Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 103 (Tuesday, July 26, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 103 (Tuesday, July 26, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8897-S8908]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 1042, which the clerk will report.
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:

Frist modified amendment No. 1342, to support certain youth
organizations, including the Boy Scouts of America and Girl
Scouts of America.
Inhofe amendment No. 1311, to protect the economic and
energy security of the United States.
Inhofe/Kyl amendment No. 1313, 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.
Lautenberg amendment No. 1351, to stop corporations from
financing terrorism.
Ensign amendment No. 1374, to require a report on the use
of riot control agents.
Ensign amendment No. 1375, to require a report on the costs
incurred by the Department of Defense in implementing or
supporting resolutions of the United Nations Security
Council.
Collins amendment No. 1377 (to Amendment No. 1351), to
ensure that certain persons do not evade or avoid the
prohibition imposed under the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act.
Durbin amendment No. 1379, to require certain dietary
supplement manufacturers to report certain serious adverse
events.
Hutchison/Nelson (FL) amendment No. 1357, to express the
sense of the Senate with regard to manned space flight.
Thune amendment No. 1389, to postpone the 2005 round of
defense base closure and realignment.
Kennedy amendment No. 1415, to transfer funds authorized to
be appropriated to the Department of Energy for the National
Nuclear Security Administration for weapons activities and
available for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator to the Army
National Guard, Washington, District of Columbia chapter.
Allard/McConnell amendment No. 1418, to require life cycle
cost estimates for the destruction of lethal chemical
munitions under the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives
program.
Allard/Salazar amendment No. 1419, to authorize a program
to provide health, medical, and life insurance benefits to
workers at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site,
Colorado, who would otherwise fail to qualify for such
benefits because of an early physical completion date.
Dorgan amendment No. 1426, to express the sense of the
Senate on the declassification and release to the public of
certain portions of the Report of the Joint Inquiry into the
Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, and to urge the
President to release information regarding sources of foreign
support for the hijackers involved in the terrorist attacks
of September 11, 2001.
Dorgan amendment No. 1429, to establish a special committee
of the Senate to investigate the awarding and carrying out of
contracts to conduct activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and
to fight the war on terrorism.
Salazar amendment No. 1421, to rename the death gratuity
payable for deaths of members of the Armed Forces as fallen
hero compensation.
Salazar amendment No. 1422, to provide that certain local
educational agencies shall be eligible to receive a fiscal
year 2005 payment under section 8002 or 8003 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
Salazar/Reed amendment No. 1423, to provide for Department
of Defense support of certain Paralympic sporting events.
Collins (for Thune) amendment No. 1489, to postpone the
2005 round of defense base closure and realignment.
Collins (for Thune) amendment No. 1490, to require the
Secretary of the Air Force to develop and implement a
national space radar system capable of employing at least two
frequencies.
Collins (for Thune) amendment No. 1491, to prevent
retaliation against a member of the Armed Forces for
providing testimony about the military value of a military
installation.
Reed (for Levin) amendment No. 1492, to make available,
with an offset, an additional $50,000,000, for Operation and
Maintenance for Cooperative Threat Reduction.
Hatch amendment No. 1516, to express the sense of the
Senate regarding the investment of funds as called for in the
Depot Maintenance Strategy and Master Plan of the Air Force.
Inhofe amendment No. 1476, 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.
Allard amendment No. 1383, to establish a program for the
management of post-project

[[Page S8898]]

completion retirement benefits for employees at Department of
Energy project completion sites.
Allard/Salazar amendment No. 1506, to authorize the
Secretary of Energy to purchase certain essential mineral
rights and resolve natural resource damage liability claims.
McCain modified amendment No. 1557, to provide for uniform
standards for the interrogation of persons under the
detention of the Department of Defense.
Warner amendment No. 1566, to provide for uniform standards
and procedures for the interrogation of persons under the
detention of the Department of Defense.
McCain modified amendment No. 1556, to prohibit cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of persons
under the custody or control of the United States Government.
Stabenow/Johnson amendment No. 1435, to ensure that future
funding for health care for veterans takes into account
changes in population and inflation.
Murray amendment No. 1348, to amend the assistance to local
educational agencies with significant enrollment changes in
military dependent students due to force structure changes,
troop relocations, creation of new units, and realignment
under BRAC.
Murray amendment No. 1349, to facilitate the availability
of child care for the children of members of the Armed Forces
on active duty in connection with Operation Enduring Freedom
or Operation Iraqi Freedom and to assist school districts
serving large numbers or percentages of military dependent
children affected by the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, or by
other Department of Defense personnel decisions.
Levin amendment No. 1494, to establish a national
commission on policies and practices on the treatment of
detainees since September 11, 2001.
Hutchison amendment No. 1477, to make oral and
maxillofacial surgeons eligible for special pay for Reserve
health professionals in critically short wartime specialties.
Graham/McCain modified amendment No. 1505, to authorize the
President to utilize the Combatant Status Review Tribunals
and Annual Review Board to determine the status of detainees
held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Nelson (FL) amendment No. 762, to repeal the requirement
for the reduction of certain Survivor Benefit Plan annuities
by the amount of dependency and indemnity compensation and to
modify the effective date for paid-up coverage under the
Survivor Benefit Plan.
Durbin amendment No. 1428, to authorize the Secretary of
the Air Force to enter into agreements with St. Clair County,
Illinois, for the purpose of constructing joint
administrative and operations structures at Scott Air Force
Base, Illinois.
Durbin amendment No. 1571, to ensure that a Federal
employee who takes leave without pay in order to perform
service as a member of the uniformed services or member of
the National Guard shall continue to receive pay in an amount
which, when taken together with the pay and allowances such
individual is receiving for such service, will be no less
than the basic pay such individual would then be receiving if
no interruption in employment had occurred.
Levin amendment No. 1496, to prohibit the use of funds for
normalizing relations with Libya pending resolution with
Libya of certain claims relating to the bombing of the
LaBelle Discotheque in Berlin, Germany.
Levin amendment No. 1497, to establish limitations on
excess charges under time-and-materials contracts and labor-
hour contracts of the Department of Defense.
Levin (for Harkin/Dorgan) amendment No. 1425, relating to
the American Forces Network.

Recognition of the Majority Leader

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.

Schedule

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we come back for a final week before our
recess with a number of important items, many of which are the
culmination of many months of work. It will be a challenging week in
order to accommodate the range of issues. I will mention a number of
those that will be addressed. I do hope all of our colleagues will
consider the importance of addressing each of these and doing it in a
timely way that respects people's schedules and gets us out at the end
of this week. It is going to be a real challenge, but it can clearly be
accomplished if we all work together in a collegial and civil way as we
go.
This morning we will resume debate on the Defense authorization bill.
Under the order, there will be 20 minutes remaining for debate to be
used on the Collins and Lautenberg amendments on contracts. Following
that time, we will proceed to a series of votes. We will be voting on
the Collins amendment. Following that, we will vote in relation to the
Lautenberg amendment. Following that, we will vote in relation to a Boy
Scouts amendment. That will be followed by a cloture vote on the
pending Defense authorization.
If cloture is invoked, we will stay on the Defense bill until that is
completed, something I am very hopeful we will be able to do shortly.
If cloture is not invoked, we would proceed to a cloture vote with
respect to the motion to proceed to the gun manufacturers liability
bill which we also will address this week. These cloture votes will
allow the Senate to complete these two important measures.
In addition to that, we have a number of additional items, including
the conference report on energy, the conference report on highways, and
then there are a number of appropriations conference reports that may
become available in addition to these measures. We are looking at the
issue on Native Hawaiians and a death tax issue. We have a lot of work
to do in a very short period of time. We clearly will be working
through Friday of this week and, if it means going into the weekend to
complete the work, we are prepared to do that.

The Boy Scout Jamboree

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, very briefly, I want to mention--I know the
Senator from Alaska has a comment--our sympathy for the tragic events
that have occurred at the Boy Scouts Jamboree. Our thoughts and prayers
are with the many families who have been affected so directly. We will
continue to reach out over the course of the day for the tragic event
that occurred there.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority leader is recognized.

Cloture Votes

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would, through the Chair, ask the
distinguished majority leader if the majority leader would agree that
we would continue on the Defense bill, vitiate cloture on it and the
gun bill, and finish the Defense bill by a time certain, say Thursday
at 7 o'clock in the evening? We would try to work through our
amendments. We would have time agreements on amendments. We would have
the two managers of the bill set us up so we could vote on these,
Republican and Democratic amendments, work through all these. I have a
more extended statement I am going to give in a little bit, if we can't
work something out on this. I will ask unanimous consent, but I would
ask the distinguished Senator from Tennessee if he would consider a
unanimous consent agreement that will allow us to finish this bill by a
time certain on Thursday and, following that, in fact, what I think
would be most appropriate is we finish the very important Defense bill
this week, and the second we get back in September move to the gun
legislation.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Through the Chair in response to the Democratic leader, we
laid out a plan at the end of last week where we can stay on the
Department of Defense authorization bill. We have filed cloture to
bring some order to that process. We will have the opportunity to vote
on cloture this morning. I expect cloture to be invoked. We should
finish the Defense authorization bill. I have also made it clear from
this desk and on the floor that we are going to finish the gun
manufacturers liability bill before we leave. That makes it challenging
because we have the very important Department of Defense authorization
bill, but we have a plan and a way to finish that by invoking cloture
this morning, finishing with that issue, and then moving directly to
the gun manufacturers liability bill. Therefore, I do not believe we
need--in fact, I know we don't need a unanimous consent agreement in
order to accomplish that. So at this juncture we will stay on the plan,
the Department of Defense cloture vote this morning--and I expect it
would be invoked--finish that bill and then proceed to the gun
liability bill.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask through the Chair if the Senator from
Tennessee, the distinguished majority leader, has a statement to make.
Otherwise, I have a statement I am going to make this morning.
Mr. FRIST. I do not have a statement this morning. Following the
Democratic leader's statement, I believe the Senator from Alaska has a
brief statement to make as well.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I heard the Senator from Alaska say he
needed a minute or two. I would be happy, if he wants to do that at the
present time, to allow the President pro tempore of

[[Page S8899]]

the Senate, the most senior Member of the Senate, to give a statement.
Then I will give mine.
Before the leader leaves the floor, I will use leader time. I don't
think I will need to use more than the 10 minutes, but that would push
the votes back 10 minutes. I think everyone should be entitled to the
time they have. Is that OK with the leader?
Mr. FRIST. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). The Senator from Alaska is
recognized.

Boy Scouts Jamboree Tragedy

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, let me thank the two leaders for their
courtesy.
Last Thursday it was my privilege to meet on the Capitol steps with a
group of Boy Scouts from my State, 71 young Scouts and 9 adults, which
included 5 distinguished Boy Scout leaders. As we all know, we have
heard the news, a tragic accident occurred at Fort A.P. Hill, and four
of those leaders have passed away. Another is seriously injured. It has
been a shock to the Alaska community, certainly a shock to the
Jamboree. We are working with the Army. This occurred on an Army base,
and there is a CID investigation going on, as well as a Virginia State
investigation, to determine the cause of this tragedy. Clearly, there
are 71 young men down there who are very shocked and very disturbed
over this tragedy.
I want to thank the leader for his comments and the Chaplain for the
mention of these men in his opening prayer. It is impossible for us to
fathom a tragedy of this sort. In any event, I want to say to the
Senate and to the Alaskan people we will do everything we can to help
these young men and to comfort them and make certain they are cared for
in this period of mourning the loss of these distinguished Boy Scout
leaders.
I ask unanimous consent that statements that appeared in the
Anchorage Daily News this morning about this incident and from the
Washington Post reporting on the incidents be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Anchorage Daily News, July 26, 2005]

Alaska Scout Leaders Die Near D.C.

(By Katie Pesznecker and Lisa Demer)

Four Boy Scout leaders were killed in Virginia on Monday,
the opening day of the organization's national Jamboree, when
a metal tent pole they were holding hit a power line and
apparently ignited the canvas tent above them, according to
Scout officials and witnesses.
Officials late Monday confirmed the leaders who died are
Ron Bitzer, Michael Lacroix and Michael Shibe of Anchorage
and Scott Powell, who moved to Ohio last year.
A fifth Alaska Scout leader, Larry Call, and an
unidentified contractor were hospitalized with injuries,
according to Boy Scout officials. Call is being treated at a
Virginia hospital burn unit, said his wife, Paula Call.
No children were seriously injured, but about 30 Alaska
Scouts saw the accident happen some time between 12:30 p.m.
and 1 p.m. Alaska time at Fort A.P. Hill, an Army base about
one hour south of the nation's capital.
Karl Holfeld, an Anchorage father, said his 15-year-old
son, Taylor, witnessed the accident. Taylor was on his cell
phone talking to his mother in Anchorage when the accident
occurred.
``They all started screaming,'' Holfeld said. ``He said,
`Oh my God, oh my God, the tent is on fire, they're being
burned!' And she told him to stay away, to not touch
anything, because there could be a live wire.''
Paula Call spoke to her husband and others after the
accident. The group of men was erecting a large tent, like a
circus tent, she said. She didn't know what it was for.
``As they got it up, this pole started to lean and it
touched a utility live wire,'' Paula Call said.
She hadn't heard about the fire but said her husband
suffered electrocution burns on his hands, hips and feet. His
condition improved during the day and he will recover, she
said.
The Calls' son Kendell, 15, saw the accident but is too
upset to talk about it in detail, Paula Call said. A second
son was also there. Witnesses told her Kendell reacted
quickly to help his father.
Her husband ``was just concerned about the boys. It was the
most horrific thing he knows they will ever witness,'' she
said.
The Scouts were taken from their camp to meet with grief
counselors and a chaplain, said Renee Fairrer, director of
National News and Media for the Jamboree.
Seventy-one boys and nine adults were traveling with the
Jamboree contingency representing the Western Alaska Council
of Boy Scouts of America. Bill Haines, executive director of
the council here, said others came from Juneau and Fairbanks.
Jamboree leaders are ``the cream of the crop,'' he said.
``They were the best we had.''
Of the men who died, Shibe had two sons at the Jamboree,
and Lacroix, who runs an Anchorage vending machine company,
had one son in attendance, Haines said.
Holfeld had known both Bitzer and Shibe for years. Shibe
and Holfeld earned their Eagle ranks together in the 1970s.
``We crossed paths at Scout things all the time,'' Holfeld
said. ``They were just phenomenally effusive and so dedicated
to the youth. They were enthusiastic gentlemen that totally
believed in the Boy Scouts and showed that through their
efforts and commitment.''
Bitzer and his wife, Karen, had recently sold their
Anchorage home, and Haines said he believes they were
preparing to move to Reno. He worked a couple of years as a
Scout executive, Haines said. Bitzer was a retired
administrative law judge and an assistant scoutmaster of
Troop 129 in Anchorage, said family spokesman Ken
Schoolcraft, the troop's scoutmaster.
Bitzer spent years running the Junior Leader Training
Conference, a summer event at Camp Gorsuch on Mirror Lake,
said Dylan O'Harra, 19, a former Anchorage Boy Scout who went
to Bitzer's program.
``He was another guy who was dedicated to spending his time
helping Scouts, helping kids advance and appreciate the
outdoors,'' O'Harra said.
Powell was single and retired last year after a career in
Boy Scouts. He had moved to Ohio but attended Jamboree at the
last moment after a boy was unable to go, Haines said.
Powell had devoted years to Alaska Scouts, including more
than 20 years as program director at Camp Gorsuch.
``For every kid who ever went to the camp, Scott Powell was
the most inspirational and exciting guy that you've ever
met,'' said O'Harra, who attended and worked at Camp Gorsuch.
``When you wanted to be on staff, you wanted to be on staff
so you could be on Scott's team. He's the reason a lot of
kids came back to the camp as counselors for years and
years.''
Jamboree is a decades-old event and one of the biggest
gatherings of Boy Scouts worldwide. The first, in Washington,
D.C., in 1937, drew more than 27,000 people. Scout officials
said attendance at this one, the 16th Jamboree, is expected
to top 43,000 Scouts and leaders from the United States and
20 countries.
This is the seventh Jamboree at Fort A.P. Hill, nestled in
the rolling hills of Caroline County, Virginia. Scouts swarm
3,000 acres. Within hours on Monday, cadres from various
cities and states were expected to stake down some 17,000
tents and put up 3,500 patrol kitchens. The Scouts who attend
are at least 12 years old and younger than 18.
Boys at the 10-day event do all things Scout-related--from
biking to archery to kayaking. They earn merit badges and
cook many of their own meals. Camp highlights include blow-
out opening and closing arena shows that include Army Rangers
parachuting in, fireworks exploding, folks singing and
dancing. President Bush is scheduled to speak Wednesday
night.
Alaska leaders split the kids into two groups: Troop 711
and Troop 712. They spent four days together touring
Washington before arriving at Jamboree for opening day
Monday.
Several adults from Alaska's group helped put up a large
tent. It might have been a mess hall for the group or the
sleeping quarters for the leaders, said Mike Sage, an
Anchorage father who chaperoned Alaska Scouts at the last
Jamboree four years ago.
The tent has a large metal pole as its center support and
also poles at its corners. Men were reportedly holding on to
those, Paula Call said.
It's unclear how the pole came in contact with the wire.
``They either hit the power line with the pole, or a truck
went by and knocked the pole over,'' Holfeld said. ``Either
way, the pole hit the power line, electrocuted them, set the
tent on fire, the tent fell on them, and they were trapped
underneath,'' with Scouts watching.
In interviews and press releases all day, Boy Scout
officials referred to the incident as ``an electrical
accident.''
A statement on the official Jamboree Web site said: ``Our
prayers and sympathies are with the families of each of the
victims. It is a tragic loss that is shared by everyone in
the BSA. Counselors and chaplains are at the jamboree and
available to any Scout or leader. A thorough investigation
into this accident is under way.''
Fairrer said Boy Scouts of America is leading the
investigation and working with the military.
People have died or been seriously injured before at
Jamboree, Fairrer said. But she could not recall a
catastrophe of this magnitude.
``And any time there's a death, it hurts all of us,''
Fairrer said. ``Within scouting, we are one big family.''
Gov. Frank Murkowski said in a statement early Monday
evening that he was ``very saddened today to learn of the
deaths of these four Scout leaders in such a tragic and
unexpected accident. . . . These individuals were killed
while serving Alaska's young people, and I admire and thank
them for that service.''
The three boys whose fathers died are returning to Alaska,
Haines said.

[[Page S8900]]

``The other boys who didn't lose their fathers are going to
make a decision with their leaders about what to do.''
____

[From the Washington Post, July 26, 2005]

Four Scout Leaders Die in Va. Accident

(By Karin Brulliard and Martin Weil)

Fort A.P. Hill, VA.--Four adult Scout leaders from Alaska
were killed Monday afternoon at the Boy Scout Jamboree in an
electrical accident that apparently occurred when a pole from
a tent they were setting up struck an overhead power line,
officials said.
Three others, a Scout leader and two contract workers, were
injured in the accident, which happened a few hours after the
official noontime opening of the jamboree. The gathering
draws thousands of Scouts every four years from across the
United States and many foreign countries.
No Boy Scouts were injured.
The leaders were from the Anchorage area and represented
the Scouts' Western Alaska Council, an official of that
council said. Bill Haines said two of those killed and the
injured leader had children with them at the jamboree, about
75 miles south of the District.
``It's a very tragic loss for all of us,'' Haines said.
The children, he said, were coping. ``They are all being
taken care of,'' he said.
Sheriff A.A. ``Tony'' Lippa Jr. of Caroline County said a
preliminary investigation indicated that the pole had struck
the power line but that authorities had not determined how it
happened. ``We're not sure if the poles shifted,'' he said.
Scout officials gave no details of how the accident
occurred, other than to say that it was between 4:30 and 5
p.m. while the camp for the Alaskans was being set up. One
person with knowledge of jamboree operations, who spoke on
condition of anonymity because an investigation is underway,
confirmed that a tent-support pole touched an electric line.
After the accident, witnesses saw a slender pole that
protruded through the apex of a pyramid-shaped tent and
appeared to be touching one or more overhead lines. The tent
was one of two at the Alaskans' site that appeared to be
intended for use as a group gathering place rather than for
sleeping.
One of the two light-colored tents apparently had been
fully erected. The other tent, where the accident apparently
occurred, was cordoned off with yellow tape. The Scouts who
might have stayed in that area had been moved.
Haines, in a telephone interview from Alaska, said the four
men who died ``were leaders in the Scouting community,
longtime Alaskans. They were very instrumental in the
council'' It was the first jamboree for one of the men.
Lippa said the ages of three of the four were 42, 47 and
58.
All those injured were in stable condition at hospitals,
the sheriff said. None of the men's names was released last
night.
Officials said late last night that they expected the
jamboree to continue but were not certain whether any
adjustments to the schedule or participation might be made.
Bob Dries, volunteer chairman of the event's national news
and media operation, said: ``I would expect the jamboree is
going to carry on. Certainly, our sympathy is with the
families. It's a sad day. The jamboree is about kids and
having fun.''
Renee Fairrer, director of national news and media for the
jamboree also said the event would go on. She said the Alaska
contingent had been separated from the others.
Gregg Shields, a spokesman for the Boy Scouts, said
chaplains and grief counselors were meeting with the Scouts
from the Western Alaska council. Those Scouts are ``our
primary concern right now,'' he said.
Haines said he did not know whether they would stay for the
duration of the jamboree, which runs through Aug. 3. ``We're
going to do what the troop wants,'' Fairrer said.
Other Scouts from the general area in which the accident
occurred appeared to be taking part late yesterday in planned
activities. Some were seen setting up cots or reading. A
Scout-run camp radio station interrupted its normal broadcast
to report the accident.
Fairrer said the accident was being investigated by the Boy
Scouts and the U.S. Army, which operates the base in Caroline
County, about 10 miles east of Interstate 95 on Route 301,
just south of the Rappahannock River.
She said late Monday that 32,000 Scouts and an additional
3,500 leaders had assembled to live for 10 days in what is
essentially a huge tent city on the grounds of the base.
President Bush is scheduled to address the gathering
Wednesday night.
The accident, Fairrer said, occurred at the eastern edge of
the campsite, which she estimated at seven to 10 miles from
the fort's main gate. The base is about 76,000 acres; the
Scouts are using about 5,000. Jamboree representatives said
as many as 17,000 two-man tents might be pitched.
The site is supplied with electricity by the Rappahannock
Electric Cooperative, Fairrer said. The utility last night
said it was assisting in the investigation.
Over the past weekend, some of the Scouts have been in
Washington, swarming over the Mall and through the monuments,
a blur of khaki and neckerchiefs and patch-covered shoulders.
Hundreds of buses pulled into the military base yesterday
to disgorge Scouts by the thousands. Officials said they came
from 50 states and 20 foreign countries. At least 400 Scouts
from the Washington region were scheduled to be on hand.
The jamboree has been held at the military base since the
1980s.

Mr. STEVENS. Again, I thank the Senate and the leaders for their
courtesy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.

Cloture on Defense Authorization

Mr. REID. Mr. President, Members heard the colloquy between the
distinguished majority leader and this Senator. I ask unanimous consent
that the time I use not apply to any of the order now before the Senate
with regard to the four votes that are pending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I was in Chicago over the weekend at an event. I talked to
a well-dressed, very articulate man. I didn't realize he was as old as
he was, but I learned later he was 83 years old. His name is Green. He
had served in the South Pacific for 3 years during World War II. All
those islands we hear so much about, he was on all of them, carrying a
rifle, fighting for our country.
This morning I thought about Mr. Green. In World War II, do you think
the Senate would have spent a matter of a few hours on the Defense
bill? I don't think so. During World War II, Senator Truman, among
others, debated very vociferously whether there should be an
investigation into how money was being spent by the military and the
Government generally. It was controversial, but it was debated. Senator
Truman's actions carried.
What are we doing here today? What are we doing here today? A bill
involving 1.4 million active-duty men and women serving in uniform for
our country and a million Guard and Reserve, approximately 2.5 million
men and women serving this country in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea,
Germany, all over the world, a bill that is costing the American
taxpayer during this year approximately $450 billion--that doesn't
count the usual emergency supplementals that are not part of this
process involving tens of billions of dollars--we are going to spend on
this bill a few hours. To this point we have not had a single vote on a
Democratic amendment. It is unconscionable to do this, to end debate on
these amendments that help our country.

Just a few of them. Concurrent receipt is something I have worked on
with the two managers of this bill for 4 years. What is concurrent
receipt? Is it important to the military? It absolutely is. Prior to
the 4 years this Senate worked on it, a person who retired from the
U.S. military who was disabled could not draw his disability benefits
and his retirement benefits. If you are retired from the military with
a disability and you worked at Sears, you could draw both, or if you
worked at the Department of Interior, you could draw both. But not from
the military. We have changed it. We have not changed it enough, but we
have changed it a lot and it is helpful. But we need to continue to
work with these disabled American veterans to get them the money they
have earned and they deserve and which this country is obligated, in my
opinion, morally to pay them. We won't have an opportunity to do that
on this bill because in an hour or so cloture will be invoked.
Senator Nelson from Florida wants to offer an amendment authorizing
surviving spouses to receive both survivor benefit plan annuity
benefits and indemnity compensation, and they should be able to get
both.
Senator Kerry wants to make permanent the temporary authority,
including the emergency supplemental for dependents of service members
who die on active duty to remain in military housing for 1 year after
the person has been killed in the line of duty. That is not asking too
much. We would like that amendment to be offered. We want to improve
this bill. We are not trying to tear the bill apart. We want to improve
it.
Senator Lieberman and others want to increase the size of the
military by 20,000 a year for the next 4 years. I believe in this
amendment, but we very likely will not have the opportunity to have
that voted on.
Senator Murray has a childcare amendment that would help members

[[Page S8901]]

of the U.S. military have their children taken care of while they are
on active duty.
Senator Durbin has an amendment to require Federal agencies to pay
the difference between military and civilian compensation for National
Guard and Reserve. This is something we very likely will not have the
chance to vote on.
Senator Levin has an amendment that would provide $50 million to
cooperative threat reduction to meet the new opportunity to provide
security upgrades to 15 key Russian nuclear weapons sites.
Last week a report was issued by former Secretary Bill Perry that
said the No. 1 problem the world faces is loose nukes. That is what
this is all about.
This is a bill that is so vitally important. It is important in
dealing with veterans health care benefits. It is important in dealing
with Guard and Reserve, base closure, our war on terror, impact of
sustained military operations to our troops and their families,
detainee abuse.
Republicans have joined with Democrats in saying let's take a look at
what has gone on with how we treat prisoners of war--a bipartisan
amendment. We can read in any paper in the United States that last week
the Vice President of our country had been calling people at the White
House, Members of the Senate, to tell them not to do that. Why? What
are we afraid of? This is an open society. This is the United States.
We won't be able to offer that amendment. Is that why this bill is
being taken away from us? Because the administration has said we don't
want you to look at what has gone on in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and
other such places? This majority leader, apparently under pressure from
this administration, decided we were not going to deal with these
important issues this year. Rather than putting our troops and our
Nation's security first by letting the Senate work its will on these
important issues, the majority leader and this administration decided
to prematurely cut off debate.
It is unheard of to do what is being done here. The hue and cry will
go forth from this majority we have here saying these awful Democrats
are trying to hold up the Defense bill. Hold up the Defense bill for a
couple of days?
We believe we have an obligation, we Democrats believe we have an
obligation to face difficult issues and not run from them, including
the embarrassment of what went on in our prisons at Guantanamo and Abu
Ghraib. We believe it is important to deal with weapons of mass
destruction in this bill. Unfortunately, that is precisely the choice
the majority leader is forcing this body to make today. If we do not
invoke cloture on this bill and forego our right to offer these
important amendments, the bill is gone. We are not going to be able to
take these things up.
This work period is ending. We are going to go home. We are going to
come back in September. The fiscal year is on top of us. We have the
Roberts nomination that will take a little time on the Senate floor
after the Senate Judiciary Committee completes its important work. What
are the Republicans afraid of?

There is more to this than the administration simply wanting to cut
off debate because of embarrassment to them about talking to these
issues. The Republican leadership is also engaged in a very cynical
ploy here today. They have pitted the interest of a very powerful
special interest group against this Nation's security needs. Rather
than spending the time needed to carefully consider critical national
security issues--and I think that is something that again we need to
focus on, national security issues--the Republican leadership has
decided it is more important that the Senate instead take up gun
legislation. I support the legislation, but let's be realistic about
this. Legislation that would trump the men and women of America who
wear the uniform of our country? I don't think so. I don't think it is
a fair match. No matter how you may feel about gun legislation, it is
not a match to allowing us to proceed on the Defense bill as we have
done traditionally in this body.
I recognize we have wasted a lot of time in the Senate, spending one-
third--one-third--of the Senate's time on voting on three judges. Every
one of the people who was made a judge had jobs already. One-third of
the Senate's time was spent on three judges. So I know we are crimped
for time around here because of that. But we are going to take gun
legislation and compare it to the men and women who I visited out at
Walter Reed laying in those hospital beds. Think of my friend, my new
friend, Mr. Green from Chicago, World War II veteran, proud of the
service he made to this country. He gave to this country. What we are
doing here today, would it ever have happened during World War II? No.
I think it would be unfortunate if the Senate were to vote to end
debate today, but this is a position individual Senators can pick. I
haven't twisted any arms. Senators can do what they want to do.
What would be the best of all worlds is we could have a bipartisan
opposition to this invocation of cloture today. That is what should
happen. There should be a revolt by my friends on the Republican side
to cut off debate on this bill at this time.
This is an embarrassment to this body. It should be an embarrassment
to the majority. This is something that is going to be around for a
long time. What is going to be around for a long time is how we have
been treated on this legislation. Who is we? The American people.
I have only mentioned a few. I don't know how many amendments we have
pending--probably 30 amendments already that have been laid down. We
have had several others. The last time cloture was invoked on this bill
we had already acted on 80 amendments, after days and days of debate.
That is what it is supposed to be. And we are not asking for days and
days. We are saying we will finish the bill by Thursday. Today is
Tuesday.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. REID. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. DURBIN. I would like to clarify what we face at this moment. If I
understand what the minority leader has said to the Senate, we have
pending amendments before the Senate on the Department of Defense
authorization bill which will not survive, are not likely to survive,
cannot even be considered because of this procedural decision by the
majority leader, by Senator Frist. And if I understand what the Senator
from Nevada has said, he has said that included in the amendments which
will fall, will not be considered this week, would be an amendment he
wants to offer to help totally disabled veterans, an amendment by
Senator Nelson of Florida to provide funds for the widows and orphans
of those who die in combat, an amendment by Senator Kerry to provide
for housing for 1 year for the family of a soldier who dies in combat,
the amendment by Senator Murray to provide childcare for soldiers'
families when the soldier is deployed overseas, and my amendment to
make up the pay difference for National Guard and Reserve who are
activated and lose money from their civilian pay. And if I understand
the Senator from Nevada, he is saying these amendments, these five or
six I have read, we have been told we won't have time to consider this
week.
If I understand the Senator from Nevada, he has said we don't have
time to deal with the totally disabled veterans, the widows and orphans
of those who fall in combat, and those Guard and Reserve members who
are activated, we don't have time for that because we have to move to a
bill for the gun lobby, for the National Rifle Association.
If I understand what the Senator from Nevada says, it is more
important for us to do our best for the gun lobbyists in their three-
piece suits than for the men and women in uniform who are fighting and
dying for our country. That seems to me to be the agenda and the
priority of the majority leader who has come to the floor today.
Is that my understanding of what the Senator from Nevada has said?
Mr. REID. I say through the Chair to the distinguished Senator from
Illinois, yes. We have been reasonable. I believe there is no jury you
could have in the world that would think we are doing other than the
right thing, asking for a couple days to improve a bill that will give
benefits to 2\1/2\ million Americans serving in uniform and a bill that
is going to cost the taxpayers $450 billion

[[Page S8902]]

in 1 year. We want to spend a couple days on this bill and we are not
being allowed to because the administration is pushing them and the gun
lobby is pushing them.

Look, I am not opposed to everything the administration does. I am
not opposed to everything the gun lobby does. But I am opposed to what
the administration is doing in this instance and the gun lobby in this
instance because it is wrong for the people of our country.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask further if I could ask a question of the Senator
from Nevada through the Chair. Is it my understanding the Senator from
Nevada came to the floor and gave the Republican leader his assurance
that these amendments would be considered in a timely fashion and that
we would agree that this bill, the Department of Defense authorization
bill, would be passed from the Senate this week, no later than Thursday
evening, in plenty of time so that it will be there for the
administration and for the conference committee to consider, so there
would be no delay, so we could take up in a timely fashion amendments
to help the totally disabled veterans, amendments to help the widows
and orphans of those who have fallen in combat, amendments to help the
Guard and Reserve when they are activated so their families can stay
together? Did the Senator from Nevada give that assurance to the
Republican leader, Senator Frist, that we are not trying to delay this
unreasonably but want to move it through quickly, consider these
amendments in a timely fashion, vote up or down and move to final
passage this week?
Mr. REID. The answer is yes. I also say, Mr. President, so there is
no problem later on, so everyone understands the quandary we are in--
but we didn't get us there, we didn't spend a third of our time on
three judges--here is the quandary we are in. As I understand the
rules, if cloture is invoked on the Defense authorization bill, we will
finish it sometime Wednesday evening. Then there will be a vote that
will occur automatically on the gun handling bill legislation and then
there will be 30 hours to debate the motion to proceed on the gun
legislation. Senator Reed from Rhode Island has told me he wants to use
all that 30 hours, he or some combination of Senators, so that will end
sometime around midnight on Thursday. And then if the majority leader
wants to continue the presentation of the gun legislation, there would
have to be cloture filed again for a Saturday vote or maybe even have a
Friday vote if he does it Friday before midnight, and then there is
another 30 hours to go forward on the gun legislation. And during that
period of time no other business can be conducted.
I have spoken with the majority leader about this issue. There will
be a small window of time on Wednesday between whatever time the 30
hours runs out at midnight, if he decides to continue on the gun
legislation, that we can in the few hours do the Energy conference
report, Interior conference report, highway conference report,
legislative branch conference report, and whatever else is available.
The time spent on judges has put this Senate in a real difficult
position, notwithstanding that the majority leader promised the
Senators from Hawaii they can do the Native Hawaiian bill.
I want everyone to understand what they are walking into. The best
would be to defeat cloture. Senators from the majority side should join
with us to defeat cloture, finish the bill in the ordinary course, and
do whatever would come naturally after that, which would be a motion to
proceed to the gun liability legislation.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. REID. Yes, I yield for a question.
Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. REID. I have yielded to the Senator from Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, let me raise an issue and ask a
question. We have spent time in this Chamber trying to address an
immediate shortfall in veterans health care funding. Senator Murray has
brought this to our attention. We have yet to see this resolved. We
have gone back and forth about whether we are going to provide adequate
funds now for our veterans.
Is it not true that one of the amendments--and I know this is true
because I offered an amendment that would address this situation long
term--where instead of coming back and forth constantly trying to
figure out whether we are going to have the veterans funding year to
year so our veterans do not stand in lines, wait months to see a
doctor, and not receive what they need, isn't it also the understanding
of the Democratic leader that my amendment that would address
permanently the issue of veterans funding, therefore guaranteeing that
when our brave men and women come home from the wars, end their
service, and become veterans, that they would be assured we will keep
our promise to them as it relates to full funding of veterans health
care, is it the Senator's understanding that this amendment would also
fall, we would not have the opportunity to address this issue in this
bill?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have been told that this amendment would
fall. This amendment, which has already been filed, would fall
postcloture. People would not have an opportunity to vote on this
amendment.
I will also say, one of the points I mentioned during my statement is
the Interior bill is coming up. We promised that would come up before
we leave because there is $1.5 billion in that bill for veterans'
benefits for this fiscal year because they have been so shortchanged.
I yield for a question from my distinguished chairman of the Armed
Services Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend and
Democratic leader. I ask a very narrow question. He has pointedly
raised three or four amendments that address the benefits that could go
to veterans or active.
The Senator from Nevada has been a leader every year that this bill
has been brought up on a variety of issues, and no one takes the place
to his fervor in trying to provide particularly for the concurrent
receipt legislation. But I have to say to my good friend, and my
question is, am I not correct that this bill came up Wednesday night,
and Senator Levin and I were on the Senate floor into the evening, this
bill was on the floor Thursday right up until early evening and again
Friday morning? Every one of those bills--concurrent receipts, I
remember specifically asking Senator Nelson of Florida: Could you not
bring up that bill early? He said: No, I am going to wait until
Tuesday. That is all he said.
I have to say, I believe I am correct that all of those pieces of
legislation that were mentioned could have been brought up Wednesday,
Thursday, Friday, and addressed by the Senate.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my distinguished friend, I have sat
side by side with him in the Environment and Public Works Committee for
many years now and have the greatest respect for him. In this instance,
he is just absolutely wrong.
On Wednesday, this bill was taken up late in the afternoon, with time
for opening statements. On Thursday, there were no votes after 6
o'clock in the evening. Friday, no votes. Monday, no votes. As has been
mentioned here on the floor of the Senate by me, among others, on many
different occasions, we cannot have work done here when we cannot have
votes on amendments. Fridays have become no-work days. If there are no
votes, we do not get anything done here. So I say to my distinguished
friend, I don't know when they should have offered amendments. I don't
know when Senator Nelson should have offered them. The point is, we
have said we will finish this bill by Thursday at 7 o'clock. Pretty
good time. It would give us today, tomorrow, and Thursday to complete
this bill. This would be far shorter than the time we normally spend on
this bill. Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays is when we vote around
here. I think we should vote on Fridays and Mondays, but we do not. The
Monday vote is a meaningless vote, in my opinion, to get people back
here.

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. LEVIN. Is it not also true that these amendments, plus many
others, have been offered, and people would

[[Page S8903]]

have been perfectly happy to have votes on them if they were permitted,
but votes were not permitted, so they had to be temporarily laid aside
so others could be offered? But the idea that those people who offered
those amendments would not have been happy to have votes on those
amendments is not right.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend through the Chair, not only is it true
that those amendments have been filed, they were required by the rules
of the Senate to have been filed because there was a 2 o'clock cutoff
for the amendments to be filed.
Mr. LEVIN. And are pending; is that correct?
Mr. REID. Yes. I don't know how many.
Mr. LEVIN. Over 40.
Mr. REID. In addition to that, I think there are a couple hundred
amendments filed by both sides. As happens here, with the cooperation
of these two fine managers, we work down the number of these amendments
and only go to the most important ones. That is what we said we would
do. I think it is a shame that we are going to be taken off this bill
in about an hour. It is not good for this body, it is certainly not
good for this country, and it is certainly not good for the 2.5 million
people we respect so much who serve our military.

Amendment No. 1377, as Modified

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 20
minutes equally divided between the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins,
and the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg.
The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Senator from New Jersey has shed much
needed light on a disturbing problem, and that is the improper use of
foreign subsidiaries by U.S. firms to conduct business in certain rogue
nations where they might otherwise be barred from doing business by
U.S. sanctions laws.
Like the Senator from New Jersey who has been a real leader on this
issue, I have been very disturbed to read of allegations that foreign
subsidiaries of some of the best known American corporations have been
conducting operations in countries such as Iran and Syria, even though
U.S. sanctions laws prohibit their U.S. parents from doing so directly.
There are allegations that some of the subsidiaries in question are not
even real companies but, rather, they are shell corporations that were
created just for the purpose of evading the law.
These reports highlight that our sanctions laws are not as tough and
as effective as they should be. In seeking a solution to this problem
during the past year, I have consulted extensively with the Treasury
Department, the State Department, and other experts. It turns out to be
very complicated and presents a technical set of legal and foreign
policy issues to accomplish the goals that both the Senator from New
Jersey and I share.
Let me try to frame the choice that is now before our colleagues.
We have before the Senate two proposals designed to extend the reach
of U.S. law, specifically the International Emergency Economic Powers
Act, or IEEPA, to cover companies doing business with countries covered
by U.S. sanctions laws.
Let me explain what my proposal would accomplish. It does four
things. First, it would extend IEEPA to prevent U.S. companies from
trying to evade the law by moving operations overseas.
Second, my amendment would prohibit U.S. companies from approving,
facilitating, or financing actions that are illegal under IEEPA.
Third, it ratchets up the penalties for violations of the law from
$10,000 per civil violation and $50,000 per criminal violation to
$250,000 and $500,000 respectively.
And fourth, it ensures that the Treasury Department has the subpoena
power it needs to enforce the new sanctions.
Let me explain what it would not do. Most important, my proposal
would not jeopardize our working relationships with key allies by
attempting to assert U.S. jurisdiction on companies that operate and
are incorporated elsewhere.
Second, it will not provide yet another incentive for American
companies to move their jobs overseas through corporate inversions.
These are the main problems with the approach of my colleague from
New Jersey. Again, I emphasize that I share the same goal as my
colleague from New Jersey, and I salute him for focusing much needed
attention on a very real problem.
Let me explain further. My colleague's amendment attempts to impose
sanctions on businesses operating and incorporated in foreign
countries. So, for example, if a U.S. firm has a subsidiary in Great
Britain, my colleague's amendment proposes to extend U.S. law to that
subsidiary, even if U.S. law is inconsistent with British law.
This is a dangerous and imperious approach to foreign policy. If
other countries tried to impose similar rules on us, imagine how we
would respond. For example, imagine if Saudi Arabia tried to impose
criminal and civil penalties on a Saudi firm's U.S. subsidiary operated
and incorporated under the laws of our country because that firm was
doing business in Israel, or imagine if Germany attempted to impose
sanctions on a German firm's American subsidiary, again operating here
under our laws and regulations, for not meeting German labor laws that
are inconsistent with our laws.
Moreover, my colleague's amendment would create the perverse
incentive for American firms to invert or move overseas in order to
avoid the onerous and extraterritorial application of our sanctions
laws. We must not choose that path.
There is a very real problem here with some American companies
exploiting an exception that is in the current law, but I believe that
the proposal I have advanced would greatly strengthen our laws, would
provide new tools for enforcement, and would enormously increase
penalties for violations.
It would make crystal clear that a U.S. company is prohibited from in
any way approving, facilitating or financing actions of a subsidiary
that would be illegal under the sanctions law.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I extend my thanks to the Senator from
Maine for her graciousness, in terms of describing an effort we are
both very much interested in, in solving a problem that exists before
us. Very soon, the Senate is going to vote on the two amendments, both
of them aimed at foreign subsidiaries doing business with terrorist
nations. But only one of these amendments--and it may not come as a
surprise, mine--gets the job completely done.
I have great respect for the Senator from Maine. She works very hard
to chair a committee on which I sit, the Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee, and accomplishes a lot. But
unfortunately, in this case, the amendment she offered will not close
the loophole we are concerned about, nor will it stop American
businesses from doing business with terrorist nations such as Iran.
It recognizes the seriousness of the problem but unfortunately, as it
is presented, does not solve the problem. Iran is one of the world's
largest state sponsors of terrorism. Nobody doubts that. Every year,
the Iranian Government funnels tens of millions of dollars to Hamas and
Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, to name a few. These organizations turn
around and use that money to murder Americans and others who are trying
to live their lives. No American company should be permitted to help
them in any way, either directly or with a sham corporation.
Iran also uses its oil revenues to fund its nuclear weapons program.
Once again, through sham corporations, American companies are helping
them develop those oil revenues. Revenues, for what purpose? The
purpose is to attack our people and other innocents across the world.
That is why we do subject Iran to one of the strongest sanction regimes
that we have. But some American companies exploit a loophole in our
sanctions laws. They go offshore, open a sham foreign subsidiary and
use that foreign subsidiary to do business with the Iranian regime with
impunity and help create profits for them to be used for any purpose
they choose.
This has to stop. In the past, I believe the Senator from Maine
agreed

[[Page S8904]]

with me that this has to stop. In fact, last year she supported my
amendment. So I am hopeful that she will once again vote for my
amendment. I am going to vote for hers.
I want to be clear. I have no objection to the Collins amendment, and
I am going to vote for it, as I said, as a signal that we must do
something to stop supporting these avowed enemies of America. The
Collins amendment is not a bad amendment, but it only codifies existing
regulations that, frankly, are not enough. It confirms what we have now
and permits companies to escape sanctions.
In the case of Cuba, we do not allow, any American company to use a
sham to do business there. We ought not permit Iran to do the same
things.
If we want to close this loophole, my amendment is the only one that
accomplishes it. Under the Collins amendment, the scenario on this
placard is still possible. Here is a U.S. corporation. Here is a
foreign subsidiary of the U.S. corporation. They can do business with
Iran, who then sends funds to Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist
organizations. They have their subsidiaries operating in other places.
But they should not have subsidiaries that are allowed to do business
in this way.
We want to strengthen existing law. The way we do it is to explicitly
say that any foreign subsidiary, controlled by an American company,
must obey our sanctions.
The senior Senator from Michigan pointed out last week that the
standard we have, the sanctions standard, already applies to foreign
subsidiaries that do business in Cuba. I repeat what I said before. My
amendment simply applies the same rules to terrorist states such as
Iran.
I ask my colleagues, is fighting al-Qaida really less important than
fighting Castro? If you vote no on this amendment, that is what you are
saying.
My amendment is simple and straightforward. It makes clear we will
not allow foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies to provide funds to
Iran. It is common sense. That is why a conservative group, the Center
for Security Policy, supports my amendment. Frank Gaffney, who is
president of the Center for Security Policy, said in the Washington
Times today:

If the Senate is serious about truly closing this loophole,
it must adopt the Lautenberg amendment.

That is from Frank Gaffney, president of the organization.
We have to stop U.S. companies from doing business with terrorists
when they intend to murder innocent Americans. I ask my colleagues,
please support my amendment. Families across this country do what they
can to protect their loved ones and we can do no less. Every day we
wait to close this loophole, more and more money flows into the hands
of terrorists. For the sake of our troops, for the sake of our
citizens, we have to shut down this source of terrorist funding.
I again restate my intent. My intent is to support the Collins
amendment because it does open our eyes a little bit further to the
problem. But I hope, if we really want to solve this problem, the
Lautenberg amendment is the one that will finally be voted for.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, again I commend the Senator from New
Jersey for focusing attention on what is a very real problem, and that
is that the current law is not tough enough and there are reports that
subsidiaries of some very well-known American corporations are doing
business in states where U.S. sanctions laws apply. But I think when
you deal with this area, you need to be very careful to not craft a
proposal that has unintended consequences.
Moreover, my colleague's amendment does not do what the Treasury
Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control, OFAC, has specifically
named as the legislative step that would be of most benefit to them,
and that is substantially increasing the penalties in the current law.
My proposal would do that. Senator Lautenberg does not include
increases in the penalties.
In addition, my proposal explicitly grants the Treasury statutory
subpoena power to ensure that it has all of the enforcement tools it
needs.
But let me go back to the underlying issue. The Collins amendment
would be very specific in barring any action by a U.S. firm in
approving, facilitating or providing financing for any action by its
foreign subsidiary that would be unlawful for the parent company to
engage in.
It would also prevent U.S. companies from evading the law by setting
up a subsidiary overseas, a shell corporation. So I think the proposal
that I have set forth greatly strengthens the current law.
We do not, however, want to create a perverse incentive that would
encourage American companies to invert and reincorporate overseas, and
I fear that could well be the result of the amendment of Senator
Lautenberg.
I am concerned about something else, and I have given these examples.
We don't want to open the door to foreign governments trying to impose
on the American subsidiaries of firms incorporated in their countries,
their countries' laws.
Let me give the example again. What if the Saudi Government tried to
impose a restriction on doing business in Israel on the American
subsidiary of a Saudi firm? We would be outraged about that.
This proposal raises many complex technical questions, and that is
why the Treasury Department and the State Department have urged caution
and much prefer the approach embodied in the Collins amendment.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Maine is expired.
The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I appreciate that clarification.
I ask the Senator from Maine, under your amendment, is it possible
for a foreign subsidiary owned and controlled by a U.S. company to do
business with Iran?
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield from his time,
I would be happy to answer that question.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I respect the Senator from Maine and do allow time
for an answer, if it is a short answer, please.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, under my amendment, it is very clear that
an American parent could not in any way be involved in a subsidiary's
decision to do business in a prohibited nation. It could not approve
it. It could not facilitate it. It could not direct it. It also could
not set up a subsidiary for the purpose of evading the law.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. If the Senator would yield for a question on my time.
Can a subsidiary do business with Iran?
Ms. COLLINS. The subsidiary could not do business if it were in any
way directed to do so, approved, financed, in any way, by the American
parent. The language is very clear on that.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I think the conclusion is in error. Rather than have
the debate about the precision with which the Collins amendment is
drawn, I point out two things. AIPAC and the Cuban American National
Foundation support my amendment. That is very specific.
In the reference used about a Saudi company doing business with
Israel, Saudi Arabia already boycotts Israel, so that question is taken
care of.
I fail to see, I must say, why we are going through these gyrations
explaining a perverse effect when, in fact, what I want to do is stop
any--by the way, the practice is taking place, currently.
What the Senator from Maine has done is codify regulation. I want to
stop any possibility for a sham corporation that wants to evade our
laws to do business. That is where we are.
I hope my colleagues will support my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired on the amendment.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The first question is on the amendment of the
Senator from Maine.
The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S8905]]

The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 202 Leg.]

YEAS--98

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
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
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Craig
Rockefeller

Amendment No. 1351

The PRESIDING OFFICER. At this time, there will be 2 minutes equally
divided on the Lautenberg amendment, amendment No. 1351, on which the
yeas and nays have been ordered.
The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we have just had a vote on the Collins
amendment that confirms we have a problem. There is no denying there is
a problem out there, but there is only one way to solve it; and that is
to say that any American company cannot form a sham corporation and do
business with Iran as is presently being done. We do not permit it in
Cuba, and we should not permit it in any other place in the world. So I
hope now I will get the same kind of support we have just seen because
we want to cure the problem. This is the best way to do it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time in opposition?
The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I respect the intentions of my colleague
from New Jersey, but his proposal is overbroad. It is strongly opposed
by the administration. I urge opposition to the Lautenberg amendment.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back, the
question is on agreeing to the amendment. The yeas and nays have been
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 203 Leg.]

YEAS--47

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden

NAYS--51

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Isakson
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--2

Craig
Rockefeller

The amendment (No. 1351) was rejected.
Ms. COLLINS. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Chair advise the Senate as to the
pending business.

Amendment No. 1342, as Modified

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, a vote will now
occur on the Frist amendment No. 1342. There will now be 2 minutes
equally divided for debate. This will be a 10-minute vote. The
subsequent cloture vote that has been scheduled will also be a 10-
minute vote.
Who seeks time?
The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, who is
participating in a ceremony in the Rotunda, the Support Our Scouts Act
of 2005--and I am a cosponsor--is a very important piece of
legislation, particularly in the wake of the tragic events that
occurred last night. It will help ensure that the Defense Department
continues to provide the Scouts the type of support it has lawfully
provided in the past, to include supporting the Scouts at their
jamborees.
In this context, I thank Senator Durbin for helping to refine the
amendment's language to provide flexibility to the agencies that
provide like support.
This amendment also ensures the Scouts have equal access to public
facilities, forums, and programs that are open to other youth and
community organizations. Boy Scouts, like other nonprofit
organizations, depend on the ability to use public facilities and
participate in these programs.
The Scouts are a youth organization, well known to every Member of
this body, that is committed to developing qualities such as
patriotism, integrity, honesty, and other values in our Nation's boys
and young men. The amendment by the distinguished majority leader makes
that goal clear.
As such, the amendment of the majority leader also makes clear that
Congress believes the Boy Scouts should be treated the same as other
national youth organizations.
I hope that all of my colleagues will join the 50-plus cosponsors of
this legislation and vote with me and other supporters of Scouting.
Yesterday, July 25, tens of thousands of Scouts from around the
country began arriving at Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia. Tennesseans, such
as Bill and Diane Goins from Soddy Daisy, TN, have traveled great
distances to participate. Vote for this amendment and let them know
that Congress wants the Pentagon's support to the Scouts at their
jamborees to continue.
Let's also let them know that not only is Defense Department
participation helpful to the Scouts, it is also beneficial to the
training of our armed forces.
Mr. President, I urge all of my Senate colleagues to vote for the
young boys and girls who are following in the worthy Scouting
tradition. A vote for this amendment is a vote for them.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as I noted earlier when the majority
leader offered this amendment, I support the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts,
and other youth organizations. The Frist amendment seeks to ensure that
government resources are not arbitrarily denied to youth organizations,
while, at the same time, not limiting judicial review of the
constitutionality of government actions.
I want to thank the distinguished majority leader for working with me
to address my concerns regarding section 2, in which his amendment had
provided a guaranteed funding level for youth organizations.
Together, we now have added flexibility to address cases where youth
organizations no longer deserve the funding level they had previously
received. For example, if a youth organization is convicted of a
criminal offense or a senior officer of a youth organization is
convicted of a criminal offense relating

[[Page S8906]]

to his or her official duties, under this modification, the head of a
Federal agency would be able to waive the guaranteed funding level.
Federal agencies also would have the ability to waive this funding
level if the youth organization is the subject of a criminal
investigation relating to fraudulent use or waste of Federal funds. It
is my expectation that Federal agencies will use ths discretion wisely.
Our modification also clarifies that the support that a Federal
agency is required to provide youth organizations is subject to the
availability of appropriations, which Congress can revisit each year.
I also want to take this opportunity to reaffirm the importance of
our Nation's strong tradition of religious liberty, our tolerance of
the religious beliefs of all people, and our respect for those who do
not believe in God or a higher authority. This amendment respects the
significance of religious liberty by not limiting the jurisdiction of
Federal courts in determining the constitutionality of government
support for youth organizations.
Therefore, I support this amendment, as modified.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, yesterday, tens of thousands of Scouts
began arriving at Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia to attend the National
Scout Jamboree.
Held every 4 years at the Army base, the jamboree draws Scouts,
leaders, and volunteers from around the world.
The Scouts will spend the next 10 days participating in outdoor
activities like archery; fishing; and geocoaching, a GPS-based
scavenger hunt.
One Scout told the Washington Post:

It's just a lot fun. There's so much to do here. You get to
see so many people from all around and they have all sorts of
activities.

For the local community, the jamboree has been a great financial
boost. Just this year alone, the event has pumped $26 million into the
community. The Scouts have spent $20 million on base improvements,
including road paving and plumbing upgrades.
Unfortunately, this great summer Scouting tradition may come to an
end. The reason? Because the Scouting oath includes an oath of duty to
a higher power. Despite decades of public support for Scouting, one
Federal judge has ruled that the Pentagon can no longer provide its
facilities as a matter of church and state.
Because of this lawsuit by the ACLU, 40,000 Scouts are in danger of
being denied permission to hold their jamboree at Fort A.P. Hill, or
any other publicly supported venue.
That is why I am offering the Support Our Scouts Act of 2005. These
young people need our help and our voices to protect a great tradition.
Since 1910, Scouting has taught and enriched millions of boys and
girls, and drawn generations of Americans together.
Boy Scout membership has totaled more than 110 million young
Americans--including myself, my three boys, and over 40 current Members
of the Senate.
Today, more than 3.2 million youths and 1.2 million adults are
members of the Boy Scouts and Scout organizations such as the Tiger
Cubs and Cub Scouts.
These Americans are all dedicated to fulfilling the Boy Scouts'
mission of instilling in our young people solid values such as honesty,
integrity, patriotism, and character.
The Support Our Scouts Act of 2005 will help ensure that the Defense
Department continues to support the Scouts, as it has lawfully done for
years, including the summer National Scout Jamboree.
This amendment also ensures the Boy Scouts have equal access to
public facilities, forums, and programs that are open to a variety of
other youth or community organizations.
Boy Scouts, like other nonprofit youth organizations, depend on the
ability to use public facilities and participate in these programs and
forums. My amendment ensures the Scouts have fair and equal access to
these facilities.
My amendment also makes clear that the Congress regards the Boy
Scouts to be a youth organization and that the Boy Scouts--and the Girl
Scouts--should be treated the same as other national youth
organizations.
I hope that all of my colleagues will join the 50-plus cosponsors of
this legislation and vote with me and other supporters of Scouting.
I want to thank Senator Durbin for helping to refine the amendment's
language. The Durbin modification will allow agencies to waive the
``mandatory floor of support'' included in my proposal--but not
necessarily the support itself--if some senior officer of a youth
organization or the organization itself is convicted of a serious
criminal offense.
We would expect agency heads to use this waiver sparingly and
judiciously, and only for the most serious of offenses that are
connected to their official duties.
And once an organization has remedied the problem, we expect the
baseline of support to be fully restored by the federal agency to its
previous level.
The Scouts are committed to developing the best qualities in our
Nation's young people--qualities such as patriotism, integrity,
honesty, and compassion. This long-honored organization helps prepare
our young people to be leaders in the communities, and leaders of the
future.
A vote for the Support Our Scouts Act will let them know that
Congress continues to support this worthy endeavor.
Mr. President, I urge all of my Senate colleagues to vote for the
young boys and girls who are following in the great Scouting tradition.
A vote for this amendment is a vote for them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time in opposition?
Without objection, the Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we support this amendment, as modified. It
has been modified to address a problem it had which did not relate to
the Boy Scouts but which had to do with the wording which made it
overly broad. The language clearly depends upon an appropriate agency
making either a grant or an appropriation. We support the amendment. We
thank Senator Durbin, particularly, for his modification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
All time having been yielded back, the question is on agreeing to
amendment No. 1342, as modified. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 204 Leg.]

YEAS--98

NOT VOTING--2

Craig
Rockefeller

The amendment (No. 1342), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S8907]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.

Cloture Motion

Under the previous order and pursuant to rule XXII, the clerk lays
before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will
state.
The legislative clerk read as follows.

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 1042, an
original bill 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.

Bill Frist, John Warner, Michael Enzi, John Cornyn, Jon
Kyl, Richard Burr, Kit Bond, Lindsey Graham, John E.
Sununu, Chuck Grassley, Mike DeWine, Lamar Alexander,
James Talent, Pat Roberts, Johnny Isakson, Conrad
Burns, Richard G. Lugar.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 2 minutes
equally divided for debate before the vote on cloture.
Who yields time?
The minority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to make sure the record is spread
with the fact that we have offered everything. All we want is to finish
this bill tomorrow at 11 o'clock at night. We even backed it off to
10:30. And the only amendments that would be in order would be those
that are within the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee. We
would have a Republican amendment, Democratic amendment, and we would
go through the process by these two fine managers.
What is wrong? What picture am I missing? Why can't we go forward and
do at least a little bit of work for the men and women in uniform of
our country, namely 2\1/2\ million of them, plus taxpayers dollars,
$450 billion for 1 year? Could not we at least spend 1 extra day on
that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, very briefly, both sides have talked about
the importance of the Defense authorization bill. We both feel the
importance of that bill. Cloture being invoked here shortly, which I
believe it will, will allow us to have a Defense authorization bill in
about 30 hours. So we will complete our objective of having a bill if
cloture is invoked, and I encourage people to vote for cloture.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would just say briefly we would finish the
bill at the same time if we entered into the agreement that I submitted
to Senator Warner and the Republicans. Time is of no difference.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is vital that we complete action on the
National Defense Authorization Act. It is an important piece of
legislation that we must pass with all due haste to meet the needs of
the men and women of the U.S. military.
Defense bills are always serious matters--but this year Congress
works against a background of prolonged combat in Iraq and Afghanistan,
worrying indicators of a force under strain, and with obligations to
care for a new generation of combat veterans and their families.
By virtually any measure, the American military is a force under
strain. It is a simple statement of fact--and a fact every one of us
must acknowledge and address so that this most magnificent military is
not irreparably harmed. Just 2 months ago, General Richard Myers,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reported to Congress that the
American military is not as ready as it could be to meet new
contingencies beyond Iraq and Afghanistan. Units and personnel are
facing repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. So-called ``low-
density-high-demand'' units and personnel are maxed-out. The Army has a
dwindling number of Army Reserve and National Guard personnel available
to perform combat support roles such as military police and civil
affairs.
In recent weeks, two reports--one by the GAO, the other by RAND--
highlighted shortages in the Army Reserve. It is becoming increasingly
difficult for the Army Reserve to continue to provide ready forces in
the near term due to worsening personnel and equipment shortages. There
are three primary causes for these shortages: the practice of not
maintaining Army Reserve units with all of the personnel and equipment
they need to deploy, personnel policies that limit the number of
reservists and the length of time they may be deployed, and a shortage
of full-time staff to develop and maintain unit readiness. As of March
2005, the number of Army Reserve eligible for mobilization under
current policies had decreased to about 31,000 soldiers, or about 16
percent of Army Reserve personnel. But numbers don't tell the whole
story as those still available for mobilization may not have the skills
and ranks needed to support ongoing operations. We must all be
concerned that the Army Reserve be able to provide forces that are
ready and relevant to ongoing operations.
But these issues--as serious as they are--will not be addressed by
simply rubber-stamping an important piece of legislation. I will vote
against cloture because there are too many important amendments that
would improve this legislation and help the men and women of the
American military and their families. If we do invoke cloture, dozens
of amendments that deserve a vote--up or down--would fall away,
including amendments to protect the pay of mobilized reservists
employed by the Federal Government and to create mandatory funding of
veterans healthcare. My own amendments to extend survivor housing
benefits beyond the end of the fiscal year, to increase funding for a
vital weapons system sought by commanders in Iraq, and to begin the
process of improving the GI Bill of Rights would never have received a
vote.
I urge my colleagues to complete the defense authorization bill as
quickly as possible and to consider the amendments which Members have
offered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to express my disappointment that
the majority leader has decided to postpone further action on this
year's Defense authorization bill. This is an extremely important piece
of legislation that deserves the Senate's full and careful
consideration right away. I have several worthy amendments to the bill,
as do many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle. We have an
obligation to our men and women in uniform and to the American people
to thoroughly debate these important amendments and come up with the
best legislation possible for our Nation's security. If cloture is
invoked on this bill prematurely, the Senate will not have been able to
take up many of the essential amendments on which the Senate should be
spending time, addressing such issues as pay and benefits for military
personnel, nonproliferation, and our detention policies. I am therefore
hopeful that the Senate will reject attempts to cut off debate on this
bill prematurely. Unfortunately, rather than allowing debate and action
on the Defense authorization bill to continue, the majority leader has
decided to move to a special interest bill instead. I am hopeful,
however, that the Senate will soon be able to go back to working on a
bill that is so important to our national security.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate
that debate on S. 1042, the Defense authorization bill for fiscal year
2006, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are mandatory
under the rule. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any Senator in the Chamber who
desires to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 48, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 205 Leg.]

YEAS--50

Alexander
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Conrad
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)

[[Page S8908]]

Nelson (NE)
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--48

Akaka
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Collins
Corzine
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
McCain
Mikulski
Murray
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Stabenow
Thune
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Craig
Rockefeller
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are
48. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. I have a parliamentary inquiry. I would be happy to yield
to my friend from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I was just going to ask the Presiding Officer the regular
order.
Mr. REID. That is what I was going to do. I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. REID. Now that the Senate has defeated cloture on the Defense
bill, will the Senate remain on this bill, which is the bill that is to
pay for our troops and protect our troops and our country, the Defense
bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator would be informed that under the
previous order--under the regular order, the Senate is to proceed to a
motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 397.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, then I have a unanimous consent request.
That request is that the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the
gun liability bill be vitiated and that the Senate remain on the
Defense bill and complete the Defense bill this week and the Senate
begin the very minute it gets back on September 6 with the gun
liability bill, on cloture on the motion to proceed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent?
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I made it
clear about 3 weeks ago to this body that we had a number of issues we
were going to address before leaving for recess. We listed a number of
them this morning. One of them was the gun liability bill. There are
lots of roadblocks right now, barriers being thrown up to prevent us
from addressing a very important bill that I believe we will show here
shortly we have over 60 votes for. Thus, I will say one more time that
we intend to complete the gun liability bill before we leave, complete
addressing it. I am very disappointed in the last vote, the fact that
we are not going to be proceeding with the Department of Defense
authorization bill. I do look forward to coming back and looking at
that bill and passing that bill. It is a very important bill, and that
is why we filed cloture to complete that. In all likelihood, what will
happen, we will proceed to the bill on gun liability, and the objective
will be to complete that this week, and thus I do object.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, another parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. REID. When we finish the gun legislation, do we automatically
come back to the Defense bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator should know that if the motion to
proceed is passed, it displaces the Defense authorization bill.
Mr. REID. But that does not respond to my question. It is put back on
the calendar, is that right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senate proceeds to the gun liability
bill motion, then it would displace the DOD bill and place it back on
the calendar.
Mr. FRIST addressed the chair.
Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. I would ask unanimous consent that at any time determined
by the majority leader, the Senate resume the Department of Defense
bill at that time.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator restate it.
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that at the time determined by the
majority leader, we will return to the Department of Defense
authorization bill.
Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object.
Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank you. The majority leader said something here
today that really surprised me. He said he is going to prove that the
gun liability bill was one of the most important things we were going
to do, and I want to know from the majority leader, does he think that
bill is more important than the Defense authorization bill?
Mr. SANTORUM. Regular order.
Mrs. BOXER. Does he think that the Defense authorization bill is not
as important as gun liability?
Mr. BUNNING. Regular order, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor.
Is there objection to the unanimous consent request?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would suggest and ask if the distinguished
leader would modify his request to say that when we finish the gun
legislation, we would return to the Defense bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the majority leader----
Mr. FRIST. I object and I once again state my request that at a time
determined by the majority leader, we return to the Department of
Defense authorization bill.
Mr. KENNEDY. Parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the majority leader's
request?
Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, if we go
to cloture and cloture is invoked, do we not displace the Defense
authorization bill for consideration in this Chamber this afternoon and
for the next days, if we pass it? Is that not the case?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If cloture is invoked on the motion to
proceed, we will remain on the motion to proceed until time is used or
yielded back.
Mr. KENNEDY. So the answer is affirmative, that we are displacing the
Defense authorization bill by voting on cloture on the motion to
proceed. Am I not correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the motion were to pass, the Senate would
continue on that motion.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I hope the distinguished majority leader
will bring this bill back at the earliest possible time. This is such
an important piece of legislation. It should not be added to the tail
end of things we do around here.
Mr. KENNEDY. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.

____________________