
     Defense Authorization Act.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Norbert R. Ryan,
      President.
                                  ____



                                    Fleet Reserve Association,

                                     Alexandria, VA, May 31, 2005.
     Hon. Lindsey O. Graham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: The Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) is 
     pleased to offer its support for your amendment to S. 1082 
     that would authorize permanent, fee-based Tricare eligibility 
     for all members of the Selected Reserve. This will be a major 
     improvement to the temporary eligibility authorized by the 
     U.S. Congress last year.
       FRA believes strongly that your amendment is the right way 
     to go. The Nation can ill afford to mobilize its reserve 
     forces in the war against terrorism, place them in an 
     indefinite period of active service then, offer them a health 
     care plan that does not encourage participation.
       Recruiting and the retention of members of the Reserve 
     forces is becoming an increased challenge. The availability 
     of enrolling in a permanent health care plan that embraces 
     the family with comfort and assured assistance, not only 
     provides the reservist with ease of mind particu lady if he 
     or she is immediately ordered to or serving in a hazardous 
     duty zone.
       FRA is assured that extending permanent cost-share to 
     Tricare for all selected Reserve members will help 
     demonstrate Congress's and the nation's commitment to 
     protecting the interests of our citizen soldiers, airmen, 
     sailors, Coast Guardsmen, and Marines who are sacrificing so 
     much to protect the United States and it citizens.
       FRA encourages your colleagues to support your amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Joseph L. Barnes,
     National Executive Secretary.
                                  ____



                                 Reserve Enlisted Association,

                                    Washington, DC, July 20, 2005.
     Senator Lindsey Graham,
     U.S. Senate, Washington DC.
       Dear Senator Graham, I am writing on behalf of the Reserve 
     Enlisted Association supporting all Reserve enlisted members. 
     We are advocates for the enlisted men and women of the United 
     States Military Reserve Components in support of National 
     Security and Homeland Defense, with emphasis on the 
     readiness, training, and quality of life issues affecting 
     their welfare and that of their families and survivors.
       REA supports the Graham/Clinton amendment to provide 
     TRICARE for all participating Reserve Component members. This 
     amendment ensures continuity of healthcare for the Reserve 
     Component member and their family. Currently it is difficult 
     to assess the health and mobilization readiness of Guard and 
     Reserve members because their medical records are scattered 
     between their civilian providers, their unit of attachment, 
     their mobilization unit, and their temporary duty location. 
     This same continuity of care would be extended to our 
     families which we anticipate will affect recruiting and 
     retention efforts.
       We are dedicated to making our nation stronger and our 
     military more prepared and look forward to working together 
     towards these goals. Your continued support of the Reserve 
     Components is appreciated.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Lani Burnett,

                               Chief Master Sergeant (Ret), USAFR,
     REA Executive Director.
                                  ____



                              Air Force Sergeants Association,

                              Temple Hills, MD, February 26, 2005.
     Hon. Lindsey Graham,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham, on behalf of the 132,000 members of 
     the Air Force Sergeants Association, thank you for 
     introducing S. 337, the ``Guard and Reserve Readiness and 
     Retention Act of 2005.'' This bill would provide a realistic 
     formula allowing members of the National Guard and Reserve to 
     receive retirement pay based upon years of service. 
     Importantly, it would allow members that qualify to receive 
     retirement benefits prior to age 60. As you know, the Guard 
     and Reserve are the only federal entities that do not receive 
     retirement pay at the time their service is complete. This 
     bill would help correct this injustice encountered by many of 
     our members.
       We also applaud the provision to improve the healthcare 
     benefits for the members in the Guard and Reserve by allowing 
     them the option of enrolling in TRICARE on a monthly premium 
     basis, regardless of their activation status. These two 
     initiatives would go far to improve the morale, readiness, 
     and retention of our valuable reserve forces.
       Senator Graham, we appreciate your leadership and 
     dedication to America's servicemembers and their families. We 
     support you on this legislation and look forward to working 
     with you during the 109th Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Richard M. Dean,
                                                Excutive Director.

  Mr. GRAHAM. We are building on what we did last year. This fight is 
going to go on for a long time in Iraq and Afghanistan. We can't leave 
too soon. The idea of having a smaller involvement by Guard and 
Reserves is an intriguing idea, but it is not going to happen anytime 
soon either. This benefit will help immeasurably the quality of life of 
guardsmen and reservists, take stress off of them and their families, 
and it is the least we can do as a nation who are being defended by 
part-time soldiers who are really full in every capacity and die in 
every bit the same numbers, if not greater, than their Active-Duty 
counterparts.
  I will yield the floor to Senator Clinton, who has been with us every 
step of the way. We have made a great deal of progress. We are not 
going to stop until this provision becomes law.
  To my friends in the House, the House Armed Services Committee passed 
this provision with six Republicans joining with the Democratic side of 
the aisle to get it out of the committee and, through some maneuvering 
on the floor, this provision helping the Guard and Reserve families was 
taken out of the bill. There has been one vote after another in the 
House where over 350 people have supported the concept.
  To my friends in the House, I appreciate all you have done to help 
the troops, but we are going to fight over this issue. This is not 
going away. We are not quitting until we get it right for the Guard and 
Reserves.

[[Page S8628]]

  I yield the floor to Senator Clinton.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I join my colleague from South Carolina. 
He has been a tireless advocate for this legislation, and his passion 
about the need to take care of our Guard and Reserve members is 
unmatched. It has been an honor for me to work with him on this 
important legislation.
  Over 2 years ago, Senator Graham and I went over to the Reserve 
Officers Association building to announce the first version of this 
legislation. As he has just pointed out, we made some progress on 
expanding access to TRICARE in the last Congress, but not nearly 
enough. So our work is not done and we come, once again, to the floor 
of the Senate urging our colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, to support 
giving this important benefit to Guard and Reserve members and their 
families.
  Our amendment allows Guard and Reserve members the option of 
enrolling full time in TRICARE. They do not have to take this option. 
It is voluntary. But TRICARE is the family health insurance coverage 
offered to Active-Duty military personnel. The change would offer 
health care stability to families who lose coverage under employers' 
plans when a family member is called to active duty, or to families--
and we have so many of them in the Guard and Reserve--who do not have 
health insurance to begin with.
  So, really, this amendment offers basic fairness to Guard and Reserve 
members and their families. We have seen firsthand, those of us who 
have been to Iraq and Afghanistan--as I have been with my colleague, 
the Senator from South Carolina--the heroism and incredible dedication 
that Guard and Reserve members have when they are called up to serve 
our country. They are serving with honor and distinction, and we need 
to reward and recognize that.
  Senator Graham and I first started talking about this more than 2 
years ago because in our respective States, we heard the same stories. 
I heard throughout New York about the hardship being imposed on Guard 
and Reserve members and their families, not because they didn't want to 
serve their country--indeed, they were eager to go and do whatever they 
could to protect and defend our interests--but because they didn't have 
health insurance. Twenty-five percent of our Guard and Reserve members 
do not, and when they showed up after being activated, 20 percent of 
them were found not ready to be deployed.
  We are talking about the three R's: recruitment, retention, and 
readiness. Since September 11, our Reserve and National Guard members 
have been called to duty with increasing frequency. In New York, we 
have about 35,000 members of the Guard and Reserves. I have seen, in so 
many different settings, their eagerness to do their job. But I have 
also heard from them and their family members about the hardship of not 
having access to health care. I think the broad support that we have 
engendered for this amendment, from the National Guard Association, the 
Reserve Officers Association, the Military Officers Association, really 
speaks for itself.
  It is important to note that this amendment is responding to a real 
need. This is not a theoretical exercise. We know that lacking health 
insurance has been a tremendous burden for Guard and Reserve members 
and their families, and we in our armed services have paid a price 
because of that lack of insurance in the readiness we should expect 
from our members.
  Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleague in this long fight 
that we have waged. I hope we will be able to make significant progress 
and have this amendment accepted and send a loud and clear message to 
Guard and Reserve members and their families that we indeed not only 
appreciate and honor their work, we are going to do something very 
tangible to make it easier for them and their families to bear these 
burdens.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I would like to acknowledge what Senator Clinton has done 
on behalf of this amendment. Without her, I don't think we would be as 
far as we are. She has been terrific. To Senator Warner, you and your 
staff have been terrific to do what we did last year.
  How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has 7 minutes 
left.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 15 minutes 
more because, what I would like to do is give Senator Coleman 4 
minutes, Senator Leahy wants 4 minutes, and Senator Allen wants 4 
minutes. I am not good at math--whatever we need to get that done.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, clarification: Did 7 go to 15? Which is 
fine. You have 15 minutes, now, total, under your control.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for all our assistance. I now 
recognize Senator Coleman and yield him 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to speak in 
support of the amendment offered by my good friend, Senator Graham, who 
has been relentless in his determination to secure a fair deal for our 
Nation's reservists.
  Our Nation's citizen soldiers are an integral part of the military. 
They have been called upon to make big sacrifices, sacrifices many 
didn't imagine when they signed up. Yet time and time again, they have 
answered the call. Today, the National Guard and Reserve are on the 
front line of the war on terror. They are on the front line in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. I say proudly that Minnesota's Army National Guard leads 
the Nation in recruiting and retention. We want to continue with that 
high honor. It is something in which we take great pride.
  But I can tell you that, in my conversations with Guard and Reserve 
members around my State, the strains of mobilization are beginning to 
have an effect. With the demands now being placed on the Guard and 
Reserve, we are going to have to step up our support in order to 
sustain the manpower we need for the future.
  What I hear from reservists in my State consistently is that given 
the rising cost of health care, the option of enrolling in TRICARE is 
perhaps the most important thing we can do to help them and their 
families.
  Thanks to the tireless efforts of my good friend, Senator Graham, we 
have made good progress in opening up access to TRICARE. But this 
option ought to be available to all reservists. Every member of the 
Guard and Reserve has signed up for the same risks, and they all made 
the same commitment to defend our country.
  This amendment is fundamentally about two things: The first is 
fairness--fairness for people facing the same dangers as their Active-
Duty counterparts. In today's world, any new reservist can almost count 
on being called to be there fighting in the war in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. So in a sense, it is not that much different from signing 
up for active duty to begin with. If reservists know they are going to 
be putting themselves on the front lines just like an Active-Duty 
soldier, we should be giving them the same benefits.
  The second is national security. Our country needs a robust National 
Guard and Reserve. We need them to be relevant, which means part of 
military engagements overseas. In order to keep this invaluable cadre 
of citizen soldiers, the least we can do is offer them the same health 
care as we offer Active-Duty troops.
  The poet, John Milton, said: ``They also serve, who only stand and 
wait.'' There is not a lot of standing around for today's reservists, 
but their value to the Nation is incredible.
  The key to every endeavor, whether it is military, economic, or 
personal, is using your resources wisely. The fact that the military 
planners of the United States have a reserve force of such quality, 
spirit, and readiness is our crucial advantage. As such, they deserve 
every honor and support we give our active military. By protecting this 
vital asset, we accelerate the march of freedom around the world.
  I am pleased to support my colleague, Senator Graham, once again, and 
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I yield 4 minutes to Senator Leahy, who has been chairman

[[Page S8629]]

of the Guard caucus, and who has championed this legislation. I am 
honored to have him as a partner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his 
kind words. I do rise in support of the Graham-Clinton-DeWine-Leahy 
amendment.
  We have said it makes all members of the National Guard and Reserve 
eligible to participate in the military's TRICARE program on a cost-
share basis. Basically, we are saying if the Guard and Reserve is out 
there doing the work of the regular Army--and they are, as we all know, 
increasingly, all the time--then they should have some of the same 
benefits, especially medical benefits.
  Our amendment goes to the readiness of our Reserve Forces. It is 
certainly an important recruiting tool.
  Few issues we are going to debate during consideration of this bill--
when we talked about readiness--could be as important as this issue. 
The National Guard is making a spectacular contribution to the Nation's 
defense. Everybody would acknowledge that it would be impossible to 
fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without the National Guard. Our 
military reserves are carrying out all kinds of tasks, from combat 
support to aerial convoy escort missions. When I talk with the 
commanders in the field they tell me they don't know which ones are the 
Guard, which ones are the regular forces. They are all doing the same 
thing.
  One difference is the National Guard has to also continue to provide 
a ready force in case of natural disasters or another attack here at 
home. In the war on terrorism, the National Guard and Reserve are a 
21st century fighting force. But they are doing it with the last 
century's health insurance. We want to bring it up to date. We want to 
make sure that those who are fighting our wars, those who are defending 
our Nation, are treated alike. That is all it is. We just want to make 
sure they are treated the same.
  Many members of our Guard and Reserve did not have access to 
affordable health insurance when they were on civilian status, and then 
in a moment's notice they may be called to answer the time-honored call 
to duty. The GAO, the Government Accountability Office, reported in 
2002 that at least 20 percent of the members of the Guard and Reserve 
did not have health insurance--20 percent of the members of the Guard 
and Reserve did not have health insurance. That means that there are 
members of the Guard and Reserve who potentially are not as healthy as 
we want them to be when we ask them to deploy.

  Last year, we enacted a partial version of this amendment. It became 
known as the TRICARE Reserve Select Program. The program ties 
eligibility for gaining access to TRICARE--on a cost-share basis--to 
service on active duty in a contingency. That was a step forward. 
TRICARE was an important step forward, but it doesn't address the 
health insurance needs before deployment. It doesn't address the 
broader question of readiness of the force.
  This amendment opens eligibility to any member of the Select Reserve. 
As long as a reservist stands ready for deployment, he or she will be 
able to participate in the program. It offers real, practical, 
meaningful health to citizen soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. It 
also is going to provide a meaningful recruitment incentive for the 
Guard and Reserve. As we all know, they are struggling to meet 
recruiting goals.
  I am honored to be the cochair of the Senate National Guard Caucus. 
As cochair, I believe that few defense personnel reforms are as needed, 
as demonstrably needed and overdue as this health insurance initiative 
for Guard and Reserve. It has been a high priority of each of the 
members of our bipartisan coalition. Republicans and Democrats alike 
agree the Guard and Reserve deserve to have available health insurance 
the same as all others.
  Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes from the time allotted to the 
Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. WARNER. No objection.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the GAO study commission exposed and 
confirmed these glaring deficiencies. In this GAO study, I said it 
appears to me we are sending our Guard and Reserve out to fight 
alongside our regular forces, but they are doing it without the health 
insurance protection our regular forces have. Well, the GAO study said 
exactly what I thought was happening was happening. So it has been 
heartening to work with my fellow Senators in remedying these problems. 
I will continue to press forward until a full TRICARE program for the 
Guard and Reserve is in place.
  I will close with this. We are going to ask our Guard and Reserve to 
do the same duties, face the same dangers, stand in harm's way in the 
same way as our regular forces, and they ought to be treated the same 
when it comes to medical care. It is a matter of readiness, it is a 
matter of honesty, but most importantly it is a matter of simple 
justice.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the Senator from 
South Carolina for the lineup of speakers.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I would like to yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
Virginia, who was one of the original founders of this whole idea, 
fighting before this became popular, and he has been a terrific 
advocate for the Guard and Reserve. I yield 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Chair. I thank my good friend and colleague, 
Senator Graham, for his tremendous leadership on Guard and Reserve 
matters. Of course, he is the only active member of the Guard and 
Reserve in this body, and so he understands what families and Guard 
members are facing.
  My experience goes back to the days when I was Governor and saw how 
important our Virginia Guard troops were when there were times of 
floods and hurricanes and natural disasters. I also remember visiting 
many of our Guard troops in Bosnia who had been sent over there. I 
remember welcoming back some of our Virginia Air Guard who were flying 
in the no-fly zone in Iraq.
  As Senator Coleman said earlier in this debate, and all of us 
recognize, the Guard and Reserve are being called up more frequently 
and for greater duration than ever before. In fact, when I was in Iraq 
back in mid-February, there were some Guard troops I was meeting with 
at Balad, and four or five of them actually had been in Bosnia. They 
said: We remember when you were in Bosnia to visit as Governor. In 
reality, the Guard and Reserve troops who are being called upon so much 
in this war on terror are generally, compared to the Active Forces, 
older and therefore more likely to be married and more likely to have 
children.
  So if we are going to retain and recruit Guard members and 
reservists, we are going to need to show proper reasonable 
appreciation. We need to address the pay-gap problem. On average, when 
they get activated, they loose $368 a month, and Senator Landrieu, 
Senator Graham, and several of us are working on this issue.
  This measure on health benefits means a great deal to the Guard 
members and their families. We did make some progress last year, but 
nevertheless it wasn't as much--the passage of this measure was 75 to 
25--as we thought it would be, and Senator Graham, like the rest of us, 
is not going to be deterred. We are going to keep fighting, and it is a 
fight that is worth fighting because it is important to show proper 
appreciation with fair expansion of health care benefits which are so 
important for Guard and Reserve families. This, in my view, will help 
retain and recruit Guard members. I trust my colleagues will again 
stand strongly with our Guard and Reserve troops and our families and 
pass this very reasonable, logical legislation to provide health care 
coverage to all the members of our Guard and Reserve.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. At this time, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I yield to Senator 
Thune, one of our newest members, 3 minutes. He has been a strong 
advocate of this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I also compliment the Senator from South 
Carolina for his leadership on this issue, and also the Senator from 
New

[[Page S8630]]

York. I know they have worked together on this, but I will say that one 
of the first issues that the Senator from South Carolina talked to me 
about when I first arrived in the Senate was this very issue. It is 
important for a lot of reasons, important in my State of South Dakota 
because we have a number of people who have been called up. Over 1,700 
of our National Guard men and women have served in the deployments to 
Iraq and Afghanistan, and as I have traveled my State and attended many 
of the events as they have been deactivated and come home, I looked 
into the eyes of their children and their loved ones and assured those 
people that the job they are doing is important to freedom's cause, 
that the work they are doing is important in bringing freedom and 
democracy to places such as Iraq and Afghanistan and thereby also 
making our country more safe and secure.
  It is important that we put in place the appreciation for the good 
work that our guardsmen and reservists are doing and important that we 
recognize that by offering them access to affordable health care. This 
legislation is important because we do have a challenge as we go 
forward with the continuing duration of the deployments, with the need 
to call up our Guard and Reserve on a more frequent basis, to ensure 
that we put the incentives in place so that we can recruit and retain 
the men and women who continue to fill those very important roles.
  And so I am happy to cosponsor this amendment to offer my support to 
the Senator from South Carolina and to urge our colleagues on the floor 
of the Senate to support this important legislation, to send a strong, 
clear message to the men and women who are serving our country in the 
Guard and Reserve that we support them. This is no longer a 1-weekend-
a-month, 2-weeks-a-year deployment. That is a thing of the past. The 
longer deployments and the heightened responsibilities are taking an 
unforeseen toll on the families and members of the Guard and Reserve. 
If Congress is going to call on our Reserves to do more, we have a 
responsibility to provide them with more. By offering TRICARE to Guard 
and Reserve, we are helping to mitigate the effects of the burden we 
are asking Guard and Reserve to shoulder in the war on terror. No 
soldier should be deployed to fight for his country only to have his 
thoughts consumed by the welfare of his family.
  So I thank Senator Graham for his leadership on this issue. I 
encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes 30 seconds.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. Thanks to all Senators, and thanks to 
the Guard and Reserve because we need them the most.
  One of the problems that Guard and Reserve families have to face is 
the lack of continuity of health care. If you are called back to duty, 
you have health care. Once you are released from active duty, with its 
health care program, you go back into the civilian health care network. 
That means you have to change hospitals and doctors. If you are 
experiencing a pregnancy, that means your hospitals may change, the 
doctors may change because you bounce from one health care network to 
the other.
  This bill would provide a health care home for guardsmen and 
reservists, taking stress off their families if they choose to join. 
They never have to worry about bouncing from one doctor to one hospital 
to the next. They would have a continuing network. The Guard and 
Reserve have to pay a premium, unlike their Active-Duty counterpart. It 
is not a free benefit. I think this is a fair compromise. At the end of 
the day, this will help the Guard and Reserve.
  I am proud of what we have done. I thank the chairman for his 
willingness to work with us. Time will tell how we will do this, but I 
am optimistic Congress is going to rise to the occasion to help these 
men and women who risk their lives to protect our freedom.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, earlier this year I introduced legislation 
to strengthen our military and enact a ``Military Family Bill of 
Rights.'' One piece of that bigger agenda is providing TRICARE 
eligibility to members of the National Guard and Reserve. Today I have 
the pleasure of cosponsoring an amendment that would expand the 
eligibility for TRICARE to members of the Selected Reserve. While this 
amendment is only a start towards better policies for Americans in 
uniform and their families, it is also an important step in supporting 
our troops.
  ``Supporting the troops'' means paying attention to the needs of our 
troops in the field and at home; understanding their lives both as 
warriors fighting for the defense of their country and as parents, 
brothers and sisters, sons, and daughters struggling for the prosperity 
and happiness of their families.
  As many as one in five members of the National Guard and Reserves 
don't have health insurance. That is bad policy and bad for our 
national security. When units are mobilized, they count on all their 
personnel. But when a member of the National Guard or Reserve is 
mobilized, and unit members fail physicals due to previously 
undiagnosed or uncorrected health conditions because that servicemember 
lacked health insurance, it disrupts unit cohesion and affects unit 
readiness.
  Under current practice, members of the National Guard and their 
families are eligible for TRICARE only when mobilized and, in some 
cases, upon their return from Active Duty. For some, that means they 
lack continuity of care, having to switch healthcare providers whenever 
their loved one is mobilized or returns home. This lack of continuity 
is particularly difficult for individuals with special health care 
needs, such as pregnant spouses or young children.
  When we think of supporting our troops, we must remember that we also 
have to support families. Investing in military families isn't just an 
act of compassion, it is a smart investment in America's military. Good 
commanders know that while you may recruit an individual soldier or 
marine, you ``retain'' a family. Nearly 50 percent of America's 
servicemembers are married today. If we want to retain our most 
experienced servicemembers, especially the noncommissioned officers 
that are the backbone of the Army and Marine Corps, we have to keep 
faith with their families. If we don't, and those experienced, enlisted 
leaders begin to leave, America will have a broken, ``hollow'' 
military.
  Thus, TRICARE for members of the Select Reserve is not simply a new 
``benefit'' but an issue affecting mission readiness. With our military 
forces stretched as thin as they are due to the conflicts in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, we need to rely on the Reserves to an even greater extent 
than in the past. Indeed, at a time when the Guard and Reserve face 
growing problems in recruiting and retention, extending TRICARE 
coverage also has the potential to be a great recruiting tool.
  We have a sacred obligation to keep faith with the men and women of 
the American military and their families--whether they are on Active 
Duty, in the National Guard or Reserves, or veterans. Today's amendment 
is an important step.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. The distinguished ranking member and myself are prepared 
to accept this amendment. But I want to talk just a bit about the 
importance of what these two Senators, primarily the Senator from South 
Carolina and the Senator from New York, have done. This is a very 
significant piece of legislation. We laid the foundation last year and 
had some incremental improvement, but this really carries the ball the 
balance of the field and scores a touchdown in behalf of the men and 
women in the Armed Forces and Reserve.
  As the Senator from South Carolina has pointed out, this is not a 
free benefit. There is going to be, I say to both of my colleagues, the 
Senator from New York and the Senator from South Carolina, a reasonable 
fee.
  But if I could bring back a little personal experience, in 1950, I 
was a member of the Marine Corps Reserve, having come up from the 
enlisted ranks and gotten my commission. The Korean war sprung on us 
totally without anticipation. I remember at the time

[[Page S8631]]

Truman was in office, and Louie Johnson was basically the Secretary of 
Defense who disbanded the military. Suddenly we had to do a rapid 
turnaround, and we had nowhere to go but to call up the Reserves. I was 
just a young bachelor then. I was happy to go, but when I was in my 
first training command in the fall of 1950 at Quantico in the first 
special basic class, why, over half the class was married and had to 
leave their families and everything and quickly return. Most of us had 
been in World War II and gotten our commissions.
  I simply point out that is another hidden element to this; that is, 
when you are maintaining voluntarily the status of being in the Select 
Reserve, you are subject to call at a late hour of the night to pack 
your bags, leave your family, leave your job, and go. And if you look, 
there are 1,142,000 members of the total Reserve, and the Select 
Reserve is only 700,000. I mean, it is a significant number, but it is 
that group of 700,000 that is subject to call on very short notice. And 
that is ever present. It sometimes requires a problem with the 
employer, to maintain that status knowing that valuable employee could 
leave on less than 30 days' notice and the employer has to seek another 
to fill the post, and so forth. So there is much to be said about 
staying in.
  I recall when I got back from Korea, I was finished my obligated 
military service and could have cashiered out, but I stayed in the 
Reserves another 10 or 11 years, to my recollection--I think it was 12 
years. There were certain benefits that were an inducement to stay in 
and, frankly, I enjoyed it enormously. I don't have a military career 
of great consequence. I am certainly grateful for the opportunity to 
serve, and I think this is a marvelous thing.
  I would like to be listed as a cosponsor, as my distinguished 
colleague from Michigan likewise, and we salute the two Senators who 
pioneered this approach.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. In the beginning we had to look at the dollars and the 
figures and balance it out.
  As the Senator said, fight on. And we will be there, and each of 
these Members will be by our side. I hope Members can walk out of that 
conference some day with a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment.
  I urge adoption of the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1363) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. 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. WARNER. I thank our colleagues.
  We are open for further amendments. The Boy Scout amendment is being 
reviewed. The Lautenberg amendment is, likewise, being reviewed on our 
side. It will take the managers a few moments to advise the Senate as 
to what the next matter will be.
  Therefore, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada has consulted with 
the managers of the bill and desires to address the Senate in the 
context of several amendments. We thank the Senator very much for his 
participation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1374

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1374.

  Mr. ENSIGN. 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:

    (Purpose: To require a report on the use of riot control agents)

       On page 296, after line 19, insert the following:

     SEC. 1205. REPORT ON USE OF RIOT CONTROL AGENTS.

       (a) Statement of Policy.--It remains the longstanding 
     policy of the United States, as provided in Executive Order 
     11850 (40 Fed Reg 16187) and affirmed by the Senate in the 
     resolution of ratification of the Chemical Weapons 
     Convention, that riot control agents are not chemical weapons 
     but are legitimate, legal, and non-lethal alternatives to the 
     use of lethal force that may be employed by members of the 
     Armed Forces in combat and in other situations for defensive 
     purposes to save lives, particularly for those illustrative 
     purposes cited specifically in Executive Order 11850.
       (b) Report Required.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the 
     President shall submit to Congress a report on the use of 
     riot control agents.
       (2) Content.--The reports required under paragraph (1) 
     shall include--
       (A) a listing of international and multilateral forums that 
     occurred in the preceding 12 months at which--
       (i) the United States was represented; and
       (ii) the issues of the Chemical Weapons Convention, riot 
     control agents, or non-lethal weapons were raised or 
     discussed;
       (B) with regard to the forums described in subparagraph 
     (A), a listing of those events at which the attending United 
     States representatives publicly and fully articulated the 
     United States policy with regard to riot control agents, as 
     outlined and in accordance with Executive Order 11850, the 
     Senate resolution of ratification to the Chemical Weapons 
     Convention, and the statement of policy set forth in 
     subsection (a);
       (C) a description of efforts by the United States 
     Government to promote adoption by other states-parties to the 
     Chemical Weapons Convention of the United States policy and 
     position on the use of riot control agents in combat;
       (D) the legal interpretation of the Department of Justice 
     with regard to the current legal availability and viability 
     of Executive Order 11850, to include the rationale as to why 
     Executive Order 11850 remains permissible under United States 
     law;
       (E) a description of the availability of riot control 
     agents, and the means to deploy them, to members of the Armed 
     Forces deployed in Iraq;
       (F) a description of the doctrinal publications, training, 
     and other resources available to members of the Armed Forces 
     on an annual basis with regard to the tactical employment of 
     riot control agents in combat; and
       (G) a description of cases in which riot control agents 
     were employed, or requested to be employed, during combat 
     operations in Iraq since March, 2003.
       (3) Form.--The reports required under paragraph (1) shall 
     be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a 
     classified annex.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``Chemical Weapons Convention'' means the 
     Convention on the Prohibitions of Development, Production, 
     Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their 
     Destruction, with annexes, done at Paris, January 13, 1993, 
     and entered into force April 29, 1997 (T. Doc. 103-21); and
       (2) the term ``resolution of ratification of the Chemical 
     Weapons Convention'' means Senate Resolution 75, 105th 
     Congress, agreed to April 24, 1997, advising and consenting 
     to the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1375

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1375.

  Mr. ENSIGN. 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:

 (Purpose: To require a report on the costs incurred by the Department 
  of Defense in implementing or supporting resolutions of the United 
                       Nations Security Council)

       On page 286, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 1073. REPORT ON COSTS TO CARRY OUT UNITED NATIONS 
                   RESOLUTIONS.

       (a) Assignment Authority of Secretary of Defense.--The 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit, on a quarterly basis, a 
     report to the

[[Page S8632]]

     congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on International 
     Relations of the House of Representatives that sets forth all 
     costs (including incremental costs) incurred by the 
     Department of Defense during the preceding quarter in 
     implementing or supporting any resolution adopted by the 
     United Nations Security Council, including any such 
     resolution calling for international sanctions, international 
     peacekeeping operations, or humanitarian missions undertaken 
     by the Department of Defense. Each such quarterly report 
     shall include an aggregate of all such Department of Defense 
     costs by operation or mission.
       (b) Costs for Training Foreign Troops.--The Secretary of 
     Defense shall detail in the quarterly reports all costs 
     (including incremental costs) incurred in training foreign 
     troops for United Nations peacekeeping duties.
       (c) Credit and Compensation.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall detail in the quarterly reports all efforts made to 
     seek credit against past United Nations expenditures and all 
     efforts made to seek compensation from the United Nations for 
     costs incurred by the Department of Defense in implementing 
     and supporting United Nations activities.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I thank both managers of the bill for 
their indulgence. I look forward to speaking on the amendments later, 
but I appreciate the ability to lay them down at this time.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this time my distinguished colleague 
has a matter which he would like to bring to the attention of the 
Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 1376

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself and Mr. 
     Kerry, proposes an amendment numbered 1376.

  Mr. LEVIN. 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:

(Purpose: To enhance and extend the increase in the amount of the death 
                               gratuity)

       On page 159, strike line 20 and all that follows through 
     page 161, line 9, and insert the following:

     SEC. 641. ENHANCEMENT OF DEATH GRATUITY AND ENHANCEMENT OF 
                   LIFE INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN COMBAT 
                   RELATED DEATHS.

       (a) Increased Amount of Death Gratuity.--
       (1) Increased amount.--Section 1478(a) of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``$12,000'' and inserting 
     ``$100,000''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     shall take effect on October 7, 2001, and shall apply with 
     respect to deaths occurring on or after that date.
       (3) Coordination with other enhancements.--If the date of 
     the enactment of this Act occurs before October 1, 2005--
       (A) effective as of such date of enactment, the amendments 
     made to section 1478 of title 10, United States Code, by the 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the 
     Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 
     109-13) are repealed; and
       (B) effective immediately before the execution of the 
     amendment made by paragraph (1), the provisions of section 
     1478 of title 10, United States Code, as in effect on the 
     date before the date of the enactment of the Act referred to 
     in subparagraph (A), shall be revived.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the provisions in the fiscal year 2005 
emergency supplemental appropriations bill increase the military death 
gratuity from $12,400 to $100,000. The bill before us continues that 
increase in the gratuity. The provisions, however, do not cover all 
people on active duty. It only covers people who are killed in combat. 
Our military leaders strongly, and I believe unanimously--our uniformed 
leaders--believe the death of a military person who is on active duty 
should be covered equally whether that person was killed in combat or 
on his way to a training exercise.
  They have testified in front of our committee very forcefully that 
they believe the benefit which we have provided, the so-called military 
death gratuity of $100,000--now as we provide in the bill to be made 
permanent--should be applied equally to all persons on active duty.
  The case of Marine LTC Richard Wersel, Jr., who had a fatal heart 
attack while exercising 1 week after returning from his second tour of 
duty in Iraq, perhaps says it all. This was an active-duty marine. He 
had just come back from an extremely difficult and stressful 
deployment. He had multiple deployments over 30 months. He had been 
training indigenous troops to fight drug traffickers. As well, he had 
two tours of duty in Iraq. But as his wife put it: Those multiple 
deployments were the silent bullet that took her husband's life.
  Under current law, the death gratuity which would go to the wife and 
family would only be $12,400. Had the heart attack occurred while in 
Iraq, the death gratuity would have been $100,000. In either case, 
Colonel Wersel was serving his Nation, as he did very well throughout 
his life. He was on active duty. The fact that he died a week after 
returning from a second, stressful tour in Iraq should not cause his 
surviving spouse to receive such a significantly smaller death 
gratuity.
  This is what the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps told the 
Armed Services Committee at a hearing on military death benefits. He 
said:

       I think we need to understand before we put any 
     distinctions on the great service of these wonderful young 
     men and women who wear this cloth forward into combat, 
     training to go to combat or in tsunami relief, they are all 
     performing magnificently. I think we have to be very cautious 
     in drawing distinctions.

  At another hearing, I asked General Myers, the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs, for his views on whether the military death gratuity should be 
the same for all members who die on active duty. His answer was:

       I think a death gratuity that applies to all servicemembers 
     is preferable to one that's targeted just to those that might 
     be in a combat zone.

  He said:

       When you join the military, you join the military. You go 
     where they send you. And it's happenstance that you're in a 
     combat zone or you're at home. And I think we have in the 
     past held to treating people universally, for the most part, 
     and consistently. And that's how I come down on that.

  That is what General Myers said.
  The Presiding Officer well knows this because he has to deal with 
these losses regularly back home in Minnesota. He pointed out earlier 
today how many Reserve folks he has in Minnesota whom he supports.
  No benefit--no benefit--can replace the loss of life of a soldier, 
sailor, airman, or marine who gives his or her life in service to our 
country. Every survivor would choose to have the servicemember alive 
and healthy rather than any compensation our Government could provide. 
But that does not mean our benefits should not be full and generous and 
consistent; it is just a recognition that we cannot place a monetary 
value on a life given in service to our Nation.
  There is much more to be said about this issue. But, again, the 
testimony of our senior uniformed military leaders, it seems to me, is 
the most compelling testimony, in addition to the actual, tragic 
situations we have, such as the one I read about a moment ago.
  So I offer this amendment. Many of us have supported this amendment. 
There have been many members of our committee and many Members of the 
Senate who are not on the committee who I know very strongly support a 
$100,000 death gratuity for all active-duty military deaths, not just 
those who die in combat-related activity.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am happy to join the Senator from 
Michigan in sponsoring this amendment. Earlier this year, we offered an 
identical amendment to the fiscal year 2005 Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriation Act, which passed the Senate with 75 votes but was 
inexcusably dropped in conference. We need to rectify that wrong 
because the death gratuity system created last spring, despite good 
intentions, sells short people who deserve better: our soldiers and 
military.
  The issue is simple: when it comes to our men and women in uniform, 
how do you draw the line between one death in one circumstance and 
another death in another circumstance? I don't believe you can. The 
existing law relies on the combat related special compensation 
legislation to determine which personnel who die outside of combat 
zones receive the increased death gratuity. It may seem sufficient, but 
it is not.
  Consider the case of Vivianne Wersel. Her husband, LTC Richard M. 
Wersel,

[[Page S8633]]

U.S. Marine Corps, served 20 years and 6 months in the Marine Corps. 
His last overseas assignment was with the Multinational Forces Iraq in 
Baghdad. He served there as the plans chief for the Civil Military 
Operations Directorate. In February of this year, just a week after 
returning home, Lieutenant Colonel Wersel suffered a fatal heart attack 
lifting weights in the gym at Camp Lejeune, NC.
  If he had died 1 week earlier lifting weights in Iraq, his family 
would have been eligible for the increased benefits. Because he died in 
the United States, his sacrifice isn't properly honored, and his family 
is left to a greater struggle.
  This is what the uniformed leaders of the American military were 
talking about when they testified before the Senate Armed Services 
Committee earlier this year. It is time we listened to them. Let me 
remind my colleagues what they said:
  GEN Michael T. Moseley, U.S. Air Force, said:

       I believe a death is a death and our servicemen and women 
     should be represented that way.

  GEN Richard A. Cody, U.S. Army, said:

       It is about service to this country and I think we need to 
     be very, very careful about making this $100,000 decision 
     based upon what type of action. I would rather err on the 
     side of covering all deaths than try to make the distinction.

  And ADM John B. Nathman, U.S. Navy, said:

       This has been about . . . how do we take care of the 
     survivors, the families, and the children. They can't make a 
     distinction; I don't believe we should either.

  Vivianne Wersel certainly doesn't make that distinction. She and her 
husband have two wonderful children. They have lived on 10 bases in the 
last 15 years living the proud but challenging life of a Marine family. 
They have made sacrifices for this country throughout Colonel Wersel's 
career--supporting him in his missions wherever that took him. They 
have missed their father for a long time not simply since his death. 
They deserve better from us, who they sacrificed to protect.
  For the survivors of our Nation's fallen heroes, much of life 
remains, and though no one can ever put a price on a lost loved one, we 
must be generous in helping them put their lives back together. Current 
law doesn't work. We can change it. I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to be made a cosponsor of this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I recall very vividly the testimony we 
received from the whole group of the Joint Chiefs of Staff led by 
General Myers. General Myers was very strong on this point. You 
mentioned General Pace. Indeed, he was a leader on it. But, across the 
board, our chiefs stepped up.
  I say to the Senator, it is important this be done. We accept the 
amendment and are ready to move when you are ready to move.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1376) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, momentarily we will have another matter to 
be brought to the floor. We are making progress. At the moment, 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. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank our distinguished colleague from Maine, who is 
going to address a very important subject.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.


                Amendment No. 1377 to Amendment No. 1351

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1377 to amendment No. 1351.

  Ms. COLLINS. 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:

  (Purpose: To ensure that certain persons do not evade or avoid the 
prohibitions imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers 
                      Act, and for other purposes)

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON ENGAGING IN CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS.

       (a) Application of IEEPA Prohibitions to Those Attempting 
     to Evade or Avoid the Prohibitions.--Section 206 of the 
     International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1705) 
     is amended to read as follows:


                              ``PENALTIES

       ``Sec. 206. (a) It shall be unlawful for--
       ``(1) a person to violate or attempt to violate any 
     license, order, regulation, or prohibition issued under this 
     title;
       ``(2) a person subject to the jurisdiction of the United 
     States to take any action to evade or avoid, or attempt to 
     evade or avoid, a license, order, regulation, or prohibition 
     issued this title; or
       ``(3) a person subject to the jurisdiction of the United 
     States to approve, facilitate, or provide financing for any 
     action, regardless of who initiates or completes the action, 
     if it would be unlawful for such person to initiate or 
     complete the action.
       ``(b) A civil penalty of not to exceed $250,000 may be 
     imposed on any person who commits an unlawful act described 
     in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subsection (a).
       ``(c) A person who willfully commits, or willfully attempts 
     to commit, an unlawful act described in paragraph (1), (2), 
     or (3) of subsection (a) shall, upon conviction, be fined not 
     more than $500,000, or a natural person, may be imprisoned 
     not more than 10 years, or both; and any officer, director, 
     or agent of any person who knowingly participates, or 
     attempts to participate, in such unlawful act may be punished 
     by a like fine, imprisonment, or both.''.
       (b) Production of Records.--Section 203(a)(2) of the 
     International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 
     1702(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) In exercising the authorities granted by paragraph 
     (1), the President may require any person to keep a full 
     record of, and to furnish under oath, in the form of reports, 
     testimony, answers to questions, or otherwise, complete 
     information relative to any act or transaction referred to in 
     paragraph (1), either before, during, or after the completion 
     thereof, or relative to any interest in foreign property, or 
     relative to any property in which any foreign country or any 
     national thereof has or has had any interest, or as may be 
     otherwise necessary to enforce the provisions of such 
     paragraph. The President may require by subpoena or otherwise 
     the production under oath by any person of all such 
     information, reports, testimony, or answers to questions, as 
     well as the production of any required books of accounts, 
     records, contracts, letters, memoranda, or other papers, in 
     the custody or control of any person. The subpoena or other 
     requirement, in the case of contumacy or refusal to obey, 
     shall be enforceable by order of any appropriate United 
     States district court.''.
       (c) Clarification of Jurisdiction To Address IEEPA 
     Violations.--Section 203 of the International Emergency 
     Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) The district courts of the United States shall have 
     jurisdiction to issue such process described in subsection 
     (a)(2) as may be necessary and proper in the premises to 
     enforce the provisions of this title.''.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to offer a second-degree amendment 
to the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, 
Mr. Lautenberg. While I take a slightly different approach than my 
colleague from New Jersey, I wish to be clear that my intent is very 
similar to his; that is, to close loopholes in current U.S. law that 
allow U.S. firms to do business in terrorist nations or nations that 
are known to sponsor terrorism and are under U.S. sanctions.
  Denying business investment to states that finance or otherwise 
support terrorist activities, such as Syria, Iran, or Sudan, is 
critical to the war on terrorism. The United States has had sanctions 
in place on the Iranian Government for a long time and for good 
reasons. These sanctions prohibit U.S. citizens and U.S. corporations 
from

[[Page S8634]]

doing business in Iran, a nation known as a state sponsor of terrorism. 
I fully support the use of these sanctions to deny terrorist states 
funding and investment from American companies.
  Currently, U.S. sanctions provisions in the International Emergency 
Economic Powers Act prohibit U.S. companies from conducting business 
with nations that are listed on the terrorist sponsor list. The law 
does not specifically bar foreign subsidiaries of American companies 
from doing business with terrorist-supporting nations, as long as these 
subsidiaries are considered truly independent of the parent company.
  There have, however, been reports that some U.S. companies have 
exploited this exception in the law by creating foreign subsidiaries of 
U.S. companies in order to do business with such nations. The 
allegations are that these foreign subsidiaries are formed and 
incorporated overseas for the specific purpose of bypassing U.S. 
sanctions laws that prohibit American corporations from doing business 
with terrorist-sponsoring nations such as Syria and Iran. There is no 
doubt that this practice cannot be allowed to continue.
  I supported Senator Lautenberg's amendment last year because it was 
the only proposal before us to deal with this very real problem. The 
Senator from New Jersey has been very eloquent in speaking about this 
exploitation of the exceptions in the current sanctions laws. The 
examples that we have heard, where American firms simply create new 
shell corporations to execute transactions that they themselves are 
prohibited from engaging in, are truly outrageous. Clearly, the law 
does need to be tightened. But we need to be careful about how we go 
about addressing this problem. I have long felt that while the Senator 
from New Jersey is correct in his intentions, the specific language of 
his amendment needs improvement.
  We have worked very closely--my staff and I--during the past 6 
months, with the administration to draft a proposal that closes the 
loophole without overreaching. We must draft this measure in a manner 
that gets at these egregious cases that are so outrageous without 
overstepping the traditional legal notions of jurisdiction. Otherwise, 
we may find ourselves harming the war on terror rather than helping.
  Some truly independent foreign subsidiaries are incorporated under 
the laws of the country in which they do business and are subject to 
that country's laws, to that legal jurisdiction. There is a great deal 
of difference between a corporation set up in a day, without any real 
employees or assets, and one that has been in existence for many years 
and that gets purchased, in part, by a U.S. firm. That foreign company 
may even be an American firm with a controlling interest in that 
foreign company, but under the law, it is still considered to be a 
foreign corporation.
  Senator Lautenberg's proposal requires foreign subsidiaries and their 
parents to obey both U.S. and applicable foreign law at the same time, 
even if they are in conflict. Not only does this complicate our 
relations with other countries, it also puts U.S. subsidiaries of 
foreign parent companies in danger of being subjected to other nations' 
laws in retaliation. It also raises all sorts of questions when there 
are conflicts in the two sets of laws. At a time when we are seeking 
the maximum active foreign cooperation possible in the global war 
against terrorism, exerting U.S. law over all foreign companies owned 
or controlled by U.S. firms and their foreign operations seems to be an 
imprudent and excessive move. The administration agrees.
  Rather than simply declaring many foreign entities subject to U.S. 
law regardless of their particular situation, my amendment would take 
four strong steps to improve U.S. sanctions laws--specifically, the 
International Emergency Economic Powers Act--without raising the 
concerns that come forth if we take the approach recommended by Senator 
Lautenberg.
  First, my amendment would prohibit any action by a U.S. firm that 
would avoid or evade U.S. sanctions. This would clearly prohibit the 
creation of a new shell company for the purposes of evading U.S. 
sanctions, a situation that has occurred and that we need to prevent.

  Second, my amendment would prohibit American firms from ``approving, 
facilitating or financing'' actions that would violate U.S. sanctions 
laws if undertaken by a U.S. firm. This would prohibit any involvement 
by a U.S. parent firm with an existing subsidiary that was engaged in a 
transaction that violated the International Emergency Economic Powers 
Act. In order to comply with the law, the U.S. parent firm would need 
to be totally passive in any transaction. But if the American firm is, 
in fact, approving the actions of that foreign subsidiary that is doing 
business in a prohibited country or facilitating it in any way--that is 
a pretty broad word--or financing those prohibited actions, that would 
be a violation of our law.
  Third, my amendment would increase the maximum penalties per 
violation under the act from $10,000 to $250,000 for a civil violation 
and from $50,000 to $500,000. For companies who think that the risk of 
getting caught is worth it, they will need to think again because now 
the penalties are sufficient that they have real bite.
  Finally, our amendment would provide explicit subpoena authority to 
obtain records related to transactions covered by the act. Right now, 
there has been a difficulty in enforcing the sanctions in terms of 
getting the information that is needed. This would provide subpoena 
power.
  Specifically, by increasing penalties and providing for explicit 
subpoena authority, I believe my amendment results in a much stronger 
sanctions regime but without invoking many of the concerns that have 
been voiced with regard to Senator Lautenberg's amendment.
  Again, I want to make clear that I think the goals of the Senator 
from New Jersey and myself are very similar. The question is how to 
craft a solution that addresses the problem without overreaching and 
without causing the possibility of a foreign country retaliating 
against the American subsidiaries of that country's firm.
  I believe that my amendment is the right approach to this critical 
problem. It will make clear that U.S. corporations cannot circumvent 
U.S. law. They cannot set up phony shell corporations for the purpose 
of evading the law. They can't direct a foreign subsidiary to do what 
they are prohibited from doing under our laws. It will also greatly 
strengthen and improve the enforcement of the law through the increase 
in penalties and by vesting subpoena power. At the same time, my 
approach is carefully crafted to avoid unintended consequences that 
will harm our relations with our international allies.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this balanced approach.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the Collins amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment I have just sent to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if I might, through the Chair, address the 
chairman of the committee. I have an amendment which I would like to 
offer, but I don't want to step into a process or a queue that is 
already established. I am not going to call up the amendment at this 
moment. I merely want to speak to it and offer it and put it on the 
list of amendments to be considered at a later time.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we would like to accommodate the Senator. 
My only inquiry is, we now have on the floor the two principals on this 
important measure. If you wish, for a few minutes, to lay down an 
amendment, I am sure we could do that. I would like to have this 
important debate resumed.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would say to the chairman, that is exactly what I would 
like to do.
  I ask unanimous consent that these two pending amendments be set 
aside strictly for the purpose of introducing an amendment and speaking 
no more than, say, 10 minutes and then, at that

[[Page S8635]]

point, I ask that we return to the pending order of business, the 
Lautenberg amendment and the Collins amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1379

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1379.

  Mr. DURBIN. 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 certain dietary supplement manufacturers to report 
                    certain serious adverse events)

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

     SEC. 330. REPORTING OF SERIOUS ADVERSE HEALTH EVENTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense may not permit a 
     dietary supplement containing a stimulant to be sold on a 
     military installation or in a commissary store, exchange 
     store, or other store under chapter 147 of title 10, United 
     States Code, unless the manufacturer of such dietary 
     supplement submits any report of a serious adverse health 
     event associated with such dietary supplement to the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services, who shall make such 
     reports available to the Surgeon Generals of the Armed 
     Forces.
       (b) Effect of Section.--Notwithstanding section 201(ff)(2) 
     of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
     321(ff)(2)) and subsection (c)(3) of this section, this 
     section shall not apply to a dietary supplement that is 
     intended to be consumed in liquid form if the only stimulant 
     contained in such supplement is caffeine.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Dietary supplement.--The term ``dietary supplement'' 
     has the same meaning given the term in section 201(ff) of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(ff)).
       (2) Serious adverse health event.--The term ``serious 
     adverse health event'' means an adverse event that may 
     reasonably be suspected to be associated with the use of a 
     dietary supplement in a human, without regard to whether the 
     event is known to be causally related to the dietary 
     supplement, that--
       (A) results in--
       (i) death;
       (ii) a life-threatening experience;
       (iii) inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of an 
     existing hospitalization;
       (iv) a persistent or significant disability or incapacity; 
     or
       (v) a congenital anomaly or birth defect; or
       (B) requires, based on reasonable medical judgment, medical 
     or surgical intervention to prevent an outcome described in 
     subparagraph (A).
       (3) Stimulant.--The term ``stimulant'' means a dietary 
     ingredient that has a stimulant effect on the cardiovascular 
     system or the central nervous system of a human by any means, 
     including--
       (A) speeding metabolism;
       (B) increasing heart rate;
       (C) constricting blood vessels; or
       (D) causing the body to release adrenaline.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this is the Department of Defense 
authorization bill, and included in here are funds for those base 
exchanges where members of the Armed Forces and their families go to 
buy the necessities of life. They turn there for groceries, 
pharmaceuticals, and other needs for their families. The purpose of 
this amendment is to make sure that the products sold at these base 
exchanges across the United States and around the world are safe for 
the military and the families who use the base exchanges.
  I am particularly concerned about dietary supplements. Military 
personnel are under tremendous pressure to be physically fit. The 
conditions under which they work and train are harsh and demanding. A 
supplement product can be attractive because it is marketed for 
performance enhancement and weight loss. My amendment seeks to ensure 
that these so-called health products sold at military stores are 
monitored for safety.
  At the outset, I want to say I have no quarrel with dietary 
supplements like vitamins. I woke up this morning and, like millions of 
Americans, took my vitamins in the hope that I will live forever. I 
think that should be my right and my choice. I don't believe I should 
need a prescription for vitamin C or multivitamins.
  What is at issue are the dietary supplements that cross the line. 
Instead of providing nutritional assistance, many of them make health 
claims that, frankly, they cannot live up to. Finding many of these 
products on a military base is easy. A 2004 report on dietary 
supplements notes that a newly deployed U.S. Air Force base had eight 
different dietary supplements stocked on the shelves that were marketed 
for weightlifting and energy enhancements 5 months after it opened. Six 
of these products contain the stimulant ephedra.
  Most dietary supplements are safe and healthy, but there is a growing 
concern about categories of dietary supplements that are being taken by 
innocent people who think they are good and, in fact, they are not.
  The Navy released a list of serious problems related to dietary 
supplements recently. They included health events such as death, rapid 
heart rate, shortness of breath, severe chest pain, and becoming 
increasingly delusional. These are from over-the-counter dietary 
supplements.
  Unfortunately, most of the time these events are never reported. In 
other words, the laws that govern prescription drugs and many over-the-
counter drugs do not apply to dietary supplements.
  Let me show you a chart that I think illustrates that quite well. 
Here are different categories of things you might buy at your 
drugstore. You might buy prescription drugs through your doctor or 
over-the-counter medications, such as cough medicine, or you might buy 
dietary supplements. Metabolife is a popular version. The question is: 
Are they all safe? The obvious answer is: Not by a long shot. 
Prescription drugs are safety tested before being sold. Over-the-
counter medications are safety tested. Dietary supplements are not. 
Does anybody test them to make sure that the claims on some of them--
for example, the claims that this is going to help with my cough or 
that this is going to give me energy--has anybody tested these to make 
sure they are effective for what they claim? Yes, when it comes to 
prescription drugs, they are tested for efficacy before they are sold; 
yes, for over-the-counter medications; but no, for dietary supplements, 
the claims are not tested ahead of time. How about individual doses? If 
a doctor tells you to take four tablets during the course of a day, how 
well can you trust the dosage on the package to reflect what the doctor 
recommended? Well, when it comes to prescription drugs, the FDA says, 
yes, we test the dosage. It is the same with over-the-counter 
medications. When it comes to these dietary supplements, vitamins, 
nutritional supplements, there is no individual dosage control.
  They have been fighting over this for almost 10 years. Finally, if 
something goes wrong with a prescription drug--if you take it and you 
get sick and you report it to the company that made the drug, do they 
have to tell the Federal Government? Absolutely, when it comes to 
prescription drugs. How about in the case of over-the-counter drugs? 
You bet. If you get sick and call the maker of one of the drugs, they 
are required by law to tell the FDA, and if it reaches a certain point, 
they can be taken from the market. How about dietary supplements? What 
if you take one, such as yellow jackets that contains ephedra and you 
call the company and tell them you got sick, do they have a legal 
requirement to report that to the Government? No. There is no legal 
requirement, even if you are dealing with a situation where a dietary 
supplement has killed a person.
  That troubles me. I don't believe we should have any dietary 
supplements being sold across America--certainly not at our military 
base exchanges--that is sold in a situation where, if there is adverse 
health consequence--death, stroke, heart attack, serious health 
consequences--the manufacturer doesn't have to report it to the 
Government.
  That is basically what this amendment says: If you want to sell a 
supplement containing a stimulant on a military base, be prepared to 
report adverse events to the Federal Government. If you will not tell 
us, the Federal Government, when people are dying or are seriously ill 
because of your dietary supplement, you should not be selling them at 
the exchanges.
  Let me say a word about ephedra. It received a lot of headlines.

[[Page S8636]]

  Mr. President, for the purpose of those who were following my 
statement ever so closely and might have been interrupted and lost 
their train of thought, let me return to that for a moment and tell you 
what I am doing.
  This amendment says you cannot sell dietary supplements containing 
stimulants at military stores and base exchanges, unless the maker of 
the dietary supplement agrees, under law, to notify the Government if 
there are adverse events when somebody takes the supplement. In other 
words, if you take a nutritional or dietary supplement and suffer a 
heart attack or a stroke or someone dies and it is reported to the 
manufacturer, this would require that the manufacturer notify the 
Government.
  Has that ever happened? Sadly, it has. The military bases took 
ephedra off the shelves at the end of 2002 because, between 1997 and 
2001, at least 30 active American military duty personnel died after 
taking ephedra. After 7 years of effort, the FDA banned ephedra in 
2004. The industry went to court and fought it--even though 150 
Americans had died from this dietary supplement--and they won. In a 
court in Utah, they determined that the Federal law, the Dietary 
Supplement Health Education Act, DSHEA, didn't have the teeth to stop 
the sale of ephedra as a dietary nutritional supplement. So today this 
tells the story.
  Nutrition centers, such as this one in the photo, in Cincinnati, OH, 
are proclaiming ``ephedra is back.'' It certainly is. A member of my 
staff decided to order 30 pills containing 200 milligrams each of 
ephedra over the Internet from a post office box in Boonville, MO. You 
can pick it up everywhere, even though it continues to be dangerous.
  Why should we expose the men and women in our military to supplements 
that have already taken the lives of at least 30 of our military 
personnel and threatened scores of others? This amendment says we will 
not. Unless you, as a manufacturer, are prepared to report adverse 
events to the Federal Government, you cannot sell these products on 
military bases.
  In case people are wondering whether this little effort against 
ephedra is my personal idea, ephedra, such as I am holding it here, has 
already been banned for sale in Canada. As I am holding it here, it has 
been banned for sale in many local jurisdictions. The American Medical 
Association has said it is a dangerous supplement. We have seen sports 
activities--one after the other--ban the use of ephedra. A Baltimore 
Orioles pitcher died last year after taking it in an attempt to lose 
weight. In my area of Lincoln, IL, in central Illinois, a great young 
man, 16 years old, went to the local gas station--Sean Riggins was his 
name--to buy some dietary supplement pills to get ready for a high 
school football game. By the next morning, he was dead from a heart 
attack.
  I do not want to see that happen again. I certainly want to spare our 
military personnel from having to face that.
  I tried to move this amendment last year. Others came to the floor 
and said: We can work this out. It never happened. The industry did 
nothing. We have achieved nothing. We have to put this protection in 
the law for our military personnel.
  I close by asking unanimous consent that Senator Feinstein's name be 
added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CHAFEE). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that letters 
of support be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           Letters of Support

       My name is Kevin Riggins from Lincoln, IL. and I would like 
     to tell you my story. On Sep. 3, 2002, my wife and I lost our 
     son, 16 year old, Sean Riggins to a heart attack brought on 
     by the use of ephedra. Sean was a healthy, active student 
     athlete with no health problems overt or latent. Sean played 
     football, wrestled, and was a ``Black Belt'' in Tae Kwon Do, 
     and while he excelled in each sport, he and his teammates 
     strived for more. To ``enhance'' their performance in 
     football they began taking dietary supplements containing 
     ephedra. Because of the current FDA rules concerning dietary 
     supplements, or more precisely the lack thereof, my son lost 
     his life.
       As you may or may not know, dietary supplement companies 
     fall under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act 
     (DSHEA) and NOT under the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. Under 
     DSHEA, supplement companies do not need a license to 
     manufacture these products, nor do they require a medical or 
     science professional to formulate and create said products. 
     As a result, there are numerous companies that are owned and 
     run by persons with no more than a high school diploma, in 
     fact, I know of at least 3 owners that have State and Federal 
     convictions for a variety of offenses including drug 
     possession and distribution. Imagine a high school graduate 
     convicted felon formulating the mixtures and dosages for 
     these products.
       There are no good manufacturing processes set in place for 
     these companies, which means that dosage requirements and 
     contents are irrelevant due to the lack of standardization.
       There are no requirements for adverse event reporting to 
     the FDA. If a supplement company receives a report that their 
     product injured someone, the company can and in certain cases 
     has thrown the AER away.
       These are but a small sample of the problems with this 
     industry and that is why I support any and all efforts to 
     reign in these lawless companies.
       As an honorably discharged decorated veteran, I applaud 
     requiring adverse event reports turned in by military members 
     to be reported to the FDA. Our soldiers, sailors and airmen 
     deserve this protection. They put themselves on the line and 
     tell our enemies ``you will not pass'', and for that we must 
     accord them every protection.
       If I sound somewhat bitter, I am. If I sound driven and 
     committed to reigning in these types of corporations, I am. I 
     lost my son. You cannot know that pain, that emptiness, that 
     hole in your soul when you lose a child unless you have been 
     there, and I pray that none of you ever have to experience 
     that. Please, help our service men and women, my brothers and 
     sisters in arms. Pass this amendment. Let them know that 
     somebody gives a damn. Let me know somebody gives a damn. Let 
     Sean know.
           Thank you.
     Kevin S. Riggins.
                                  ____

       My name is Debbie Riggins. My son, Sean, died of a heart 
     attack almost 3 years ago at age 16 due to ephedra. That day 
     changed my life forever. I still struggle with the memory of 
     that day; the moment I saw the life drift from the eyes of my 
     only child. As Sean started high school, he thought of what 
     he might want to do with his life. He considered a life in 
     the armed services. He never got that chance. He was robbed 
     of the chance to do many things.
       Now it's time for the military to set an example to the 
     private sector; a chance to show the Nation that it truly 
     cares about the health and welfare of its troops. We are 
     asking the military to track and report adverse event reports 
     of their troops. Since the pharmaceutical companies have been 
     so lax and unprofessional in their reporting practices, many 
     events are either being diagnosed incorrectly or being swept 
     under the rug. The military should be an example for the rest 
     of the Nation. The armed services is a more controlled 
     environment and would thus be a more consistent reporting 
     base reflecting truer figures and facts.
       It's already a tragedy when a family is informed that their 
     loved one has been killed in action but to later discover 
     that it was from an uncontrolled herbal supplement while they 
     were deployed is even worse. It's ``chemical warfare meets 
     friendly fire''.
       Protect the service men and women as they protect us.
     Debbie Riggins.
                                  ____

     From: Hilary Spitz
     Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005, 10:02 p.m.

       On March 16, 2000, our lives forever changed. My daughter, 
     Hilary Spitz had worked midnights as a deputy sheriff for 
     Coles County. When she got home, we went shopping. I dropped 
     her off at home and left to go sign documents at the school 
     board office. My husband worked midnights also. They both 
     closed their respective doors. Soon after I arrived, Dr. Berg 
     received a call for me. I was told my daughter was in trouble 
     at home and an ambulance had been called. My husband had 
     heard our dogs barking and went to check on them. They were 
     scratching at Hilary's door and he could hear a horrible 
     wailing sound coming from her room. He burst in and found her 
     lying on the floor in a very violent seizure. He could not 
     get her to respond and quickly dialed 911. He physically had 
     to lay across her to keep her from hurting herself. Her feet 
     were bleeding from kicking the bed and dresser. When I 
     arrived home, I could hear her from the doorway. No one knew 
     what was wrong. When I arrived at the hospital, I was met at 
     the door by a nurse and told they were doing everything they 
     could for her and I could not go in. Soon after my family 
     arrived, we convinced them to let me in, maybe I could talk 
     to her. By that time, she was still unresponsive and 
     uncontrollable. No amount of medicine would calm her down. 
     They did all kinds of tests and eventually transferred her to 
     Carle Clinic. Her seizure lasted 13\1/2\ hours. It was 
     eventually determined that this was caused by an herbal diet 
     supplement that contained ephredra. She had taken 5 pills in 
     10 days. That wasn't even the amount that was suggested to 
     take. She was in a coma for 7 days. When she woke up, she had 
     no idea what had happened. Since that time, she has

[[Page S8637]]

     had other health issues that have come up, but cannot be 
     linked directly to the ephedra seizure, but it seems strange 
     that they happened after that. But, since the seizure and the 
     hypoxic aftereffects, she is unable to work. She suffers from 
     depression, anxiety, sleeplessness, agitation, and sever 
     memory dysfunction. I am so grateful that she is here with 
     me. I wish she did not have the symptoms, but I am content 
     that she is alive. We continually live with her problems and 
     continually have to be with her. She was afraid to go to 
     sleep for a long time and had the light on in the bedroom 
     closet. Hilary lives with us and we help raise her 7 year old 
     daughter. If there is anything that we can do to keep this 
     horrible product off the market, we would be happy to discuss 
     this with you. We want to prevent anyone else from going 
     through this. Unfortunately, most people do not survive this. 
     Hilary is one of the lucky ones. It is just too bad that she 
     had to go through this.
           Thank You, Michelle Skinlo.
                                  ____

                                                Center for Science


                                       in the Public Interest,

                                                    July 21, 2005.
     Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Durbin: The Center for Science in the Public 
     Interest (CSPI) wishes to commend you for introducing an 
     amendment to S. 1042 that would require manufacturers who 
     sell on military bases dietary supplements containing 
     stimulants to submit to the Food and Drug Administration 
     (FDA) reports of serious adverse health reactions relating to 
     such products. Serious reactions include death, life-
     threatening conditions, hospitalization, persistent 
     disability or incapacity, and pregnancy-related effects.
       Members of the armed forces are particularly at risk from 
     potentially harmful stimulants that are promoted for weight 
     loss and performance enhancement. Such claims ``are enticing 
     to soldiers [and other members of the armed forces] who are 
     trying to meet or maintain weight standards, improve physical 
     fitness test scores, or be competitive in specialized unit 
     requirements.''
       Between 1997 and 2001, 30 active duty personnel died after 
     taking ephedra, the most widely used stimulant at that time. 
     As a result, the Marine Corps banned the sale of dietary 
     supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids at its 
     commissaries more than two years before FDA's nationwide ban 
     became effective on April 12, 2004. The other members of the 
     Armed Forces implemented their own bans soon thereafter. 
     Although replacements for ephedra, such as bitter orange, 
     usnic acid and aristolochic acid appear to present similar 
     risks, it may take years before FDA has amassed the data 
     necessary to ban or otherwise restrict the sale of these 
     and other stimulants. We, therefore, believe that, in the 
     interim, military personnel should be protected.
       Passage of this amendment will also provide FDA with sorely 
     needed data to support restrictions on the sale of harmful 
     supplements. In July 2000, the General Accounting Office 
     concluded that:
       ``Once products reach consumers, FDA lacks an effective 
     system to track and analyze instances of adverse effects. 
     Until it has one, consumers face increased risks because the 
     nature, magnitude and significance of safety problems related 
     to consuming dietary supplements and functional foods will 
     remain unknown.''
       Similarly, a report by the Office of Inspector General (IG) 
     of the Department of Health and Human Services, Adverse Event 
     Reporting for Dietary Supplements: An Inadequate Safety 
     Valve, concludes that ``FDA receives less than 1 percent of 
     all adverse events associated with dietary supplements'' 
     under its voluntary reporting system. This under-reporting is 
     particularly problematic because, as the IG explained, 
     dietary supplements do not undergo premarket approval for 
     safety and efficacy, and the adverse event reporting system 
     is the FDA's primary means for identifying safety problems. 
     The IG, therefore, recommended that manufacturers be required 
     to report serious adverse health reactions to the FDA.
       The most recent report by the National Academy of Sciences 
     Institute of Medicine underscores the necessity of passing 
     such legislation. As the report explained, ``[e]ven though 
     they are natural products, herbs contain biological and 
     chemical properties that may lead to rare, acute or chronic 
     adverse effects.'' Therefore, the IOM recommended that 
     Congress strengthen ``consumer protection against all 
     potential hazards'' and called for legislation to require 
     that a manufacturer or distributor report to the FDA in a 
     timely manner any serious event associated with the use of 
     its marketed product of which the manufacturer or distributor 
     is aware. Adverse event reports are an essential source of 
     ``signals'' that there may be a safety concern warranting 
     further examination.
       While we believe the FDA should be given new authority to 
     ensure that all supplements are safe before they are sold 
     regardless of whether they are sold at military 
     installations, and to promptly remove unsafe products from 
     the market, the measures in this bill are an important first 
     step towards evaluating the safety of dietary supplements now 
     on the market. We, therefore, believe that the legislation 
     should be enacted.
           Sincerely,
                                                Bruce Silverglade,
                                        Director of Legal Affairs.
                                              Ilene Ringel Heller,
     Senior Staff Attorney.
                                  ____



                             American Osteopathic Association,

                                    Washington, DC, July 20, 2005.
     Hon. Richard Durbin,
     Democratic Whip, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Durbin: As President of the American 
     Osteopathic Association (AOA), I am pleased to inform you of 
     our support for the ``Make Our Armed Forces Safe and Healthy 
     (MASH) Act.'' We appreciate your willingness to offer this 
     provision as an amendment to the ``Fiscal Year 2006 
     Department of Defense Appropriations Act'' (H.R. 2863). The 
     AOA and the 54,000 osteopathic physicians it represents, 
     extends its gratitude to you for introducing this important 
     amendment.
       The AOA continues to evaluate the impact of increased use 
     of dietary supplements and other ``natural'' products upon 
     the patients we serve. Over the past ten years we have seen a 
     steady increase in utilization of dietary supplements by 
     consumers. As a result, we are increasingly concerned about 
     the unregulated manner in which many of these products are 
     produced, marketed, and sold.
       As evidenced by a 1999 study conducted by the U.S. Army 
     Research Institute for Environmental Medicine, the use of 
     dietary supplements is a significant health care issue for 
     American soldiers. A similar study conducted by the 
     Department of the Navy found that overall seventy-three 
     percent of personnel reported a history of supplement use, 
     with the number as high as eighty nine percent of Marines 
     reported using supplements. These studies demonstrate the 
     prevalence of these products among our men and women in 
     uniform.
       The AOA believes that it would be beneficial for consumers 
     and physicians to have an increased understanding of the 
     potential serious side effects of dietary supplements. All 
     too often patients fail to inform their physician when they 
     use one or more of these products. This leads to potential 
     interactions with prescribed medications and may obscure an 
     accurate diagnosis of an underlying condition or disease. The 
     physical rigors of the military place soldiers at an even 
     greater risk of harm caused by dietary supplements that have 
     not been properly monitored.
       The AOA supports the ability of the Food and Drug 
     Administration (FDA) to monitor dietary supplements. Your 
     amendment would take a significant step in ensuring the FDA, 
     and ultimately military personnel, physicians, and the 
     general public, become more knowledgeable with regard to 
     possible serious side effects of certain dietary supplements. 
     By requiring that the FDA receive serious adverse event 
     reports for dietary supplements sold on military 
     installations, a significant gap in knowledge about these 
     products and their effect on a person's health would be 
     closed.
       On behalf of my fellow osteopathic physicians, I pledge our 
     support for your efforts to promote the health of American 
     soldiers by confronting the issue of dietary supplements and 
     the health of our armed services. Please do not hesitate to 
     call upon the AOA or our members for assistance on this or 
     other health care issues.
           Sincerely,
                                             Philip Shettle, D.O.,
     President.
                                  ____



                                              Consumers Union,

                                                    July 21, 2005.
     Hon. Richard Durbin,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Durbin: Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer 
     Reports magazine supports your ``Make our Armed Forces 
     Healthy (``MASH'') amendment to the FY 2006 Department of 
     Defense Authorization bill. Your amendment would require 
     manufacturers that sell dietary supplements containing 
     stimulants on military installations to file reports of all 
     serious adverse events relating to the products (including 
     death, a life-threatening condition, hospitalization, 
     persistent disability or incapacity, or birth defects) with 
     the FDA.
       Many members of the military invest a lot of time and 
     attention in their physical fitness. In addition to physical 
     training, some have turned to dietary supplements--including 
     those containing stimulants--believing they may increase 
     their performance. Unfortunately, use of such stimulants too 
     often results in harm. Prior to its action banning this 
     ingredient from herbal supplements on February 11, 2004, the 
     FDA had received at least 16,961 adverse event reports 
     relating to ephedra supplements, including reports of heart 
     attacks, strokes, seizures and fatalities. Consumer Reports, 
     however, continues to strongly urge people to avoid all 
     weight-loss and energy-boosting supplements, including those 
     that are now touted as ``ephedra-free.''
       As reported in the January 2004 issue of Consumer Reports, 
     herbal supplements that are labeled `ephedra-free' are not 
     necessarily safer than ephedra. Many include similar central 
     nervous stimulants, such as synephrine-containing bitter 
     orange (citrus aurantium) that not only are structurally 
     similar to ephedrine, but also affect the body in similar 
     ways. Because there is no required pre-market safety 
     evaluation for those products, consumers have no assurance 
     that the problems experienced by ephedra users will not 
     continue with a switch to ephedra-free products.
       We therefore commend you for crafting this amendment that 
     will better ensure that the military--and the broader 
     public--is informed about the potential harms that can

[[Page S8638]]

     result from the use of these products. Thank you again for 
     your sponsorship.
           Sincerely,
                                               Janell Mayo Duncan,
                               Legislative and Regulatory Counsel.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I report to my colleagues that my 
amendment has been endorsed by the American Medical Association, the 
American Dietetic Association, the American Osteopathic Association, 
Consumers Union, Center for Science in the Public Interest, the 
American Society for Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, as well as 
two individuals, Michelle Skinlo of Mattoon, IL, mother of 31-year-old 
Hillary Spitz, who had a seizure in 2000 and continues to suffer long-
term debilitation because of ephedra, and Kevin Riggins of Lincoln, IL, 
father of 16-year-old Sean Riggins, a high school football player who 
died after taking ephedra. The tragedy of these families does not need 
to be replicated, certainly on the military bases, across America.
  I urge my colleagues support my amendment.
  Pursuant to my earlier request, I ask the amendment be set aside and 
we return to the regular business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the regular order.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I very much need to accommodate Senators 
on both sides of the aisle with a short unanimous consent request.
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield for that purpose.
  Mr. WARNER. This is a matter the ranking member and I have worked on.
  I ask unanimous consent that between the hours of 4:30 and 6:30 
tonight the amendment by Mr. Lugar be brought up with 1 hour on each 
side, with the hour in opposition under the control of Mr. Kyl, with a 
rollcall vote immediately following.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, to clarify that, regardless of what is 
pending, at 4:30, we will move to the Lugar amendment, and we will vote 
on that amendment at 6:30, and then return to whatever the pending 
matters are.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator. There are no second degrees.
  Mr. LEVIN. Right.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry:
  I wanted to make time for the Hutchison-Nelson amendment to come 
after Senator Durbin and before the 4:30 amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to engage the Senator from Maine 
and the Senator from New Jersey. We have a unanimous consent request 
from our colleague from Texas. Would the Senator from Texas repeat that 
for the Senator from Maine.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I was under the impression that 
Senator Nelson and I would be able to offer our sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment following Senator Durbin.
  Mr. WARNER. Would the Senator from Maine advise the chairman as to 
when you would resume your debate with the Senator from New Jersey?
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I have offered a second-degree amendment. 
I have asked for the yeas and nays on it. I believe that the floor 
staff is trying to set up the vote on the alternative approaches. It 
may well be appropriate for the Senator from Texas to go ahead while we 
are considering those things.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank our colleague.
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, we have a lot of amendments 
now that have been set aside. If the Senator from Texas is asking that 
she could introduce a sense-of-the-Senate amendment and put it in order 
and then it be set aside immediately and taken up at a later time, I 
will have no objection. Because other amendments are waiting to be 
disposed of, I could not agree that her amendment come ahead of other 
amendments.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Whatever is the pleasure of the chairman and ranking 
member.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask the Chair to restate the unanimous consent request 
which we are ready to accede to on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Consent has been granted for 2 hours of debate 
on the Lugar amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Yes. The Senator from Texas can state her request.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Nelson and I be able to offer our amendment following Senator Durbin 
and before Senator Lugar's amendment is considered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, my understanding of the 
request is that immediately following Senator Durbin, the Senators from 
Texas and Florida will be recognized simply to introduce a sense-of-
the-Senate amendment, which would then be set aside, and then we would 
move at 4:30 as previously authorized, and any time remaining between 
the time they offer and set aside that amendment would then go to the 
Senator from Maine and the Senator from New Jersey to continue their 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Texas.


                           Amendment No. 1357

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for herself and 
     Mr. Nelson of Florida, proposes an amendment numbered 1357.

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

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate with regard to manned 
                             space flight)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ------. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING MANNED SPACE 
                   FLIGHT.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) human spaceflight preeminence allows the United States 
     to project leadership around the world and forms an important 
     component of United States national security;
       (2) continued development of human spaceflight in low-Earth 
     orbit, on the Moon, and beyond adds to the overall national 
     strategic posture;
       (3) human spaceflight enables continued stewardship of the 
     region between the earth and the Moon--an area that is 
     critical and of growing national and international security 
     relevance;
       (4) human spaceflight provides unprecedented opportunities 
     for the United States to lead peaceful and productive 
     international relationships with the world community in 
     support of United States security and geo-political 
     objectives;
       (5) a growing number of nations are pursuing human 
     spaceflight and space-related capabilities, including China 
     and India;
       (6) past investments in human spaceflight capabilities 
     represent a national resource that can be built upon and 
     leveraged for a broad range of purposes, including national 
     and economic security; and
       (7) the industrial base and capabilities represented by the 
     Space Transportation System provide a critical dissimilar 
     launch capability for the nation.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that it is in the national security interest of the United 
     States to maintain uninterrupted preeminence in human 
     spaceflight.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, 
Senator Nelson of Florida, to offer an amendment expressing the sense 
of the Senate regarding the critical nature of human spaceflight to 
America's national security.
  The day after the scheduled space shuttle launch was canceled last 
week, there were two news items that were largely overlooked by many 
who were focused on what might have caused the sensor failure which was 
the basis for stopping the countdown to launch.
  One of these was an announcement by the Chinese space agency that 
they planned to launch their second manned spaceflight in October 
aboard their Shenzhou spacecraft. The other was the announcement by the 
Russian space agency that they were initiating full-scale development 
of their clipper space vehicle, a small shuttle-like space vehicle 
capable of taking several people into orbit, a sort of winged 
supplement to their existing Soyuz launch vehicles.
  Whether these announcements were calculated to remind the world that 
the space shuttle and the United States do not represent the only 
avenue by which humans can fly to space is debatable. My purpose in 
mentioning them, however, is to remind my colleagues that space is not 
the exclusive province of the United States, that there is increasing 
interest among technically advanced nations of the world in developing 
and maintaining the ability to conduct human spaceflight missions. Not 
all of those nations share the same values and

[[Page S8639]]

principles as our country, and they may not have the same motivations 
for advancing their independent capability for human spaceflight.
  Space represents the new modern definition of the high ground that 
has historically been a significant factor in defense strategy. 
Virtually all of our military actions in recent years have made 
dramatic use of space-based assets in conducting those important 
operations in the course of pursuing national security and foreign 
policy. Satellite targeting, surveillance and intelligence gathering, 
use of radio frequencies and communications all result from our ability 
to explore in space.
  In recent years, we have witnessed a growing entrepreneurial interest 
in developing access to space for humans and cargo. We recently passed 
out of the Commerce Committee a NASA reauthorization bill which will 
provide guidance for our space program at a critical time, a time when 
we have multiple demands on limited resources.
  During our consideration of this bill and during hearings, it became 
clear that we must think of manned spaceflight in terms of national 
security, as well as science and exploration. For these reasons, I 
believe it is important that in the context of this Defense 
authorization bill, we express the sense of the Senate that we 
recognize the important and vital role of human spaceflight in the 
furtherance of our national security interests, and that we reaffirm 
our commitment to retaining our Nation's leadership role in the growing 
international human spaceflight community of nations.
  Great nations discover and explore. Great nations cross oceans, 
settle frontiers, renew their heritage and spirits, and create greater 
freedom and opportunity for the world. Great nations must also remain 
on the front edge of technologically advanced programs to maintain 
their security edge.
  Today we recognize one such program. We have an international outpost 
in space. We are on a path to establish a permanent presence on the 
Moon. Let us stand united to recognize the inexorable link and 
importance of human spaceflight in our national security.
  I hope my colleagues will support this important statement that says 
keeping our dominance in space is a matter of national security for our 
country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I join with my colleague, the 
distinguished Senator from Texas, who serves as the Chair of our 
Science and Space Subcommittee and of which I have the privilege of 
being the ranking member. The timing of this amendment is propitious 
because the problem on the shuttle has been found and the count will 
start shortly. Next Tuesday morning at 10:39 a.m., if all goes as well 
as we certainly hope, we will see the space shuttle launch into the 
Florida sky after having been down for 2\1/2\ years after the mistakes 
that should not have been made that took down Columbia, and that 18 
years earlier had taken down Challenger.
  We have a new leader, Michael Griffith, and he is doing a good job. I 
can tell you that the team is ready and they have scrubbed this orbiter 
and this stack as it has never been scrubbed before. Even though 
spaceflight is risky business, they are ready to go. It is an 
acceptable risk because of the benefits we gather from it.
  What this amendment does--and I want to say a word about our two 
colleagues who lead our Armed Services Committee who I think will 
accept this amendment--it simply says: It is the sense of the Senate 
that it is in the national interest of the United States to 
maintain uninterrupted preeminence in human spaceflight.

  Why? Why are we saying that? Because we could be in a posture that if 
the space shuttle is shut down in 2010, which is the timeline, and if 
we did not soon thereafter come with a new vehicle to have human access 
to space, the new what is called the crew exploration vehicle, which 
will be a follow-on--it may be in part a derivative of the shuttle 
stack vehicle, but it will be more like a capsule harkening back to the 
old days where you have a blunt end that has an ablative heat shield 
that will burn off in the fiery heat of reentry--that if we don't watch 
out and we have a hiatus between when we shut down the space shuttle 
and when the new vehicle flies, one originally that was planned by NASA 
to be 4 years, which meant it was going to be 6, 7, or 8 years, then we 
don't have an American vehicle to get into space.
  If that is not bad enough, who knows what the geopolitics of planet 
Earth is going to be in the years 2011 to 2018. We may find that those 
vehicles we rely on to get today, for example, to the space station, 
when we are down with the American vehicle, may be aligned with 
somebody else. That is why we want to make sure we have that other 
vehicle ready about the time we shut down the space shuttle so we will 
have human access to this international space station and reap the 
benefits, once it is fully constructed, of all the experimentation and 
the processing of materials we can uniquely do in the microgravity of 
Earth's orbit.
  That is the importance, in this Senator's mind, of this resolution.
  Before I turn back to my colleague, I want to say a word about our 
leadership on the Armed Services Committee, and I want the Senator from 
Virginia to hear this. I want him to know what a great example he and 
the Senator from Michigan set for the rest of us in the way these two 
Senators work together so problems that could be so thorny are usually 
ironed out, especially in dealing with such matters of great importance 
to our country, such as the defense interests of our country.
  The way they have worked this is nothing short of miraculous. I would 
call them Merlin the Magicians. I thank them for the leadership they 
have shown us.
  I associate myself with remarks made earlier on the TRICARE amendment 
for the Guard and Reserves. So often my colleagues have heard me speak 
with such great pride about the Florida National Guard. They were first 
into Iraq. They were in Iraq before the war started because they were 
in there with the special operations troops. For us to give them the 
health care through TRICARE is exceptionally important.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Florida. I am the Chair and he the ranking member on the Commerce 
Subcommittee on Space and Science. I so appreciate the opportunity to 
express this sense-of-the-Senate amendment. I hope my colleagues will 
support it because I do believe that human spaceflight is as much a 
part of our national security as anything we do. We see the preeminence 
we have in our military because of precision-guided missiles, because 
of the ability to execute surveillance and intelligence gathering to an 
extent we never have been able to before we explored space and were 
able to put satellites there.
  The idea that we would consider a hiatus in our opportunities to put 
humans in space is one that is unacceptable to me and to my ranking 
member. We hope the sense-of-the-Senate amendment will be adopted to 
acknowledge and assure that space exploration is shown to be a part of 
our national security interests. It is essential that we not, in any 
way, ever let our eye get off that ball, that we must have dominance in 
space if we are going to keep our preeminence in national defense.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, may I just make one further 
comment? It is interesting at the very time we are talking about space, 
we have America's true national hero on the Senate floor, a former 
colleague of the Senate, John Glenn, who blazed the trail for 
everybody. When he climbed on that Atlas rocket, he knew there was a 
20-percent chance that it was going to blow up. Yet that is the kind of 
risk that he took so that all of us in America that followed could have 
these wonderful benefits.
  I want to note the presence on the floor of former Senator Glenn.
  (Applause.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first let me say how delighted that I know 
I am--I know every Member who is on the floor now is, and every Member 
would be if they were on the floor--just taking a look at a dear friend 
and a former colleague of ours who just walked on the floor. When John 
Glenn

[[Page S8640]]

is in our presence, it lifts all of us. The way he lifted up this 
Nation, he still provides a great lift to each and every one of us. And 
his beloved wife and our beloved friend, Annie, does the same when she 
is at his side. So it is great to see former Senator Glenn again.
  I also want to thank Senator Nelson for his remarks. I must say we 
are blessed--and I know Senator Warner feels the same way I do--that 
the members of our committee work so well together, but we are 
particularly blessed when we have members such as Bill Nelson of 
Florida who fight for so many issues not just for Florida but for the 
Nation.
  He mentioned TRICARE. He has been on that issue as long as anybody I 
can remember. As it happened, we passed that perhaps when he was not 
even on the Senate floor today, but I know he has been a strong 
supporter and his advocacy has made all the difference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join my colleague in thanking former 
Senator Glenn for coming back and joining the longstanding tradition of 
the Senate, and a proper one. A former Senator is always welcome back 
on the floor. There is the desk at which he sat these many years, and 
as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
  I never heard about the blowup thing before, but I can say I have 
seen the Senator sit in that chair and blow up this place many times in 
his long distinguished career and fight for the things in which he 
believed. We send the best to you, dear friend, and your lovely wife 
Annie, and wish you well. Return many times.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the chairman would yield, there is an issue on the 
floor today, in addition to the pending sense-of-the-Senate resolution 
about keeping men in space. We have a pending amendment that is going 
to be offered by Senator Lugar that has to do with nonproliferation, 
Nunn-Lugar, trying to make it possible for us to see if we cannot 
reduce the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I 
think the Member of the Senate who probably pioneered in the effort to 
prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was John Glenn, 
who happens to be on the Senate floor at this particular moment. 
Senator Lugar is now here. Under our UC, he will be offering his 
amendment. But the effort of Senator Lugar to try to control weapons of 
mass destruction, to lock them up, to make sure that there are no loose 
nukes, that Senator Nunn and so many others joined in, was actually a 
subject which was very close to the heart and very much on the lips of 
John Glenn when he was here as a Senator.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this point in time under the UC, there 
is 2 hours equally divided between the distinguished Senator from 
Indiana, Mr. Lugar, and Mr. Kyl, who will soon be on the floor, and 
myself.
  I would say to Senator Lugar, I find myself in a bit of an awkward 
position at this time in opposition because I remember the breakfast 
that Sam Nunn had in the Armed Services Committee office when the first 
concept of Nunn-Lugar was adopted and how grateful all of us are for 
the Senator's continued service in these many years ensuing to make 
this very important program effective not only for this country, the 
citizens of Russia, and the former Soviet Union but also the world. I 
thank the Senator from Indiana.


                           Amendment No. 1380

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Indiana is recognized to offer an amendment.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend, John 
Warner, for his very thoughtful comments about the origin of the 
program and the initial bipartisan breakfast of Senators that in the 
latter stages of the 1991 session made possible the cooperative threat 
reduction legislation.
  I am honored that Senator John Glenn and Annie are likewise 
witnessing the program today, along with our distinguished colleagues, 
Senator Warner and Senator Levin, who have meant so much to all of us 
in formulating the defense policy.
  I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senators Levin, 
Obama, Lott, Jeffords, Nelson of Florida, Voinovich, Dodd, Leahy, 
Nelson of Nebraska, Murkowski, Kennedy, Chafee, Collins, Alexander, 
Allen, Salazar, Hagel, DeWine, Reed, Dorgan, Mikulski, Biden, Stabenow, 
Bingaman, Akaka, and Lautenberg, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], for himself, Mr. 
     Levin, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Obama, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Nelson of 
     Florida, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Nelson of 
     Nebraska, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Chafee, Ms. 
     Collins, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Allen, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Hagel, 
     Mr. DeWine, Mr. Reed, Mr. Dorgan, Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Mikulski, 
     Mr. Biden, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Akaka, Mr. 
     Lautenberg, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Enzi, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1380.

  Mr. LUGAR. 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 improve authorities to address urgent nonproliferation 
         crises and United States nonproliferation operations)

       On page 302, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 1306. REMOVAL OF CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON PROVISION OF 
                   COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Repeal of Restrictions.--
       (1) Soviet nuclear threat reduction act of 1991.--Section 
     211(b) of the Soviet Nuclear Threat Reduction Act of 1991 
     (title II of Public Law 102-228; 22 U.S.C. 2551 note) is 
     repealed.
       (2) Cooperative threat reduction act of 1993.--Section 
     1203(d) of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 1993 
     (title XII of Public Law 103-160; 22 U.S.C. 5952(d)) is 
     repealed.
       (3) Russian chemical weapons destruction facilities.--
     Section 1305 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65; 22 U.S.C. 5952 note) is 
     repealed.
       (b) Inapplicability of other restrictions.--
       Section 502 of the Freedom for Russia and Emerging Eurasian 
     Democracies and Open Markets Support Act of 1992 (Public Law 
     102-511; 106 Stat. 3338; 22 U.S.C. 5852) shall not apply to 
     any Cooperative Threat Reduction program.

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I likewise would like to ask that Senator 
Feinstein and Senator Enzi be added as cosponsors of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, my amendment is based upon S. 313, the 
Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 2005, which I first 
offered in November 2004 and reintroduced this January. It is focused 
on facilitating implementation of the program and removing some of the 
self-imposed restrictions that complicate or delay the destruction of 
weapons of mass destruction. By self-imposed, I mean restrictions 
imposed by our Government on our programs which bring about delay, 
sometimes very severe delay, at a time that we take seriously the war 
on terrorism, and the need, as a matter of fact, to bring under control 
materials and weapons of mass destruction as rapidly and as certainly 
as possible.
  In essence, I am going to argue in various forms during the next few 
minutes that the United States of America, contrary to almost all 
common sense, imposes upon itself the need to examine year by year 
specifically Russian cooperation, Russian money, whether moneys are 
fungible; that is, moneys that are spent by the United States to work 
with Russians to destroy weapons of mass destruction in Russia and 
elsewhere, whether we are, in fact, serious about this.
  If we came to a conclusion that for some reason the Russians had not 
spent precisely the amount of money that we think they ought to spend, 
does any Senator believe we at that point should stop taking warheads 
off of missiles, should stop trying to get control of weapons of mass 
destruction in the chemical and biological areas? Of course not. We 
have constructed for 14 years an extraordinary situation in which from 
time to time Senators, some of whom had come new to the floor, were not 
here during the end of the Cold War or any of the Cold War for that 
matter, and said simply: We are suspicious of Russians. We are not sure 
we ought to be helping them at all. Why should they not destroy 40,000 
metric tons of chemical weapons? Why should they not pay for it? They 
made their bed. Let them sleep in it. In essence, if they do not 
destroy it, that is their problem.

[[Page S8641]]

  Long ago, as Senator Warner pointed out, we found it was our problem. 
The 13,300 nuclear warheads were aimed at us, sometimes 10 warheads to 
a missile--multiple reentry vehicles they were called. That is the 
problem. We thought, as a matter of fact, for our safety, after a half 
century, it was useful to work with Russians who came to visit with 
Senator Nunn and with me and who asked for our help. They said: We have 
a problem in Russia, but you have a problem, too. Those warheads are 
aimed at your cities and they are still up there on the missiles, and 
the tactical warheads are still out there, and privateers as the Red 
Army breaks up could cart them off on flat bed trucks to Iran, Iraq, 
Libya, wherever there is a market for them.
  As a matter of fact, the Wall Street Journal helpfully published an 
article about how one could take a missile out on a flat bed truck. So 
this was not rocket science. Even at that time people were still 
putting on stipulations.
  Why does that matter? It matters because at the beginning of each new 
budget year the President of the United States and various agencies 
involved have to go through thousands of bureaucratic hours examining 
all of the stipulations that have been added by some Member of the 
House or Senate over the years to try to divine whether there has been 
proper compliance.
  At the end of the day, the law now states--and in fairness, the 
Senate Armed Services Committee has provided--that there will be a 
permanent waiver authority.
  After all of these thousands of hours of bureaucratic hassling, the 
President can finally say: Listen, we are in a war on terror. Let's get 
on with it. But, apparently, the President would be hard-pressed to do 
that before going through all the machinations.
  I am just saying, it is time to take seriously weapons of mass 
destruction, materials of mass destruction. It is time to get over the 
thought that somehow or another the Russians may or may not be 
cooperative because the fact is, it is our program, cooperation with 
the Russians, that has brought about at this point some remarkable 
results.
  Let me recite some of those results. During the last 14 years, the 
Nunn-Lugar program has deactivated or destroyed 6,624 nuclear warheads; 
580 ICBMs; 477 ICBM silos; 21 ICBM mobile missile launchers; 147 
bombers--these were the transcontinental bombers that could have 
carried nuclear weapons across the oceans to us, and they have been 
destroyed--789 nuclear air-to-surface missiles; 420 submarine missile 
launchers; 546 submarine launched missiles; 28 nuclear submarines; 194 
nuclear test tunnels.
  Perhaps most importantly, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, who 
emerged from the former Soviet Union situation as the third, fourth, 
and eighth largest nuclear weapons powers in the world, all three are 
now free as a result of the cooperative threat reduction program, the 
so-called Nunn-Lugar program, of nuclear weapons.
  This did not happen easily. In each of the years in which these 
destructive efforts with regard to the former Soviet ICBMs and cruise 
missiles and what have you came about, there had to be competitive 
bidding conducted by the Department of Defense. In every year, this was 
delayed because, once again, each of the stipulations added by a 
Senator or Member of the House had to be examined and had to be met.
  In some years, in the early parts of the program, waivers were not 
available; waivers never occurred. The fiscal year ran out and nothing 
happened in many programs. I find it incomprehensible why, at this 
particular point in history, after 14 years of this experience, there 
are still Members who would argue we still should go through the 
thousands of hours of bureaucratic hassles every year, even if there is 
a Presidential waiver at the end of the trail that says: Call it off. 
Let's get on with the war on terror.
  It seems to be almost a theological bent of some Members, who I 
suspect have a feeling that anything involving Russians or recipients 
of weapons of mass destruction or materials requires a whole lot of 
examination before we take the active steps to work with them to 
destroy the material.
  In any event, I commend the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, 
my friend, Senator Warner, and the ranking member, Senator Levin, for 
the important legislative efforts they have made. They have been 
steadfast in their support of the program throughout the years. They 
played critical roles in the success of the program. This year they 
have brought to the floor a bill that contains full funding for Nunn-
Lugar programs, some $415 million. They also embraced one of the most 
important elements of my earlier bill, S. 313, namely the transfer of 
authority from the President to the Secretary of Defense for approval 
of Nunn-Lugar projects outside the former Soviet Union.
  In 2003, Congress authorized the President to use up to $50 million 
in Nunn-Lugar funds for operations outside the former Soviet Union. The 
legislation requires the President to certify that the utilization of 
the Nunn-Lugar funds outside the former Soviet Union will address a 
dangerous proliferation threat or achieve a longstanding 
nonproliferation opportunity in a short period of time.
  President Bush used this authority to authorize the destruction of 16 
tons of chemical weapons in Albania. Let me say the Albanian experience 
is instructive, not only because good results occurred, but the very 
circumstances require the Senate, it seems to me, to focus on the world 
in which we live. Word came to officers in the Pentagon, in the 
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, from authorities in Albania last 
year, 2004, that weapons of mass destruction were in Albania, 
specifically chemical weapons of mass destruction. This was a surprise 
to our authorities, quite apart from Members of this body. I was 
privileged to accompany members of our Armed Forces and members of the 
Albanian Armed Forces on a trip into the mountains outside of Tirana, 
the capital city of Albania. Up in the mountains we came upon 
canisters. We saw a number of them. As a matter of fact, by the time 
the compilation was completed, 16 tons of chemical weapons, nerve gas, 
were discovered in Albania.
  We had a program, because we had adopted it a short time before, in 
which we knew that $50 million might be allocated outside the former 
Soviet Union. Obviously we were going to need that program. But the 
dilemma immediately was that a number of signoffs was required. Members 
will recall we were in an election year in 2004. We were able to get 
signatures ultimately from the Secretary of State. It was very 
difficult for people at the White House to accumulate the papers and 
requirements for President Bush to sign off, but eventually he did. But 
nevertheless, it was roughly a 60-day period from time of discovery.
  In this particular instance, a $20 million program of neutralization 
will eventually take care of that risk, and it is a very substantial 
one. But my point is it will not be the last one.
  I commend the Armed Services Committee for recognizing the need for 
expedited review and decisionmaking when it comes to these emergency 
situations. This may be an instance in the war against terror in which 
we had success, and we had success beyond that. While we were up in the 
mountains, the Albanian soldiers took us by sheds in which there were 
79 Manpad missiles. As part of the good will of that expedition, they 
agreed to destroy those in September of 2004, and they did so.
  Furthermore, as another feature, the next day when we were out of the 
mountains, in the office of the Minister of Defense of Albania, he 
talked about his plans for a military academy, a modest beginning at 
least of training of young officers, with one of the skills to be 
required a facility in the English language. In essence, they wanted to 
continue talking to us and continue working with us so there would be 
fewer and fewer surprises.
  I would contend in the war against terror we are going to have many 
surprises and we better have very rapid responses. I thank the drafters 
of the legislation we are considering today for their consideration of 
this.
  Let me say the problem of the overall situation in Russia remains as 
confounding as before. It is a peculiar thought that some of the 
programs of the Cooperative Reduction Program that occur in the 
Department of State and Department of Energy do not have these 
stipulations. They are literally a hangover from the first Nunn-Lugar

[[Page S8642]]

debates in 1981--people suspicious of Russia, still suspicious of 
Russia, and believing, because they are exercising their suspicions of 
the Russians, that somehow this has something to do with destruction of 
weapons of mass destruction. We have to get over that and that is the 
purpose of this debate today, to try to get on and try to understand 
the world in which we live, including Russia.

  The question finally is, what national security benefit do these so-
called certification requirements provide the American people? Do these 
conditions I would advocate terminating make it easier or harder to 
eliminate weapons of mass destruction in Russia--or elsewhere, for that 
matter? Do the conditions make it more likely or less likely that 
weapons are going to be eliminated? It would be hard to argue logically 
that putting more and more conditions upon action help us in destroying 
weapons and materials of mass destruction. They obviously hinder us. In 
some years they stopped us for months. We did this to ourselves. We 
continue to do it to ourselves, year after year.
  Congress imposed an additional six conditions on construction of the 
chemical weapons destruction program at Shchuch'ye, after imposing all 
of the other conditions with regard to nuclear weapons in Russia. These 
conditions include, No. 1, full and accurate Russian declaration on the 
size of its chemical weapons stockpile. Experts have argued for 14 
years over whether Russia has specifically 40,000 metric tons of 
chemical weapons or something more or less, and we will be arguing 
about it every year so long as we have a stipulation that we have to 
have this argument. Some will claim that Russia has never made a full 
declaration of all of it. But, nevertheless, it is not a good reason 
for stopping the program, because we are dissatisfied with whether the 
Russians have come clean on every pound--or ton, for that matter--when 
there are 40,000 metric tons we know of that need to be destroyed.
  No. 2, every year we have to talk about allocation by Russia of at 
least $25 million--its equivalent in Russian currency--to chemical 
weapons elimination. We also argue about whether Russia has developed a 
practical plan for destroying the stockpile of nerve agents and whether 
enactment of a law by Russia that provides for elimination of all nerve 
agents at a single site is valid.
  We have been arguing about the single site problem for quite a while. 
We have at this point, I suspect, a general summation that probably 
chemical weapons will be destroyed at three sites. I simply point these 
things out because in order each year to start up the program, all of 
these arguments must go back through the bureaucracy. Somebody must 
certify that the Russians have, in fact, appropriated $25 million, that 
they have made a full declaration--40,000 metric tons or more; that we 
wish they would do it all in one place, and we are still arguing with 
them over that.
  In essence, what is the alternative? Let us say that for some reason 
someone contends at the time Russians have 41,000 tons. Is this a good 
reason to delay any destruction, any further security in our benefit? 
Not at all. That is the essence of what we are talking about today--
stipulations that long ago were obsolete, were, if not a figment of 
someone's imagination on the floor of the Senate, a deliberate, 
provocative act to get an argument going with the Russians that could 
never in fact be consummated. I suggest that some have said, well, at 
worst the certification process is simply an annoyance; that by this 
time in history we go through the process every year and the 
predictable arguments are made, the thousands of hours are spent, 
reports are filed, they are bumped up from one desk to the next, and 
then ultimately at the end of the trail the President waives the whole 
business and we get on with the program.
  While well-intentioned, these conditions, in my judgment, seriously 
delay and complicate constructive efforts to destroy weapons of mass 
destruction.
  I get back to this again. If the No. 1 security threat facing our 
country is weapons of mass destruction, the security of those weapons, 
the destruction of those weapons, we cannot permit delays in our 
response.
  I was interested last year, as I know you were, Mr. President, in a 
very vigorous debate between President George Bush and our colleague, 
Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. But one thing on which the 
President and Senator Kerry agreed was that the No. 1 national threat 
was what we are talking about today: weapons of mass destruction, 
proliferation of those into the hands of terrorists. They agreed this 
is the essence of what all of our defense business is about, 
ultimately. All I am suggesting is, given the urgency of this, the 
illogic of delaying, deliberately delaying on our part, 
bureaucratically, year after year, even if finally, as I say, at the 
end of the day we give the President the right to waive the whole thing 
and say, enough of this, get on with it--we must finally come to grips, 
and this amendment does, and that is what the argument is about today--
to eliminate these barriers that are self-imposed and that I believe 
are destructive to our national security.
  Let me make a point. In 2002--to get the facts--the Bush 
administration withheld certification for Russia because of the 
concerns about chemical and biological weapons arenas. President Bush 
recognized the predicament. The President said, How can we get out of 
this predicament? And he requested waiver authority for the 
congressionally imposed conditions. While awaiting a temporary waiver 
to be authorized in law, the new Nunn-Lugar projects were stalled, and 
no new contracts could be finalized from April 16, 2002, to August 9, 
2002. This delay--and this is just 3 years ago--caused numerous 
disarmament projects in Russia to be put on hold, including, 
specifically, installation of security enhancements at 10 nuclear 
weapons storage sites, initiation of the dismantlement of two strategic 
missile submarines, 30 submarine launched ballistic missiles, and 
initiation of the dismantlement of the SS-24 rail mobile and the SS-25 
road mobile ICBMs and launchers--all of these deliberately delayed by 
us. We did this ourselves. This is what these restrictions are about. 
Clearly, these projects were in our national security interest at the 
beginning of April and August when we finally got on with it. But they 
were delayed because of self-imposed conditions and the bureaucratic 
redtape that we have continually perpetrated year after year after 
year.

  The second period of delays began when the fiscal year started, 
October 1, 2002--back into it all over again--with the expiration of 
the temporary waiver that lasted only until September 30, 2002. Again, 
U.S. national security suffered with the postponement of critical 
dismantlement of security activities for some 6 additional weeks until 
the Congress acted.
  Unfortunately, the events of 2002, although they are fairly recent, 
are reminiscent of what occurred in the years prior to that. They are 
the rule. In some years, as a matter of fact, Nunn-Lugar funds were not 
available for expenditure until more than half of the fiscal year had 
passed and weapons of mass destruction slated for dismantlement awaited 
the U.S. bureaucratic process. This means the program during those 
times was denied funds for large portions of the year. The bureaucracy 
continued to generate reams of paper and yet ultimately produced an 
outcome that was never in doubt; namely, that it is in the national 
security interest of our country to destroy weapons of mass destruction 
in Russia and elsewhere.
  Let me say, finally, Mr. President, this certification consumes not 
only hundreds of man-hours in the Defense Department but in the State 
Department, in the intelligence community, and the energy community. 
Obviously the time could better be spent tackling the problems of 
proliferation where, in fact, the materials are--where are the Albanias 
of the future; identifying the next A.Q. Kahn in Pakistan and that 
network, locating hidden stocks of chemical and biological weapons, as 
many of us have attempted to do.
  Mr. President, let me add as a personal thought, it is apparent, I 
suspect, with the urgency with which I approach this that I take it 
seriously, and I do, and I think a majority of Senators do. I plan to 
visit Russia again in August, as I have each year for the last 14. I 
plan to visit Ukraine. I hope to go to Azerbaijan. I hope to go to 
other countries that I think might develop

[[Page S8643]]

during those trips. It has been my experience that while in Russia, 
Russians came to me and asked would I like to visit Sevmash, Sevmash 
being where the Typhoon submarines are. No American has been invited to 
Sevmash. There have been no invitations to anyone to destroy six 
Typhoon submarines. I said: Of course, I would like to go to Sevmash. 
And I did go to Sevmash. Russians took pictures of submarines, 
including one of me standing in front of a large Typhoon, and in due 
course they sent the pictures to me. I must say, this was the best view 
that our authorities had had of a Typhoon in some time.
  Now, the fact is, it is cooperative threat reduction. There was no 
particular reason for the Typhoons to come into play at that particular 
moment, nor for other submarine programs on other occasions. But the 
nature of the dialog, in fact, if there is engagement, has been to 
bring about revelations and finally additional cooperation.
  I make that point because the gist of all these controls is a 
supposition that the Russians will be uncooperative, that they will 
hide what they have, and in some cases they have. On another occasion, 
I tried to get into a bioweapons situation and was denied that access. 
They told us the Air Force plane could take off, but it would not be 
able to land. In due course they changed their minds but not totally, 
and I took this up with the Defense Minister in Moscow. He admitted 
bureaucracy in Russia sometimes creates problems for him and for 
Russians who want to be cooperative.
  I mention these situations anecdotally because as far as I am 
concerned there is a hands-on operation. This is something personal. I 
have been there, I have seen, I have worked, and this is why, perhaps, 
I become so infuriated with people who are determined, 
bureaucratically, to block it, year after year to delay it, until 
finally out of exasperation, we have adopted waivers so that somehow we 
can get on with our own national security.
  But this is the debate today. Those who want to get rid of the 
bureaucracy and the stipulations will vote in favor of the Lugar 
amendment, and those who want to keep all of this can vote against it, 
and we will have an up-or-down vote because this is a critical national 
security objective. I cannot put it more directly or more simply.
  The delays have given on occasion, if there were those in Russia who 
wished to hide whatever they have, an opportunity simply to blame the 
United States for slow program implementation as we took the spotlight 
off of failure on the other side with our friends in Russia. Therefore, 
Mr. President, I am hopeful that this amendment will have very strong 
support. I am grateful for Senators who have, in fact, cosponsored the 
amendment as well as the original bill.
  I would conclude by indicating that during my talk today, Senators 
Rockefeller, McCain, Bennett, Lautenberg, Murray, and Schumer have all 
asked to be added as cosponsors. I thank each of these Senators for 
their cosponsorship.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from 
Secretary Rice, and this follows direct questioning of the Secretary 
during her confirmation about her support of this very objective we are 
talking about today. And she does support what I want to do.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                       The Secretary of State,

                                         Washington, June 3, 2005.
     Hon. Richard G. Lugar,
     Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate.
       Mr. Chairman: I am writing in response to your March 28 
     letter urging support for legislation that would repeal the 
     Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) certification 
     requirements.
       During my confirmation hearings, I stated that flexibility 
     in administering these extremely important programs would be 
     most welcome, and that the Administration supports 
     legislation to remove the certification requirements for 
     provision of CTR assistance. The Administration believes that 
     these programs are extremely important to U.S. national 
     security and to building a cooperative security relationship 
     with Russia and the other states in Eurasia.
       As a former student of the Soviet Union and of the Soviet 
     military, I can think of nothing more important than 
     proceeding with the safe dismantlement of the Soviet arsenal, 
     securing nuclear weapons facilities, and destroying their 
     chemical weapons. We will continue to press the Russians to 
     provide greater accountability for their chemical weapons and 
     for increased transparency of their biological weapons 
     program.
       The Administration is also willing to consider other 
     alternatives to achieve flexibility in administering these 
     programs. One possible alternative is included in the April 
     7, 2005, Defense Department transmittal to Congress of its 
     national defense authorization bill and would renew 
     permanently the authority under which existing certification 
     requirements may be waived.
       I greatly appreciate the leadership you have shown on these 
     important issues and look forward to working with you on 
     these programs.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Condoleezza Rice.

  Mr. LUGAR. Finally, I will submit additional letters that have come 
from other officials of our Government, from the National Security 
Council and the Department of Defense.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I wish to commend my very dear and longtime friend, 
Senator Lugar--as I said, I was here when this program was initiated--
and our esteemed former colleague, Sam Nunn, for their vision and work 
in this very valuable program.
  Through the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program the United States 
has, since 1991, been providing assistance to states of the former 
Soviet Union to help them eliminate and safeguard weapons of mass 
destruction and related infrastructure materials. These programs helped 
to eliminate large Cold War stockpiles and dangerous weapons that were 
no longer needed. Today, this program is an important element in the 
continuance of our strategy to keep weapons of mass destruction and the 
know-how from falling into hands antithetical to the interests of those 
who are trying to fight terrorism and preserve freedom.
  When Congress first authorized the Cooperative Threat Reduction 
Program, an important element of the authorizing legislation was the 
inclusion of certain conditions that must be met before a country could 
receive CTR assistance from the United States.
  I was a key author of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 1993, 
which reauthorized the original Nunn-Lugar program. I was a strong 
advocate of including the requirement that, for each recipient nation 
of CTR funds, the President certify that the recipient nation is 
committed to:
  making substantial investment of its resources for dismantling or 
destroying its WMD;
  foregoing any military modernization program that exceeds legitimate 
defense requirements and foregoing the replacement of destroyed WMD;
  foregoing any use in new nuclear weapons of fissionable or other 
components of destroyed nuclear weapons;
  facilitating U.S. verification of any weapons destruction carried out 
through the CTR program;
  complying with all relevant arms control agreements; and
  observing internationally recognized human rights, including the 
protection of minorities.
  I believe these conditions remain as relevant and important today as 
they were in 1993. They provide the Congress and the public relevant 
information about the countries that are to receive taxpayer-funded 
assistance for eliminating and safeguarding weapons of mass 
destruction. The conditions help provide us confidence that U.S. tax 
dollars will be well spent in countries that are committed to right-
sizing their militaries, complying with arms control agreements, 
providing transparency regarding how CTR assistance is used, and 
respecting human rights.
  These certification requirements do not impede the provision of CTR 
assistance. For several years now, Congress has provided the President 
with waiver authority so that even if one or more of the certifications 
cannot be made for a particular country, the President may provide CTR 
assistance to that country if he certifies it is in the national 
interest to do so.
  The current waiver authority will expire in September 2005. That is 
why in this bill we have included a provision that would make permanent 
the President's authority to waive, on an annual basis, the conditions 
on provision of CTR assistance when he judges it is in the national 
security interest to do so.
  This provision for permanent waiver authority for the CTR programs 
that is

[[Page S8644]]

in our bill is what was submitted in the President's budget request to 
Congress. Only subsequently, on June 3, 2005, Secretary Rice wrote to 
Senator Lugar stating that the Administration supports legislation to 
remove the certification requirements for provision of CTR assistance. 
Her letter went on to state that the administration is also willing to 
consider alternatives including the OMB-cleared legislative request 
from the Department of Defense for a provision to renew permanently the 
authority under which existing certification requirements may be 
waived. So the administration does not oppose the existing 
congressionally-mandated certification requirements, so long as there 
remains a waiver provision.
  Senator Lugar's amendment would also repeal the conditions Congress 
placed on the provision of CTR assistance to Russia for chemical 
demilitarization activities. Those conditions were established in the 
FY 2000 National Defense Authorization Act. They required the Secretary 
of Defense to certify that Russia has:
  provided a full and accurate accounting of its chemical weapons 
stockpile;
  demonstrated a commitment to commit $25 million annually to chemical 
weapons elimination;
  developed a practical plan for destroying its stockpile of nerve 
agents;
  agreed to destroy or convert two existing chemical weapons production 
facilities; and
  demonstrated a commitment from the international community to fund 
and build infrastructure needed to support and operate the chemical 
weapons destruction facility in Russia.
  For several years the Congress decided not to support the provision 
of CTR assistance for chemical weapons destruction in Russia. It was 
precisely the inclusion of these conditions in the authorizing language 
that persuaded the Congress to resume U.S. CTR assistance for this 
important endeavor. These conditions relevant to the chemical weapons 
destruction program in Russia also have a waiver provision, so that the 
assistance can continue in the absence of certification if the 
President deems it in the national interest.
  I feel strongly that the eligibility requirements and conditions for 
CTR assistance are entirely appropriate and should not be repealed. 
They remain an important element in assuring the American taxpayer that 
CTR dollars are being expended wisely and that the underlying aims of 
the CTR program are in fact being embraced by the recipient countries. 
This is essential to maintaining strong public support for CTR.
  The waiver authority ensures that even in cases where a country does 
not meet all the eligibility requirements, the President has the 
authority to provide CTR assistance if it is in the national security 
interest to do so.
  I urge my colleagues not to support Senator Lugar's amendment to 
repeal the conditions and eligibility requirements for the CTR program. 
We all share the goal of supporting programs like CTR that can help 
keep dangerous WMD, and technology and know how, from slipping out of 
the countries of the former Soviet Union. I continue to believe that 
the certification requirements are useful in helping to maintain public 
confidence in the CTR program.
  I say to my good friend, when we initiated these criteria, it was 
done because the American public never fully quite understood how we 
could require their tax dollars, which were so badly needed for schools 
and medical needs and innumerable requirements in this country, be 
given to countries which ostensibly, if they wanted to squeeze their 
own budgets, might well obtain the funds to do it by themselves. But I 
think it was right for this country to step forward. In the history of 
this country beginning, really, with the Marshall Plan, we have gone to 
the aid of other nations, and we have been the beneficiaries, as I 
stated in my opening remarks, of the success to date of the Nunn-Lugar 
program. But still it seems to me that we have an obligation on behalf 
of the American taxpayers who continue to willingly give their dollars 
to this important program to have in place certain criteria that must 
be met in order for those dollars to leave our shores and go abroad.
  Now, this year, in consultation with Senator Lugar and the Department 
of State, we put in this bill the permanent waiver authority for the 
President. And that was important. I think that cuts down on some of 
the administrative problems and the time delays. But the fundamental 
and compelling reason to have these criteria remain is for this 
institution, the Congress of the United States, together with the 
executive branch, to monitor expenditure of these funds and to have 
that leverage to get reciprocal actions and assurances from those 
countries to which our taxpayers' dollars go.
  Mr. President, at this time I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the time I put under the control of the 
Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it is with reluctance that I urge that 
Senator Lugar's amendment be defeated. I say with reluctance because 
the spirit with which he offers this amendment is in keeping with his 
original concept, along with Senator Nunn, for providing assistance 
from the United States to countries with weapons we want to see 
eliminated, dismantled; primarily at that time the Soviet Union, now 
Russia. Through the program which was adopted which bears his name, 
Senator Lugar has helped not only to ensure the continued support for 
the program, but on a personal basis I am aware he has traveled 
frequently to these countries and personally participated in what he 
calls the hands-on implementation of the program, and in his case it 
has literally been hands on. So not only has he helped to sponsor the 
legislation, seen to it it is implemented every year, expressed 
frustration when delays have occurred--I have heard him do that--but he 
has also gone to these countries and helped to see to it that it is 
carried out in the proper way.
  It is therefore understandable when he expresses frustration at the 
fact that in the past the bureaucracy of the United States--and I am 
sure there are other reasons for this, too--has resulted in delays in 
making available funding for the program to be carried out in an 
expeditious way. We have all seen that in different kinds of programs, 
but it must be especially frustrating in this particular case.
  It was at least partially in response to that that the committee has 
offered a solution which is embodied in the bill which grants a 
permanent waiver authority for the President so that this problem of 
the past need no longer be a problem. In other words, the conditions 
that have been established that Senator Warner referred to, conditions 
for making the funds available for the dismantling of these weapons, 
can and have been waived. They can be waived and they have been waived. 
There is that authority in the law. But we go a step further in this 
bill by granting that permanent waiver authority for the President so 
that he doesn't have to rely anymore upon this slow-working bureaucracy 
to get the reports prepared, to answer the questions of whether the 
Russians have been cooperating fully, and all the other requirements 
which I will allude to in a minute. That is no longer a requirement.

  To some extent, I say with all due respect, this amendment is a 
solution in search of a problem. Whatever problem existed in the past, 
it should not exist in the future. In fact, the letter referred to from 
Secretary Rice notes that one alternative to the solution, and the 
problem that was discussed by Senator Lugar, is included in the April 
7, 2005 defense transportation transmittal to Congress of the National 
Defense authorization bill and would renew permanently the authority 
under which existing certification requirements may be waived. That is 
precisely what was included in the bill. I suspect all Members support 
that.
  The question is, Why do we need to go the step further and remove 
what have been very important conditions to the granting of this money? 
There are two reasons for these conditions, but before I discuss them, 
let me state what they are so everyone knows what we are talking about. 
The first set of these were actually instituted at least partially as a 
result of Senator Warner's work in the authorizing legislation to make 
sure that the American taxpayers knew that the money we would be 
spending on this dismantlement would, in fact, be spent wisely. It

[[Page S8645]]

is, in fact, a justification for the expenditure of taxpayer funds.
  But the conditions go further than that. What they do is tell a 
country such as Russia, for example, that we care about what they are 
doing; that, for example, we would not want to use our money to 
dismantle one of their weapons if they are going to turn right around 
and use their money and build a replacement. No one would want that to 
occur. That would not make any sense. That is one of the conditions, 
and it lets the Russians and others know that if they expect U.S. 
taxpayer assistance, they have to do their part as well. That is only 
reasonable.
  Here are the conditions: that the President certify that the 
recipient nation is committed to making substantial investment of its 
resources for dismantling or destroying WMD. It should not be a one-way 
street. It should not be just the obligation of the United States to 
help other countries dismantle their weapons.
  Second, forgoing any military modernization program that exceeds 
legitimate defense requirements and forgoing a replacement of destroyed 
WMD. That is what I referred to before. We would not want to be using 
taxpayer dollars to help Russia, for example, dismantle an aged weapons 
system, for example, only to see it use its money to replace that 
system with one that is even more robust and more threatening. That, 
obviously, is simply aiding the Russians in modernizing their forces. 
Obviously, that is not what this program is about.
  Three, forgoing any use of nuclear weapons of fissionable or other 
components of destroyed nuclear weapons. This is a key component in 
what Senator Lugar intended, and I am sure he agrees with this concept 
that we do not want them taking fissionable material out of the weapons 
we are destroying and putting them into a new weapon. That defeats the 
entire purpose of the destruction program.
  Four, facilitating U.S. verification of any weapons destruction 
carried out in the CTR Program. Obviously, if we are spending our money 
on dismantling these weapons, we have a right to at least do some 
checking to see whether it was done. When we set out to do the job, did 
it in fact get accomplished?
  I know from stories I have heard or reports I have read that the 
Russians--the Soviets before them--had an entirely different concept of 
how this might work. They have whole cities devoted to their weapons 
complex. One of their ideas was that U.S. money should be used to 
provide assistance to the people in those cities who were dismantling 
their primary means of making a living; we should provide them other 
ways of making a living and relieve the suffering they might occasion 
as a result of not having a job building these weapons anymore. That 
represented the difference of opinion about how our taxpayer dollars 
should be used and how the Russians saw it at the time.
  Another condition: complying with all relevant arms control 
agreements. Now, that ought to be a pretty minimal and bottom-line 
requirement. If we are going to be doing business with a country and 
providing taxpayer dollars to dismantle weapons, we want to make sure 
they comply with the agreements they have signed on arms control.
  Finally, observing internationally recognized human rights, including 
the protection of minorities. This is not directly related to the 
subject of the CTR, but it is something we have all agreed is an 
important goal that the United States has and a way for us to remind 
these countries that they need to be paying attention to this kind of 
issue as well as the dismantlement issue.
  These conditions are useful to continue to apply pressure to a 
country such as Russia to do the right thing, to provide assurance to 
the American taxpayer that our money is being spent appropriately, and 
also to provide Congress with the kind of information we need to ensure 
our continued support for the program. And they do, in fact, provide us 
that confidence.

  There has always been a waiver authority, and the President has 
exercised that waiver authority because, as Senator Lugar noted in the 
past, there have been delays in getting the certifications--that the 
Russians have met these requirements, for example--delays which have 
created problems in getting the resources to the country in time to do 
the dismantlement that was planned. So the President exercised that 
waiver authority.
  The current problem is that the waiver authority will expire in 
September of this year. That is one of the reasons we need to get this 
bill passed, so the waiver authority that is granted in the bill--now 
permanent authority that does not expire--will be the President's to 
exercise in the future. That will largely obviate the problem that has 
been discussed.
  The problem is not the conditions. The conditions are perfectly 
appropriate. Every Member would agree that there is nothing wrong with 
the goals of these conditions. The problem is in the implementation of 
the statute. That has apparently taken longer than it should have in 
certain cases. It has resulted in people being able to delay the 
program and perhaps not intentionally but at least unintentionally 
delaying the program because the conditions have to be certified. That 
is why the waiver has had to be used in order to get around the 
problem.
  As I said, when Secretary Rice responded to Senator Lugar's letter, 
she noted that one of the alternative solutions to the one proposed by 
Senator Lugar was this permanent waiver authority, which is what we 
have included in this bill.
  There is also a second very important aspect of this. We were having 
a hard time in using the CTR assistance for chemical weapons 
destruction in Russia. It was precisely because of that that conditions 
were specifically inserted into the law, and I will get the citation in 
a moment. But specifically, we added requirements for the CTR 
assistance to the elimination of the chemical weapons, and this program 
added conditions, and I will note for the record what those conditions 
are; it added these conditions so that we could actually begin 
providing assistance to add to the nuclear assistance the elimination 
or destruction of the chemical weapons so that program could go forward 
in Russia as well.
  The eligibility requirements, the conditions for CTR assistance, 
certainly no one would argue are inappropriate or should be repealed. 
It simply is a question of whether they have been administered in a way 
that has facilitated the implementation of the statute.
  From my point, I think they do remain an important element in 
assuring the American taxpayer that our dollars are being expended 
wisely here as well. They are also important to maintain strong public 
support for the program.
  Again, I said that it is with reluctance I oppose the amendment 
because of all the work Senator Lugar has done. No one is more keen to 
ensure that this program can work in the future than Senator Lugar. 
However, I also think we would probably all have to agree that the 
conditions themselves are totally appropriate conditions; that with the 
exception of human rights, they all pertain to the effectuation of the 
program itself; that they do serve the purpose of ensuring that 
countries such as Russia understand they have some obligations, and 
also providing information to Congress that permit us from year to year 
to continue to support the program. It is not the conditions themselves 
that are the problem; it has been the implementation of the program. 
And in the past, apparently, this has been a problem.
  The waiver authority has solved these problems but on a temporary 
basis. From now on, the President will have permanent waiver authority 
if we pass this bill. I believe that should be a solution to the 
problem that would be agreeable to all.
  Now, there may be some who want to go further and eliminate these 
conditions as well. I don't think that is necessary to make it work, 
and I do think there would be a downside for the reasons I have 
articulated.
  That is why I oppose the amendment, and I hope that the committee's 
mark, the bill we have before us, will be sustained when there is a 
vote on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, let me respond directly. I do oppose the 
conditions. The purpose of my amendment is to eliminate the conditions. 
The reason I want to eliminate the conditions, and the Senator from 
Arizona has simply

[[Page S8646]]

illustrated that in his recitation of them--for example, No. 5, 
complying with all relevant arms control agreements. That is a work of 
art every year for people to fathom whether the Russians have complied 
with every one of those agreements. The question is, What if we decide 
they have not? Is this, then, the reason we stop destroying Russian 
warheads, missiles, submarines? Just stop cold because we say the 
Russians, in our judgment--and there is usually a debate among those in 
the Pentagon about this--have not got it quite right?
  Even more, No. 6, observing internationally recognized human rights, 
including the protection of minorities, I am not certain that almost 
any Senate or administration official has ever come to a conclusion 
that the Russians have been observing all internationally recognized 
human rights for 14 years. Yet someone is still arguing we ought to 
leave that on the statute books as a reason the bureaucrats in our 
country ponder about the human rights conditions in Russia for as many 
weeks and so forth until the President says: We have had enough, I 
waive it, let's get on.
  To suggest that it is extreme to leave these situations on the books, 
it seems to me, is not at all logical given our own activity and the 
fact that we are fighting a war on terror. This is not simply a grant 
of inconsequential effort with regard to our security, it is the whole 
ball game.
  Or condition No. 4, facilitating U.S. verification of weapons 
destruction carried out under the program. As a rule, we have had 
pretty good fortune with the CTR people following through precisely 
what has occurred but not in all instances. If you go to Russia and you 
visit with our people on the ground, they will give you instances 
immediately in which they are having trouble with Russian friends who 
do not want to let them see what has occurred. Then we all argue, as 
military and civilians, with our Russian friends that we really do need 
to see these situations. We are on the ground and we have tried to work 
it out. But back here, to make an evaluation that we have not seen all 
of it and therefore we stop the music makes no sense at all at this 
point in history.
  On the conditions on the chemical business, they were not at all 
helpful, to say the least. It is an ongoing process of getting 
something done still, trying to get the international community's money 
into it, trying to get the Russians over the threshold as the Duma. 
This is hard work but back here not so hard to say we want to evaluate, 
Are the Russians making a substantial investment? Well, what is 
substantial? Sometimes people have put a figure on it--$25 million, I 
mentioned in my speech. That was another stipulation. An allocation of 
$25 million, someone came up with here. I am not sure how we know; we 
are not able to audit the books.
  We can make some judgments as to whether a substantial effort is 
being made, but let's take the other case: The Russians make no 
attempt. They say, We are bankrupt, and they were in the early years of 
the program. Is that a reason why we do nothing, then? Do we just stop 
the music and say, You are not making a reasonable allocation?
  The old argument used to be called fungibility, the thought that 
somehow if U.S. taxpayer money got into Russia and we worked to destroy 
nuclear warheads, take them off the missile and so forth, the Russians 
would not have to spend money doing that and therefore they would spend 
it on something else of a nefarious nature. I am not sure that many 
persons in the Russian military ever were excited about taking the 
warheads off of the missiles, about destroying the missiles, about 
destroying all the submarines, destroying the transcontinental bombers. 
I don't think there was a wave of enthusiasm, people in the streets 
demanding that their government do these things.
  The fact is that cooperative threat reduction, as the Russian 
generals told Sam Nunn, is something that is our problem, but it is 
your problem because you folks in the United States have the 
contractors, you have the money, you have the organization. These are 
not funds donated in a United Way project to Russia. They are funds 
largely spent with American contractors, American experts, American 
people who take their time and at some risk to themselves have gone to 
Russia, and now to other places, to dismantle dangerous weapons and try 
to corral dangerous material in the benefit of all of us.
  Because in another forum we would be having the speech: What happens 
if al-Qaida gets their hands on even a few pounds of fissionable 
material? What would have happened if even a small weapon had been on a 
plane that went into the World Trade Center? Then we have briefings 
from experts that show concentric circles of death and destruction, of 
hundreds of thousands of Americans losing their lives. That is the 
issue.
  Anyone who is delaying this has to give some better reason for it 
than at some point a Member of the House or Senate thought it might be 
a good idea to ask the Russians what they are doing. Of course, that is 
a good idea. Those of us who have been visiting with the Russians ask 
it all the time and, as a matter of fact, have a very tough-minded 
attitude, which they appreciate because they have the same feeling for 
us.
  But I am saying we have come to a time in which we have to understand 
it is not useful to require that before Nunn-Lugar funds are spent each 
year there be a symposium on how human rights are going in Russia and, 
therefore, at the end of the day the President waives it and says: OK, 
not so good, but, after all, American security is still what I am after 
as Commander in Chief.
  Let me reiterate. I think it is important to clean the books, to get 
on with a program in which we understand, as Americans, we want to work 
with Russians to destroy weapons of mass destruction every year without 
delay. If the $415 million that is in this bill is appropriated, 
ultimately--and I hope it will be--we want to be able to spend that 
from October 1 onward. As has been pointed out, the waiver authority, 
even as it is, dies September 30. What happens if for some reason there 
is a conference hassle on the Department of Defense appropriations bill 
apart from the authorization bill? Certainly that happens in the body, 
and with the other body, from time to time. And when it has happened 
before, the music stopped. We did it to ourselves. We cannot afford to 
continue doing that.
  Mr. President, I yield time to my distinguished colleague, the 
ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner). The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from Indiana for 
his intrepid, persistent, and determined, bulldogged leadership to try 
to address the greatest threat this country faces which is the presence 
of a weapon of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist or 
terrorist state. We are told over and over again--one commission after 
another tells us--the greatest threat this Nation faces would be a 
chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon in the hands of a terrorist or 
terrorist state--``loose nukes,'' as they are sometimes called.
  Yet, in the wonderful program we have called Nunn-Lugar, we have 
impediments to the prompt spending of our money in order to secure or 
destroy the weapons that threaten us. Why, in Heaven's name, we would 
put any impediment in the way of addressing the greatest threat that 
faces this country absolutely mystifies me.
  We have six conditions that have to be certified to annually by the 
President before this money can be spent to protect our Nation. Let me 
take one of them. One of the conditions that has to be addressed and 
met in a report is the President certify annually that each country is 
meeting the following condition--one of the six--that the country is 
foregoing any military modernization program that exceeds the 
legitimate defense requirements of that country.
  Now, why, in Heaven's name, we want to have some agency's employee 
spending time looking at whether Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan or, yes, 
Russia, in their entire military budget is spending any money on any 
weapons system that, in our judgment, they do not need--and if we 
cannot certify that, we cannot protect ourselves against destroying the 
weapon of mass destruction that exists in Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan--why 
would we want to tie our hands that way in order to address the 
greatest threat that faces us? It is absolutely mysterious to me.

[[Page S8647]]

  The great Senator from Indiana--I do not know if he went through each 
one of these conditions. I know he went through some of them. And I am 
not even sure how we could certify that Russia has forgone every single 
military modernization program that exceeds their legitimate defense 
needs. How could anyone certify that? Go through the entire Russian 
defense budget and look at every single modernization program? I am not 
even sure it is public. I am not sure ours are. I know ours are not all 
public, by the way. We have classified programs. But the way the law 
reads, we have to get the Presidential certification that there is no 
Russian modernization program that exceeds their legitimate defense 
needs.
  We have to do that with every country--Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, 
Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Albania--before we can secure or destroy 
weapons, material, weapons of mass destruction, biological weapons, 
chemical weapons, nuclear material that threatens us? We have to write 
these endless reports, trying to certify that those conditions are met?
  We are cutting off our nose to spite our face. What we are doing here 
is, instead of trying to secure material or destroy material, we end up 
securing reports, producing reports. How many of us have read those 
reports, by the way? I am not sure how many have been filed because 
they have to be waived every year if they are not written. But how many 
of us would look through a report on every modernization program--if we 
could figure it out--that Kazakhstan has before we destroy material 
that threatens us that might exist in that country?

  Now, these impediments to protecting our people against the greatest 
threat we face actually make no sense anymore. We ought to get rid of 
them instead of requiring an annual certification, involving people 
writing these certifications, writing these reports rather than 
effectively spending our resources in order to protect the American 
people.
  We say we have to be able to certify that Russia has accurately 
declared the size of its chemical weapons stockpile. We cannot certify 
that, verify it, because there is a great dispute over verification 
between ourselves and Russia. They want to come in to certain places we 
do not want them to come in, so they cannot verify certain things, 
because we are not giving them access. We are not perfectly transparent 
in terms of our own chemical production facility, for legitimate 
reasons. But there is a dispute on transparency between us and Russia.
  So that dispute, which is a legitimate dispute, which has not been 
resolved yet--despite, let's assume, good-faith efforts on both sides--
the presence of that dispute means we cannot or the President cannot 
make a certification that Russia has accurately declared the size of a 
chemical weapons stockpile because we cannot get the verification 
agreed to, again, because we will not provide access to our own 
facility. That stops us from defending our people against chemical 
weapons.
  What is the goal here? Reports or security? If we can get our hands 
on chemical weapons or biological weapons or nuclear material or 
missiles and destroy them, why wouldn't we want to grab that 
opportunity? Why would we want to put impediments in the way and 
require reports or certifications to be made?
  By the way, I think it is great if the reports can be made. I have no 
problem with it, either. Senator Lugar mentioned, we raise these issues 
all the time. But we should not attach these as conditions to our 
taking action which is in our own interest. Churning away at reports 
when it is in our national security to eliminate weapons of mass 
destruction does not make sense to me. We have this process requiring 
hundreds of man-hours of work by the State Department, the intelligence 
community, the Pentagon, as well as other departments and agencies. 
That time could be better spent tackling the proliferation threats that 
face our country.
  We should be spending all of our energies on interdicting WMD 
shipments, all of our energies at identifying the next A.Q. Khan, all 
of our energies on locating hidden stocks of chemical and biological 
weapons. Instead, we have nonproliferation experts spending time 
compiling reports and assembling certifications and waiver 
determinations.
  By the way, the majority of those reports is repetitive. They have 
already filed reports in other formats. Yet we continue to require 
that.
  The President does not have to spend any of this money. If the 
Executive decides they have questions and they are not going to spend 
money, for whatever legitimate reason, fine. But we should not add to 
their burdens. And we should not jeopardize the security of this Nation 
by putting barriers in the way of taking action to secure or destroy 
the most threatening material we face--chemical, biological, or nuclear 
material.
  I very strongly support the efforts of our good friend from Indiana, 
who has been such a leader here. When Sam Nunn was here, it was Nunn-
Lugar. No one could take Sam Nunn's place. Senator Lugar, with the 
support of many of us, including, may I say, our chairman, the 
Presiding Officer--who has supported the amount of money for Nunn-
Lugar--without the support of the chairman of the committee, who is now 
presiding over the Senate, we would not be able to get that amount of 
money we have in this authorization. By the way, we are going to try to 
increase that somewhat during the debate on this bill.
  But that amount of money, which is requested, I believe, by the 
administration, would not be there but for the Senator from Indiana, 
but for the chairman of our committee, and but for the support many of 
us on the Armed Services Committee have to address this absolutely most 
dangerous threat this Nation faces.
  I commend the Senator from Indiana, and I am proud to be a cosponsor 
of his amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time is on either 
side to be utilized?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, let me take a moment to thank the 
distinguished Senator from Michigan for his very strong words and, 
likewise, to echo his commendation of you, as I do at this moment in 
this debate.
  Very clearly, each one of us has attempted to do our best in this 
area. I am proud to have pictures of all of us in my office, standing 
in front of missiles and explosives and all the elements that have 
marked 14 remarkable years.
  This entire program is counterintuitive. Those who looked at the half 
century that preceded 1991, the breakup of the former Soviet Union, 
would say: Here we are, two superpowers. A number of estimates were 
wrong on all sides about the economy of Russia, maybe the economy of 
our country or the relative strengths we had at that time. It was not 
until several years later that we knew there were 13,300 warheads on 
those missiles. We had estimates of that, but we now know that. We know 
exactly how many have been taken off and how many are still to be taken 
off, and how many missiles remain as vehicles, and how many submarines 
remain. This is remarkable. This is a degree of cooperation that is 
very substantial.
  There are some elements that we still do not know. I would claim that 
our Russian friends have been in denial on a good number of the 
biological programs, while they would say they were not weapons 
programs. They were something else dealing with livestock or other 
elements. We have had differences, and I would say there are still four 
situations in Russia in which none of us have had access. Therefore, 
those who argue that there is no good reason to raise questions of the 
Russians argue well. But my logic at the end of the day, even if the 
Russians have not been forthcoming on these four biological situations 
on which I have sought access, physically asked to go and may some day 
be admitted, if for some reason they may find it useful to admit me, 
that is not a good reason to delay for one week or one month or any 
time the movement of the moneys, the programs, the contractors, the 
American spirit that is working with a number of Russians in this 
window of history that was miraculously opened.

[[Page S8648]]

  I hope it will be open for a long time. I hope the cooperation with 
Russia will continue so that we do have, together, access, and so do 
other partners in the G8, in the so-called ``10 plus 10 over 10'' 
program. It is because we will need more time. We need to make certain 
that we do not make mistakes, certainly the ones we can avoid. I am 
suggesting today that we can avoid mistakes--and by eliminating these 
conditions, we will at least remove one of them--and that we have then 
an opportunity to continue to be forthcoming with the Russians in 
asking them to work with us in their own interest.
  Finally, when I was in vaults in which there are nuclear warheads 
lying almost akin to bodies in a morgue, I noted little tablets at the 
top of these which had Russian inscriptions. I asked: What is on those? 
They said: This tells when the weapon was built. It gives a service 
record. These weapons are not inert sporting guns' ammunition sitting 
on a shelf. They require servicing. There is a chemical mixture going 
on there that, without proper care, can lead to dire results. We don't 
know, nor do the Russians, what the results are.
  Therefore, down on the tab there is an estimate of the efficacy of 
the weapon; that is, how long the warhead probably would work if it 
were taken out of the vault and put back on a missile. Then you have 
even a stranger estimate, and that is when it might become dangerous; 
that is an event, a nuclear event in Russia with dastardly results for 
Russians.
  This is one reason why this is not totally counterintuitive. If you 
still have thousands of these weapons in warhead form, you want to make 
certain you have a partner who has some money and some expertise, and 
you try to make sure you use that money on the oldest ones first before 
you work out what is going to happen historically, something none of us 
have thus far had the horror to find out.
  This is serious business. We all take it that way. I appreciate the 
spirit of the debate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I think Senator Lugar controls all of the 
time on his side. I wonder if he might yield 4 minutes to the Senator 
from Rhode Island. I don't know how long the Senator from Texas was 
going to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time in opposition is under the control of 
the Senator from Arizona. But in his absence, the Senator from Texas is 
in control of the time and has the authority to grant the time.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have no objection to the Senator from 
Rhode Island addressing the Senate.
  Mr. LEVIN. This would be on Senator Lugar's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands the allocation of the 
time.


                         Gun Industry Immunity

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Lugar for his 
commendable amendment and thank Senator Cornyn for allowing me to 
proceed. I would like to speak to the possible procedural posture we 
will be in next week.
  We are now on the Defense authorization bill, which is critical to 
providing resources to our service men and women who are engaged today, 
as we speak, in a global war on terror. But tomorrow the majority 
leader intends to file a cloture petition on the motion to proceed to 
the gun industry immunity bill. That means on Tuesday morning we will 
have a cloture vote, and the vote will present a stark choice for all 
Senators. We can stay on the Defense bill and finish our work on behalf 
of our soldiers, sailors, air men and women, or we can leave the 
Defense bill for an undetermined period of time and move to a special 
interest bill to give legal immunity to the gun industry.
  If the Senate invokes cloture on the motion to proceed to the gun 
industry bill next Tuesday, we will be on that motion for the next 30 
hours. On Wednesday, when that time runs out, the majority leader would 
then file another cloture petition on the bill itself. The Senate would 
then spend the next 2 days on the immunity bill, and we would have 
another cloture vote Friday. If the Senate invoked cloture on the bill 
next Friday, we could face another 30 hours on the gun immunity bill, 
pushing final passage until at least next Saturday and potentially 
delaying passage of the Defense authorization bill until after the 
August recess.
  We face a situation where the majority is asking Senators to delay 
consideration of a bill to support our troops, possibly for up to a 
month, so that we can take up a bill to give a special interest gift to 
the gun industry.
  Senator Frist said this morning that lawsuits against gun 
manufacturers like Beretta are the reason to take up this measure 
because they provide small arms to the U.S. Army and the Department of 
Defense. First, Beretta is a privately held corporation owned by an 
Italian parent. There is no obligation for them to disclose their 
finances. But their competitors, Sturm Ruger and Smith & Wesson, 
continue to assure their shareholders in SEC filings that this 
litigation is not having an adverse material effect on their financial 
position. So I don't know how much credence we can give to that.
  I believe we should stay on this bill, finish our obligation to our 
service men and women, and then at some other time, take up this bill 
because such a bill about immunity requires extensive debate. That is a 
requirement that many Senators will not forgo.
  I urge the majority leader to reconsider his proposal. I thank the 
Senator from Texas and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lugar). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, with some reluctance, I rise to oppose the 
amendment of the distinguished occupant of the chair, the senior 
Senator from Indiana. But I feel a certain obligation, as the chairman 
of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, out of which 
this particular portion of the bill emanated, to explain the reasons 
why the bill contains these conditions that I believe are important and 
which I will explain and which have existed in the bill as it has been 
passed by the Congress since its inception.
  The question that I would pose is, what has changed? What has changed 
that now would lead this body to eliminate these important criteria 
that have existed in the bill for lo these many years? I think it is 
important, as a general matter, that there be some sort of reciprocal 
obligation on the part of Russia for receiving more than $400 million 
in American taxpayer money, potentially. I know there has been 
discretion added to make sure that WMD located in other countries can 
now be addressed by this Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. That is 
a good thing. But certainly, while I appreciate the argument that 
regardless of whether or not Russia complies with the conditions that 
are required to be monitored under this Cooperative Threat Reduction 
Program, I still do not believe that it is the best stewardship of the 
American taxpayers' moneys for us to say: We don't care whether Russia 
complies with their reciprocal obligations or not, and we are going to 
give the money away anyway, albeit for a good purpose.
  On balance, I am not persuaded that the burden to change the system, 
as it has been since 1991, has been met, and I believe that we should 
retain some way to monitor the progress of Russia, the recipient of 
these funds, on these important criteria that have been set out in the 
bill.
  Of course, the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program has long been 
providing assistance to states of the former Soviet Union to help 
eliminate and safeguard weapons of mass destruction and related 
infrastructure materials. These programs helped to eliminate large Cold 
War stockpiles of dangerous weapons that are no longer needed. Today, 
of course, this is an important element of our strategy to keep weapons 
of mass destruction and know-how from falling into the hands of 
terrorists. That is the reason why I applaud the senior Senator from 
Indiana for his leadership in this important effort.
  When Congress first authorized the Cooperative Threat Reduction 
Program, an important element of the authorizing legislation was the 
inclusion of the conditions which now this amendment seeks to 
eliminate. These conditions must be met before a country can receive 
Cooperative Threat Reduction assistance from the United States. These 
conditions were retained

[[Page S8649]]

in the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 1993 which reauthorized the 
original Nunn-Lugar program. That act included the requirement that for 
each recipient nation of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds, the 
President certify that the recipient nation is committed to the 
following goals:
  One, to making substantial investment of its resources for 
dismantling or destroying its weapons of mass destruction; two, 
forgoing any military modernization program that exceeds legitimate 
defense requirements and forgoing the replacement of destroyed weapons 
of mass destruction; three, forgoing any use in new nuclear weapons of 
fissionable or other components of destroyed nuclear weapons; 
facilitating U.S. verification of any weapons destruction carried out 
under the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program; complying with all 
relevant arms control agreements; and observing internationally 
recognized human rights, including the protection of minorities.
  I would certainly agree with the distinguished senior Senator from 
Indiana that some of these are vague standards. For example, as he 
pointed out, complying with all relevant arms control agreements or 
observing internationally recognized human rights, including the 
protection of minorities. But the fact that they are somewhat general--
some might say somewhat vague--does not mean that they are unimportant. 
One of the important roles played by these criteria is that there be 
some effort on the part of the Government to ascertain whether, in 
fact, the old Soviet Union is, in fact, exercising good faith as part 
of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. If, in fact, ultimately 
the President decides, as authorized by this bill, to ultimately waive 
the noncompliance of those criteria in the interest of our national 
security, at least Congress and the Nation know that some assessment 
has been made of the old Soviet Union's compliance with these criteria.
  I think we would all agree that the information that is collected and 
scrutinized is important in the interest of our national security and 
in the interest of knowing that we have met our responsibility to see 
that American tax dollars are spent as wisely and efficiently as 
possible.
  These conditions remain as relevant and as important today as they 
were in 1993. They provide Congress and the public relevant information 
about the countries that have received taxpayer-funded assistance for 
this program. The conditions also help provide us confidence that U.S. 
tax dollars will be well spent in countries that are committed to 
right-sizing their militaries, complying with arms control agreements, 
providing transparency with regard to Cooperative Threat Reduction 
assistance, and respecting human rights. I do not understand how one 
could argue that these conditions are unimportant or irrelevant to our 
national security or that we ought to simply blind ourselves to the 
recipient nation's compliance with these criteria in the interest of 
pursuing our ultimate goal.
  The truth is, we all agree in the ultimate goal of this important 
program. But this provides us additional checks and balances and 
information that is relevant, significant, and which I think 
demonstrates that we are being good stewards of the American taxpayer 
dollar while we pursue a safer and more secure world.

  These certification requirements do not impede the provision of 
cooperative threat reduction assistance. For years now, the Congress 
provided the President with waiver authority, so that even if one or 
more of the certifications cannot be made for a particular country, the 
President may provide these funds if it is in our national interest to 
do so, and that is appropriate.
  One of the things this bill does is to make that temporary waiver 
authority that had been conferred upon the President permanent, to 
provide the kinds of flexibility that Secretary Rice said the President 
and the administration wanted when it came to this program in her 
letter of June 3, 2005, which has been previously referenced.
  This provision for permanent waiver authority for cooperative threat 
reduction programs in the bill provides the flexibility needed. It also 
provides us the way to deal in a responsible fashion with the countries 
that compose the former Soviet Union. I remember, of course, the famous 
words of President Reagan when talking about negotiating with the 
Soviet Union, where he said, ``trust, but verify.'' What these criteria 
do in this cooperative threat reduction program is allow us to not just 
trust but also to verify that these countries that were once the old 
Soviet Union are worthy of our trust by allowing us to verify their 
good faith compliance with this program.
  The amendment of the senior Senator from Indiana would also repeal 
conditions Congress placed on the provision of financial assistance to 
Russia for chemical demilitarization activity. These conditions were 
established in the fiscal year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act. 
They required the Secretary of Defense to certify that Russia has 
provided a full and accurate accounting of its chemical weapons 
stockpile; demonstrated a commitment of $25 million annually to 
chemical weapons elimination; developed a practical plan for destroying 
its stockpile of nerve agents; agree to destroy or convert two existing 
chemical weapons production facilities; finally, a commitment from the 
international community to fund and build infrastructure needed to 
support and operate the chemicals weapons destruction facility in 
Russia.
  Here again, these provisions would be effectively repealed by this 
amendment which is proposed today by the distinguished Senator from 
Indiana. They do not represent an impediment to the accomplishment of 
the chemical demilitarization program because they may be likewise 
waived in the end if the President deems that waiver in our national 
interest. But no one, it seems to me, could in good faith argue that 
these criteria are unimportant or irrelevant.
  Indeed, each of these criteria demonstrate the reciprocal good faith 
and responsibility of the recipient nations in accomplishing chemical 
demilitarization, a goal that is the subject of an international treaty 
that this country is a party to and one that is certainly in our 
national interest to see accomplished.
  For several years, Congress decided not to support the provision of 
cooperative threat reduction assistance for chemical weapons 
destruction in Russia. It was precisely the inclusion of these 
conditions in the authorizing language that persuaded Congress to 
resume assistance under the chemical threat--the Cooperative Threat 
Reduction Program for this important effort of chemical 
demilitarization.
  These conditions relevant to the chemical weapons destruction program 
in Russia also have a waiver provision, so that the assistance, as I 
mentioned a moment ago, can continue in the absence of certification 
if, in the end, the President deems it in the national interest. The 
eligibility requirements and conditions for assistance are entirely 
appropriate.
  Mr. President, I believe the burden of proof on those who would 
repeal it has not been met. They remain an important element in 
assuring that the American taxpayer is being well served and that the 
money is being spent appropriately and wisely on the underlying aims of 
the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program that we all agree are a good 
thing. This assurance to the American taxpayer and to the American 
people that their money is being well spent is essential to maintaining 
strong public support for this important program.
  The waiver authority ensures that even in cases where a country 
doesn't meet all eligibility requirements, the President has the 
flexibility to provide this assistance if it is in the national 
security interest to do so. This is all, in the end, that the 
administration, through Secretary Rice's letter, has requested. So we 
have accomplished that goal already, even before this amendment has 
been proposed.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues not to support this amendment 
that would repeal the conditions and the eligibility requirements under 
the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. We all share the goal of 
supporting programs like this that can help keep dangerous weapons of 
mass destruction and technology and know-how from slipping out of the 
countries that used to be the old Soviet Union.
  I continue to believe that certification requirements are useful in 
helping to maintain public confidence in

[[Page S8650]]

this important program, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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. LUGAR. 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. LUGAR. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Texas has 
yielded to me a minute of time, and I deeply appreciate that, so that I 
have an opportunity to add as cosponsors to my amendment Senators 
Conrad, Boxer, and Durbin.
  Earlier, I mentioned the letters from Secretary Rice and, likewise, 
one from the 9/11 Commission, in which the Commission summarized that 
we believe that S. 313--the genesis of my amendment--is an important 
step forward in protecting the United States in catastrophic 
circumstances.
  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. LUGAR. 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. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Sarbanes be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask the indulgence of all Senators. We 
are about to vote, but I ask that we give consideration, at this point 
in time, to an amendment that will be offered by the Senator from South 
Dakota.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, is there an amendment pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is.
  Mr. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1389

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I have an amendment that I send to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] for himself, Mr. 
     Lieberman, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Dodd, 
     Ms. Collins, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Domenici, 
     proposes amendment numbered 1389.

  Mr. THUNE. 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 postpone the 2005 round of defense base closure and 
                              realignment)

       On page 371, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

     SEC. 2887. POSTPONEMENT OF 2005 ROUND OF DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE 
                   AND REALIGNMENT.

       The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part 
     A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) 
     is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 2915. POSTPONEMENT OF 2005 ROUND OF DEFENSE BASE 
                   CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this part, the round of defense base closure and realignment 
     otherwise scheduled to occur under this part in 2005 by 
     reasons of sections 2912, 2913, and 2914 shall occur instead 
     in the year following the year in which the last of the 
     actions described in subsection (b) occurs (in this section 
     referred to as the `postponed closure round year').
       ``(b) Actions Required Before Base Closure Round.--(1) The 
     actions referred to in subsection (a) are the following 
     actions:
       ``(A) The complete analysis, consideration, and, where 
     appropriate, implementation by the Secretary of Defense of 
     the recommendations of the Commission on Review of Overseas 
     Military Facility Structure of the United States.
       ``(B) The return from deployment in the Iraq theater of 
     operations of substantially all (as determined by the 
     Secretary of Defense) major combat units and assets of the 
     Armed Forces.
       ``(C) The receipt by the Committees on Armed Services of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives of the report on 
     the quadrennial defense review required to be submitted in 
     2006 by the Secretary of Defense under section 118(d) of 
     title 10, United States Code.
       ``(D) The complete development and implementation by the 
     Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     of the National Maritime Security Strategy.
       ``(E) The complete development and implementation by the 
     Secretary of Defense of the Homeland Defense and Civil 
     Support directive.
       ``(F) The receipt by the Committees on Armed Services of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives of a report 
     submitted by the Secretary of Defense that assesses military 
     installation needs taking into account--
       ``(i) relevant factors identified through the 
     recommendations of the Commission on Review of Overseas 
     Military Facility Structure of the United States;
       ``(ii) the return of the major combat units and assets 
     described in subparagraph (B);
       ``(iii) relevant factors identified in the report on the 
     2005 quadrennial defense review;
       ``(iv) the National Maritime Security Strategy; and
       ``(v) the Homeland Defense and Civil Support directive.
       ``(2) The report required under subparagraph (F) of 
     paragraph (1) shall be submitted not later than one year 
     after the occurrence of the last action described in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (E) of such paragraph.
       ``(c) Administration.--For purposes of sections 2912, 2913, 
     and 2914, each date in a year that is specified in such 
     sections shall be deemed to be the same date in the postponed 
     closure round year, and each reference to a fiscal year in 
     such sections shall be deemed to be a reference to the fiscal 
     year that is the number of years after the original fiscal 
     year that is equal to the number of years that the postponed 
     closure round year is after 2005.''; and
       (2) in section 2904(b)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``the date on which 
     the President transmits such report'' and inserting ``the 
     date by which the President is required to transmit such 
     report''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``such report is 
     transmitted'' and inserting ``such report is required to be 
     transmitted''.

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this amendment to S. 1042 that would delay 
implementation of the 2005 round of the Defense Base Closure and 
Realignment. This amendment does not seek to nullify the Department of 
Defense recommendations, nor does it seek to halt the work of the BRAC 
Commission now well underway. Nor do I seek to block the presentation 
of the BRAC Commission's final recommendations to the President. To the 
contrary, I believe the BRAC commission to be an integral and 
indispensable check on this process and I value their analysis and 
demonstrated independence.
  The amendment would essentially extend the congressional review 
period for any final recommendations approved by the President until 
certain conditions are first met. This proposed suspension of the ``45 
day'' review period would thus delay ``implementation'' by the 
Department of Defense until one year following the last condition is 
met. These conditions center on certain events that are anticipated to 
occur and which have potentially large or unforeseen implications for 
our military force structure. Therefore, implementation of any final 
BRAC recommendations should not occur until both the DoD and Congress 
have had a chance to fully study the effects such events will have on 
our basing requirements. I will say more about those conditions in a 
moment.
  But first, I want to make my position perfectly clear. I do not 
oppose the BRAC process. The underlying purpose of BRAC, as written by 
this body, is not only good for our armed forces, it is good for the 
American taxpayer. We all want to eliminate waste and reduce redundancy 
in the government. But when Congress modified the Base Realignment and 
Closure law in December 2001, to make way for the 2005 round of base 
closings, it failed to envision this country involved in a protracted 
war involving stretched manpower resources, ever-evolving threats and 
the burden of large overseas rotational deployments of both troops and

[[Page S8651]]

equipment. I do, therefore, question the timing of this round of BRAC.
  The amendment identifies several principal actions that must occur 
before final implementation of the 2005 BRAC recommendations. First, 
there must be a complete analysis and consideration of the 
recommendations of the Commission on Review of Overseas Military 
Structures. The overseas base commission has itself called upon the 
Department of Defense to ``slow down and take a breath.'' It cautions 
that we should not move forward on basing decisions without knowing 
exactly where units will be returned, and if those installations are 
prepared or equipped to support units returning from garrisons in 
Europe, consisting of approximately 70,000 personnel.
  Second, BRAC should not occur while this country is engaged in a 
major war and rotational deployments are still ongoing. We have seen 
enough disruption of both military and civilian institutions due to the 
logistical strain brought about by these constant rotations of units 
and personnel to Iraq and Afghanistan without, at the same time, 
initiating numerous base closures and the multiple transfer of units 
and missions from base to base. This is simply too much to ask of our 
military, our communities and the families of our servicemen and women, 
who are already stretched and overtaxed. Frankly, our efforts right now 
must be devoted to winning the global war on terrorism, not packing up 
and moving units around the country.
  Our amendment would delay implementation of BRAC until the Secretary 
of Defense determines that substantially all major combat units and 
assets have been returned from deployment in the Iraq theater of 
operations, whenever that might occur.
  Third, it seems counterintuitive and completely out of logical 
sequence to attempt to review or implement the BRAC recommendations 
without having the benefit of studying the Quadrennial Defense Review, 
due in 2006, and its long-term planning recommendations. Therefore, the 
amendment requires that Congress receive the QDR and have an 
opportunity to study its planning recommendations as one of the 
conditions before implementing BRAC 2005.
  Fourth and Fifth: BRAC should not go forward until the implementation 
and development by the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security of 
the National Maritime Security Strategy; and the completion and 
implementation of the Secretary of Defense's Homeland Defense and Civil 
Support Directive--only now being drafted. These two planning 
strategies should be key considerations before beginning any BRAC 
process.
  Finally, once all these conditions have been met, the Secretary of 
Defense must submit to Congress, not later than one year after the 
occurrence of the last of these conditions, a report that assesses the 
relevant factors and recommendations identified by the Commission on 
Review of Overseas Base Structure; the return of our thousands of 
troops deployed in overseas garrisons that will return to domestic 
bases because of either overseas base reduction or the end of our 
deployments in the war; and, any relevant factors identified by the QDR 
that would impact, modify, negate or open to reconsideration any of the 
recommendations submitted by the Secretary of Defense for BRAC 2005.
  This proposed delay only seems logical and fair. There is no need to 
rush into decisions, that in a few years from now, could turn out to be 
colossal mistakes. We can't afford to go back and rebuild installations 
or relocate high-cost support infrastructure at various points in this 
country once those installations have been closed or stripped of their 
valuable capacity to support critical missions.
  Frankly, some of the recommendations made by the Department of 
Defense seem more driven by internal zeal to cut costs, than by sound 
military judgment. Several recommendations involving the consolidation 
of high value military air and naval assets at single locations seem to 
violate one of the most basic tenets of national security--that of 
ensuring strategic redundancy. Yes, the Cold War may no longer be a 
factor in military basing requirements, but after 9/11 is there any 
question in anybody's mind whether the threat to our country or our 
military installations has diminished--particularly as rogue countries 
and terrorist groups continue their quest for weapons of mass 
destruction?
  The GAO, in its report of July 1, 2005, has even questioned whether 
this BRAC will achieve the savings that DoD contends it can achieve. 
GAO calculates the upfront investment costs of implementing this BRAC 
to be $24 billion and reveals that DoD's estimated savings of $50 
billion NPV over 20 years is largely illusory--incorrectly claiming 47 
percent of the savings from mi1itary personnel that are not eliminated 
at all from the services, but only transferred to different 
installations.
  There are many questions I and many of my colleagues have about the 
wisdom of the timing of this BRAC round and the prudence of some of its 
recommendations and I will return to the floor to speak to many of 
these as this amendment is considered. Again, I am not opposed to the 
BRAC process. But I do question whether this is the right time to begin 
a new round of domestic base closures and massive relocations of 
manpower and equipment.
  I, therefore, offer this amendment today and call upon my colleagues 
to join us in this debate and support its passage.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for bringing this 
amendment. There are some very distinguished cosponsors. It would be my 
expectation to reply to the Senator in brief tonight following this 
vote because I think some record should be made today. The Senator made 
his statement on the side of the proponents, and I need time within 
which to evaluate since I have just received this document, but I will 
be prepared, following this vote, to make some reply, and I hope that 
my colleague would likewise.
  Mr. LEVIN. Would the chairman yield?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Now, I assume this amendment will be laid aside similar to 
other pending amendments.
  Mr. THUNE. That is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. I assume that in addition to the debate taking place 
tonight on this amendment, it could also take place tomorrow, along 
with a number of other amendments which at least will be debated 
tomorrow. I hope this might be one of those amendments that could be 
debated tomorrow, in addition to the comments that the chairman would 
make.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct. Given the importance of this 
amendment and the interest in this amendment, I wish to lay down some 
parameters tonight about my concerns.
  Mr. LEVIN. I join in those concerns, and I agree that there should be 
some response tonight.
  Mr. WARNER. Would the Senator be available for further debate 
tomorrow?
  Mr. THUNE. If that is the chairman's wish, we could make that 
arrangement.
  Mr. WARNER. Perhaps we can discuss it.


               Amendments Nos. 1390 through 1400, En Bloc

  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that the vote be delayed for a 
few minutes because we have a series of amendments at the desk which 
have been cleared by myself and the distinguished Senator from 
Michigan. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider these 
amendments en bloc, that the amendments be agreed to and the motions to 
reconsider be laid upon the table.
  I ask that any statements relating to any of these individual 
amendments be printed in the Record.
  Mr. LEVIN. We have no objection and support that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1390

  (Purpose: To increase the authorized number of Defense Intelligence 
                  Senior Executive Service employees)

       At the end of title XI, add the following:

     SEC. 1106. INCREASE IN AUTHORIZED NUMBER OF DEFENSE 
                   INTELLIGENCE SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE 
                   EMPLOYEES.

       Section 1606(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``544'' and inserting ``the following:
       ``(1) In fiscal year 2005, 544.
       ``(2) In fiscal year 2006, 619.
       ``(3) In fiscal years after fiscal year 2006, 694.''.

[[Page S8652]]

                           AMENDMENT NO. 1391

      (Purpose: To provide for cooperative agreements with tribal 
 organizations relating to the disposal of lethal chemical agents and 
                               munitions)

       On page 378, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:

     SEC. 3__. CLARIFICATION OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AUTHORITY 
                   UNDER CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 1412(c)(4) of the Department of 
     Defense Authorization Act, 1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521(c)(4)), is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(4)'';
       (2) in the first sentence--
       (A) by inserting ``and tribal organizations'' after ``State 
     and local governments''; and
       (B) by inserting ``and tribal organizations'' after ``those 
     governments'';
       (3) in the third sentence--
       (A) by striking ``Additionally, the Secretary'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(B) Additionally, the Secretary''; and
       (B) by inserting ``and tribal organizations'' after ``State 
     and local governments''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) In this paragraph, the term `tribal organization' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 4(l) of the Indian 
     Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b(l)).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection 
     (a)--
       (1) take effect on December 5, 1991; and
       (2) apply to any cooperative agreement entered into on or 
     after that date.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1392

       (Purpose: To provide for the provision by the White House 
      Communications Agency of audiovisual support services on a 
                         nonreimbursable basis)

       At the end of subtitle A of title IX, add the following:

     SEC. 903. PROVISION OF AUDIOVISUAL SUPPORT SERVICES BY THE 
                   WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS AGENCY.

       (a) Provision on Nonreimbursable Basis.--Section 912 of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 
     (Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2623; 10 U.S.C. 111 note) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the subsection caption, by inserting ``and 
     Audiovisual Support Services'' after ``Telecommunications 
     Support''; and
       (B) by inserting ``and audiovisual support services'' after 
     ``provision of telecommunications support''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``and audiovisual'' 
     after ``other than telecommunications''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2005, and shall apply with 
     respect to the provision of audiovisual support services by 
     the White House Communications Agency in fiscal years 
     beginning on or after that date.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1393

  (Purpose: To establish the United States Military Cancer Institute)

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

     SEC. 924. UNITED STATES MILITARY CANCER INSTITUTE.

       (a) Establishment.--Chapter 104 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 2117. United States Military Cancer Institute

       ``(a) Establishment.--(1) There is a United States Military 
     Cancer Institute in the University. The Director of the 
     United States Military Cancer Institute is the head of the 
     Institute.
       ``(2) The Institute is composed of clinical and basic 
     scientists in the Department of Defense who have an expertise 
     in research, patient care, and education relating to oncology 
     and who meet applicable criteria for participation in the 
     Institute.
       ``(3) The components of the Institute include military 
     treatment and research facilities that meet applicable 
     criteria and are designated as affiliates of the Institute.
       ``(b) Research.--(1) The Director of the United States 
     Military Cancer Institute shall carry out research studies on 
     the following:
       ``(A) The epidemiological features of cancer, including 
     assessments of the carcinogenic effect of genetic and 
     environmental factors, and of disparities in health, inherent 
     or common among populations of various ethnic origins.
       ``(B) The prevention and early detection of cancer.
       ``(C) Basic, translational, and clinical investigation 
     matters relating to the matters described in subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B).
       ``(2) The research studies under paragraph (1) shall 
     include complementary research on oncologic nursing.
       ``(c) Collaborative Research.--The Director of the United 
     States Military Cancer Institute shall carry out the research 
     studies under subsection (b) in collaboration with other 
     cancer research organizations and entities selected by the 
     Institute for purposes of the research studies.
       ``(d) Annual Report.--(1) Promptly after the end of each 
     fiscal year, the Director of the United States Military 
     Cancer Institute shall submit to the President of the 
     University a report on the results of the research studies 
     carried out under subsection (b).
       ``(2) Not later than 60 days after receiving the annual 
     report under paragraph (1), the President of the University 
     shall transmit such report to the Secretary of Defense and to 
     Congress.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item:

``2117. United States Military Cancer Institute.''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1394

 (Purpose: To make available, with an offset, an additional $1,000,000 
    for research, development, test, and evaluation, Army, for the 
         Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center)

       At the end of subtitle B of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 213. TELEMEDICINE AND ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH 
                   CENTER.

       (a) Additional Amount for Research, Development, Test and 
     Evaluation, Army.--The amount authorized to be appropriated 
     by section 201(1) for research, development, test, and 
     evaluation for the Army is hereby increased by $1,000,000.
       (b) Availability of Amount.--Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 201(1) for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation for the Army, as increased by subsection 
     (a), $1,000,000 may be available for Medical Advanced 
     Technology (PE #603002A) for the Telemedicine and Advanced 
     Technology Research Center.
       (c) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 101(4) for procurement of ammunition for the Army is 
     hereby reduced by $1,000,000, with the amount of the 
     reduction to be allocated to amounts available for Ammunition 
     Production Base Support, Production Base Support for the 
     Missile Recycling Center (MRC).


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1395

 (Purpose: To make available, with an offset, $5,000,000 for research, 
 development, test, and evaluation, Navy, for the design, development, 
          and test of improvements to the towed array handler)

       At the end of subtitle B of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 213. TOWED ARRAY HANDLER.

       (a) Availability of Amount.--Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 201(2) for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation for the Navy, the amount available for 
     Program Element 0604503N for the design, development, and 
     test of improvements to the towed array handler is hereby 
     increased by $5,000,000 in order to increase the reliability 
     of the towed array and the towed array handler by 
     capitalizing on ongoing testing and evaluation of such 
     systems.
       (b) Offset.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 201(2) for research, development, test, and 
     evaluation for the Navy, the amount available for Program 
     Element 0604558N for new design for the Virginia Class 
     submarine for the large aperture bow array is hereby reduced 
     by $5,000,000.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1396

  (Purpose: To authorize $5,500,000 for military construction for the 
    Army for the construction of a rotary wing landing pad at Fort 
Wainwright, Alaska, and to provide an offset of $8,000,000 by canceling 
a military construction project for the construction of an F-15E flight 
        simulator facility at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska)

       On page 310, in the table following line 16, strike 
     ``$39,160,000'' in the amount column of the item relating to 
     Fort Wainwright, Alaska, and insert ``$44,660,000''.
       On page 311, in the table preceding line 1, strike the 
     amount identified as the total in the amount column and 
     insert ``$2,000,622,000''.
       On page 313, line 4, strike ``$2,966,642,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,972,142,000''.
       On page 313, line 7, strike ``$1,007,222,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,012,722,000''.
       On page 326, in the table following line 4, strike 
     ``$92,820,000'' in the amount column of the item relating to 
     Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, and insert ``$84,820,000''.
       On page 326, in the table following line 4, strike the 
     amount identified as the total in the amount column and 
     insert ``$1,040,106,000''.
       On page 329, line 8, strike ``$3,116,982,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,008,982,000''.
       On page 329, line 11, strike ``$923,106,000'' and insert 
     ``$915,106,000''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1397

(Purpose: To reduce funds for an Army Aviation Support Facility for the 
   Army National Guard at New Castle, Delaware, and to modify other 
                 military construction authorizations)

       On page 326, in the table following line 4, strike the item 
     relating to Los Angeles Air Force Base, California.
       On page 326, in the table following line 4, strike 
     ``$6,800,000'' in the amount column of the item relating to 
     Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington, and insert 
     ``$8,200,000''.
       On page 326, in the table following line 4, strike the 
     amount identified as the total in the amount column and 
     insert ``$1,047,006,000''.
       On page 329, line 8, strike ``$3,116,982,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,115,882,000''.
       On page 329, line 11, strike ``$923,106,000'' and insert 
     ``$922,006,000''.
       On page 336, line 22, strike ``$464,680,000'' and insert 
     ``$445,100,000''.
       On page 337, line 2, strike ``$245,861,000'' and insert 
     ``$264,061,000''.

[[Page S8653]]

       On page 337, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:

     SEC. 2602. SPECIFIC AUTHORIZED ARMY NATIONAL GUARD 
                   CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.

       (a) Camp Roberts, California.--Of the amount authorized to 
     be appropriated for the Department of the Army for the Army 
     National Guard of the United States under section 
     2601(1)(A)--
       (1) $1,500,000 is available for the construction of an 
     urban combat course at Camp Roberts, California; and
       (2) $1,500,000 is available for the addition or alteration 
     of a field maintenance shop at Fort Dodge, Iowa.

     SEC. 2603. CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES, NEW CASTLE COUNTY 
                   AIRPORT AIR GUARD BASE, DELAWARE.

       Of the amount authorized to be appropriated for the 
     Department of the Air Force for the Air National Guard of the 
     United States under section 2601(3)(A)--
       (1) $1,400,000 is available for the construction of a 
     security forces facility at New Castle County Airport Air 
     Guard Base, Delaware; and
       (2) $1,500,000 is available for the construction of a 
     medical training facility at New Castle County Airport Air 
     Guard Base, Delaware.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1398

            (Purpose: Relating to the LHA Replacement Ship)

       On page 18, beginning on line 20, strike ``and advance 
     construction'' and insert ``advance construction, detail 
     design, and construction''.
       On page 19, beginning on line 10, strike ``fiscal year 
     2007'' and insert ``fiscal year 2006''
       On page 19, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
       (e) Funding as Increment of Full Funding.--The amounts 
     available under subsections (a) and (b) for the LHA 
     Replacement ship are the first increments of funding for the 
     full funding of the LHA Replacement (LHA(R)) ship program.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1399

  (Purpose: To provide for the transfer of the Battleship U.S.S. Iowa 
                                (BB-61))

       Strike section 1021 and insert the following:

     SEC. 1021. TRANSFER OF BATTLESHIPS.

       (a) Transfer of Battleship Wisconsin.--The Secretary of the 
     Navy is authorized--
       (1) to strike the Battleship U.S.S. WISCONSIN (BB-64) from 
     the Naval Vessel Register; and
       (2) subject to section 7306 of title 10, United States 
     Code, to transfer the vessel by gift or otherwise provided 
     that the Secretary requires, as a condition of transfer, that 
     the transferee locate the vessel in the Commonwealth of 
     Virginia.
       (b) Transfer of Battleship Iowa.--The Secretary of the Navy 
     is authorized--
       (1) to strike the Battleship U.S.S. IOWA (BB-61) from the 
     Naval Vessel Register; and
       (2) subject to section 7306 of title 10, United States 
     Code, to transfer the vessel by gift or otherwise provided 
     that the Secretary requires, as a condition of transfer, that 
     the transferee locate the vessel in the State of California.
       (c) Inapplicability of Notice and Wait Requirement.--
     Notwithstanding any provision of subsection (a) or (b), 
     section 7306(d) of title 10, United States Code, shall not 
     apply to the transfer authorized by subsection (a) or the 
     transfer authorized by subsection (b).
       (d) Repeal of Superseded Requirements and Authorities.--
       (1) Section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 421) is 
     repealed.
       (2) Section 1011 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261; 
     112 Stat. 2118) is repealed.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1400

  (Purpose: To improve the management of the Armed Forces Retirement 
                                 Home)

       At the end of subtitle D of title VI, add the following:

     SEC. 642. IMPROVEMENT OF MANAGEMENT OF ARMED FORCES 
                   RETIREMENT HOME.

       (a) Redesignation of Chief Operating Officer as Chief 
     Executive Officer.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1515 of the Armed Forces 
     Retirement Home Act of 1991 (24 U.S.C. 415) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Chief Operating Officer'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``Chief Executive Officer''; and
       (B) in subsection (e)(1), by striking ``Chief Operating 
     Officer's'' and inserting ``Chief Executive Officer's''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Such Act is further amended by 
     striking ``Chief Operating Officer'' each place it appears in 
     a provision as follows and inserting ``Chief Executive 
     Officer'':
       (A) In section 1511 (24 U.S.C. 411).
       (B) In section 1512 (24 U.S.C. 412).
       (C) In section 1513(a) (24 U.S.C. 413(a)).
       (D) In section 1514(c)(1) (24 U.S.C. 414(c)(1)).
       (E) In section 1516(b) (24 U.S.C. 416(b)).
       (F) In section 1517 (24 U.S.C. 417).
       (G) In section 1518(c) (24 U.S.C. 418(c)).
       (H) In section 1519(c) (24 U.S.C. 419(c)).
       (I) In section 1521(a) (24 U.S.C. 421(a)).
       (J) In section 1522 (24 U.S.C. 422).
       (K) In section 1523(b) (24 U.S.C. 423(b)).
       (L) In section 1531 (24 U.S.C. 431).
       (3) Clerical amendments.--(A) The heading of section 1515 
     of such Act is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 1515. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.''.

       (B) The table of contents for such Act is amended by 
     striking the item relating to section 1515 and inserting the 
     following new item:
``Sec. 1515. Chief Executive Officer.''.
       (4) References.--Any reference in any law, regulation, 
     document, record, or other paper of the United States to the 
     Chief Operating Officer of the Armed Forces Retirement Home 
     shall be considered to be a reference to the Chief Executive 
     Officer of the Armed Forces Retirement Home.
       (b) Physicians and Dentists for Each Retirement Home 
     Facility.--Section 1513 of such Act (24 U.S.C. 413) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``subsection (b)'' and 
     inserting ``subsections (b), (c), and (d)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Physicians and Dentists for Each Retirement Home 
     Facility.--(1) In providing for the health care needs of 
     residents under subsection (c), the Retirement Home shall 
     have in attendance at each facility of the Retirement Home, 
     during the daily business hours of such facility, a physician 
     and a dentist, each of whom shall have skills and experience 
     suited to residents of such facility.
       ``(2) In providing for the health care needs of residents, 
     the Retirement shall also have available to residents of each 
     facility of the Retirement Home, on an on-call basis during 
     hours other than the daily business hours of such facility, a 
     physician and a dentist each of whom have skills and 
     experience suited to residents of such facility.
       ``(3) In this subsection, the term `daily business hours' 
     means the hours between 9 o'clock ante meridian and 5 o'clock 
     post meridian, local time, on each of Monday through 
     Friday.''.
       (c) Transportation to Medical Care Outside Retirement Home 
     Facilities.--Section 1513 of such Act is further amended--
       (1) in the third sentence of subsection (b), by inserting 
     ``, except as provided in subsection (d),'' after ``shall 
     not''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Transportation to Medical Care Outside Retirement 
     Home Facilities.--The Retirement Home shall provide to any 
     resident of a facility of the Retirement Home, upon request 
     of such resident, transportation to any medical facility 
     located not more than 30 miles from such facility for the 
     provision of medical care to such resident. The Retirement 
     Home may not collect a fee from a resident for transportation 
     provided under this subsection.''.
       (d) Military Director for Each Retirement Home.--Section 
     1517(b)(1) of such Act (24 U.S.C. 417(b)(1)) is amended by 
     striking ``a civilian with experience as a continuing care 
     retirement community professional or''.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, for over 3 years, we have heard that our 
most important national security priority is to ``keep the world's 
deadliest weapons out of the hands of the world's most dangerous 
people.'' One of the best ways to do that is to secure the world's 
stocks of fissile material and to destroy such material that is no 
longer needed for the nuclear weapons programs of the five accepted 
nuclear weapons states.
  The Cooperative Threat Reduction program, also known as the Nunn-
Lugar program, is an important mechanism for achieving this vital 
objective.
  For over a dozen years, Nunn-Lugar has funded the destruction of 
Russian long-range ballistic missiles, nuclear warheads, and chemical 
weapons, as well as improved security for Russia's nuclear and chemical 
weapons. This program has furthered Russian compliance with bilateral 
and multilateral arms control treaties, and it has done so with great 
transparency. In short, Nunn-Lugar has been a consistent contributor to 
our national security.
  Experts report, however, that since 9/11, the pace of Nunn-Lugar 
activities has fallen off. Fewer arms are being destroyed and there has 
been a major delay in activities due to disagreements with Russia over 
access to activities and liability protection for contractors 
associated with the program.
  Another major impediment to Nunn-Lugar activities has been the need 
either to meet onerous certification requirements or to prepare an 
annual report justifying Presidential waivers of those certification 
requirements. This is a needless waste of resources.
  Worse yet, the certification and waiver requirements often lead to 
gaps of several months in the flow of funds to Nunn-Lugar projects. 
Those projects are not undertaken out of the goodness of our hearts; 
rather, they are designed

[[Page S8654]]

to improve our national security by lessening the risk that rogues or 
terrorists will acquire weapons of mass destruction.
  So, what is the point of requiring onerous certifications or waiver 
reports? The only effect of those requirements is to slow the process 
of improving our national security.
  The truth is that the certification requirements were imposed by 
people who questioned the wisdom of Nunn-Lugar in the first place. And 
I cannot believe that anybody could doubt the usefulness of Nunn-Lugar 
today, given its proven record of achieving U.S. objectives.
  If we are serious, then, about ``keeping the world's deadliest 
weapons out of the hands of the world's most dangerous people,'' the 
time has come to pursue that goal more efficiently.
  In particular, the time has come to stop putting roadblocks in the 
way of the Nunn-Lugar program, as we use that program to secure and 
destroy weapons of mass destruction that might otherwise fall into 
``most dangerous'' hands.
  The Lugar-Levin amendment will clear a major roadblock from the path 
to national security. I urge all my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this time, I yield to the Senator from 
Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Landrieu, Sununu, 
Bayh, Smith, and Carper be added as cosponsors to my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the Lugar amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) and the Senator from Tennessee 
(Mr. Frist).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
California (Mrs. Boxer), would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 19, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 200 Leg.]

                                YEAS--78

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                                NAYS--19

     Allard
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Dole
     Ensign
     Grassley
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Talent
     Vitter
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Boxer
     Cochran
     Frist
  The amendment (No. 1380) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote and lay that motion on the 
table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Now, Mr. President, while we will not have further 
rollcall votes tonight, it is the intention of the managers to continue 
tonight to first clear package of amendments that we have, and then 
there may well be a lot of other Senators who want to discuss their 
amendments.
  The Senate will come in tomorrow at such hour as specified by the 
leadership and there will be filed a cloture motion. Following that, 
the managers will entertain further amendments and have debate on those 
amendments. So we have made some progress. We still have a goal to 
complete this bill as early as we can next week, working with our 
leadership. But we will need the cooperation of Senators.
  I again thank the Senator from South Dakota for bringing forth this 
very important amendment on BRAC. There remains a very important 
amendment by the distinguished Senator from Michigan and Mr. 
Rockefeller and others. Perhaps the Senator from Michigan could give us 
some timetable as to when the Senate could expect to have an 
opportunity to debate that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we are attempting to find a time for that 
amendment which fits not just the Senate schedule but a very important 
personal need, which I think the Senator from Virginia is aware of, of 
one of the cosponsors. We do have many amendments that we are going to 
be offered tomorrow. Apparently there is no plan for votes tomorrow; is 
that the Senator's understanding?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my understanding is there will not be 
votes tomorrow.
  Mr. LEVIN. Although there will be no votes tomorrow, we nonetheless 
are making an effort on this side, and I hope the chairman will do the 
same on his side, to have people debate amendments, lay down 
amendments, set them aside so we can vote on them next week. We are 
doing that on this side.
  The idea that a cloture motion is filed on this bill, to me, is 
inappropriate. There is no filibuster of this bill. Everybody wants to 
handle amendments as quickly as possible to this bill, and the idea 
that there is a cloture motion filed on a bill where we are making 
progress, where people are offering amendments, and we are disposing of 
them, to me is inconsistent with what we have done as a body and should 
be doing as a body.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, to the two managers of this bill, I have 
said before and I say again, we could not have better managers. They do 
things on a bipartisan basis. This is an important bill. I have from 
this floor on other occasions this year talked about the need to go to 
this bill. I still believe that. I think it is important that we do 
this bill before we go home for the August recess. To think that 
yesterday was opening statements--I think it was yesterday, was is not? 
Yes. Today is Thursday. No votes tonight, no votes tomorrow, vote at 5 
o'clock on Monday night--that is no way to legislate. To think that 
cloture will be invoked on this bill, we are here working with 
substantive amendments. We are not trying to slow things down, to stall 
things. I am a supporter of the legislation that the leader wants to 
bring up--not to jeopardize this bill. It is simply not fair.
  I went to Walter Reed Monday. I saw lying in those beds men who are 
disfigured; their lives have changed forever. It is hard to get out of 
my mind's eye a young man there just turned 21 years old, blind in one 
eye, can't hear except a little bit out of one ear. I talked to another 
man lying there in bed; he was blown through the top of a Striker 
headfirst, which indicates how his head was injured. He is going to 
lose a leg.
  We have to finish this bill. That is what we need to do. We have 
spent as much as 5 weeks on this bill. Should we not be able to spend 5 
days on it? We have had 1 day to legislate on it. As the distinguished 
ranking member of the committee had indicated, we have lined up 
amendments for tomorrow, substantive amendments that relate to the 
subject matter of this legislation. We are ready to vote on them. 
Monday we will have people here ready to offer amendments. I think it 
is so unfair to people whom I visited at Walter Reed to not finish this 
bill and to invoke cloture on it.
  So we are faced with this proposition. We have basically had 1 day. 
Cloture,

[[Page S8655]]

we will have a vote on it Monday. We have 1 day where we have votes. 
And the votes we had today, we didn't need to have most of them. Two of 
them were 100 to zero, or however many Senators we have here today. 
They passed unanimously. We agreed not to have votes. ``Yes, we want to 
have rollcall votes on them.'' Is it just to eat up time? My Democratic 
Senators are going to be asked Tuesday morning to vote for invocation 
of cloture on the Defense bill after they have had 1 day of debate, so 
the hue and cry will be from the majority, the Democrats are holding up 
the Defense bill. I want the Record to be spread with the fact that the 
Democrats are not holding up anything on this bill. We wanted to move 
to it months ago. It has been more than 2 months reported out of 
committee.

  Everyone knows here how I like the trains to run on time. I like this 
place to be an orderly body to try to get things done. But this is not 
the way to get things done. I am terribly disappointed. I have 
expressed this personally to the majority leader. I told him what I was 
going to come to the floor and say. But he is also going to have 
criticism from others.
  Moving off this, we have other things he has already indicated he 
would do: No. 1, the Native Hawaiian bill that the Senators from Hawaii 
have been waiting on for years to do. He has agreed, he has given us 
his word that we would move to that this time. When is that going to 
take place?
  So I am terribly disappointed. I am terribly disappointed that we are 
in a situation where we are going to move off this bill. I don't know 
what legislation we could do that would be more important than the 
safety and security and to give proper resources to the men and women 
fighting all over this world in addition to giving them a pay raise.
  Mr. President, I hope people will reconsider.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to respond to our distinguished 
minority leader. I accept full responsibility for the timing and the 
management of this bill and making the decision that there would be no 
more votes tonight. My leader has entrusted me with that power, and I 
have so exercised it. I regret that it appears to the minority leader, 
a very valued and dear colleague in this Chamber, that it is not a 
proper course of action, but I accept that. We have a difference of 
opinion.
  The fact that we will not have votes tonight will not deter my 
distinguished colleague and me as managers from continuing to work 
through amendments. We will both be here throughout tomorrow. We could 
stack a number of amendments which could be addressed on the afternoon 
of Monday at such time as the two leaders determine it would be 
appropriate.
  As to the matter of cloture, again I accept full responsibility. This 
is the 27th Armed Services bill I have been privileged to be involved 
in. I believe that historically cloture is needed, particularly in the 
last week when colleagues, understandably, on both sides of the aisle 
have many matters of great interest to them and they desire to exercise 
their rights to amend this bill and otherwise to get a decision by the 
Senate as a body.
  So I accept the responsibility. Whether we go ahead and as the 
cloture ripens we go forward, that is a matter I will work on with my 
leader in consultation. And if there is such progress made on a list of 
amendments that remain, I would wish to take into consideration the 
possibility we might not vote on it. But I feel I have to have that in 
place to efficiently work and manage this bill in the interim period 
between now and Tuesday morning.
  But bottom line, I accept the responsibility. It is not that of the 
distinguished majority leader.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Through the Chair to the distinguished southern gentleman--
he really is--the mere fact that we don't have votes tonight is the 
least of my worries. I do say that we do more than 1 day. I would say 
to the two managers of the bill, based on what the distinguished 
chairman of the committee has said, from what I have heard, if we all 
lay down a number of amendments, the Senator would be satisfied that we 
have done enough on the bill that he would not have to seek the 
invocation of cloture. I don't like that. I think this is one of the 
bills where people should be able to offer amendments that they want 
to, not only on this subject but others.
  But I hope by tomorrow when the majority leader returns, we can have 
a better understanding of what is expected of the minority. We 
understand we are the minority, but we are a powerful minority and we 
have rights, as the distinguished Senator from Virginia knows.
  So again, I hope the two managers of the bill would follow the 
suggestion of the distinguished Senator from Virginia as to what we 
need to do to make you feel late in the session that we have done what 
needs to be done where cloture does not have to be filed.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am curious; my sense is that in years 
past, we have on occasion had the Defense authorization bill on the 
Senate floor for some significant length of time. The reason for that 
is this bill is a very large bill, it has significant policy questions 
engrained in it, and some are very controversial.
  I observe, as did my colleague from Nevada, I have great admiration 
for the Senator from Virginia. He provides real leadership, as does the 
Senator from Michigan. I do hope we will not have cloture filed on this 
bill.
  I am going to debate an amendment that will be offered in the 
morning. I will offer an amendment around lunchtime tomorrow, a 
separate amendment. I am sure many of our colleagues have amendments 
they wish to offer. I hope the opportunity for full debate will be 
available because this area is so critically important.
  If I might take another moment, the amendment tomorrow deals with, as 
I understand it, the earth-penetrating bunker buster nuclear weapon, 
the amendment I will offer with respect to the development of a Truman-
type commission to deal with contracting abuses--waste, fraud, and 
abuse, massive abuses which I will describe tomorrow. These are 
important issues. These are not small issues. They are big issues that 
require and demand significant debate and consideration.
  I hope we will take the time we need as a Senate to sink our teeth 
into this bill, to improve on the wonderful work that has been done by 
the chairman and the ranking member. I hope we can avoid cloture. I do 
not believe it is necessary. I hope we will work through next week and 
finish a Defense authorization bill that we can all be proud of, that 
will strengthen and advance this country's efforts.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate very much the statement of the Senator from 
North Dakota.
  Let me say one additional thing. If a cloture motion is filed on this 
tomorrow, I have tentatively called a Democrat caucus for 5:45 Monday 
night. I personally am going to ask my members to not invoke cloture. 
We are doing a disservice to the people of this country and the men and 
women in the military to not have the opportunity to try to improve 
this bill. There are so many things that are left undone, some of which 
have been named this evening, that I believe we would be remiss if we 
did not fully debate this bill.
  I say to my friend from Virginia--again, we are friends, and I say 
this in the most underlined and underscored fashion--it is not fair. We 
basically have spent today on the bill. We know what has happened 
around here in recent years. Fridays and Mondays, not much happens. We 
will try to change that. We just have not had an opportunity to spend 
any time on this bill. I have not been here 27 years, but I have been 
here 23 years. These Defense bills take a long time--certainly more 
than 2 or 3 days. It is so unfair.
  As I have indicated to those within the sound of my voice, I 
understand the distinguished majority leader has a lot to do. The 
Senator from Virginia is the wrong person to direct this to. We wasted 
so much time on these five judges--I don't know how many weeks, but we 
have been in session 94 days, and we have spent 31 days on judges. That 
pretty much says it all.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

[[Page S8656]]

  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. As I remember, we spent 2 weeks of the Senate's time on 
the bankruptcy legislation, which is basically special interest for the 
credit card companies, and we spent 2 weeks on class action, which is 
special interest legislation. That is 4 weeks. We are asked now to 
spend less than a week debating the authorization for the fighting men 
and women after we spent 2 weeks for the credit card companies and 2 
weeks for class action that will benefit special interests. And now we 
will be asked in less than 2 or 3 days to snuff off and silence debate 
on the issues affecting the men and women of this country on the first 
line of defense?
  Mr. REID. I respond to my friend, add to that the 2 weeks and 2 
weeks, add 31 legislative days on judges, and understand that wound up 
being five people, three of whom are now judges, two of whom are not. 
As I understand it, we have more than 400,000 men and women in the 
military, not counting Guard and Reserve. They are entitled to as much 
time as we spent on bankruptcy, as much time as we spent on class 
action, and certainly as much as we spent on five people, every one of 
whom had a job. They were not jobless.
  There are more than 400,000 men and women, some of whom are out here 
in a hospital, in a bed because they cannot walk--at that hospital 
alone, there are more than 300 men and women who have lost limbs--and 
they deserve more than 2 or 3 days of Senate time.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. It is my understanding if we go through this with the 
motion for cloture, it is the hope that we would spend the rest of next 
week finishing this bill? Is that the game plan?
  Mr. REID. If cloture is invoked on the underlying bill--certainly 
people know the procedure around here better than I, but if cloture is 
invoked Tuesday morning, say 11 o'clock, add 30 hours to that, and that 
is when we would be finished.
  Mr. DURBIN. And there would still be amendments? I ask through the 
Chair, Members could still offer amendments?
  Mr. REID. During the 30 hours. Technically, you can.
  Mr. DURBIN. Germane amendments.
  Mr. REID. Make sure that people understand this: The mere fact that 
there are amendments that are valid postcloture does not mean they will 
allow a vote on them.
  Mr. DURBIN. We have all learned that bitter lesson.
  Let me ask the Senator. It is not a carefully guarded secret that 
part of the reason they want to move this bill off the Senate is so 
they can bring to the floor the National Rifle Association bill on gun 
manufacturers' liability before we leave for the August recess. So it 
is not just a matter of cloture to move the DOD bill, the Department of 
Defense bill, it is to make room and time for the National Rifle 
Association, another special interest group, so that they have more 
days to deliberate their bill than we may spend on this bill.
  Mr. REID. Let me say to the distinguished Senator from Illinois in 
response to the question, the majority leader has the right to pull 
this bill. He can do that. He does not need to get cloture. Even though 
I would not be happy with doing that, he could go ahead anytime he 
wants to move off this bill and move to anything he wants to do because 
they have more votes than we have. He could do that. But at least if he 
did that, we could have an opportunity to complete this bill in an 
orderly fashion, not cut off debate willy-nilly.
  So the answer to my distinguished friend's question is yes, but what 
it appears the majority wants to do is blame the minority for not 
allowing the Defense bill to go forward, and it has nothing to do with 
us. He has the right, today, to move off this and move on to gun 
liability, native Hawaiians, estate tax, flag burning, and all the 
other threats we have had around here.
  Mr. DURBIN. Another question to the Senator from Nevada, and I think 
I know the answer: Is there anything more important than finishing the 
Department of Defense authorization bill in an orderly fashion when a 
nation is at war and men and women are risking their lives, as the 
Senator from Nevada noted?
  Mr. REID. I say to my distinguished friend, we completed the Homeland 
Security appropriations bill last week. That was a pretty important 
bill because it protects our Nation. If we are not so inclined to help 
the men and women who have signed up to represent us and defend this 
country, this is not a good sign for this Senate. Therefore, I truly 
believe there is nothing more important that we could be doing in this 
Senate than finishing this bill in an orderly fashion. To think we will 
have one normal voting day on this--that is what it will amount to--
before cloture is invoked. One day. Thursday. That is it because we do 
not work around here on Mondays and Fridays.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask one last question of the Senator from Nevada. It is 
my understanding today we have had two votes on this bill.
  Mr. REID. We had one unanimous consent vote today on DOD and a vote 
on the Lugar amendment. I thought there would be something on Boy 
Scouts, but that never came to be, on an amendment offered by the 
majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. I might ask the Senator, it is my understanding there are 
many amendments pending right now that we could debate.
  Mr. REID. I believe there are six--I could be wrong, but something 
like that.
  Mr. DURBIN. I have one pending.
  Mr. LEVIN. Thirteen amendments pending.
  Mr. WARNER. I say to my colleagues, I accept the responsibility. I 
listened carefully to these points. I suggest we all do our very best 
between now and Tuesday morning to put together a record of 
accomplishments to have the votes--they can be set up quite easily 
tomorrow, tonight, Monday--and we will reassess this situation.
  Clearly, with the representations that underlie your statements that 
we need to move forward, with that momentum on that side, I would be 
very happy to match it on this side. I assure you it will be 
forthcoming. But I am not going to sit here and recount the number of 
instances today I have worked with Senators on both sides of the 
aisle--of which my distinguished colleague is aware--who, for various 
reasons, could not do this or that. And I respect that. But we have had 
a reasonable amount of work achieved today. So might I suggest at this 
point in time that we have made our case with all points. I accept 
responsibility. Let's go forward and see what we can achieve.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there is nobody in this body I would rather 
work with than Senator Warner. We have had this relationship, which is 
a very warm one, for as long as we have both been here, and we have 
been here the same length of time.
  I want to tell Senator Warner we are doing something unusual tomorrow 
and Monday in an effort to address the amendments which people want to 
offer. We are lining up people to speak on amendments, although they 
cannot get votes. Traditionally around here, there has been great 
resistance--and understandably--to offering amendments on one day if 
you cannot get a vote on that day because people want votes to come 
shortly after the debate so it will be fresh in people's mind.
  We are making every effort to move this bill. We are having people 
lined up. We have them for tomorrow. We have them for Monday. We are 
willing, just in order to expedite consideration of this bill, to 
debate the bill on a Friday, although the votes cannot occur until a 
Tuesday. We are moving heaven and Earth. We are going out of our way to 
bring up amendments. But it is utterly unfair that a cloture motion be 
adopted which will cut off the opportunity of other Members to offer 
amendments under this circumstance. We are not delaying it. We are 
expediting this bill in every single way we know.
  In terms of the question asked by a number of my colleagues, I cannot 
remember a Defense bill that just had 1 day for votes. Typically, we 
spend a good week on debate, maybe more--2 weeks, 3 weeks--on a Defense 
authorization bill. The idea that the cloture is filed on the second 
day to cut off debate on amendments seems to me unthinkable.

[[Page S8657]]

  These are amendments aimed at improving this bill, strengthening this 
bill. That is the motive. We all have the same goal. We may differ when 
it comes to votes, but the motive is to strengthen this bill, to offer 
greater support for the men and women in the military. The idea that 
any one of those amendments might be cut off because technically they 
are not germane--although they are relevant--seems to me unthinkable.
  I hope, No. 1, we will make progress; No. 2, that the majority would 
think about filing a cloture motion under these circumstances which 
would deny an opportunity to strengthen a bill which is so important to 
the men and women in the military.
  Mr. WARNER. Now, Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from 
Michigan and I have cleared amendments. I would like to do them. Then I 
wish to entertain a colloquy with my colleague from South Dakota. 
Perhaps I will undergo that colloquy at this time.


                           Amendment No. 1389

  Again, the Senator has very cooperative in bringing this amendment to 
the attention of the Senate. I have had a few minutes to go over it. 
Let's see if we can, as best we are able, define certain parameters 
with regard to the goals of this amendment and its impact on the 
existing law. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a 
detailed listing of the BRAC timeline.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           2005 BRAC TIMELINE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECDEF sends initial selection criteria to  December 31, 2003
 defense committees.
President submits proposed force            February 1, 2004
 structure.a.
Sec/Def sends final selection criteria to   February 16, 2004
 defense committees; publishes criteria in
 Federal Register.
Criteria final, unless disapproved by Act   March 15, 2004
 of Congress.
Congress receives interim report of         March 31, 2005
 Overseas Basing Commission.b.
President transmits nine nominees for BRAC  NLT March 15, 2005
 Commission to Senate for advice, consent
 and confirmation.c.
SECDEF sends closure/realignment list to    NLT May 16, 2005
 Commission and defense committees;
 publishes in Federal Register.
GAO reviews DOD's list; reports findings    July 1, 2005
 to President/defense committees.
Commission sends its recommendations to     NLT September 8, 2005
 President.
President reviews Sec/Def's and             NLT September 23, 2005
 Commission's list of recommendations and
 reports to Congress.d.
Commission may submit revised list in       NLT October 20, 2005
 response to President's request for
 reconsideration.
Final date for the President to approve     November 7, 2005
 and submit BRAC list to Congress (or
 process is terminated)e.
Work of the closure/realignment Commission  April 15, 2006
 is terminated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a SECDEF has option to submit revised force structure to Congress by Mar
  15, 2005.
b Established by Congress in P.L. 108-132. Report date extended in PL
  108-324.
c If President does not send nominations by required date, process is
  terminated.
d President prepares report containing approval or disapproval.
e Congress has 45 days to pass disapproving motion, or list becomes law.

  Mr. WARNER. We have completed the GAO reviews of the DOD list and 
reported findings to the President and defense committees. That was 
done July 1. We are in the process and the Commission is having a 
series of hearings all across the country. The Commission sends its 
recommendations to the President on September 8. Thereafter, the 
President reviews the recommendations of the Secretary of Defense and 
the Commission's list of recommendations and reports to the 
Congress. That is September 23. Then the Commission may submit a 
revised list in response to the President's request no later than 
October 20. And the final date for the President to approve and submit 
the BRAC list to the Congress, or the process is terminated, is 
November 7. So that frames the current timetable.

  Now, as I look over the Senator's--and I will go first to page 2, the 
section entitled: ``Actions Required Before Base Closure Round.''

       The actions referred to in subsection (a)--

  And that is essentially the timetable I have recounted here--

     are the following actions:
       (A) The complete analysis, consideration, and, where 
     appropriate, implementation by the Secretary of Defense of 
     the recommendations of the Commission on Review of Overseas 
     Military Facility Structure of the United States.

  I draw your attention to the word ``implementation.'' Now, this 
report, if finished, will be released August 15. But the 
implementation--I certainly have no facts before me at this time by 
which I could even conjecture how long it would take the Secretary of 
Defense to implement the recommendations of the Commission on Review of 
Overseas Military Facility Structure of the United States. So there is 
no determinate date at which time the provisions in (A) can be 
estimated; is that correct?
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the first criteria that deals with the 
Overseas BRAC Commission's findings and report would suggest that until 
those recommendations, until the analysis is complete, until that 
report has been carefully analyzed, and then ultimately it says 
implemented, ``where appropriate,'' by the Secretary of Defense is the 
condition to be met. It does not specify a specific date when that 
happens.
  I think the answer, through the Chair, to the chairman's question is 
that the notion of having a domestic round of closures occur before 
decisions are made with respect to the basing needs overseas and some 
of the recommendations that have been brought forward by the Overseas 
BRAC Commission--that process would be completed prior to the 
implementation of the domestic BRAC recommendations.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, our colloquy is addressed through the 
Chair. It is the word ``implementation.'' It could be that analysis 
could be completed--consideration. But the ``implementation'' leaves an 
indeterminate date for (A). I think we both agree on that point.
  Going to the next point:

       The return from deployment in the Iraq theater of 
     operations of substantially all (as determined by the 
     Secretary of Defense) major combat units and assets of the 
     Armed Forces.

  Now, our President, I think quite wisely, and the Secretary of 
Defense have avoided any reference to a timetable with respect to the 
achieving of our goals in Iraq; namely, allowing that country to form 
its government, to provide for itself that measure of security to 
protect the sovereignty and, hopefully, law and order in that country, 
at which time it is expected that our President and the coalition 
leaders will make a determination as to the redeployment from the 
theater in Iraq of substantially all of the major combat units. So that 
clearly is a very difficult condition to meet in terms of when that 
could be completed, that with even conjecture, we cannot anticipate 
when that will be completed--unless you have facts that I am not aware 
of.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the Chair giving me 
an opportunity to respond to the question. I think what the Senator 
from Virginia is asking is if there is a definitive timetable in the 
amendment. The answer is no, there is not. This does not involve a 
timetable. We are not suggesting in this amendment that there be any 
timetable. All we are simply saying is that the Secretary of Defense 
can determine at what point the return from deployment of personnel who 
are stationed in Iraq as a result of some drawdown of the operation 
there is substantial. That is a determination which, as you can see, we 
leave to the Secretary of Defense.
  Mr. WARNER. Well, it is the words ``return from deployment.'' That, 
clearly, in the mind of this Senator, means all the major, as 
determined by the Secretary of Defense, combat units. It is not 
difficult for me to define what are major combat units. What I cannot 
estimate in any way reasonably, and nor should I, because it would 
impinge upon the President's decision--a correct one--not to try to set 
a timetable. So anyway, I will move on. But that is a very 
indeterminate condition, to me.
  We then go to (C). Now, I am told that report is likely to be 
finished by March of next year.
  Then let's go now to (D):

       The complete development and implementation by the 
     Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     of the National Maritime Security Strategy.

  Now, I can possibly conjecture or maybe even estimate when the 
development would be completed by the two Secretaries, but I certainly 
would not be able to determine, nor can anyone else, in my judgment, 
when there would be implementation. So there is another open-ended 
criteria. Am I incorrect?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. I thank you, Mr. President.
  I say to the Senator from Virginia, if you are looking for, again, a 
specific timeline on this, I think these were probably condition (D) 
and condition

[[Page S8658]]

(E) you were referring to. It may be more easily defined if you are 
looking for a specific time, although I do not think that is specified 
here. But these are conditions. These are not specific timelines. We 
are not saying that the BRAC shall be delayed until March of 2006, 
although with the QDR that becomes a little more clear.

  But these are conditions in the same way that I think our military 
leadership and the President have said the withdrawal from Iraq ought 
to be condition-based. These are conditions that would have to be met 
before the domestic BRAC recommendations would be implemented.
  Mr. WARNER. What I am trying to convey, Mr. President, to my 
distinguished colleague is that the criteria you have established for a 
new timetable, which, again, is in a subsequent paragraph--that is in 
paragraph (2) on page 4--and I read it--

       The report required under subparagraph (F) of paragraph (1) 
     shall be submitted not later than one year after the 
     occurrence of the last action described in subparagraphs (A) 
     through (E) of such paragraph.

  So you add possibly up to a year on a whole set of indeterminate 
schedules up here. Now, I think I have made my point.
  I want to put this question to the Senator. As our colleagues have 
the opportunity--as we are now doing--to look at this and to either 
determine how best they can vote to protect the interests of their 
State and to protect the interests of the country, as we go through 
this very difficult process of BRAC this is my fifth one. It is not 
easy. I think they have to suddenly recognize the indeterminate 
schedule, as laid out by this amendment, will hold in limbo the whole 
BRAC process for, it could be, up to 2 years. I just throw the quick 
estimate out of 2 years. That 2-year period poses a frightful situation 
for the communities that will have had by that time the report of the 
BRAC Commission, which will send its recommendations to the President 
on September 8.
  So this amendment does not stop that process going forward. I am 
correct on that; am I not?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, again, the Senator from Virginia is correct 
in that the timeline you gave me, the current BRAC timeline, is not 
impacted until the President would act and make the recommendation to 
the Congress.
  Mr. WARNER. That is fine. But on September 8, all the communities 
would know what is final, what is decided by the Commission on the 
President's original list that went up, which bases, facilities will be 
closed, realigned, whatever the case may be. It is a wide spectrum of 
decisions. Then they are subject to other additions, which they are in 
the process of going through. And they are permitted by law.
  So there it is: The BRAC Commission report is out, and these 
communities have to now cope with the high probability, under this 
amendment, were it to be adopted--2 years have lapsed. In the meantime, 
how can they attract new business as a consequence of such facility, 
the military they have? The businesses that are serving indirectly or 
directly the military facilities in that community, do they decide to 
put in new capital and continue to modernize their business to do their 
responsible actions to support that facility?
  You put a cloud of indecision and doubt over all the communities that 
will be affected by this September 8 decision. And BRAC is onerous in 
its own schedule right here. It is extremely hard. And now to take and 
hold these communities, literally, in irons for a period of 2 years 
until, if the amendment were adopted, certain adjustments might be made 
in the final Presidential decision--I just find this amendment, with 
all due respect to my good friend and colleague, who is a member of our 
committee, as one that will impose on communities a very severe 
hardship. I am not sure the Congress will want to do that. I say that 
to you in all respect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if I could respond to the very 
distinguished chairman of our committee. And I do appreciate his 
leadership on our committee. I appreciate his sensitivity to the impact 
that these decisions are going to have on communities all across this 
country.
  But I would also submit that when the conditions are met, a timeline 
should not be a prerequisite where national security is involved. This 
is the exact same argument we are now making with respect to our 
involvement in Iraq, that we cannot subscribe to a specific timeline. 
It is a conditions-based approach that we are adopting there. This 
would simply say that these are conditions that, when they are met, 
would trigger that next step in the BRAC process, which ultimately is 
the approval by this body. It comes back to the Congress.
  The Congress would have an opportunity, then, after they have 
evaluated the recommendations in the QDR, after they have gotten a 
better handle on that and the Defense Department has had a chance to 
review the recommendations with respect to overseas basing needs and we 
have gotten a better idea about what our domestic needs are going to be 
when these troops start returning to this country. I think those are 
conditions for which at this point in time it is unwise for us to be 
moving forward at this fast pace.
  I would simply add what the Overseas Basing Commission in their 
recommendations said; and that is, if the Congress moves too quickly on 
domestic basing decisions, it could weaken our global posture and, 
furthermore, that we need to proceed with caution. I believe that the 
conditions we have included here are things that, as a Congress--as a 
Member of the Senate--I would want to know before I make a vote on a 
final list of recommendations.
  Now, the Senator is correct, it is fair to say there will be 
communities, after August 22, perhaps--which I think is when the markup 
is--that will know whether they are on or off the list.
  At the same time, what we are saying is, those communities may or may 
not stay on that list. In fact, when the Congress has had an 
opportunity to review some of these conditions that are included in 
this legislation, they may decide not to vote in favor of those 
recommendations. I don't think the door is closed, I say to the Senator 
from Virginia, at the time when the list is approved by the BRAC 
Commission and submitted to the President.
  Mr. WARNER. One last point, and then perhaps the distinguished 
ranking member would like to be engaged in this debate. One of the 
aspects of the BRAC process that has always troubled this Senator is 
the duty, beginning with the Governor of the State and the 
congressional delegation, to encourage the communities, with their 
support, to do everything they can to question such decisions as may be 
made regarding installations within that State and the several 
communities.
  In doing so, they engage in those activities which are quite normal--
hire lobbyists, experts to come in and help them. That whole 
infrastructure then essentially has to be kept in place for maybe up to 
another 2 years at an enormous cost to these communities. I will argue 
strenuously, when we get into further debate on the Senator's 
amendment, that the amendment, no matter how well-intended, will 
inflict on communities across this land affected by BRAC an unusual 
punishment that certainly I do not believe any of us would want to do.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. THUNE. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. THUNE. If I could make one comment, I understand what the 
chairman is saying with respect to some of these communities. I think a 
lot of these communities would welcome the opportunity to keep fighting 
for a couple of years. I also know firsthand, because I have a 
community that is involved, about the costs that are associated with a 
long, drawn-out, protracted campaign. Many of these communities have 
been in that process literally since the last round in 1995. Much of 
that expense concludes when the BRAC makes its recommendation. For all 
intents and purposes, what you are left with, once the recommendations 
are out there, is final approval by the President and the Congress. My 
assumption would be that in terms of the cost for consultants and all 
the costs

[[Page S8659]]

associated with analyzing data and making presentations to the BRAC, 
many of those costs are now sunk. Those are costs that are going to be 
concluded, by the time August 22nd rolls around and these 
recommendations are out there.
  I hear what the chairman is saying. I don't think that is an issue 
that many of these communities that are fighting to keep their bases 
are most concerned with. I think they would welcome the opportunity to 
keep the fight going.
  Mr. WARNER. My last question on that point, there will be an enormous 
amount of data generated, information and decisionmaking that will take 
place should the Senator's amendment become law. Is he suggesting that 
the communities then will have no participation in the deliberations as 
to how that data may or may not affect the decision of the Secretary of 
Defense regarding the prior decision of the Base Closure Commission and 
how the Secretary of Defense is to advocate? I just cannot see this 
amount of data and decision being made by all of these various 
tribunals and organizations and that the communities just have to sit 
there and fold their hands and let the executive branch go backwards 
and forwards until the President then submits something to the 
Congress.
  Mr. THUNE. I am not sure I fully understand the question except that 
it seems to me if what you are suggesting is that somehow they are 
going to continue, once the BRAC Commission makes its final 
recommendations, to have to appeal this to the Secretary of Defense, I 
don't understand the process to work that way. Ultimately, what they 
are left with is a decision by the President and final subsequent 
approval by the Congress. It seems to me, once you get past this point 
in the process, when August 22nd is reached and those recommendations 
are made by the BRAC Commission, it then becomes a function of the 
President.
  What our bill would do is trigger the BRAC period moving forward, 
going forward from the time the recommendations are submitted to 
Congress, the 45-day period. So most communities would then be lobbying 
members of their congressional delegation, if they are on the list, I 
suspect, to vote no when that final vote would come.
  Mr. WARNER. I understand that. But it seems to me, if you look at all 
of the information, data, reports in A, B, C, D, E, and F, to me, in 
fairness, the communities should have some involvement as to how that 
information may or may not impact the decision with regard to their 
community rendered by the BRAC Commission. I just can't see that 
everybody is going to fold their hands. If you are going to delay it 
for 2 years, some provision should be made to allow the active 
participation, once again, by the communities after this massive amount 
of data is brought into the public domain. I make that observation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, one final observation. My expectation would 
be that if we get this, if there is a download of information as a 
result of QDR and some of these other conditions that we impose, that 
Congress would hold hearings. The public would have an opportunity, 
through a congressional process, through their elected representatives, 
to be heard on the subject that the conditions would address.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I, too, oppose the amendment for the 
reasons which were set forth by the chairman. But, in addition, I have 
some other thoughts about this process. Each one of our States has gone 
through a tremendous period of anxiety. As it turns out, some of that 
anxiety was well based because they are on the list. For those States 
that did better than expected or better than their worst fears, it 
seems to me this amendment will throw them right back into that state 
of anxiety because by definition, this makes it more likely because of 
the uncertainty that is injected. And because of the delay in the final 
disposition, more States will be thrown right back into the position of 
being very nervous and anxious as to whether their bases and their 
facilities might be hit by a base-closing round. In other words, there 
is no finality. It is a totally uncertain finish, not just 2 years.
  We don't know when substantially all major combat units from Iraq 
will be withdrawn. I would be very concerned that in addition to the 
arguments which the Senator from Virginia made, we have many States 
that hired consultants, that made major presentations, that now are 
going to be put back into a state of limbo because they will then say: 
Well, we are not going to know whether we are basically off the hook 
for years, potentially many years. So those that breathe a sigh of 
relief by this list or did better than their worst fears or better than 
expected are now going to be put in a position where they are going to 
have to say: This could go on for years. We better keep these 
consultants on board. We better continue to be nervous about this for 
some indefinite period of time.
  There are many uncertainties that are created and a great degree of 
pain that will be inflicted if we continue this process for some 
unlimited period.
  As I understand the Senator's amendment, he would complete the 
process through the Presidential decision.
  Mr. THUNE. The Senator from Michigan is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. That means that while the Senator sets forth arguments for 
why all this information is essential before a congressional decision, 
the Presidential decision would be made before all of this information 
is available?
  Mr. THUNE. That would be correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. I think there is a deep illogic in that. To the extent you 
would want to delay something so that Congress could have information, 
which I think would be a mistake for the reasons given, to the extent 
there is logic in that, the President should have the same information 
before making his decision as the Congress arguably should have.
  Again, for reasons given by Senator Warner and myself, I think it 
would be a mistake to create the state of limbo which would result from 
the adoption of this amendment. It also has that degree of illogic in 
it as well.
  Finally, I ask the chairman, so that we can get the precise position 
of the administration on this, whether we could reasonably expect that 
at least by Monday we could have a letter from the administration 
relating to the specifics of this amendment. I know we have a general 
position of the administration.
  Mr. WARNER. What we do have already is a statement by the President 
that any effort to delay or impede the BRAC process would lead to a 
veto, with such clarity in my mind. By the way, an amendment, if I may 
advise my good friend, quite similar to this amendment was considered 
by the House and defeated by a vote of 112 for and 316 against, or 
something.
  I think our colleague should know if this ever got into the bill, the 
President would have to veto the bill. We would have to start all over 
again on the Defense bill. I don't know when we would do it. But 
certainly if the House is any guide, it was thoroughly rejected.
  Am I not correct in that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. If the Senator from Virginia would yield, the response to 
your question is that you are correct. The House did have a vote on an 
amendment. There was a BRAC amendment. But it was not this amendment. 
It was an amendment that would essentially do away with or delay the 
entire BRAC process. In other words, the BRAC Commission would not be 
able, under the House amendment, to complete its work. This allows the 
BRAC Commission to continue with their work product and respects the 
BRAC process, but simply slows down the implementation of those 
recommendations until these certain conditions are met.
  And with respect to the question of the Senator from Michigan 
regarding the so-called illogic of having the President weigh in on 
this, frankly, this Senator would like to know this type of information 
before we cast votes on whether we are going to close bases. I, 
frankly, don't know, nor does anybody on the floor this evening, what 
is in the QDR. I have some assumptions about that, but I happen to 
believe we may be surprised by some of the findings, some of the 
strategies that are going to be laid out when that

[[Page S8660]]

QDR comes out, and what some of the weapon systems needs are and what 
some of the basing needs are. We are the elected representatives of the 
people. We represent the people of our respective States. In my view, 
we should be the ones who review this type of information before we 
make votes on shuttering bases across the country. As a member of the 
Armed Services Committee, and my chairman and distinguished ranking 
member are here, I think we have a responsibility before we make 
decisions of this consequence and this magnitude about bases that may 
never be able to be opened again. Once we shut these things down, they 
are shut down for good.
  There are a lot of questions that remain unanswered about the QDR, 
about basing needs overseas, about what our needs are going to be when 
those troops start coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan from other 
theaters.
  I appreciate and respect the leaders of this committee on their 
thoughts. I understand their opposition to this amendment. Frankly, I 
would urge my colleagues who look at these issues and are concerned 
about moving forward too quickly on decisions that have enormous and 
major consequences, not only for the communities that are impacted but 
for the national security of the United States of America, that without 
having this kind of information, it seems to me at least that many of 
the decisions are, at a minimum, very premature.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our colleague. We have had quite a 
good debate. I am prepared to move on, subject to the views of my 
colleague.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I think it is important that in addition to 
getting the general views of the administration about the importance of 
this BRAC process proceeding for the reasons they have set forth, the 
language of this amendment be forwarded to them. I will give an example 
of why.
  As I understand it, one of the impacts of the amendment would be that 
it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the Army to bring back to 
the United States about 49,000 personnel and their families because 
those relocations back to the United States are dependent upon certain 
steps being taken as proposed in the BRAC process. We are leaving a lot 
of people in limbo overseas, I believe--that is our conclusion--but I 
would like to hear from the Defense Department as to the specific 
ramifications of this kind of delay, in addition to the reasons they 
have already given for opposing any delay or cancellation of the BRAC 
process. So I agree with our chairman that they are very clear that 
they would veto this bill if this kind of amendment passes.
  But in terms of the argument on the amendment, there are practical 
problems, in addition to the ones already raised by the Defense 
Department, that they may want to raise if we get them the language. I 
hope that over the weekend the chairman will forward the language to 
the Defense Department.
  Mr. WARNER. Rest assured, that will be done. I will prepare a letter. 
The Senator from Michigan and I will be here tomorrow morning and 
perhaps we can make a joint request outlining precisely what our views 
are.
  Mr. LEVIN. I hope the Senator from South Dakota, if available 
tomorrow or Monday, if there is further debate on this amendment, might 
be present or be able to listen to the debate so he could respond to 
it.
  Mr. WARNER. I anticipate that the reply from the administration would 
be forthcoming on Monday. I think the Senator would be available to 
debate this matter later in the afternoon.
  Mr. THUNE. I will, and I welcome the opportunity to come to the floor 
and speak to it as well.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator has a very distinguished list of cosponsors, 
I might add.
  Mr. LEVIN. And an even more distinguished list of opponents. Just 
kidding. The hour is late.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in great seriousness, referring to the 
cosponsors, they are Senators Lieberman, Snowe, Lautenberg, Johnson, 
Dodd, Collins, Corzine, Bingaman, and Domenici.
  I stick by my words that it is a distinguished list of cosponsors.
  Mr. THUNE. I thank the chair.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the managers wish to advise the Senate 
that we have accomplished a good deal today, and we will be fully in 
business tomorrow, with the exception of rollcall votes. It is our hope 
and expectation that we can go through a number of amendments and stack 
those votes for a time to be decided by leadership.
  Therefore, Mr. President, I think we can move off of the bill and do 
such wrap-up as is necessary.
  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. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________