[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 148 (Wednesday, November 9, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12560-S12601]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 1042, which the clerk will report.
  The journal 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:

       Chambliss amendment No. 2433, to reduce the eligibility age 
     for receipt of non-regular military service retired pay for 
     members of the Ready Reserve in active federal status or on 
     active duty for significant periods.
       Ensign amendment No. 2443, to restate United States policy 
     on the use of riot control agents by members of the Armed 
     Forces.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S12561]]

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, may I ask what the regular order is right 
now, what the pending amendment is?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Ensign amendment 
No. 2443.


                           Amendment No. 2440

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
Ensign amendment, and I send to the desk my amendment No. 2440 and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The journal clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], for himself and Mr. 
     Frist, proposes an amendment numbered 2440.

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

    (Purpose: To ensure by law the ability of the military service 
  academies to include the offering of a voluntary, nondenominational 
               prayer as an element of their activities)

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

     SEC. 1073. PRAYER AT MILITARY SERVICE ACADEMY ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--The superintendent of a service academy 
     may have in effect such policy as the superintendent 
     considers appropriate with respect to the offering of a 
     voluntary, nondenominational prayer at an otherwise 
     authorized activity of the academy, subject to such 
     limitations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe.
       (b) Service Academies.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term ``service academy'' means any of the following:
       (1) The United States Military Academy.
       (2) The United States Naval Academy.
       (3) The United States Air Force Academy.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, even though the Founding Fathers were very 
clear and spoke of ``Nature's God'' and of the ``Creator'' in the 
Declaration of Independence, the Federal courts are increasingly trying 
to drive every vestige of faith from public life.
  On April 30, 2003, came an example from the Fourth Circuit Court of 
Appeals.
  As the Boston Globe reported it:

       Judges bar prayer at public colleges. In a precedent-
     setting ruling against prayer at a State college, a Federal 
     appeals court has barred the Virginia Military Institute from 
     writing and reciting a prayer before cadets eat their evening 
     meals.

  VMI and then the Citadel down in South Carolina have scrapped their 
prayers since that Federal court ruling, though Justice Stevens 
declared:

       There is no injunction presently barring VMI from 
     reinstituting the supper prayer.

  The Naval Academy in Annapolis has also been reviewing its policy. 
The ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, is calling on 
the academy to review its practices of leading the students in prayer.
  Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for the Boston Globe who wrote in 1996:

       Have you heard about the Virginia politician who wanted 
     references to God injected into the Declaration of 
     Independence? Or about the activist from Massachusetts who 
     urged making the Fourth of July a quasi-religious holiday? 
     These proposals were made 220 years ago. Today they would be 
     swiftly denounced by the ACLU, the Democratic Congressional 
     Campaign Committee, and a slew of editorial pages.

  It was just last year that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 
to have ``under God'' taken from our Pledge of Allegiance.
  We go around, as I do in my State of Oklahoma, spending a lot of time 
talking to people. I know what we do up here is significant. We pass 
laws. We have a lot of rules and regulations coming out of the White 
House, out of the various committees, including the one I chair, the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, but when you are on the street, 
it is the legislating from the bench that bothers people more than 
anything else. And certainly taking ``under God'' out of our Pledge of 
Allegiance is right at the top of that list.
  Now, I agree with my friend in the other body, Congressman Walter 
Jones, who has led this fight in the House of Representatives, when he 
asks the question:

       How much longer will we stand by and allow others to ignore 
     the very God upon whom our Nation was founded?

  I also agree with the position of the Concerned Women for America 
that:

       Prayer is essential to the protection of our families, our 
     communities and our nation. We believe that the men and women 
     who put themselves in harm's way have the right to give 
     public thanks to God and ask for His blessings. But some are 
     trying to take this right away.

  Ronald Ray and Linda Jeffrey of Concerned Women for America recap:

       On July 11, 2005 the Marine Corps Times announced the Anti-
     Defamation League's reissued call to cease the traditional 
     noon-meal prayer at the Naval Academy, and the Academy's 
     refusal to surrender. The ADL's demands echo the April of 
     2003 complaint by the ACLU, which could not find a 
     plaintiff to pursue a lawsuit.

  This is kind of interesting. The ACLU was trying to find one cadet at 
the Naval Academy to act as a plaintiff. They couldn't find one.
  Take a good look at this painting by Arnold Frieberg of ``The Prayer 
at Valley Forge.'' Since the time of George Washington and the founding 
of our country, there is unbroken historic precedent of leader-led 
prayer sustaining American fighting men on the battlefield through 
every American war. In his Farewell Address, George Washington said:

       I consider it an indispensable duty to close this last 
     solemn act of my official life by commending the interests of 
     our dearest country to the protection of Almighty God and 
     those who have the superintendence of them into his holy 
     keeping.

  On the 4th of July, John Adams of Massachusetts said:

       It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by 
     solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.

  The centrality of prayer for the protection of those in peril upon 
the sea and acknowledgment of divine providence is an official tenet of 
preparation of the American military. America's dependence upon prayer 
exhibits itself before, and in the Declaration of Independence, and in 
the Inaugural Address of every President. Congress opens each day with 
a prayer. The tradition of prayer continued on June 6, 1944, when 
President Roosevelt led the entire Nation in prayer during his radio 
address, lifting up our assault forces and the families of those who 
would give the supreme sacrifice in the D-Day invasion. The President 
did that before the invasion.
  During World War II, GEN George Patton led the famous prayer for 
favorable weather during the crucial 1944 Battle of the Bulge, and the 
weather dramatically improved. Patton issued 3,200 training letters to 
officers and chaplains in the Third Army to ``urge, instruct, and 
indoctrinate every fighting man to pray as well as to fight.'' That is 
George Patton.
  In one of the largest social science research projects in history, 
the Social Science Research Council reported after World War II that 
soldiers selected prayer most frequently as their source of combat 
motivation. From 1774 until today, more than 67 Armed Forces prayer 
books have been widely and efficiently distributed to our fighting 
forces during war, from the American war for independence to the war on 
terror we are fighting today.
  A sampling of just two prayer books distributed during World War II 
and the Korean war contain recommended prayers from 34 senior uniformed 
military authorities, including Bradley, Eisenhower, MacArthur, 
Marshall, and Patton.
  Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Thomas Moorer, 
concludes:

       Prayer for the common good and acknowledgment of Divine 
     Providence is a central, official and historic tenet of the 
     combat leadership preparation for the American Military, 
     particularly officer training and particularly in times of 
     national peril or war.

  Our Constitution demands the freedom to worship freely, and our 
future leaders, our men and women in military academies across the 
country, may soon be denied that freedom for which many have died to 
ensure that freedom for all of us.
  Last year, 2004, the Supreme Court decided not to hear the ACLU 
challenge to cadet-led prayers at Virginia Military Institute. VMI, 
that is where it all started. That decision allowed the Fourth Circuit 
Court of Appeals decision to stand which prohibited VMI from sponsoring 
a daily supper prayer. Right after that, the Citadel followed their 
lead.
  Supreme Court Justice Stevens pointed out in his decision for the 
majority not to hear the case that, in contrast, the Sixth and Seventh 
Circuit Courts have rejected challenges to nondenominational prayer at 
the college level, reasoning that ``college-age students are not 
particularly susceptible

[[Page S12562]]

to pressure from peers towards conformity.''
  It is important to acknowledge here that the Sixth and Seventh 
Circuits, as well as the Fourth Circuit, all agree that there is not a 
problem in our colleges and universities. The VMI prayer was voluntary. 
Stevens states that there is no ``direct conflict among Circuits,'' 
relying on the factual differences between the cases in the different 
circuit courts.
  Justice Scalia writes, however, that ``the basis for the 
distinguishing--that this was a separate prayer at a state military 
college, whereas other cases involved graduation prayers at state 
nonmilitary colleges--is, to put it mildly, a frail one.''
  Scalia continues:

       In fact, it might be said that the former is more, rather 
     than less, likely to be constitutional since group prayer 
     before military mess is more traditional than group prayer at 
     ordinary state colleges.

  That is the state of the law today. Currently, they are not praying 
at VMI and at the Citadel. There is some problem at the Naval Academy.
  Frustrated by the failure to find anyone in the Naval Academy to 
serve as a plaintiff, the ACLU now asks the Armed Services Committee of 
the Congress to take action. My amendment is designed to send an 
unsubtle signal to any court that entertains an ACLU suit against the 
military academies. It will stand as an indication of congressional 
intent on the matter. That is important. A lot of times congressional 
intent is not. However, when it is stated, when a decision is being 
made on a matter like this, it is significant. It is that intent that 
we want to have as an amendment to the bill today.
  Judges inclined to back mealtime prayer will be able to point to this 
legislation as an argument for judicial deference to the will of 
Congress and the executive branch.
  My amendment's language was in the House-passed version of last 
year's National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005. This 
year I want to see a recorded vote in the Senate to make clear exactly 
who agrees with this provision and who does not and to show the 
strength of support for this provision. While debating this National 
Defense Authorization Act, and hereafter, let us honor our heroes and 
those who have returned home and those who sacrificed their lives by 
standing against those liberals who would seek to challenge their God-
given right to pray to a living Lord.
  What I would like to do is yield the floor. First, I ask unanimous 
consent that Senator Allard be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. I understand Senator Warner, our distinguished chairman, 
wants to speak, as well as Senator Brownback.
  I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend our colleague. This is a very 
significant and important step that he has taken. I ask unanimous 
consent to be added as a cosponsor on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator from Kansas asked for a moment or two to 
speak. I shall yield the floor at this point and then follow with my 
remarks. I first ask the Presiding Officer with regard to the time 
remaining for the proponents of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents have 17 minutes 15 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from Oklahoma and 
from Virginia for allowing me to speak on this important amendment. 
This morning, I started my day in the Senate as the Presiding Officer. 
I started it standing next to Chaplain Black, who is a Navy chaplain. 
He gave the opening prayer for the Senate. We have had an opening 
prayer for many years. I found it inspiring, encouraging. I found it 
uplifting and important that we open this body with a prayer. We do so 
on a daily basis. As I sat as Presiding Officer, I looked at the door 
opposite me. Right above it, on our mantlepiece, we have ``In God We 
Trust,'' as we have on our coinage and in our beliefs and hearts. To 
many Americans, we are one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty 
and justice for all.
  It is with this in mind that I rise in support of the amendment of 
the Senator from Oklahoma, No. 2440, that protects the ability of 
superintendents of military service academies to set appropriate 
policies for the offering of voluntary nondenominational prayers at 
authorized events. This is basic. It is important. It is the protection 
of the practice of religious liberties at our military institutions.
  Prayer in military environments, as well as in public settings 
generally, has come into question in recent years. This amendment has 
specific relation to the 2004 Supreme Court decision not to hear a case 
regarding the challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union to 
mealtime prayers at Virginia Military Institute.
  This follows on a series of cases for 40 years now of an attempt by 
the hard left in America to have a naked public square, to have no 
recognition of a divine authority, to have no recognition of seeking a 
divine authority or guidance, but a naked, sterile public square. That 
was not contemplated in our Constitution. It called for a separation of 
church and state, but not the removal of church from state which is 
what this seeks to perpetuate.
  The mealtime prayer at Virginia Military Institute was a respected 
and time-honored practice, a military institution that has played a 
critical role in training U.S. military leaders for over 160 years. 
Sadly, the majority decision of the Supreme Court not to hear the case 
allowed a decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to stand 
which prohibited VMI from sponsoring a daily supper prayer.
  However, other circuit courts have rejected challenges to 
nondenominational prayer at the college level. And we should, too; we 
should allow this prayer to take place. We shouldn't have a naked 
public square. We should have a robust one that lifts up faith and 
lifts up the seeking of those to a higher moral authority.
  Freedom of religion as protected in the U.S. Constitution does not 
require the removal of all religion from public settings. Such 
secularity is not what our Founding Fathers envisioned when they 
established religious liberty as one of the basic tenets of the 
Republic. I support the Senator from Oklahoma in his effort to clarify 
to the judicial branch and the military Congress's understanding of 
this fundamental constitutional right with regard to military 
academies. This is important. It is one of those things, as we try to 
stop this onslaught of the removal of religious liberty, which is what 
the move is about and what the Senator from Oklahoma is trying to 
prevent, the removal of religious liberties, to allow the robust 
practice of religion, nondenominational, nonsectarian, yet seeking that 
God in whom we trust.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before the distinguished Senator from 
Kansas leaves the floor, I want to speak to him about another matter. I 
ask unanimous consent to go off this amendment for a brief period and 
charge the time to me from the bill time so I may have a colloquy with 
my good friend and colleague from Kansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator has submitted to me an amendment which is in 
our allocation of 12 amendments regarding the notification that you 
deem important with military families, should they seek to access a 
military hospital for the performance of an abortion by a young person 
in that family. Am I generally correct about that?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. In studying the amendment over the night--now it is not 
the pending amendment, but I want to bring these issues to the 
attention of the Senator, in fairness. The Senator, though, appreciates 
that so many of these families, particularly those abroad, are often 
separated because a spouse, male or female, as the case may be, the 
serving member in uniform, could be detached from the family homesite 
and sent into other areas of the globe for periods of time to

[[Page S12563]]

perform missions. For example, there is a number of families resident 
in Europe whose spouses are then part of cadres of individuals going 
into the Iraq situation, some into the Afghan situation. That poses 
some difficulty, as I see it, in trying to work out a communication 
between family members, which communication is relative to life and 
death, and very important.
  I am concerned that we are reaching down to a very small number of 
individuals, i.e., the military families, and could be imposing upon 
them, should this amendment be adopted and become law, a difficult 
situation. I am of an open mind, but I am concerned about having that 
type of legislation on this bill.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. If I could respond to my colleague----
  Mr. WARNER. And then if the Senator would address also the issue of 
the U.S. Federal district court being a participant in this situation.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. This is a simple parental notification bill which we 
brought up last time on the Department of Defense authorization bill 
and agreed to take it on last year because of desires to move the bill 
forward. We have worked on it a great deal. What it is about is if a 
child, a dependent of military personnel, seeks an abortion, they have 
to get parental notification, which most Americans support. Most 
Americans believe if their child is seeking a medical procedure of any 
type, they should have parental notification take place.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I could interject at this time, 
personally, my own philosophy is in agreement with the objective. My 
only concern as manager of the authorization bill of the Department of 
Defense is that I cannot let my personal beliefs override my judgment 
as to how best to treat these families of our military.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I understand that my colleague from Virginia and I, 
too, have major military bases in our States. Fort Riley is growing in 
size as an army unit. It is a place that has troops all the time in 
Iraq and Afghanistan, so I see this on a personal basis in my State. 
But I also see on a personal basis, if you are deployed there and you 
have a minor child who is seeking an abortion, that you as the father 
or mother want to be notified about that, and we provide this to be 
done telephonically so a person does not have to be present. The court 
itself would have to establish witness or evidentiary standards if they 
want somebody to be present to be able to determine that this person is 
there, is the actual one who is seeking this.
  We also provide a system in here that a guardian is appointed if 
needed, and that can be done by the district court without the approval 
of the parents, but they have to go through that procedure to be able 
to get this done.
  We have worked to try to make this work with personnel. I think it is 
going to happen in a limited number of settings, but it will happen. It 
is a Federal issue because it is Federal property, Federal employees, 
and it is something I think we should do for military personnel so they 
are in charge of their child's upbringing, and particularly on 
something such as this of a significant medical procedure of an 
abortion. So we try to take into consideration the very legitimate 
concerns of the Senator in putting this forward.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, again, I strongly support the principle 
and the goals the Senator is seeking, but I have to be mindful of the 
practicalities of military life. It is so different than the families 
who are in our several States, wherever they may be, and that, of 
course, brings up another question. Suppose this particular military 
family's members are residents of a State, which State thus far has not 
addressed this issue. This State has no requirement for the parental 
consent in that State, yet they are now being subjected to a Federal 
law which, of course, would have supremacy over the State law. But is 
that not an invasive practice in the States rights?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Again, it is a legitimate question the chairman asks 
in these troubling areas. We don't seem to have difficulty with this in 
any other medical procedure a minor child would ask for, that they have 
to get their parents' notification. If a child literally in many places 
has even very minor surgery, they have to get parental notification. 
And yet because of the social difficulty and how much we wrestle with 
the issue of abortion, they don't there, and they are using Federal 
facilities to do this. I think this is wholly appropriate given the use 
of Federal facilities.
  Remember, too, what we are protecting here is the right of the parent 
toward their minor child. If the minor child has a very difficult 
relationship with their parents, they can actually take it separately 
to the court and not have the parent get approval to do this. If I were 
a military person, I would want something such as this, that I am in 
charge of my minor child's upbringing, and particularly when it comes 
to surgery and something that is so important and difficult as an 
abortion. This is for the personnel.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I engaged my colleague to set forth my 
concerns to other Members who are trying to evaluate their positions on 
this amendment, should it come forward, and I anticipate at the 
appropriate time the Senator will be introducing it. I question is 
there any precedent in Federal law for requiring parental notification, 
for example, in Medicare, Medicaid, or Federal employee health 
programs?
  I have to move on to this amendment, but it is a series of very 
important fundamental questions that has to be addressed in the context 
of the Senator's amendment, despite my own personal view that I 
associate myself with the Senator about the parental consent. 
Consistently I have voted for that here, but I have an overriding 
responsibility for the men and women in the military, and this is very 
unique.
  So I put this aside at this time, Mr. President, and return to the 
Inhofe amendment. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. If I could respond to the last question. No, not 
Federal employees involved in Medicare and Medicaid, the other 
situation. We are talking about Federal employees on Federal military 
facilities. We are trying to protect the parents' rights in this, which 
the chairman did not dispute, but others may dispute, and we still need 
to provide another procedure for the child to go outside the parents' 
rights. I think this is important, and we have tried to make it 
workable within the military system.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. We are going to move swiftly today, 
and issues could be brought up with very short time limitations on 
debate. That has allowed me the opportunity to express my serious 
concerns that I will have to address in the context of this amendment 
as the day progresses.
  I ask unanimous consent we go back to the amendment by the Senator 
from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2440

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to again thank my colleague from 
Oklahoma. I think it is a very important amendment.
  Mr. President, this is an issue that must be carefully balanced, the 
constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion and the 
constitutional prohibition against the establishment of religion. But 
it is a longstanding tradition at these academies, and I think the 
amendment is carefully drafted to strike a balance in those two 
important considerations.
  Moreover, this amendment deals with the particular circumstances and 
environment that exist at our service academies, those honored 
institutions with long and storied traditions that have the mission of 
training our next generation of military leaders. A part of that 
mission is now and always has been the development of moral character 
and the appropriate respect for religious beliefs and needs of others 
who are entrusted with their leadership.
  I must draw a little bit on my modest experience in service on active 
duty in periods of two wars. I can tell you my own observation of the 
importance of religion to individuals, particularly those serving 
overseas, and the hardships they endured either from family separation 
or combat situations or other difficult problems. It is a very deep 
feeling these many individuals have about their respective religious 
traditions and family traditions in religion, and it has often been a 
matter of life and death to some individuals. Clinging to those strong 
beliefs has

[[Page S12564]]

pulled them through difficult situations.
  I also stop to think about our academies. I have had the privilege 
over the years to visit all of them. I think particularly of the Naval 
Academy and its magnificent chapel. People come from all over the world 
to see the chapel at the U.S. Naval Academy. Just this year I was 
privileged to be the keynote speaker at the dedication of a new small 
entrance at the Naval Academy where those of the Jewish faith can go 
and quietly exercise their religion and share their prayers. I 
encourage anyone in that area to go and look at these two edifices. To 
me they symbolize the importance of religion in our military life.
  I commend the Senator from Oklahoma.
  I have been informed by the distinguished ranking member that there 
could be an amendment in the second degree and that individual who 
would bring it forth is due here in about 20 or 30 minute is my 
understanding, at which time I hope we could finish addressing this 
amendment such that the Senate could vote presumably on the second-
degree amendment and then the underlying amendment prior to the noon 
period, although we will not stop consideration of the bill at the time 
but would continue. But I hope that amendment could be agreed to.
  I see the distinguished ranking member.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman's comment. I do 
hope and believe that Senator Reed will in about half an hour be able 
to address the issue. I can't commit to a vote, however, as indicated 
by the chairman. I believe there is some scheduling issue on this side 
which may preclude a vote at the time hoped for by the chairman. But 
let me work that issue the best I can as to when the vote would come on 
this amendment.
  I believe Senator Craig may have an amendment----
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before we depart, I hope the Senator could 
share with me and the Republican leadership, with the understandable 
impediments our two leaders have, with regard to votes and scheduling 
them. We want to try to----
  Mr. LEVIN. I hope we could stack votes at some point, including a 
vote on the Inhofe amendment with a second-degree possibility and 
also----
  Mr. WARNER. And the Ensign amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. And the Ensign amendment as well. I have talked to Senator 
Craig and you have apparently.
  Mr. WARNER. I have. It is such that you and Senator Craig can discuss 
that amendment.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, may I inquire as to the order appropriate 
that we would discuss and bring up this amendment?
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
laid aside to consider amendment No. 2437.
  Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, let me ask the author of 
the request what the intention is because I want to continue with my 
discussion. About how much time does the Senator want to take for 
consideration of the amendment?
  Mr. CRAIG. I think less than 2 minutes could solve this issue and we 
could return to the Senator's amendment.
  Mr. INHOFE. I have no objection.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Cornyn be added as a cosponsor 
of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we have a technical problem we have to 
address with regard to the UC request; that is, we are operating this 
bill under a UC, 12 amendments each side. This is not 1 of the 12.
  Mr. CRAIG. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Therefore, I think we could go on the bill time for the 
purpose of discussing the Senator's amendment in the hopes what 
differences remain could be reconciled so this amendment could be 
included as part of the managers' agreed-upon package.
  Mr. President, let the record reflect we are not calling this 
amendment up within the context of the UC which controls the overall 
procedure of this bill but that the two Senators are simply having a 
colloquy, which is fine.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, that is, of course, the order. I thank the 
chairman for correcting us in that because we are operating on the 
broader bill, the underlying bill, under a UC.
  This amendment was brought forth with the hope that both sides could 
accept it. Our side has accepted it. I worked with the ranking member, 
Senator Levin, to resolve a couple of issues in it that I think can be 
accepted. In that case, I hope it will appear in the managers' 
amendment.
  We would include in the amendment--and we are discussing those who 
are eligible to be buried in military cemeteries. We have a prohibition 
now against those with a Federal capital offense lying at rest in our 
military cemeteries. We found this summer that an individual who had 
been convicted of murder in two instances in Maryland, serving his life 
sentence in a Maryland prison, died and was buried in Arlington. We 
want to correct that by saying that Federal or State law, where the 
final decision--he is found guilty even under appeal--it has to be a 
final decision in that instance, and that under extraordinary 
circumstances, even though he might be convicted, a Governor or a 
President would commute the sentence. That would be the exception.
  I would be willing to agree to those two items to be included in the 
amendment if that is acceptable to all parties, and we would so craft 
it that way.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Idaho. The two 
changes we have proposed to the amendment make it clear that the 
conviction of a capital offense, as referred to, could either be State 
or Federal, would have to be a final conviction so there is no appeal 
pending or a pending court challenge. And it provides for the 
possibility of a commutation of that sentence by a Governor or the 
President.
  With those two changes, it will be acceptable to us, and we can agree 
it will be part of a managers' package. There was no intent that this 
be 1 of the 12.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may I inquire of the proponent of the 
amendment, I heard him use the term ``military cemeteries.'' There are 
State and Federal cemeteries. This amendment is directed at Federal 
cemeteries?
  Mr. CRAIG. It is the only one over which we have jurisdiction; that 
is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. As I understand it, national cemeteries, Federal 
cemeteries are governed by the amendment. With those changes, we will 
not object to the amendment. In fact, I think there will be good 
support for it. Senator Mikulski, as I understand, is a supporter of 
it.
  One other comment, Mr. President. It is my understanding that both 
the veterans organizations and the Veterans' Affairs Committee support 
this amendment; is that accurate?
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, that is correct. Full disclosure here: 
There is always concern when you restrict access for purposes of 
burial, but because we have already established that in Federal law and 
this appeared to be a loophole, which it was, and an individual, as I 
so stated, who was convicted of murder in two instances in Maryland was 
buried this summer in Arlington Cemetery, they understand that clearly, 
they appreciate that correction. And I am very specific in my 
discussions with the Senator from Michigan that we are talking about 
capital offenses--not all felonies, capital offenses of this kind.
  I thank both of my colleagues for helping us work out this issue. I 
hope this could be included in the managers' amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield further, we have 
had a discussion, and I received the assurance from Senator Craig, 
which I very much welcome, that it is not his intent that this lead to 
a broadening of this prohibition to include all felonies, but it is his 
intent, both in the amendment and his personal view, that this should 
be limited to the capital offense as identified in the amendment.
  Mr. CRAIG. That is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to join Senator Craig as a 
cosponsor on this amendment.
  This is an example which other Senators may wish to access as to how 
the

[[Page S12565]]

two managers are willing to work in open colloquy on areas where there 
are amendments outside the framework of the 12 on each side which could 
possibly be reconciled, and a part of that reconciliation process would 
be the need for an open colloquy. This is a format the Senator from 
Michigan and I are pleased to entertain where there are other 
amendments that a colloquy in open session would be helpful in trying 
to reach a reconciliation.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the full committee 
and the ranking member for their accommodations.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we thank the Senator from Idaho for 
bringing this to the attention of the Senate and for making this 
correction.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is also important, with my colleague on 
the floor, that we are bound by this UC, 12 amendments on each side, 
and as we bring up amendments, I carefully designate, as the Senator 
from Michigan does, that they are within the 12 each side has.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the chairman will yield on that point because I wish to 
affirm and confirm what he has just said, that these colloquies, which 
are necessary for clearance of amendments, are very useful. We are used 
to this, all of us in the Senate, engaging in these kinds of 
colloquies, and there is no intent, for instance, in this last 
colloquy, that amendment be listed as 1 of the 12 amendments on the 
Republican side.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 8 minutes 55 seconds remaining.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I don't know of anyone who is going to be 
wanting time to speak against this amendment. I inquire of the ranking 
member if he knows of anyone who is going to be speaking in opposition 
to this amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I do believe there is at least one Member 
on this side who will be offering or considering a second-degree 
amendment.
  Mr. INHOFE. Or another first-degree amendment. That is fine. In 
opposition to this amendment, though.
  Mr. LEVIN. The second-degree amendment--however one wants to 
characterize it--I do understand there is a second-degree amendment 
possible.
  Mr. INHOFE. I understand there is 8 minutes remaining; is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. So we do not mislead our friend from Oklahoma, there may 
very well be Senators of whom I am not aware who would want to speak in 
opposition.
  Mr. INHOFE. In that there is no one on the floor right now, if it is 
all right with the chairman and ranking member, I will conclude my 
remarks.
  Mr. President, I have always enjoyed one-sentence amendments because 
one can't misinterpret one sentence. I had one the other day that had 
to do with the appropriations process. I did one in 1994 that ended up 
being a major, significant reform in the other body.
  I will read this so people don't misunderstand it:

       The superintendent of a service academy may have in effect 
     such policy as the superintendent considers appropriate with 
     respect to the offering of a voluntary, nondenominational 
     prayer at an otherwise authorized activity of the academy. . 
     . .

  Some people asked a question about denominational prayer. Let me 
share with you--and I think I can read it in this period of time--an 
entire piece by John Adams. John Adams was the first Vice President of 
the United States and the second President of the United States. This 
is what he said on this subject:

       When the Congress met, Mr. Cushing made a motion that it 
     should be opened with prayer. It was opposed by Mr. Jay of 
     New York and Mr. Rutledge of South Carolina, because we were 
     divided in religious sentiments, some Episcopalians, some 
     Quakers, some Anabaptists, some Congregationalists, so that 
     we could not join in same set of worship. Mr. Samuel Adams 
     rose and said, that he was no bigot, and could hear a prayer 
     of any gentleman of piety and virtue, and at the same time a 
     friend to his country. He was a stranger in Philadelphia, but 
     had heard that Mr. Duche deserved that character and 
     therefore he moved that Mr. Duche, an Episcopalian clergyman, 
     might be desired to read prayer to Congress to-morrow 
     morning. The motion was carried in the affirmative.
       Accordingly he . . . read several prayers in the 
     established form, and then read . . . the 35th Psalm. You 
     must remember this was the next morning after we had heard 
     the rumor of the horrible cannonade of Boston. It seemed as 
     if Heaven had ordained that Psalm to be read that morning.
       After this, Mr. Duche, unexpectedly to everybody, struck 
     out into extemporary prayer, which filled the bosom of every 
     man present.
       Here was a scene worthy of a painter's art. It was in 
     Carpenter's Hall, in Philadelphia. . . . Washington was 
     kneeling there, and Henry, and Randolph, and Rutledge, and 
     Lee, and Jay; and by them stood, bowed in reverence, the 
     Puritan patriots of New England, who, at that moment had 
     reason to believe that armed soldiery was wasting their 
     humbled households. It was believed that Boston had been 
     bombarded and destroyed. They prayed fervently for America, 
     for Congress. . . .

  I think that is very significant.
  I read an article the other day that was very interesting. It was an 
article by a military historian who said that the Revolutionary War 
could not have been won. He goes back and talks about the same thing 
that John Adams was talking about, about this tremendous army, the 
greatest military force on the face of this Earth marching up to 
Lexington and Concord. Our soldiers at that time were not really 
soldiers; they were hunters and trappers, and they were armed with just 
basic and crude equipment. We remember the story that most of them 
couldn't read or write.
  So in training, I say to my friend from Texas, they put a tuft of hay 
in one boot and a tuft of straw in another boot, and they marched to a 
cadence of ``hay foot straw foot.'' As they stood there and heard the 
ground shaking as the greatest army on the face of this Earth 
approached Lexington and Concord, they knew by resisting they were 
signing their own death warrant. They knew when they heard the shot 
heard round the world they were going to win in spite of these odds, 
not even knowing that a tall redhead stood in the House of Burgesses 
and made a speech for them and for us today, when he asked: How could 
this frail group of patriots defeat the largest army on the face of 
this Earth? He made a very famous speech, but there are three sentences 
people have forgotten. They are:

       Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means 
     which the God of nature has placed in our power. Three 
     millions of people armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in 
     such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by 
     any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, 
     we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who 
     presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up 
     friends to fight our battles for us.

  And they fired the shot heard round the world, and we won.
  We were a nation under God, and we depended upon God to win that 
fight and every fight since then. That is why I think it is so 
important today, as a part of this reauthorization bill, that we 
reaffirm our ability to train our people at our academies to look to 
Almighty God in the way they deem appropriate, in a way to use that 
power to defend America in their careers.
  I retain the remainder of my time, Mr. President. I understand there 
is 3 minutes remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Texas 
inquired of the managers if he could address an issue that is 
tangential to our national security. I ask unanimous consent that he be 
allowed to speak as in morning business, thereby not taking time off 
the bill, and that would be for not to exceed 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Texas is recognized for 10 minutes.


                     United States-India Relations

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee and the distinguished ranking member 
for this accommodation. This is an important matter that does relate 
directly to our national security and that has to do with the 
remarkable progress that United States-India relations have made over 
the last several years and the path that lies ahead.
  As my colleagues know, Prime Minister Singh visited Washington in 
July for a historic state visit. This event marked a critical milestone 
in our improving relationship, but the Congress

[[Page S12566]]

needs to help ensure that this relationship reaches its full potential. 
President Bush has made it a fundamental foreign policy objective to 
move United States-India relations to a new level and plans to visit 
India in the near future.
  India is the world's largest democracy, and our two great nations 
share many common values and common beliefs. It is only appropriate, 
then, that the United States and India become true strategic partners 
as we move into the 21st century. Fortunately, the days of the Cold War 
when the United States and India were at odds are long past. Today, the 
United States and India share a common vision for the future as we 
battle terrorism together and the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction, HIV/AIDS, and a host of other challenges that face our 
world.
  The United States is fortunate to have many Indian Americans who have 
helped bring our two nations closer together. There are 2 million 
people of Indian origin in the United States, approximately, many of 
whom are now U.S. citizens. There are about 200,000 Indian Americans in 
my State of Texas alone. Nearly 80,000 Indian students are studying in 
our Nation's colleges and universities. Their contributions to our 
Nation and our relationship have been remarkably positive.
  I will spend just a moment talking about an important agreement that 
was reached last July between President Bush and Prime Minister Singh 
that will require congressional approval to implement. This agreement, 
known as the Civil Nuclear Cooperation Initiative, will help India with 
its energy needs and help bring India into the mainstream of 
international nuclear nonproliferation efforts, both of which are 
worthwhile goals.
  While it is true that the agreement on civil nuclear cooperation is a 
significant departure from previous U.S. policy, still it represents a 
positive step as we grow in our strategic relationship with the nation 
of India. For more than 30 years, the United States and India have 
disagreed over India's decision not to sign the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty. As such, the United States has not cooperated 
with India on the issue of civilian nuclear power.
  In short, we have been at a stalemate, which has neither served our 
nonproliferation goals nor helped India's need for energy resources. 
Fortunately, a civil nuclear cooperation agreement will allow us to 
move forward in a way that serves both the interests of the United 
States and the interests of India.
  In order to implement this agreement, Congress will need to approve. 
The fundamental question before Congress will be why should we allow 
civilian nuclear cooperation with India when they refuse to sign the 
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? And will we not be somehow 
undermining our own nonproliferation efforts?
  The fact is, this agreement will enhance our nonproliferation 
efforts. It is correct that India is not a signatory to the NPT. They 
have decided, for their own national security reasons, that they will 
not become a party to the treaty, and no amount of international 
pressure, persuasion, or cajoling will convince them to do otherwise. 
This is a reality which we face, but the status quo for another 30 
years is not acceptable either.
  Recognizing this reality, we must ask ourselves what we can do to 
promote nonproliferation efforts with India and bring them within the 
international nonproliferation regime. The civil nuclear cooperation 
agreement provides the answer. Despite not signing the NPT, the Nuclear 
Non-Proliferation Treaty, India has an excellent nonproliferation 
record. They understand the danger of the proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction, and that is why India has agreed to adhere to key 
international nonproliferation efforts on top of their own stringent 
export control regime.
  This is a significant step forward, which has been welcomed by the 
International Atomic Energy Agency Director, Mohamed El-Baradei, who 
understands that India will not come into the NPT through the normal 
route. This agreement brings India's growing civilian nuclear 
capabilities within international export control regimes. India will 
now assume the same nonproliferation responsibilities that other 
nations have with civil nuclear energy. Specifically, India has agreed 
to identify and separate civilian and military nuclear facilities and 
programs and file with the IAEA a declaration with regard to its 
civilian facilities. It has agreed to place voluntarily its civilian 
nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. It has agreed to sign and 
adhere to an additional protocol with respect to civilian nuclear 
facilities. And it has agreed to continue its unilateral moratorium on 
nuclear testing.
  Furthermore, it has agreed to work with the United States for the 
conclusion of a multilateral fissile material cutoff treaty. It has 
agreed to refrain from the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing 
technologies to states that do not have them and support efforts to 
limit their spread.
  Finally, India has agreed to secure nuclear materials and technology 
through comprehensive export control legislation and adherence to the 
Missile Technology Control and Nuclear Suppliers Group.
  Each of these commitments represents a positive step forward. India, 
which is no stranger to international terrorism itself, is motivated by 
its own security needs to fight proliferation of nuclear weapons. The 
same is true of the United States. Both nations, as well, are dependent 
on oil imports to satisfy the needs of their economies and to create 
jobs for their people. Both nations, therefore, see in civilian nuclear 
energy cooperation an opportunity to satisfy these growing energy needs 
without environmental hazards of relying solely on fossil fuels. In 
short, this agreement is important to our growing international 
strategic partnership and for India's domestic energy needs.
  Although the administration's negotiations with the Indians are 
ongoing regarding the implementation of these commitments, I am 
confident that we are on the right track. I look forward to the role 
that Congress will play in this important process.
  I yield the floor and 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. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I believe we are on the Inhofe amendment 
pending before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.


                           Amendment No. 2440

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to address some of the issues that 
have been presented by the amendment of Senator Inhofe. I do so with 
some perspective on issues of prayer at service academies. I spent 4 
years as a cadet at West Point, 2 years as a faculty member at West 
Point, and today I am the chairman of the board of visitors at West 
Point. I am the first to recognize the importance of prayer, not only 
in the life of the service academies but in the life of people 
everywhere.
  Over the course of 200-plus years of history, prayer has become an 
important aspect of life, not only at West Point but at Annapolis and 
other institutions.
  Interestingly enough, when I was a cadet, there was a much more 
significant structure of religious participation. We were actually 
ordered to go to chapel, ordered to participate in activities. That was 
struck down in 1972 as an unconstitutional infringement.
  This is a very difficult issue because it does implicate serious 
constitutional concerns, as well as the desire to maintain the 
traditions and the customs of the military and the service academies. 
Interestingly enough, my perspective now, after about 30 years, is that 
the faith communities at West Point are even more vital and vibrant 
today than years ago when cadets literally were ordered to participate 
in religious activities. In fact, last summer, as part of the 
operations of the board of visitors, I asked that the chaplains come 
together on an informal basis, and we talked about religious 
participation at West Point. What I heard from the chaplains is that it 
is alive and well, that it is something important to the individual 
lives of cadets and to the community at West Point. That is why

[[Page S12567]]

I think, as we try to legislate these activities from the perspective 
of the U.S. Congress, we might be inviting more problems than we are 
solving.
  As I look at the amendment of Senator Inhofe, it speaks of voluntary, 
nondenominational prayer at otherwise authorized activities of the 
academy, subject to the limitations of the Secretary of Defense, more 
or less. The real problem in the context of military activities is, 
what is voluntary? There is a strong sense that there is not much that 
is voluntary in the military. Anyone who has served on active duty 
understands that even in some cases volunteering isn't voluntary. I 
know I had a first sergeant in the 82nd Airborne Division who would 
walk in and pick three people and inform them they had just 
volunteered. That is a cultural aspect and a legal aspect of military 
service. So even though this speaks to voluntary, nondenominational 
prayer, the real issue in the context of the military is, Is it 
voluntary?
  That issue is now being debated. One of the reasons prompting this 
particular legislative amendment is the fact that the Naval Academy has 
been questioned about a prayer at their luncheon meal. Whether it is 
nondenominational is not the point. The question is whether it is 
voluntary. I do not think we are going to escape that analysis and that 
issue by passing this legislation. In fact, my fear is by passing this 
legislation we are going to essentially invite litigation about a whole 
series of religious expressions at service academies, not just prayer 
in the mess hall at lunch but prayer at graduation ceremonies, at 
promotion ceremonies--all of that.
  Frankly, on a practical basis, this legislation is not necessary. 
First, the superintendents already have the authority to prescribe what 
is happening at the academies--either explicitly or implicitly the 
current religious expression at the academies is being authorized by 
the superintendents.
  Also, I think, given the fact that they are doing this and it seems 
to be working fairly well, this legislation does not give them any more 
authority than they have already. As I suggested previously, it raises, 
certainly, the profile, so it might engender the kind of controversies 
that will lead to seriously questioning and perhaps cutting back 
existing religious expression at these service academies. So I do not 
think, as a matter of either policy or of good sense, this legislation 
is in order or necessary.
  In addition, what is happening at the academies now is not so much 
the sole issue of the propriety of prayer or religious expression at 
different authorized activities. There is another big issue out there 
that we have to recognize. It comes from the recent activities at the 
Air Force Academy, where there have been serious reports about 
proselytization, of superior officers using their rank and position to 
try to proselytize cadets, to try to insert in the activities of the 
academy a pronounced and sectarian religious approach. I think we are 
all familiar with many of the stories from the Air Force Academy.
  As a result, the Secretary of Defense has issued interim guidance 
with respect to proselytization and other religious activities. I would 
note that the language of Senator Inhofe recognizes the right of the 
Secretary of Defense to do that. In fact, I would assume it lends 
further support and credence to the guidance that he is developing and 
will issue because, as the language says, ``subject to such limitations 
as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe.''
  I think what we are seeing, in terms of this legislation, is several 
results which might be unintended by those who are supporting it. 
First, I think rather than clarifying and settling the issue of 
religious expression at the service academies, it will prompt further 
discussion, debate, and perhaps even litigation. Second, it does 
specifically recognize that there is an ongoing process by the 
Secretary of Defense to redefine appropriate modes of religious 
expression at the academies. And, as I read it, it does give sanction 
to those activities--in fact, legal sanction to those activities.

  So for many reasons I think the legislation is not the most 
appropriate way to deal with this issue. Ultimately, my sense is that 
these issues, because they are dominated by constitutional concerns, 
will be settled in court, not by legislative enactment. There is 
nothing we could do legislatively to correct such constitutional 
faults. I think to try to do that misconstrues what we are about and 
what we could practically do.
  As a result, I hope this legislation could be withdrawn, but I 
suspect that is not the case. So I think we should make some changes in 
the legislation in that at least reflects the fact that all of us are 
bound by the Constitution of the United States.
  Again, I have been involved with these academies since I was 17 years 
old. I have seen personally the important role that prayer and religion 
play in the lives of cadets, soldiers, and officers. I recognize and 
cherish the customs of these academies, and these traditions. I think 
it is unfortunate that we may unwittingly be starting a dynamic that 
will seriously erode these customs and traditions, and I think perhaps 
to the detriment of the academies and to the military service and to 
the young men and women who proudly wear the uniform of our Armed 
Forces. So I hope we can avoid that.
  But I think, also, we have to recognize that we are all governed, 
particularly when it comes to issues of prayer in the public space, by 
the Constitution of the United States, and that there is nothing, as I 
said before, that we can do that can insulate activities within the 
military from the Constitution. There is nothing we should do. I think 
whatever language we adopt today has to more explicitly reflect that 
clear, and I think obvious, fact.
  As I mentioned before, the Secretary of Defense is dealing today with 
the issue of religious activities at the Air Force Academy. He has also 
indicated that, if his interim guidelines are practical, workable, and 
appropriate in his view, that he intends to extend those to the other 
service academies, effectively doing what this legislation is proposing 
to do. I think we should give the Secretary of Defense a chance to do 
that. I think he is working in a way that is evenhanded, appropriate, 
recognizing that soldiers are bound by the Constitution. That is their 
duty. That is their obligation.
  I say if we march down this road, I think we are raising serious 
issues that are going to complicate the facts even more than they are 
today. So I hope we could wait. I hope we could wait until these 
guidelines have been fully vetted by the Secretary and he has made a 
decision with respect to their propriety, their appropriateness. 
Indeed, once again, as the amendment suggests, ultimately whatever the 
superintendents of the academies do will be subject to the guidance of 
the Secretary of Defense. Frankly, that guidance today, if you look at 
it, is drawing mixed reviews from both the proponents of the separation 
of church and state and those who want a much more aggressive posture 
when it comes to religious expression in public places. Maybe that is a 
good sign. Maybe the Secretary has struck that balance between the 
constitutional demands of separation of church and state and the 
individual's desires and needs to express themselves to the Divine.
  I hope we could forbear on this one. If not, then I think we have to 
make some changes in the text to reflect the overarching constitutional 
imperatives that are at the heart of this debate.
  I retain the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator will yield, I inquire of the Senator, he 
has used some of the time in opposition speaking to this amendment. Is 
the Senator's desire to have another amendment on the same subject to 
be introduced separately from this?
  Mr. REED. My preference would be to try to amend the Senator's 
amendment.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have a problem.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yielded to the Senator. Would he like to 
use his time? I retain the remainder of my time.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I understand I only have a couple of 
minutes left, so let me very quickly say right now: There is a problem. 
In the Air Force all they have is a 20-second period of silence. I 
don't call that a prayer. At West Point they do not even have a period 
of silence. They say you can pray, but everyone else is talking. This 
is not a prayer. I think a problem is there.

[[Page S12568]]

  I think the argument that this might raise the profile is not a valid 
argument. I have heard it before. In 2003 the ACLU requested 
specifically that the prayers stop. In 2005 the Anti-Defamation League 
did the same thing. The attack is there.
  This is a very simple, one-sentence solution to the problem. At the 
appropriate time, in fact, right now, I urge the adoption of this 
amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. MURKOWSKI). Is there a sufficient second? 
There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. It is not my intent to proceed until we start several 
votes at a later time, I say to my good friend from Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, we need to inquire as to the issues of 
the proponent of the amendment, as to the allocation of time. What is 
his desire on that?
  Mr. INHOFE. I would say to the chairman, I think the allocation of 
time has already taken place. I have used my time. I have not yielded 
back the remainder of my time. I probably only have 30 or 40 seconds 
left. It is my desire to get a vote on this amendment, if the 
distinguished Senator from Rhode Island has an amendment that we get a 
vote on his amendment, and whatever the allocation of time is at that 
point, we will exercise that.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, that sounds like a reasonable request. 
Can the Senator from Rhode Island advise the Senate?
  Mr. REED. Let me understand. Is it in order now for me to propose a 
second-degree amendment which would then require just a short 
explanation and debate, and then we can move to a vote on the second-
degree amendment, and then on the underlying amendment?
  Mr. WARNER. That would be the desire of the manager.
  I wish to inquire of the proponent. Does he agree to the course of 
action?
  Mr. INHOFE. Would the Senator please repeat that course of action?
  Mr. REED. We are agreeing, as I understand it, that as soon as the 
Senator yields his remaining time, it would be in order for me to offer 
a second-degree amendment. I will do so. I will speak briefly on the 
second-degree amendment, and I think it would be in order to either 
entertain additional debate by the Senator from Oklahoma and others or 
to set a time for a vote.
  Mr. INHOFE. My preference would be to go ahead and have this as a 
first-degree amendment, offering the amendment of the Senator from 
Rhode Island as a first-degree amendment, and if he desires to have a 
vote on his first, I would have no objection.
  Would that satisfy the Senator from Rhode Island?
  Mr. REED. I think the most efficient course is simply to allow my 
second-degree amendment, allowing Members to vote essentially on my 
amendment first, then voice vote the amendment of the Senator from 
Oklahoma--if it succeeds, then the underlying amendment. That was my 
preference.
  Mr. INHOFE. There would be side-by-side amendments.
  Mr. REED. No. My preference is that we entertain a second-degree 
amendment and vote, and if the second-degree amendment is agreed to, 
then the underlying amendment would be voted on. There would be a 
series of votes. Mine would be voted on first.
  Mr. INHOFE. I object to that course.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I have read the suggested change that 
the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island has to my amendment. If it 
is his intention not to offer another amendment on this subject matter 
but merely to amend mine, I will accept that. I would yield the 
remainder of my time, and we would have one vote to take care of it.
  Mr. REED. Madam 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. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, the Senator from Oklahoma has offered to 
modify his amendment the way I suggested and then, having modified the 
amendment, schedule votes. I have no objection to that.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, that seems very acceptable to me.
  I will read the modification on page 2 of the amendment. On line 2, 
insert the following: ``the United States Constitution and . . . '' I 
have no objection to that.


                    Amendment No. 2440, as Modified

  I send this amendment to the desk and ask unanimous consent that it 
be so modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2440), as modified, is as follows:

    (Purpose: To ensure by law the ability of the military service 
  academies to include the offering of a voluntary, nondenominational 
               prayer as an element of their activities)

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

     SEC. 1073. PRAYER AT MILITARY SERVICE ACADEMY ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--The superintendent of a service academy 
     may have in effect such policy as the superintendent 
     considers appropriate with respect to the offering of a 
     voluntary, nondenominational prayer at an otherwise 
     authorized activity of the academy, subject to the United 
     States Constitution and such limitations as the Secretary of 
     Defense may prescribe.
       (b) Service Academies.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term ``service academy'' means any of the following:
       (1) The United States Military Academy.
       (2) The United States Naval Academy.
       (3) The United States Air Force Academy.

  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank my two colleagues.
  Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I am about to propound a unanimous consent request which I understand 
is cleared on both sides.
  I ask unanimous consent that at 2:45 today, the Senate proceed to a 
vote in relation to the Inhofe amendment No. 2440, as modified, to be 
followed by a vote in relation to the Ensign Amendment, No. 2443; 
provided that there be 6 minutes for debate equally divided in the 
usual form prior to the first vote and 6 minutes equally divided for 
debate prior to the second vote, with no second degrees in order to 
either amendment prior to the vote.
  Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  Mr. WARNER. I think we are cleared.
  Mr. DAYTON. We need to discuss the amount of time on the Ensign 
amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. I think everything has been cleared.
  Mr. DAYTON. No objection.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, prior to having the 6 minutes prior to 
the vote but between now and the time that votes will occur, will there 
also be time to debate my amendment?
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I presume there will be an opportunity. 
We are making progress. But there are junctures at which time Senators 
can address various aspects of the bill, including the distinguished 
Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, may I ask unanimous consent it be 
modified so that at least 15 minutes between now and the vote would be 
reserved for debate on the Ensign amendment?
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I am willing to accede to that. Would 
that time be equally divided?
  Mr. ENSIGN. Yes.
  Mr. WARNER. Fifteen minutes between now and 2:45 be reserved for a 
debate on the Ensign amendment, 15 minutes equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask the Presiding Officer if that is in place, as 
modified with the 15 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.


                Amendment No. 1563, As Further Modified

  I ask unanimous consent that the previously agreed to amendment No.

[[Page S12569]]

1563 be further modified. I send that modification to the desk. There 
was a technical error in the preamble. There is no change in the 
substance of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1563), as further modified, is as follows:

       On page 357, after line 20, insert:

                       PART II--NAVY CONVEYANCES

     SEC. 2851. LEASE OR LICENSE OF UNITED STATES NAVY MUSEUM 
                   FACILITIES AT WASHINGTON NAVY YARD, DISTRICT OF 
                   COLUMBIA.

       (a) Lease or License Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Navy may lease or 
     license to the Naval Historical Foundation (in this section 
     referred to as the ``Foundation'') facilities located at 
     Washington Navy Yard, Washington, District of Columbia, that 
     house the United States Navy Museum (in this section referred 
     to as the ``Museum'') for the purpose of carrying out the 
     following activities:
       (A) Generation of revenue for the Museum through the rental 
     of facilities to the public, commercial and non-profit 
     entities, State and local governments, and other Federal 
     agencies.
       (B) Administrative activities in support of the Museum.
       (2) Limitation.--Any activities carried out at the 
     facilities leased or licensed under paragraph (1) must be 
     consistent with the operations of the Museum.
       (b) Consideration.--The amount of consideration paid in a 
     year by the Foundation to the United States for the lease or 
     license of facilities under subsection (a) may not exceed the 
     actual cost, as determined by the Secretary, of the annual 
     operation and maintenance of the facilities.
       (c) Use of Proceeds.--
       (1) Deposit of proceeds.--The Secretary shall deposit any 
     amounts received under subsection (b) for the lease or 
     license of facilities under subsection (a) into the account 
     for appropriations available for the operation and 
     maintenance of the Museum.
       (2) Availability of amounts.--The Secretary may use any 
     amounts deposited under paragraph (1) to cover the costs 
     associated with the operation and maintenance of the Museum 
     and its exhibits.
       (d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the lease or lease of facilities under subsection (a) as 
     the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests 
     of the United States.

                    PART III--AIR FORCE CONVEYANCES

  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, we are making progress on this bill. I 
thank all Senators for their cooperation. It is my hope that in the 
intervening period between now and the hour of 2:45, subject to the 
unanimous consent of 15 minutes, that other Senators can come to the 
Chamber and address the managers regarding the timing of the remaining 
amendments under the unanimous consent providing 12 amendments on each 
side.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Burns, Thomas, Enzi, Dorgan, and Hatch be listed as original cosponsors 
of amendment No. 2448, which was agreed to yesterday by unanimous 
consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor, and 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. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2443

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, relative to the amendment of the Senator 
from Nevada, I had one question. Section 1 of Executive Order 11850 
states the following:

       The Secretary of Defense shall take all necessary measures 
     to ensure that the use by the Armed Forces of the United 
     States of any riot control agents and chemical herbicides in 
     war is prohibited unless such use has Presidential approval 
     in advance.

  Is there anything in the Senator's amendment which purports or is 
intended to modify or change in any way that executive order?
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I say to my friend from Michigan, our 
amendment seeks to clarify and to reinforce the Executive Order No. 
11850, including section 1, as well as the examples in (a), (b), (c), 
and (d), used as examples where the riot control agents are able to be 
used.
  It is very clear that our military is allowed to use riot control 
agents based on this Executive order in these particular examples as a 
defensive mode to save civilian lives, for example.
  We are trying to clarify for our military and ask the Defense 
Department to lay out clear guidelines and clear training so the 
average person on the ground knows exactly when they can and when they 
cannot use these riot control agents.
  Mr. LEVIN. I agree with that purpose. I want to be absolutely certain 
that all parts of the Executive order, including the specific 
requirement of section 1, continue and are not purported in any way to 
be changed by the Senator's amendment.

  Mr. ENSIGN. The Senator is correct; we are not trying to change any 
part of the Executive order. All we are trying to do is to clarify it 
so the average soldier, marine on the ground knows exactly when they 
can and when they cannot use it.
  We are calling on the Defense Department to clarify for them so this 
very valuable tool to save lives, both civilian and military, can be 
employed for a defensive purpose.
  Mr. LEVIN. I believe that is a very useful purpose. I support that 
purpose. I support the Senator's amendment with that assurance. I don't 
know whether the Senator requested a rollcall, but if so we will 
support that rollcall.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not been ordered.
  Mr. ENSIGN. 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.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I yield the floor.


                Amendment No. 2473 to Amendment No. 2433

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, there is a pending amendment offered by 
Senator Chambliss numbered 2433 which I am going to seek to amend.
  With the permission of the Presiding Officer, I would speak to that 
issue at this moment. We are working with the Parliamentarian on the 
exact number of this amendment we will be offering. There is no 
agreement at this time. If I might, I want a few minutes to speak to 
the amendment I am offering, if that would meet with the approval of 
the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I have spoken to the manager of the bill, and he would 
like to accommodate the ability of the Senator to have the secondary 
amendment offered before all time is yielded back. When the Senator is 
ready--I have spoken to the chairman and he is willing to work on that.
  Mr. DURBIN. For the information of my colleagues, the amendment we 
are going to offer to the Chambliss amendment is designated as 2473.
  Madam President, most Senators are probably unaware of the real 
differences between the military retirement system for Reserve 
components compared to Active components of our military forces. A 
person who joins the active-duty military and has 20 years has the 
option to retire at that point and draw half their pay. A young person 
at age 18, with 20 years in service--age 38, still relatively young, 
moves on to a new career, new source of income--still receives half of 
their military pay.
  For a member of the Guard and Reserve, it is different. As you might 
expect, retirement pay from a part-time career is lower than at the end 
of a full-time active-duty career. It makes sense.
  The major difference, however, lies in the length of time the 
reservist retiree must wait to start to receive retirement pay. Under 
the current system, a person who completes 20 years in the Reserve 
component becomes eligible to receive retired pay but cannot begin to 
draw the pay until they reach the age of 60. In the Reserves, a young 
person age 18 can enlist, complete 20 years of dedicated service to our 
country, and at the end of 20 years reach the age of 38 and retire. But 
that person has to wait 22 years before receiving the first penny of 
retirement pay.
  That is entirely too long. Many have recognized the system needs to 
be changed. The Military Officers Association, Reserve Officers 
Association, National Guard Association, Enlisted Association, the 
National Guard, all have called for Reserve retirement age to be

[[Page S12570]]

reduced from age 60 to 55. There have been several Senate proposals to 
accomplish it.
  I offered this bill in the last Congress. Senators Corzine and Graham 
introduced bills in the current Congress. I am a cosponsor of both 
bills. All are worthy approaches to accomplish our goal.
  Unfortunately, the plan that has been offered in the form of the 
amendment by the Senator from Georgia, Senator Chambliss, falls short 
of being a good age 55 Reserve retirement proposal. In fact, I have 
some concerns and I offer an alternative approach. The Chambliss 
amendment offered a modest reduction in the retirement age and then 
only offers it to about half the members of the Guard and Reserve. 
Under the Chambliss amendment, half of all reservists still draw no 
retirement pay until the age of 60. It rewards only those who are 
called up. There is little or no incentive to stay. This amendment 
lowers the retirement age for those called up for an extended period in 
support of major military operations and then only reduces the 
retirement age by 3 months for every 3 months the member spends on 
duty.
  At this point, more than 450,000 reservists have been mobilized since 
September 11, 2001. Over 330,000 have been deployed overseas. But we 
must remember, there are roughly 860,000 members in the select Reserve. 
That is, members of the National Guard and Reserve who dedicate a 
minimum in service in the Reserve of 1 weekend each month plus 2 weeks 
each year to maintain military readiness. So while roughly half of our 
reservists have been called up for duty, about half of them have not. 
They have continued to perform every weekend, gone to their annual 
training periods.
  For this segment of our dedicated force, I am afraid the Chambliss 
amendment does nothing at all. A retirement system should create an 
incentive to serve. The Chambliss amendment rewards mobilization but 
does nothing to create the incentive for further service. It simply 
provides a future benefit to those who get called up. We want to honor 
the members of the Guard and Reserve who are selected in order to go 
overseas. Yes, we want to reward service that takes members of the 
Guard and Reserve away from their families and careers for a year and 
puts them in harm's way. But we must ask ourselves if such a modest 
adjustment in the retirement pay eligibility age is the best way to do 
it.

  With recruiting targets being missed by our Reserve components and 
retention holding steady, but under severe pressures, what we need to 
do is to revise the retirement system so that it is both fairer to 
members of the Guard and Reserve and a more powerful incentive to 
continued service. We should make changes to the system which reward 
long and continued service, not just volunteering--or being 
involuntarily selected--for a mobilization.
  We can do better for our men and women in uniform.
  The amendment I offer is a substitute approach. Under my amendment, 
members of the National Guard and Reserve are encouraged to stay in the 
force by offering them a 1-year reduction in the retirement age for 
every year of service beyond 20 years. That is an incentive to stay in 
the force. A reservist can begin to draw retirement pay as early as age 
55, but in order to do so, they would need to serve an additional 5 
years.
  By providing a way for reservists to draw retirement pay at age 55 
rather than being forced to wait until age 60, this amendment brings 
the retirement age for reservists down to the Federal civil service 
retirement age, as was intended when the reservist retirement age was 
set 50 years ago. Our reservists make tremendous sacrifices. They risk 
their lives in combat zones. And, in far too many instances, they give 
their lives for our country. At the very least, they should have the 
same retirement age as Federal civil servants.
  By replacing the current, inflexible approach with a sliding scale 
that provides earlier receipt of retirement pay in exchange for more 
years of service, we can create a powerful system of incentives to 
retain our personnel and maintain a strong Reserve.
  This is the approach my amendment takes.
  Many of my Republican and Democratic colleagues who, like me, are 
cosponsors of S. 337, the Guard and Reserve Retention Act, introduced 
earlier this year by my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator 
from South Carolina, will no doubt recognize this concept. The 
mechanisms are very similar.
  I invite my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in 
making a meaningful reform of the Reserve retirement age--one that 
encourages long and continued services, not simply rewarding after 
mobilization; one which will incentivize all of the force to stay in 
service longer, not just the half--roughly, 50 percent--who are tapped 
for a callup.
  The amendment is endorsed by some significant groups: the National 
Guard Association of the United States, the Military Officers 
Association of the United States, the Reserve Officers Association, the 
Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States.
  I ask my colleagues, as you consider the Chambliss amendment and my 
modification to that amendment, keep in mind the organizations that 
represent the men and women in uniform in the Reserve, who are 
literally serving our country and risking their lives, believe the 
approach I am suggesting is preferable. I hope my colleagues will feel 
the same.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Stephen 
Koper, retired brigadier general from the U.S. Air Force, who serves as 
president of the National Guard Association of the United States, be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         National Guard Association of the United States, Inc.,
                                 Washington, DC, November 8, 2005.
     Senator Richard Durbin
     Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Durbin: I am writing on behalf of the members 
     of the National Guard Association of the United States 
     (NGAUS) in support of your amendment to reduce the age at 
     which reserve component members receive their retirement 
     pension.
       An active component member retiring at 20 years of service 
     may receive a pension immediately upon retirement. A reserve 
     component member serving the same amount of years cannot. 
     Reducing the age from 60 to 55 will be a big step in 
     mitigating this disparity. A more equitable retirement 
     program will aid greatly in recruiting and retaining members 
     in the National Guard. When the age limit for receipt of 
     retired pay by National Guard members was set decades ago, 
     the National Guard was not relied upon the way it is today.
       The objective of NGAUS is to support the reduction of the 
     age for retirement eligibility from its current level.
       I look forward to working together in support of a strong 
     and viable National Guard. Again, on behalf of the members of 
     NGAUS, thank you for all your hard work on our behalf.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Stephen M. Koper,
                       Brigadier General, USAF, (Ret.), President.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, if there is no one prepared at this time 
to speak on the Durbin amendment, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senator from Wisconsin be permitted to speak as in morning business for 
5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  (The remarks of Mr. Kohl pertaining to the introduction of S. 1979 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Dorgan be allowed to proceed as in morning business for 5 minutes, and 
that then Senator Dorgan be recognized to offer an amendment relative 
to--I think he is calling it a Truman-like commission. I have talked to 
Senator Ensign, and that is agreeable with the majority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S12571]]

  The Senator from North Dakota.
  (The remarks of Mr. Dorgan are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')


                           Amendment No. 2476

(Purpose: 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)

  (Mr. THUNE assumed the chair.)
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have an amendment to offer, an amendment 
I have shared with both sides. It is, in fact, an amendment that we 
have previously debated. It deals with the subject of contracting 
abuses, especially contracting abuses in the reconstruction in Iraq--
the money that is paid by American taxpayers, through our Government, 
to major contractors that are given no-bid contracts, spending billions 
of dollars, and the stories about contracting abuse are horrifying. Yet 
nothing seems to happen.
  I have described previously something that happened in the 1940s. 
Harry Truman was in the Senate. Harry Truman was a Democrat. A member 
of his party was in the White House, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He 
couldn't have been very happy about Harry Truman because Truman came to 
the floor of Senate and said: I have substantial evidence of 
wrongdoing, of contracting, of military waste with respect to defense 
contracts and defense spending. I think it needs to be investigated.
  They began holding a series of hearings. He finally was able to get a 
committee together called the Truman Committee. They began a series of 
hearings. It lasted a number of years. At a time when a member of his 
own political party was President, it was probably embarrassing for 
everybody that Harry Truman was leading the charge while FDR was in the 
White House. But they uncovered a substantial amount of abuse and waste 
and fraud. Good for them. The memory of the Truman Committee lives on 
today as an example of what should be done with respect to oversight by 
the Congress.
  We spend a dramatic amount of taxpayer money. The question is, Is it 
spent wisely? If it is not, when it is wasted or stolen or subject to 
cheating of the taxpayers, shouldn't somebody know it? Shouldn't 
somebody see it and do something about it? That is the issue.
  I have held a number of hearings as chairman of the Policy Committee 
on this subject, only because no one else is holding any substantial 
hearings on it. We will have a couple people come to the floor and say: 
We have held a good number of hearings. That is not true. Very few if 
any hearings have been held on this issue.
  I wish to go through a few examples of the hearings that we have 
held, along with some of the headlines. I wish to say this before I get 
into this too far: Some of this deals with a company called 
Halliburton. The minute you mention the company Halliburton on the 
floor of the Senate, they say: Aha, this is a criticism of Vice 
President Cheney because he used to be president of Halliburton. It is 
not about Vice President Cheney. Vice President Cheney is not now 
president of Halliburton. He left that job when he became Vice 
President. This is not about him.
  All of these actions have occurred after Vice President Cheney left 
the Halliburton Corporation. But this is about Halliburton and some 
other companies--Halliburton being the largest--that have gotten big, 
fat, multibillion-dollar contracts, no-bid, sole-source contracts, and, 
with all of the evidence in front of us, have been charging American 
taxpayers for services they have not delivered or overcharging the 
taxpayers for other services.
  We need to aggressively root out that waste, fraud, and abuse. Let me 
give some examples. The committee that I chair, the Policy Committee, 
had a hearing. We heard from a man named Rory Mayberry. Rory Mayberry 
is the former food production manager for KBR, which is a Halliburton 
subsidiary. Halliburton has gotten billions of dollars to deliver all 
sorts of things to our troops in Iraq, including feeding the troops.
  Here is what Mr. Mayberry, who was the food service supervisor, told 
us:

       Food items were being brought in to our military base that 
     were outdated or expired by as much as a year and we were 
     told by the food service managers, feed them anyway, use them 
     anyway. So the food was fed to the troops, expired food with 
     expired date stamps. For trucks that were hit by convoy fire 
     and bombings we were told to go into the trucks, remove the 
     food items and use them after removing the bullets and any 
     shrapnel from the bad food that was hit. And we were told 
     then to remove the bullets and turn them over to the managers 
     of the food service operation as souvenirs.

  We had hearings at which Bunnatine Greenhouse testified. Bunny 
Greenhouse was the top civilian official at the Corps of Engineers. She 
rose to the very top, the highest civilian official in the Corps of 
Engineers. That is the area of the Pentagon where they actually do the 
contracts for these firms. In that position, she was responsible for 
reviewing all contracts worth more than $10 million. After she objected 
to special treatment given Halliburton on a number of occasions, 
including an occasion where the company was brought into the meeting at 
which the contract was being discussed, the specs developed, and who it 
was going to be awarded to, after objecting to all that, she was forced 
to either resign or face demotion.
  This is a woman who was the highest civilian official in the Corps of 
Engineers, given stellar performance reviews always, an outstanding 
employee. But then she started raising questions with the good old boy 
network about giving billions of dollars of sole-source contracts under 
the buddy system. She said:

       I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to 
     contracts awarded to KBR [Halliburton] represents the most 
     blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during 
     the course of my professional career.

  That is pretty strong.
  Now let me go through a couple of headlines. Boston Globe, June of 
this year: Internal Pentagon audits have flagged about $1.4 billion in 
expenses submitted by Halliburton for services the firm is providing in 
Iraq. Charges include $45 for a case of soda, $100 per bag for laundry 
service, and several months preparing at least 10,000 daily meals that 
the troops didn't need and ultimately went to--by the way, in this meal 
issue, there is another complaint. The other complaint is they were 
charging for 42,000 meals a day and preparing 14,000 meals a day. That 
meant they were charging the taxpayers for 28,000 meals they were not 
serving the troops.
  ``Ex-Halliburton Workers Allege Rampant Waste: They say the firm 
makes no efforts to control costs, overspending taxpayers' money in 
Iraq and Kuwait.'' One former employee: ``They didn't want to control 
costs at all. Their motto was don't worry about cost. It's a cost plus 
contract.''
  The supervisor described an arrangement in which Halliburton provided 
10 percent of additional payment on its phone calls to a Kuwaiti 
company for providing cellular phones although nothing in the contract 
between Halliburton and the company called for the payments.
  They just added 10 percent.
  Well, I won't go through it at great length, but $7,500 a month to 
rent ordinary cars and trucks; $85,000 new trucks left on the side of 
the road because they had a flat tire, to be trashed and torched. Yes, 
the taxpayer paid for them. How about a fuel pump that was plugged. 
Leave the truck on the side of the road. It gets torched. It is all 
over. The taxpayer pays for it. It is all cost plus.
  ``Millions in U.S. Property Lost in Iraq, Report Says; Halliburton 
Claims Figures Only `projections'.''
  ``Halliburton Unable to Prove $1.8 Billion in Work, Pentagon Says.''
  ``Halliburton Faces Criminal Investigation,'' Houston Chronicle. 
``Pentagon Proving Alleged Overcharges for Iraq Fuel.''
  ``Uncle Sam Looks Into Meal Bills; Halliburton Refunds $27 million as 
a Result.''
  You would think with all of this you would have committees in the 
Congress saying: Wait a second, we are going to pull back the curtain. 
We are going to have tough investigations to evaluate what is 
happening, what is happening to the American taxpayer, what is 
happening with contracts that are given without any competition, soul-
source, no-bid contracts.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a comment?
  Mr. DORGAN. Of course.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I want to inform the Senator from North Dakota that, 
hopefully, when we come back for a couple

[[Page S12572]]

days in December, as the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, I plan 
on holding hearings on exactly this. I plan on pulling that curtain 
back. I plan on getting into the investigation in the same way as Harry 
Truman. If it happens to be it is embarrassing to the administration, 
we are going to find out the truth on this--just like Harry Truman went 
after those cost-plus contracts in those days. It is not only the soul-
source aspect, it is also the fact they are cost-plus contracts.
  We are going to do a thorough investigation through the subcommittee, 
and I am committing to the Senator that the things he is talking about 
right now will be fully investigated by our committee, and we are going 
to uphold our oversight responsibility of this administration.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, that gives me some hope, and I hope as a 
result of that the Senator would support my amendment as well. The fact 
is, we have not had many oversight hearings. We have now been in this 
conflict for several years, and a substantial amount of money has been 
spent. A very substantial amount of it has been wasted, regrettably.
  But I think anything that any committee or subcommittee does to shine 
a spotlight on this makes some sense. I must say, however, as my 
colleague knows, there is substantial brushback from the 
administration. They do not want anything to do with this. And I 
understand why. But the fact is, what happened here was wrong. A top 
contracting official gets demoted because she blows the whistle on bad 
practices, and the taxpayer takes a bath to the tune, I think, of 
billions of dollars.
  So whatever subcommittee or committee wants to dig into this, I think 
that would be great, and I certainly will commend my colleague if he 
convenes these hearings. But I would say this: I think there are 
substantial pressures on many of our committees and subcommittees by 
the administration not to move too far. We had an example of that on 
the issue of intelligence recently, and I won't explore that more, but 
there has been a lot of foot dragging in a lot of areas.
  The point of this on behalf of myself, Senator Durbin, Senator 
Lautenberg, Senator Boxer, and others, the point of it is to establish 
what we know works, and what we know works is the Truman committee. 
Yes, it is an old model, but it is a model that really did work--
nonpartisan, bipartisan. Take a hard look at what is going on. Don't 
care where the chips fall, investigate it all. If somebody is cheating 
the American taxpayer, hold them accountable for it. I mean how do you 
miss 28,000 meals, overbilling somebody by 28,000 meals a day? I come 
from a town of 300 people, so we had a small restaurant. You can 
understand somebody missing a cheeseburger or two but 28,000 meals a 
day? That is cheating. And it ought not take twice to learn the lesson. 
Do business with companies that cheat. Cut them off. Shut it down.
  I am not going into this at great length, but I can give the example 
of companies that in the same week that they were paying multimillion 
dollar penalties for cheating and defrauding the Government, in that 
same week they were signing new contracts for new business with this 
Government. Are we that lamebrained that we can't understand when 
somebody cheats you once you don't need a second chance?

  In my hometown, again, a town of 300 people, you wouldn't need to 
learn that lesson twice. You do business with somebody who cheats you, 
you don't do business with them again. Not in this town. It is a slap 
on the wrist, a pat on the back. Atta boy. That is not the way it ought 
to work.
  I could spend a lot of time on this. I will not do it now, but I 
could spend a lot of time talking about the abuses--the taxpayer pays 
to air-condition a building under reconstruction in Iraq. Well, that 
contract that goes to a subcontract, that goes to a local subcontract 
and pretty soon it is all done. We pay it. It is like an ice cube; it 
melts in your hand like money does as it goes through to--guess what--
pay for air-conditioning, and it is a ceiling fan in a room in Iraq 
some place. Cheating? You bet it is.
  I want to show you a picture of two million dollars. Incidentally, 
this guy wearing the striped shirt, he worked in this area. These are 
hundred-dollar bills wrapped in Saran Wrap. What would they be doing 
with a pile of bills wrapped in Saran Wrap? He testified: I was over 
there with the Coalition Provisional Authority, which is really us, as 
you know.
  He says: We were telling people that when you come to pick up the 
cash for your contracts and so on, understand it is going to be in 
cash, so bring a bag. We deal in cash. He said we actually threw these 
around as footballs from time to time in the office, hundred-dollar 
bills wrapped in Saran Wrap.
  I don't know how that would feel. But you can look at what it looked 
like, how they appeared. He said: Bring a bag. We deal in cash. He 
said: It was like the Old West
  I have spoken at some length about this with a company called Custer 
Battle. A couple guys show up in Iraq, and they decide: We are going to 
be contractors. Pretty soon they are contractors. Pretty soon they have 
millions of dollars, millions of dollars in contracting, and then they 
start setting up offshore subsidiaries and selling to them, cheating 
the Federal Government. A couple of their employees decide that is not 
right and they are going to disclose it. Then their lives are 
threatened.
  There is so much going on that it is just almost unbelievable to me.
  The inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority issued 
a report about the use of funds that actually belong to the Iraqis. It 
came from the oil revenues which was under our control then. There were 
8,206 guards at one Iraqi ministry, 8,206 guards at one of the 
ministries. And that is what we were paying for through this $9 
billion. It turns out, in paying 8,206 security people, there were only 
602 of them. But 8,206 were paid. Where did the money go? If we could 
have dyed all that money purple and walked around to see who had purple 
pants pockets, we could have figured it out. This is a massive cheating 
and abuse scandal.
  This is like a Rip Van Winkle operation. We sort of doze through it 
all, don't offend anybody, upset anybody.
  I am delighted to hear my colleague is going to hold some hearings in 
December, but I am telling you this is a cesspool of trouble, digging 
into this.
  The guy who used to buy towels for our troops, from K.B.R. 
Halliburton, bought hand towels--you know, the little hand towels. He 
told us how he ordered the hand towels. Need some thousands and 
thousands and thousands of hand towels for the troops? Well, you just 
order them, don't you? Oh, no, no. His supervisor said you don't just 
order hand towels, you order hand towels embroidered with the company's 
logo on it so it can double the price. You think when the troops are 
washing their hands and face they are going to want just a plain towel? 
No, they are going to want one with our company logo on it, so order 
the more expensive one.
  The sky is the limit. It is all cost plus. Don't worry. Be happy. We 
are all making money--except the taxpayer is taking a bath.
  I have raised this issue now for about 2 years on the floor of the 
Senate, to dead silence.
  There was a silence back in the forties when Harry Truman raised it. 
They empowered a committee to take a look and they discovered billions 
of dollars of waste, fraud, and abuse. The taxpayer was taking a bath 
and the Congress did something about it. The question is, Will it now?
  We haven't received one answer from the Pentagon about all these 
issues. We haven't received one single answer. This has all been 
transmitted to the Pentagon, all of the testimony from five or six 
hearings. It is just unbelievable.
  By the way, do you want 50,000 pounds of nails? I know where 25 tons 
of nails are. They are laying in the sand in Iraq, 25 tons of nails, 
50,000 pounds ordered for reconstruction of Iraq. But they are the 
wrong size, and it does not matter, I guess, so they throw them on the 
ground and they reorder. It is just the taxpayers' money. It is all 
cost plus. Order 50,000 pounds of nails the wrong size. Don't sweat it. 
We are all going to get paid.
  What a mess. So the point is, Congress has the responsibility. 
Congress has a responsibility to legislate, and Congress has a 
responsibility for something called oversight--oversight with respect 
to the funds that the Congress appropriates. These funds, after all, 
come in from the American taxpayers

[[Page S12573]]

and then are used to be expended on various operations, various 
projects, in this case reconstruction in Iraq or contractors that are 
contracting to provide assistance to the troops in Iraq. Some of that 
assistance to the troops manifests itself in food that is expired, 
manifests itself in charging for food that wasn't delivered.
  Now, Mr. President, I was tempted to go through the whole list of 
those who have testified. I shall not do that in deference to my 
colleague who is on the floor ready to speak. But I think the point is 
made. The Congress can continue to decide, No, we don't want to do 
anything about this, and vote against this amendment. They have done it 
previously. But it is pretty hard, it seems to me, to look in the 
mirror and think you have done a good job for the people in this 
country, the taxpayers who pay the taxes, if you don't believe this 
deserves your special attention and you don't believe that Congress has 
failed in its responsibility of oversight. If you don't believe that, 
then you should vote against my amendment. But if you understand the 
responsibility for oversight and understand there has been virtually 
nothing done except for the hearings I chair in the Policy Committee 
and with those hearings have uncovered dramatic examples of massive 
waste, fraud, and abuse, if you believe that is a real serious problem, 
then you ought to support this amendment.
  I hope every Senator will ask questions of the Pentagon about 
Bunnatine Greenhouse, the highest ranking civilian in the Pentagon with 
outstanding performance reviews, outstanding reviews all along the way 
until she began to say: You can't do this. You are violating the 
regulations of the Pentagon in the way you are proceeding with respect 
to no-bid contracts, no-bid, sole-source, cost-plus contracts, the 
minute she started telling those at the top of the Corps of Engineers 
who wanted to award these kinds of contracts to say: Look, you are 
violating the very rules that exist. The minute she started doing that, 
her career took a dramatic turn for the worse. At that point, she was 
told you are either going to be fired or demoted.

  If the Congress does not care about that, then it does not care about 
anything. If those who have the courage to speak up and tell the truth, 
as they see it, are told the consequences for that will be their 
career, then this Congress doesn't care much about those who have the 
courage to stand up and speak out when it is necessary. There has been 
a deafening silence, with the exception of a few Members of Congress, 
on that point as well.
  This woman fights on alone. Why? Because not enough people here seem 
to care, not even to care to ask the basic question of those who run 
the Pentagon. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself, Senator Durbin, Senator Lautenberg, and Senator Boxer, and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself, 
     Mr. Durbin, Ms. Boxer, and Mr. Lautenberg, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2476.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I inquire, how much of the 30 minutes 
allowed to the proponent of the amendment has been used?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-two minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. 
Senator Durbin, I know, wishes to speak on this amendment. I reserve 
the remainder of the time on this amendment.
  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. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2433

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Chambliss 
amendment and in opposition to the amendment filed by my friend from 
Illinois, Senator Durbin. I am pleased that the Durbin amendment has 
been filed because it is good to see others share my idea that the 
retirement system for our Guard and Reserve soldiers needs to be 
updated to meet the new role these soldiers are playing as part of our 
Nation's military.
  By way of introduction, let me say I think it is a very good thing we 
are debating this issue at this time in the Senate today because not 
only is this an important issue we need to talk about as policymakers 
in the Congress, but today we have a majority of the men and women 
serving in the theater in Iraq who are members of the Guard and 
Reserve. It is critically important that as we utilize these soldiers, 
we provide them with benefits that compare to the active-duty soldiers.
  I would like to compare the military personnel system to a finely 
tuned machine because that is what it is. The Department of Defense and 
the individual military services have staffs that devote significant 
time and energy to determining how to recruit, retain, promote, 
separate, and retire people in their respective services. The 
Department recommends incentives, which we in Congress consider and 
authorize, which shape this process of recruiting and retention 
according to the needs of the services. It is a fact that any change in 
the military personnel system will change the process and the 
incentives in question and could change them in ways that are 
detrimental to the military services.
  I have crafted my amendment, the underlying amendment, with these 
factors in mind. However, in my assessment, the Durbin amendment has 
not received the same scrutiny along these lines and will, indeed, 
shape the personnel system in unintended ways that are detrimental to 
the military which we simply cannot afford from a cost perspective.
  The effect of this amendment will be to create an imbalance in the 
personnel system which will likely result in an increase in end 
strength and result in people in the higher ranks of the enlisted and 
officer corps clogging the system and not allowing the people beneath 
them the opportunity for promotion. This amendment also rewards and 
retains people who, generally speaking, are already being retained at 
the required rate. In my assessment, this amendment solves a problem 
that does not exist.
  The Durbin amendment simply rewards longevity of service. It does not 
reward those members of the Reserve components who disrupt their lives 
in support of a contingency operation, and does not provide an 
incentive or reward for soldiers deployed in harm's way in defense of 
their country.
  Both amendments target soldiers who have sacrificed, but my amendment 
targets the ones who have put their lives in harm's way, and we should 
be giving them a real incentive to stay in the military.
  From a cost perspective, the Durbin amendment has a 1-year reward for 
as few as 22 days of Reserve duty. That is a 17-day reduction in the 
age a reservist could collect retirement for every 1 day of service, 
whereas my amendment is far more equitable. It is a one-for-one 
reduction.
  The Durbin amendment scores at $4.8 billion over 5 years. My 
amendment scores at $320 million over 5 years. I agree that cost should 
not be the sole determining factor, but we are in a real budget world 
today where we are struggling to find dollars to buy weapons systems 
and to provide for these quality-of-life issues for our men and women. 
I had an amendment last year that was too expensive. We have come back 
this year with a much more realistic amendment that is affordable and, 
in my opinion, is more rewarding to those who deserve it at this point 
in the life of our military. The scoring of Senator Durbin's amendment 
is roughly 8 times, almost 10 times as expensive as my amendment.
  In summary, while length of service is one area which I do believe we 
should incentivize for our Guard and Reserve soldiers, it is not the 
only behavior or even the primary behavior we need to reward. Rather, 
it is our reservists who have truly sacrificed, who have left their 
homes, their jobs, and their families and put themselves in harm's way 
who need to be rewarded

[[Page S12574]]

and incentivized to stay in the Reserve. That is exactly what my 
amendment does and does it in a fair and cost-effective way. We 
incentivize voluntarism, not just incentivize longevity of service.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Durbin amendment and to support 
the underlying amendment.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2473, as Modified

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this has been cleared with the majority.
  I call up the Durbin amendment No. 2473.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Durbin, for 
     himself, Mr. Corzine, and Ms. Landrieu, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2473, as modified.

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

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

     SEC. __. ELIGIBILITY FOR RETIRED PAY FOR NON-REGULAR SERVICE.

       (a) Age and Service Requirements.--Subsection (a) of 
     section 12731 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(a)(1) Except as provided in subsection (c), a person is 
     entitled, upon application, to retired pay computed under 
     section 12739 of this title, if the person--
       ``(A) satisfies one of the combinations of requirements for 
     minimum age and minimum number of years of service (computed 
     under section 12732 of this title) that are specified in the 
     table in paragraph (2);
       ``(B) performed the last six years of qualifying service 
     while a member of any category named in section 12732(a)(1) 
     of this title, but not while a member of a regular component, 
     the Fleet Reserve, or the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve, except 
     that in the case of a person who completed 20 years of 
     service computed under section 12732 of this title before 
     October 5, 1994, the number of years of qualifying service 
     under this subparagraph shall be eight; and
       ``(C) is not entitled, under any other provision of law, to 
     retired pay from an armed force or retainer pay as a member 
     of the Fleet Reserve or the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.
       ``(2) The combinations of minimum age and minimum years of 
     service required of a person under subparagraph (A) of 
     paragraph (1) for entitlement to retired pay as provided in 
     such paragraph are as follows:

``Age, in years,                           The minimum years of service
  is at least:                                required for that age is:
  55............................................................25 ....

  56............................................................24 ....

  57............................................................23 ....

  58............................................................22 ....

  59............................................................21 ....

  60.........................................................20.''.....

       (b) 20-Year Letter.--Subsection (d) of such section is 
     amended by striking ``the years of service required for 
     eligibility for retired pay under this chapter'' in the first 
     sentence and inserting ``20 years of service computed under 
     section 12732 of this title.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made 
     by this subsection (a) shall take effect on the first day of 
     the first month beginning on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and shall apply with respect to retired 
     pay payable for that month and subsequent months.

  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in consultation with the distinguished 
Senator from Michigan and leadership, I propound this unanimous consent 
request, which I understand has been cleared on both sides. I ask 
unanimous consent that the 2:45 votes be delayed to begin at 3:20, and 
further that at 5:30 the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the 
Chambliss amendment No. 2433, to be followed by a vote in relation to 
the Durbin amendment No. 2473, with the instructions modified to change 
it to a first degree, with no second degrees in order to either 
amendment prior to the vote; further, that there be 2 minutes equally 
divided between each of the stacked votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2476

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I joined with Senator Dorgan of North 
Dakota in offering amendment numbered 2476. It is an amendment on which 
we both worked. Over the years we have shared billing on it because we 
both believe it is essential. It is an amendment which calls for the 
creation of a Truman-like commission to make certain we are spending 
our defense dollars effectively, we are not wasting money, and that the 
money spent is for the security of America and the protection of our 
troops.
  In a report on defense logistics issued in March of this year, the 
Government Accountability Office found that U.S. troops experienced 
shortages in seven of the nine items that the GAO reviewed. The report 
reads:

       These shortages led in some cases to a decline in the 
     operational capability of equipment and increased risk for 
     troops.

  The items included generators for assault vehicles, armored vehicle 
parts, lithium batteries, meals ready to eat, truck tires, body armor, 
armored vehicles, and add-on armor kits. The GAO Comptroller, David 
Walker, testified in a Senate subcommittee hearing that the Department 
of Defense doesn't have a system to be able to determine with any 
degree of reliability and specificity how we spend tens of millions of 
dollars.
  Mr. Walker then went on to say:

       Trying to figure out what appropriated funds were being 
     spent on is like pulling teeth.

  Shortchanging the taxpayers is not acceptable. Shortchanging our 
troops, especially when they are risking their lives for America, is 
absolutely inexcusable. We have been talking about personal and vehicle 
armor shortages for months.
  I will never forget my first visit to Walter Reed to see the first 
injured veteran from Iraq, a member of the Ohio National Guard, who had 
lost his left leg below the knee. I asked him what happened. He said: 
It is those humvees. They don't have any armor plating on them.
  This soldier told me he couldn't wait to get his new leg so he could 
get back in combat. That is the kind of fighting spirit which we love 
to see in the men and women who are serving this country. Shouldn't we 
have the same fighting spirit when it comes to providing them with the 
equipment they need so they can come home safely with their mission 
accomplished, truly accomplished? If we waste money with profiteers and 
those who try to gouge the Federal Government at the expense of our 
troops, we are not doing our soldiers any favor.
  These shortages, especially of armor, have sent young men to Walter 
Reed for a long time, with missing arms and legs, and other serious 
injuries. I have met them. I don't know how we can face them and 
honestly say we have not tried to do everything within our power to 
make certain their fellow soldiers are protected. Our current system 
does not work.
  In 1941, Senator Harry Truman, a Democrat from Missouri, introduced a 
resolution creating a special committee to investigate the national 
defense program. Who was the President at the time? Franklin Roosevelt, 
a Democrat from New York. We had a Democratic Senator calling for an 
investigation of the War Department of a Democratic President. Those 
were the days--and you have to search the history days to remember 
them--when there was real oversight in Congress, regardless of the 
party affiliation.
  We find exactly the opposite today. The Republican majority in 
Congress refuses to accept the responsibility of oversight because they 
might embarrass the Republican administration in

[[Page S12575]]

the White House. This is not about protecting the President from 
embarrassment. This is about protecting our troops.
  This Truman Commission cost very little money in those days, but it 
saved us billions of dollars. It is a valuable lesson for today. Then, 
as now, skyrocketing contract costs, rapid allocation of funds meant we 
were wasting money. Harry Truman stated when he came to this Senate, 
the same Chamber, almost 64 years ago:

       I'm calling the attention of the Senate to these things 
     because I believe most sincerely they need looking into. I 
     consider public funds to be sacred funds and I think they 
     ought to have every safeguard possible to prevent their 
     misuse or being mishandled.

  Senator Truman went on to say:

       I think the Senate ought to create a special committee with 
     authority to examine every contract.

  The National Archives describes the Truman Committee:

       The committee earned a high reputation for thoroughness and 
     efficiency. After the end of the war the committee turned its 
     analysis to wartime experiences in order to make 
     recommendations that improved postwar and future national 
     defense programs.

  It was a real national service. We continue to offer this amendment 
on the Democratic side of the aisle and we cannot find a single 
Senator, or very few, I should say, on the Republican side even 
interested in talking about it. Why? Why wouldn't they be interested in 
making certain the taxpayers' dollars are well spent in the Department 
of Defense? Why wouldn't they want accountability when it comes to the 
equipment to protect our troops?
  I joined with Senator Dorgan with this amendment to create a new 
Truman committee to oversee contracting awards in Iraq, Afghanistan, 
and the war on terrorism. We need this committee. As Goldman Sachs 
International Vice President Robert Hormats stated:

       There is nothing more corrosive of support for a war 
     anywhere in the world, the war against terrorism or dealing 
     with the problems in Iraq, than the concern that taxpayer 
     money is not being used well.

  The simple fact is we need better oversight. We need this committee. 
We need to identify the weaknesses in our current system. We need the 
best practices to be followed by our Department of Defense.
  We learned earlier this year that $8.8 billion that was managed by 
the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq simply disappeared. We 
brought back Mr. Bremmer, the head of that Coalition Provisional 
Authority for the United States, and gave him a gold medal. I wish we 
had found the $8.8 billion before we gave him a gold medal. Reports 
indicate that payrolls in Iraqi ministries under the control of that 
authority were inflated with thousands of ghost employees. The United 
States Inspector General for Iraqi reconstruction has said:

       We believe the CPA management of Iraq's national budget 
     process and oversight of funds was burdened by severe 
     inefficiencies and poor management.

  The list goes on and on.
  We owe our troops and our taxpayers better oversight of their money. 
This bipartisan special committee called for in the Dorgan-Durbin 
amendment will accomplish that.
  So many Members come to the Senate today and say not one penny is 
going to be spent for Hurricane Katrina or to safeguard America against 
avian influenza unless we offset it. We are watchdogs when it comes to 
new programs. Why not be watchdogs for existing programs? If Congress 
is not exercising its power of oversight, for goodness sake, let us 
create a Truman-like commission that will. Let's ask the hard question 
and get the right answers. Let's protect our troops and protect the 
taxpayers.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and urge my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to support the Dorgan-Durbin amendment numbered 
2476.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendments be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
pending amendments are set aside.


                           Amendment No. 2478

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

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2478.

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

   (Purpose: To prohibit individuals who knowingly engage in certain 
  violations relating to the handling of classified information from 
                     holding a security clearance)

       On page 286, strike lines 1 through 3, and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 1072. IMPROVEMENTS OF INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950.

       (a) Prohibition on Holding of Security Clearance After 
     Certain Violations on Handling of Classified Information.--
       (1) Prohibition.--Section 4 of the Internal Security Act of 
     1950 (50 U.S.C. 783) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(f) No person who knowingly violates a law or regulation 
     regarding the handling of classified information in a manner 
     that could have a significant adverse impact on the national 
     security of the United States, including the knowing 
     disclosure of the identity of a covert agent of the Central 
     Intelligence Agency to a person not authorized to receive 
     such information, shall be permitted to hold a security 
     clearance for access to classified information.''.
       (2) Applicability.--Subsection (f) of section 4 of the 
     Internal Security Act of 1950, as added by paragraph (1), 
     shall apply to any individual holding a security clearance on 
     or after the date of the enactment of this Act with respect 
     to any knowing violation of law or regulation described in 
     such subsection, regardless of whether such violation occurs 
     before, on, or after that date.
       (b) Clarification of Authority To Issue Security 
     Regulations and Orders.--

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the amendment I offer today is 
something I believe is urgently needed because of security concerns 
raised constantly these days, particularly as a result of a recent 
indictment we are all aware of. The amendment is relatively simple, 
straightforward. It clarifies part of the intelligence law to be clear 
that those who compromise classified information cannot hold a 
clearance. The indictment describes conduct by a White House official 
that must not be tolerated. Certainly, an irresponsible and reckless 
official should not be allowed to continue to hold a clearance to see 
top-secret information.
  The person at issue is identified in the recent indictment I spoke of 
earlier as ``Official A.'' According to the Washington Post, White 
House staff have confirmed that Official A is Mr. Karl Rove. He is the 
deputy chief of staff to the President. The indictment says this 
official gave classified information to a journalist. Any official who 
does such a thing should certainly not continue to hold a clearance.
  It is quite clear what President Bush's intent was when he said he 
wanted to clear the air about any leakage of classified information. I 
think we should follow his pledge or remind him of his pledge to remove 
anyone involved with leaking information. We know the information given 
to the journalist Robert Novak was, indeed, published, and a CIA 
operative was exposed.
  The actions taken by the White House staff have damaged our national 
security. Thusly, an indictment has come about. It has destroyed an 
operative's covert cover, compromised intelligence-gathering 
operations, and endangered the safety of other CIA employees and their 
contacts.
  The amendment I offer today is similar to one that was offered 
earlier in the year by Senator Reid in July. My amendment has one 
significant difference. It includes the words a ``knowing'' standard so 
that someone who unknowingly does it doesn't get included in our 
amendment. We wanted to narrow the field and say, if you talk about 
these things and know it, you ought to pay for it. The payment is 
fairly simple. My Republican colleagues reacted to the Reid amendment 
by talking about it as an open-ended standard. In deference to the 
concerns of our colleagues on the other side, I have added

[[Page S12576]]

a ``knowing'' standard--in other words, if you don't know it, then that 
is one thing; if you do know it, it is quite something else--which is 
more than fair to someone who reveals our national security secrets.
  I see my colleague and friend from Virginia on the other side. I am 
reminded when both of us wore a uniform some years ago, it was ``loose 
lips sink ships.'' The lights were darkened all along the coast. You 
couldn't even tell your family where you were at the time. As a matter 
of fact, I was in an area in Belgium that was quite dangerous. I did 
find a place that sold a postcard that was written in the language of 
the area. It was Flemish. I sent it to my mother to give her an 
indication where I was. I kind of had to sneak by the censors.
  We are at war. People are at war with us. Terrorists are liable to 
attack us at any time. They are certainly doing what they can to even 
injure or kill our service people who are abroad. We ought to make sure 
we are as diligent about covering our security as we can be. We should 
ask nothing less than total obedience to the rules. I am here with the 
consent and support of Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator Levin, and 
others who believe we should do this. I hope my colleagues across the 
aisle can agree that if somebody gives information they shouldn't, by 
golly, what we are saying is the penalty is that you should lose that 
security clearance and that person should be treated as the President 
suggests, removed from the security scene.
  It is plain common sense. I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, I recall that 
period very well. There were times when the Nation's capital had 
blackouts. At that time my father was a doctor actively practicing 
medicine in this city, and he had to take the headlights on his car and 
put a black screen over the headlight with about a 1-inch slit so he 
could respond to emergency measures during the blackout. Where our home 
was at that time we had blackout curtains. We regularly went out to 
make sure there was no leakage of the light because at that time the 
city lights, if they had been on, silhouetted U.S. and other allied 
shipping such that they were the target of then German submarines off 
the coast. Indeed, it is hard to believe this, but the coastline from 
Florida all the way up to New England was strewn with the damage of 
ships that were torpedoed.
  I remember well that period of time, and I remember the phrase. I am 
surprised you, as an Army man, used a Navy phrase that loose lips sank 
ships. But we have a very serious amendment here, deserving of equally 
serious attention. It has just been handed to us. I am sure the Senator 
would appreciate that we would need some time to study this to 
determine exactly how we should respond.
  I am reading the first paragraph: ``No person who knowingly 
violates,'' that would mean he would have to know that, A, his material 
is classified, and, B, that he has to have a knowledge of the law and 
regulation? Are those the two elements of that?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes, the Senator is correct. And what we say is, if 
you do it, the least that ought to happen is you ought to learn enough 
of a lesson that we are going to remove any access to classified 
information if you do it knowingly.

  Mr. WARNER. I understand what the consequences are. But I want to 
make certain the Senator was trying to draw this up in such a way that, 
no matter how misfortunate, if it is unintentioned, then that would not 
be a violation.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Right.
  Mr. WARNER. I find it difficult to believe anyone who has a security 
clearance would not understand the basic law and regulation prohibiting 
or controlling its use. You can almost impute to the person knowledge 
of the statute and law.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We tried our best to clarify it and remove the 
concern that was exhibited when Senator Reid offered it last July. This 
was added because colleagues on the other side made an observation that 
was sensible; that is, if someone does something unknowingly, you can't 
punish them. But on the other hand, if someone has a job that includes 
security, I would have to say they would know this is a violation to 
betray any of the rules they are subjected to. But this clarifies it. 
There is no intention here to pull the wool over anybody's eyes or 
anything such as that. It is to make sure we prevent any leakage as 
much as we can of security information. We are so sensitized to it that 
the country is at times locked up in concerns with these warnings being 
given out, and we ought to try to restrict that from happening as much 
as possible.
  It can be careless. The Senator can well remember the time, a very 
unfortunate time, when an informant, someone working with the CIA in 
Latin America--Guatemala, I believe it was--was assassinated after 
their identity was revealed. We don't want that to happen. We have our 
friends and relatives overseas now.
  Mr. WARNER. Let me interrupt. I want to make certain that time used 
during the colloquy is divided equally, that when I speak, it is 
charged to my time, and the Senator from New Jersey, as he speaks, the 
time will be charged to him; is that agreeable?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Certainly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. The standard you have is ``could have a significant 
adverse impact.'' Do you have any criteria for ``significant''? As you 
and I both know, having dealt in these areas for many years, we often 
look at things that are classified and we say to ourselves: Why in the 
world would they be classifying this document? Unfortunately, the broad 
brush of classification sometimes is utilized on things that I don't 
think need to be classified.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I think current law describes that. We will use that 
as the standard. Again, there is no intention here to bypass the rules. 
It is to confirm clearly that if you talk about this, we are not saying 
you go to jail. We are not saying anything else. But you certainly 
should no longer have access to classified information.
  Mr. WARNER. Would the Senator be able to supply for the record the 
references that he says would define further the word ``significant''? 
You said it is defined in law. Could you cite those laws upon which you 
rely?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes. We will certainly try to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. I think I still have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, again, this amendment has just been given 
to the majority side. We will, in due course, have further response to 
the Senator. At this time it becomes the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the pending amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Fine. I thank my colleague.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, are we not at this point in time guided by 
the standing order we just entered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The question is on 
agreeing to the Inhofe amendment, as modified.
  Mr. WARNER. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have been ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. May we now proceed with the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

[[Page S12577]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 312 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     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
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The amendment (No. 2440), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we have a 
second vote as ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2443

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next question is on the Ensign amendment.
  There are 2 minutes equally divided. Who yields time?
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask that Senator Allard be added as 
cosponsor to my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, very simply, this amendment seeks to 
clarify what the policy of the United States has been since 1975, that 
our military would be able to use riot control agents--in this case 
tear gas--for defensive purposes. That has been the policy of the 
United States. But because of some interpretations, our military is not 
able to use tear gas. They do not take it with them, they do not train 
with it, and in many cases tear gas--just as police forces use it all 
over the world--would save civilian lives as well as lives of the 
members of our military.
  This is absolutely a critical amendment to save lives of Americans 
and for those civilians who, when our military kills them--and 
unfortunately these things happen--it makes us look bad as a country.
  This is a critical amendment that we need to adopt.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to indicate to my colleagues that I 
have carefully studied this. I support the Ensign amendment. I defer to 
my colleague, Senator Levin.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada has assured the 
Senate that this amendment does not seek, in any way, to change current 
policy, including Executive Order 11850, relative to the use of riot 
control agents. I note that the President has provided the Presidential 
approval required by that Executive order for use of riot control 
agents in Iraq. We look forward to consulting with the administration. 
The amendment of the Senator from Nevada is an appropriate amendment. 
It could be very helpful, and we support the amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as I stated on the floor yesterday, I am 
able to support Senator Ensign's amendment because it now includes 
several important modifications that were requested by the 
administration. As a result of those modifications, the amendment more 
accurately reflects current U.S. policy and law regarding the use of 
riot control agents by members of the Armed Forces. I thank Senator 
Ensign for agreeing to those modifications. I will take into account 
the views and recommendations of the administration as we continue our 
work on this issue and the bill in conference.
  The resolution of ratification for the Chemical Weapons Convention, 
CWC, passed by this body contained a condition requiring the President 
to certify that the United States is not restricted by the CWC in its 
use of riot control agents in certain specified circumstances. In 
addition, the condition required the President not to eliminate or 
alter Executive Order 11850, which prohibits the use of riot control 
agents in war ``except in defensive military modes to save lives.''
  In response to questions from myself and Senator Levin on the floor 
yesterday and today, Senator Ensign confirmed that he does not seek 
through this amendment to amend, expand or reinterpret Executive Order 
11850 in any way. It is on that understanding that I can support his 
amendment.
  The Senator from Nevada has raised the question of whether the U.S. 
Armed Forces currently have sufficiently clear authority with respect 
to riot control agents. I have looked into this matter and consulted 
with representatives of the Department of Defense, including 
representatives of our commanders in the field.
  They have informed me and my staff that, in their view, the use of 
riot control agents is a very complex matter. It is not clear that 
commanders in the field want to use ``RCAs'' widely. However, there are 
a number of cases where RCAs could be very useful to avoid unnecessary 
loss of life. I have been assured that, consistent with the Executive 
Order, U.S. Armed Forces have authority to use riot control agents. 
Furthermore, I am informed that DoD will examine whether any confusion 
exists about RCA use, and will take all steps necessary to ensure that 
U.S. Armed Forces have the clear guidance that they need and deserve.
  I am confident that the DoD and the administration will ensure that 
our men and women in uniform have every tool available to them 
consistent with U.S. and international law.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to share my views on the 
amendment offered by Senator Ensign regarding the use of riot control 
agents, RCAs, by members of our Armed Forces in war. As one of the 
principal proponents of Senate ratification of the CWC, along with my 
ranking member, Senator Biden, I feel it important to provide my views 
in relation to this amendment.
  I will vote in favor this amendment, and I do so because I believe 
that it in no way modifies, changes, reinterprets, or otherwise revises 
the laws of the United States regarding the use of RCAs in war to save 
lives, nor in any way affects U.S. compliance with our international 
obligations. This amendment creates no new law, and changes no U.S. 
policy.
  When the Senate approved a resolution of advice and consent to 
ratification of the Convention on the Prohibition of Development, 
Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their 
Destruction--The Chemical Weapons Convention or CWC in 1997, it made 
the conditional on maintaining U.S. law in effect at that time. 
Condition 26(B) of that resolution of ratification stated:

       The President shall take no measure, and prescribe no rule 
     or regulation, which would alter or eliminate Executive Order 
     11850 of April 8, 1975.

  Senator Ensign's amendment mentions both this Executive order and the 
Senate-approved condition.
  Senator Ensign's amendment cannot modify that condition, and because 
it merely restates authority the President already has regarding the 
use of RCAs in war, I believe that voting for the amendment will not 
harm U.S. leadership in preventing the proliferation of chemical 
weapons nor will it reverse the will of the Senate at the time it 
approved the CWC. I look forward to working with Chairman Warner, 
Senator Levin, and the administration as this provision is considered 
in conference with the House, and in efforts to improve it in that 
conference.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will vote in favor of the Ensign 
amendment to this bill, relating to the use of riot control agents, and 
I want to make clear to my colleagues why a steadfast supporter of the 
Chemical Weapons Convention can do so in good conscience. Senator 
Ensign is concerned that current interpretation of U.S. policy and of 
U.S. obligations under international law might be hampering U.S. forces 
in Iraq. I gather that not everybody shares that belief, but I do not 
doubt that some people have this concern, and I appreciate Senator 
Ensign's desire to make sure that people in the

[[Page S12578]]

military fully understand what they can and cannot do when it comes to 
using riot control agents in Iraq.
  What is important about the Ensign amendment, in my view, is that it 
will in no way modify either U.S. policy or U.S. international 
obligations regarding the use of riot control agents. The statement, in 
subsection (a) of the amendment that ``riot control agents are not 
chemical weapons'' is fully consistent with the Chemical Weapons 
Convention, in which ``riot control agent'' is defined as a chemical, 
not listed in any of the Convention's three lists of chemical weapons 
or their precursors, ``which can produce rapidly in humans sensory 
irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short 
time following termination of exposure.'' That definition is quite 
different from the definition of a ``toxic chemical'' in a chemical 
weapon, ``which through its chemical action on life processes can cause 
death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or 
animals.'' So the Ensign amendment is correct in that a riot control 
agent, as defined in the Chemical Weapons Convention, would not be a 
chemical weapon as defined in that convention.
  Similarly, the Ensign amendment now before this body accurately 
reflects U.S. policy as established by President Gerald Ford in 
Executive Order 11850 of April 8, 1975. That Executive order, signed by 
a Republican President and implemented by six subsequent Presidents of 
both parties over the last 30 years, states: ``The United States 
renounces, as a matter of national policy . . . first use of riot 
control agents in war except in defensive military modes to save lives. 
. . .'' It goes on to give four examples of such defensive military 
modes, only two of which relate to combat zones:
  ``(b) . . . in situations in which civilians are used to mask or 
screen attacks and civilian casualties can be reduced or avoided''; and
  ``( c) . . . in rescue missions in remotely isolated areas, of downed 
aircrews and passengers, and escaping prisoners.''
  Executive Order 11850 then orders implementation, as follows:
  ``Sec. 1. The Secretary of Defense shall take all necessary measures 
to ensure that the use by the Armed Forces of the United States of any 
riot control agents and chemical herbicides in war is prohibited unless 
such use has Presidential approval, in advance.
  ``Sec. 2. The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe the rules and 
regulations he deems necessary to ensure that the national policy 
herein announced shall be observed by the Armed Forces of the United 
States.''
  As far as I can tell, Senator Ensign does not intend that anything in 
Executive Order 11850 be changed, nor that there be any change in the 
U.S. policy and obligation to fully obey the Chemical Weapons 
Convention, which binds each state party ``not to use riot control 
agents as a method of warfare.'' It is standing U.S. policy that if 
somebody is using human shields, as occurred in Somalia in the early 
1990s, our Armed Forces may use riot control agents ``in defensive 
military modes to save lives'' without violating our obligations as 
state party to the Chemical Weapons Convention.
  In light of my view that the Ensign amendment will not change U.S. 
policy and will not call into question the requirement to comply with 
our international obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention, I 
see no reason to oppose this amendment. I do urge, however, that the 
limited nature of this amendment be made more explicit in conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded. The question is on 
agreeing to the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 313 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
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Harkin
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The amendment (No. 2443) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SHELBY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we remain on the bill, but a colleague has 
a unanimous consent.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be able to 
proceed as in morning business for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Is there not a pending amendment that must be laid aside 
first?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is proceeding in morning business, 
and that will take care of it.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  The Lautenberg amendment is the pending amendment on the Defense 
authorization bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The Senator from Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes.
  (The remarks of Mr. SHELBY are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the need for a quorum call at this time is 
because there are a number of Senators who had to depart Capitol Hill 
for a meeting. Therefore, it is beyond the control of either manager. 
We need to keep in reserve our time on the bill. So I ask unanimous 
consent that the time expended in the quorum call up to just a minute 
ago, when I withdrew it, as well as the time that will ensue in the 
following quorum call not be charged to either side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer and I thank the 
Parliamentarian.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 1526, as Further Modified

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
previously agreed to amendment No. 1526 be modified. I send that 
modification to the desk. The amendment has been cleared by the other 
side and is merely a technical correction.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.

[[Page S12579]]

  The amendment, as further modified, is as follows:

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

     SEC. 2887. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING COMMUNITY IMPACT 
                   ASSISTANCE RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION OF NAVY 
                   LANDING FIELD, NORTH CAROLINA.

       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the planned construction of an outlying landing field 
     in North Carolina is vital to the national security interests 
     of the United States; and
       (2) the Department of Defense should work with other 
     Federal agencies to provide community impact assistance to 
     those communities directly impacted by the location of the 
     outlying landing field, including, where appropriate--
       (A) economic development assistance;
       (B) impact aid program assistance;
       (C) the provision by cooperative agreement with the Navy of 
     fire, rescue, water, and sewer services;
       (D) access by leasing arrangement to appropriate land for 
     farming for farmers impacted by the location of the landing 
     field;
       (E) direct relocation assistance; and
       (F) fair compensation to landowners for property purchased 
     by the Navy.


                           Amendment No. 2483

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Bayh and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself and Mr. 
     Bayh, proposes an amendment numbered 2483.

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

 (Purpose: To provide income replacement payments for certain Reserves 
    experiencing extended and frequent mobilization for active duty 
                                service)

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

     SEC. __. INCOME REPLACEMENT PAYMENTS FOR RESERVES 
                   EXPERIENCING EXTENDED AND FREQUENT MOBILIZATION 
                   FOR ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 19 of title 37, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 910. Replacement of lost income: involuntarily 
       mobilized reserve component members subject to extended and 
       frequent active duty service

       ``(a) Payment Required.--The Secretary concerned shall pay 
     to an eligible member of a reserve component of the armed 
     forces an amount equal to the monthly active-duty income 
     differential of the member, as determined by the Secretary. 
     The payments shall be made on a monthly basis.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--Subject to subsection (c), a reserve 
     component member is entitled to a payment under this section 
     for any full month of active duty of the member, while on 
     active duty under an involuntary mobilization order, 
     following the date on which the member--
       ``(1) completes 180 continuous days of service on active 
     duty under such an order;
       ``(2) completes 24 months on active duty during the 
     previous 60 months under such an order; or
       ``(3) is involuntarily mobilized for service on active duty 
     six months or less following the member's separation from the 
     member's previous period of active duty.
       ``(c) Minimum and Maximum Payment Amounts.--(1) A payment 
     under this section shall be made to a member for a month only 
     if the amount of the monthly active-duty income differential 
     for the month is greater than $50.
       ``(2) Notwithstanding the amount determined under 
     subsection (d) for a member for a month, the monthly payment 
     to a member under this section may not exceed $3,000.
       ``(d) Monthly Active-Duty Income Differential.--For 
     purposes of this section, the monthly active-duty income 
     differential of a member is the difference between--
       ``(1) the average monthly civilian income of the member; 
     and
       ``(2) the member's total monthly military compensation.
       ``(e) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `average monthly civilian income', with 
     respect to a member of a reserve component, means the amount, 
     determined by the Secretary concerned, of the earned income 
     of the member for either the 12 months preceding the member's 
     mobilization or the 12 months covered by the member's most 
     recent Federal income tax filing, divided by 12.
       ``(2) The term `total monthly military compensation' means 
     the amount, computed on a monthly basis, of the sum of--
       ``(A) the amount of the regular military compensation (RMC) 
     of the member; and
       ``(B) any amount of special pay or incentive pay and any 
     allowance (other than an allowance included in regular 
     military compensation) that is paid to the member on a 
     monthly basis.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item:

``910. Replacement of lost income: involuntarily mobilized reserve 
              component members subject to extended and frequent active 
              duty service.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--Section 910 of title 37, United States 
     Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply for months 
     after December 2005.
       (d) Limitation on Fiscal Year 2006 Obligations.--During 
     fiscal year 2006, obligations incurred under section 910 of 
     title 37, United States Code, to provide income replacement 
     payments to involuntarily mobilized members of a reserve 
     component who are subject to extended and frequent active 
     duty service may not exceed $60,000,000.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me say at the outset that Senator Bayh 
and I are offering this amendment. It turns out that we have had the 
same basic concept and idea. We kind of came at it a little 
differently. I spoke to him on the telephone a few moments ago. I am 
going to defer to him in allowing him to be the lead sponsor on this 
amendment because together we might have a better chance of success, 
and that, of course, is the ultimate test of the wisdom of this 
concept.
  I especially salute Robert Preiss of my staff, who is a fellow 
serving in my office who has come to us from the military and has 
worked night and day in trying to make certain that we help those who 
are in the Guard and Reserve and Active military. He has put an awful 
lot of time into this amendment. When some procedural questions came up 
that were important to be resolved, we turned it over to Robert Preiss, 
and he did an excellent job. That is the reason we can come before you 
today with confidence that this amendment can be considered under this 
important Defense authorization bill. It is critically important. I 
would like to explain it for my colleagues to understand why Senator 
Bayh and I decided to offer it and now offer it together.
  The Department of Defense status of forces survey of Reserve 
component members, released in September 2004, revealed that 51 percent 
of our National Guard and Reserve said they suffer a loss in income 
when mobilized for long periods of active duty because their military 
pay is less than what they were receiving in their civilian job. The 
average reservist says that he or she loses $368 a month, but 11 
percent report losing more than $2,500 a month. Imagine that you joined 
the Guard and Reserve, volunteered to serve the country, and then you 
are activated. You leave your job and family, go overseas and risk your 
life and worry about coming home safe. Many of our Guard and Reserve 
members are also worried about what is happening to the family back 
home. There is less money for the monthly budget, less money for the 
mortgage, less money to pay gasoline bills. It all adds up.
  If you take a look, this is kind of an illustration that 51 percent 
of the reservists lose income when mobilized, and 11 percent lose more 
than $2,500 per month. This income loss represents a disparity in the 
ranks and poses on reservists a burden not experienced by many Active-
Duty troops. Many Active-Duty troops experience increases in income 
during deployments due to tax advantages, hazardous duty pay, family 
separation allowances, and other special pay enhancements. Those 
reservists with incomes higher than the deployed military suffer a 
loss. Their ongoing financial commitments continue for their children, 
for their families, for their homes, their automobiles. You know the 
list as well as I do. Their basic expenses are based on civilian 
income, but when they are activated, they are receiving military 
income. The resulting financial problems on the homefront can distract 
a man or woman who has said: I am ready to serve my country and even 
risk my life.
  The amendment I offer with Senator Bayh allows reservists mobilized 
for extended periods to receive up to $3,000 per month in extra pay to 
make up for differences between their military and civilian salaries. 
To qualify, a reservist must have a pay gap of at least $50 a month.
  The language I offer today is identical to that in the House bill, 
with one exception. This amendment provides these income replacement 
payments for Reserve component members mobilized for 6 months or more. 
The House

[[Page S12580]]

bill says that you have to be called up for 18 months or more to 
qualify for this income supplement. That is entirely too long. It is 
rare that a reservist is going to be called up for 18 months. So the 
bill as it comes from the House really doesn't do much. This is 
entirely too long, to expect a reservist to wait 18 months before we 
give them some income supplement. Indeed, with most callups currently 
lasting around 18 months, the practical effect of a qualification 
period that long would be that few reservists would ever get a dime of 
help. We can do a lot better than that. America can do better for its 
men and women in uniform. I urge my Senate colleagues to pull together. 
The House plan is good, but the qualification period is unrealistically 
long. We can make it better.
  This language was proposed by Congressman McHugh. He is the 
Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee 
on Personnel. He originally proposed a 12-month qualification period. 
It was extended to 18 months through hasty action in the committee that 
may not have been carefully considered. As I have said, the language I 
offer today with Senator Bayh is the same with the exception that this 
version we offer calls for a 6-month qualification period.
  According to an Army Times article about this provision, Chairman 
McHugh said something needs to be done. I agree with him. He said: ``We 
have a crisis.'' I agree with that. He repeated that the extended 
deployments are raising this issue time and time again for many of the 
very best who serve our country. I have to agree with Chairman McHugh 
100 percent. We have made a sound proposal because we do, indeed, have 
a crisis. Recruiting numbers are down for our military. That is a fact 
of life. With the Reserve components missing their recruitment targets, 
we must look to the retention of existing members to keep up force 
strength.

  So far, retention has been pretty good. I salute the men and women 
for staying on in the military even though we ask more and more of them 
each day. But the existence of this income loss is going to hurt us 
with retention. Let's be honest about it. Of the top 10 reasons cited 
in the status of forces survey for leaving the National Guard and 
Reserve, income loss was No. 4. The others are obvious: family burden, 
too many activations and deployments, activations are too long, and 
loss of income. We ask a lot of sacrifice from the men and women in 
uniform. They march off and do their duty, whether it is responding to 
Hurricane Katrina at home or going over to risk their lives in Iraq or 
Afghanistan. We understand that we can do something about the income 
loss. That is what this amendment seeks to do.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides to support this measure. Pass this 
amendment and include it in our Senate bill language so that when we 
get together with the House of Representatives, we can ensure that 
something does get done this year to eliminate or at least reduce the 
income loss suffered by families of some of our guardsmen and 
reservists. By standing behind a qualification period of 6 months, we 
lay down a clear marker that we in the Senate stand for more than just 
symbolism. We really want to help. We stand for real help in addressing 
the pay gap for the good of the members of our Reserve components, for 
the good of their families, for the long-term good of the force, and 
for the good of our Nation.
  I urge my colleagues, if they think this is a worthy amendment and 
will join us in it, Senator Bayh and I would welcome their support. 
This should be a bipartisan amendment. I don't know how we can argue 
over whether we should protect the income of the men and women who 
fight for us. If they are going to be away from their families and 
separated, not there for the important decisions that are being made by 
their families, the least we can do is make sure they don't face some 
unreasonable hardship because of income loss.
  I see Senator Landrieu is here. I salute her. She has done so many 
things recently on Hurricane Katrina and other issues. But she has been 
one of the strongest voices in the Senate for the Guard and Reserve and 
our military. She and I spoke the other day about this issue. She said: 
We have to have an amendment to help Guard and Reserve. I am glad she 
has come to the Chamber at this moment because it is timely. We are 
trying to make sure this bill doesn't leave the Senate without a 
provision in it that is going to help these men and women in uniform.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I know the Senator is wrapping up his remarks, but I 
would like to ask the Senator, is he aware that a complementary 
amendment we have worked on for a couple of years, giving a tax credit 
to employers who are filling that pay gap, is the Senator aware that 
has still not passed this Congress?
  Mr. DURBIN. I was aware of it. I say to the Senator from Louisiana, a 
lot of people are not aware of it. They think we have already done 
these things. We make these proposals on the floor of the Senate. Some 
of them pass the Senate, then they disappear in conference committees. 
We all pat ourselves on the back and say we are standing up for the men 
and women in uniform. At the end of the day, there is no law for the 
President to sign.
  A lot of our colleagues, myself included, will be at Veterans Day 
events this week. I will be traveling all over Illinois. We are going 
to stand there. We may be holding the flag. We will say we are for our 
soldiers and our veterans. But the real proof is in our votes. That is 
a good one to say to employers: If you are willing to stand behind that 
man or woman in uniform who is leaving your employment for a short 
period to do their duty for our country, why shouldn't we stand behind 
you with the Tax Code?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Illinois. I ask him, is there 
any reason he could believe or think the American people wouldn't put 
the Guard and Reserve at the top of the list for a tax cut or a tax 
credit? Is there any other group you can think of that is more 
deserving than the men and women who leave their homes, put on the 
uniform, leave their jobs, leave their businesses, and go to the 
frontline to take the bullets? Would the Senator be able to identify 
any other group that would be more worthy of a tax credit or a tax cut 
if we had extra money to give?
  Mr. DURBIN. From my point of view, absolutely none. But it is 
interesting, what a timely question. We are about to consider a tax 
bill. This tax bill will give a break to millionaires. If you happen to 
be a millionaire in America, we think you need a tax break of $35,000 a 
year. Poor souls. If you happen to be making between $50 and $200,000, 
the tax break turns into $112 dollars; under $50,000, $6. The point is, 
we are going to spend billions of dollars giving tax breaks to the 
wealthiest people and not giving a helping hand to the men and women in 
uniform and the employers who patriotically stand behind them.
  I say to the Senator from Louisiana, she couldn't have a more timely 
observation.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Illinois. I would just like to 
add my few remarks to support his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois has come to 
the floor again this afternoon and has spent literally hours over the 
last 2 years, in particular, speaking about the importance of 
supporting our Guard and Reserve.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from 
Louisiana allow me to propound a question to the distinguished Senator 
from Illinois before he departs the floor?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield to the 
chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, I have just gotten this amendment and I am looking it 
over. It is not unlike similar provisions that have been before the 
Senate. As a matter of fact, it has been passed by the Senate but 
dropped in conference.
  Here is the problem based on, again, very modest military experience 
of my own, but a lifetime of association with the men and women in the 
military. I have come to learn the importance of

[[Page S12581]]

pay. Pay to an individual is a tremendous symbolism. I remember when we 
advanced from private to private first class or, in my case, from 
seaman to seaman second class, seaman first class, and so on. I got $4 
a month in one pay increase, I remember, in World War II. And then the 
wife at home often is struggling to make ends meet. Boy, that pay is 
important.
  Picture that today we have a total force concept. It is not Reserves 
serving over here and regulars serving over here. Fortunately, we mix. 
The units are merged together. When we go to Iraq, as all of us go now, 
we will find Reserves and regulars performing the same duties 
commensurate with their rank and their technical experience. Reserves 
and regulars are subject to the same threat to life and limb from an 
IED, from the missiles coming in, subject to the same arduous hardships 
and living conditions both in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Then along comes this amendment, no matter how well-intentioned, and 
suddenly the Reservist gets a significant amount of money in addition 
to his monthly pay to the regular who is serving right with him, living 
in the same tent, eating the same food, and taking the same risks.
  For those of us who have had the opportunity to serve in the ranks, 
that begins to breed tension and inequities. You don't want those types 
of tensions as these young men and women are courageously performing 
their military duties. This is my concern.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, may I respond to the Senator?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes, of course.
  Mr. DURBIN. First, I have the greatest respect for the Senator from 
Virginia, who served his country not only in the Navy but as Secretary 
of the Navy, and also as the longest serving Senator in Virginia. 
Didn't the Senator from Virginia break the record recently?
  Mr. WARNER. I am No. 2 for life.
  Mr. DURBIN. And very popular in the State of Virginia.
  I say to him, consider two things. Let's assume the Senator is in a 
unit that is in combat and he learns the fellow next to him who has 
been activated as a Guardsman used to work for Sears Roebuck, a 
Chicago-based company. And because Sears Roebuck is such a good and 
patriotic corporation, they have decided they are going to protect his 
income. They are going to give him more than his military pay. They are 
going to keep him at the same level of pay he received before he was 
activated.
  Will I think less of that fellow soldier because he is receiving some 
money from Sears and think maybe we shouldn't eat at the same mess 
table, or stand together and fight together? I don't think so. I think 
people will say that is good fortune for you.
  The second point I would like to raise is this: A person who is 
active military--I have a nephew who just enlisted in the Marine 
Corps--a person who is in the active military knows what his or her 
life is going to be and builds his or her life accordingly in terms of 
expenses incurred. A person in the Guard and Reserve has a civilian 
life and civilian financial obligations that he or she knows may come 
when they are activated and a hardship may come from separation. But 
they are in different circumstances as they go into this field of 
combat. One comes from an active military life with a family budget 
accordingly, and the other comes from the private sector with another 
family budget.
  It seems to me what I am asking is, since we now rely more than ever 
on the Guard and Reserve, shouldn't we be more sensitive to that? 
Shouldn't we say that if you are willing to sacrifice your time and 
your life for your country, we are willing to sacrifice, too, to make 
sure there is no unnecessary economic hardship?
  I don't think the two observations I made are unreasonable. The 
Senator from Virginia knows better than I because he has been in the 
military and I have not served. But I would think in a unit, people 
would be more sensitive to that. To think that soldier who left that 
job in the private sector or the Federal Government is next to me 
worried because they missed the second mortgage payment back home 
wouldn't make me feel any better about my unit and wouldn't make me 
feel any better to know that is going on.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think we have different perspectives. 
But pay is a very significant thing in every military person's life. We 
have to adjust. We certainly have to recognize.
  What you are in a sense doing, Sears has opted as an employer to do 
as you state, not let their employee accept the consequences, and there 
is a category of persons coming in from the Reserve and Guard who 
simply do not have employers such as Sears Roebuck; for whatever reason 
their employer won't do it.
  I don't know, I am concerned about building tensions into these young 
people in these units.
  Mr. DURBIN. May I ask the Senator, in this colloquy through the 
Chair, consider this whole question about retention. That is a big 
issue now. We need these men and women in the Guard and Reserve, even 
active duty, who have developed the skills, understand the mission, can 
be combat ready in an instant. We need them to stick around. We need 
them to reup. If they have been through a bitter experience--personal 
experience, financial experience, separated from their family--we know 
it lessens that likelihood. If we want the very best to continue 
serving, I think this is an incentive for that to happen.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator is absolutely correct. I could 
even take it a step further. If we didn't have the Guard and Reserve, 
we would have to carry in peacetime, as well as wartime, a much larger 
active force. We are fortunate that in wartime conditions, we have 
these men and women who will respond, and do so willingly and subject 
their families. The Senator from Illinois is correct on that point.

  I have to dwell on this amendment. I just read it. I wanted to have 
this colloquy, and I appreciate the courtesies the Senator always 
extends.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator from Louisiana has the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator from Louisiana yield for a question to 
Senator Durbin?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I would like to ask the Senator from Virginia a 
question before he leaves the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. I will be here when the Sun comes up tomorrow.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is my recollection that the Senate 
already passed an amendment in one of the previous bills where we made 
up the difference for Federal employees; is that not correct?
  Mr. DURBIN. That is correct. We passed it for the third or fourth 
time. It goes into this strange world of conference committees and 
disappears.
  Mr. LEVIN. In which all of us have participated. We have seen the 
parts that emerge and the parts that do not, and it is always a little 
mystery as to what emerges and what does not emerge.
  My understanding is that clearly is a precedent for treating all 
employees. Everybody is activated the same way as Federal employees. 
That is No. 1. So I think that is a good argument for the amendment. 
But also the cost of this amendment, it seems to me, given the 
qualification period of 6 months, as I understand it, the cost over 5 
years would be $295 million which would be a little under $60 million a 
year; is that correct?
  Mr. DURBIN. That is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I point out, yes, the Senate has passed 
it, but for various reasons, conferences have not accepted it, so it is 
not in law today.
  Mr. LEVIN. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. That is true.
  Mr. WARNER. We do not have any of these.
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senator might say it is pending in the Defense 
appropriations conference.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator from Virginia yield?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Louisiana 
had the floor. She very graciously allowed me to intervene. I am happy 
to take a question.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I do so through the Chair. I first say how much I 
appreciate the exchange between the Senator from Virginia and the 
Senator from Illinois. I hope we can find a way to move forward on this 
very important issue because it is so crucial to

[[Page S12582]]

the security of our Nation, to the security of these Guard and Reserve 
families. It seems the right thing for us to do.
  My question to the Senator from Virginia, because he has so much 
experience in warfighting as the Secretary of the Department of Navy 
and as the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, is: When we 
created the Guard and Reserve Force, did we anticipate that so many 
would be called up for such a long period of time? That is an important 
answer to have because my sense of it is that we didn't completely 
anticipate these numbers and these lengths of deployment.
  I ask the Senator, several decades ago, did we foresee this 
dependency?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator raises a very interesting 
historical perspective. During World War II, the National Guard was 
mobilized early on and amalgamated with the regular forces. The 
Reserves likewise were brought in. So everybody was in World War II for 
the duration.
  The next major conflict was Korea, in which I had minor 
participation, modest though it may be. The units I served in were 
quickly made an amalgamation of Reserves and regulars. I remember 
vividly the squadron I served in as a ground officer. The Reserve 
pilots, even though they had been called, some of them had only been on 
active duty 60 days, barely getting retraining and were flying missions 
with the regulars who had been on active duty for a number of years. 
There was no distinction between any of us. We were all treated the 
same. I was a Reservist called up at that time.
  Then along came Vietnam, and for whatever reasons, when I was 
Secretary of the Navy, we didn't employ the Guard and Reserve. We 
relied on the draft. I would have to research some of the reasons why 
we didn't do it.
  This country has fluctuated back and forth. But in direct answer to 
the Senator's important question, in this conflict, more than ever 
before, we have relied on the Guard and Reserve. I believe about 60 
percent of the uniformed personnel in Iraq tonight, some 150,000 plus, 
60 percent of them are Guard and Reserve.
  So the Senator from Louisiana is very correct in her observation.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Virginia. I would like to add 
to that comment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is now recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would add to this discussion that it 
is important for us as leaders to be open to change and to adopt new 
strategies. The one thing that is certain about life is change. Those 
who adapt survive, and those who do not, do not survive. I believe when 
it comes to creating policies that secure our Nation and support our 
armed services, we always need to be open to those things that we need 
to do differently because circumstances are different, because the 
challenges are different.
  I would argue this is one of the issues that is at the heart of how 
we sustain a skilled, able, versatile, agile, and quick-to-deploy force 
without implementing a draft and having the ability to muster a large 
and effective force when necessary. This is at the heart of it. That is 
why Senator Durbin continues to come to this floor and why I come to 
this floor, why the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Bayh, and others on the 
Republican side have come to the floor. Because we need to make some 
changes. We need to adapt to the reality.
  Let me submit for the Record the reality of this situation. Since the 
Berlin crisis of 1961 through the Vietnam war, we only called from the 
Reserve and Guard about 200,000. From 1961 through the Vietnam war, 
basically to the early 1990s--I know Vietnam was over before then--but 
basically to the 1990s, we called up 200,000. But as the chairman 
knows, because he is the great distinguished chairman of our committee, 
he is correct, since 1990, the Persian Gulf war to the present, we are 
150,000 troops strong in Iraq and we have called up 744,000 Guard and 
Reserve members.
  As the Senator from Illinois so beautifully pointed out, these are 
citizen soldiers. They live in the community. Their budgets are based 
on their civilian jobs. Their children, their spouses, and their 
families have dreams and aspirations based on their civilian payrolls. 
They do not enter the military and decide: We are only going to make 
$40,000, $50,000, $60,000 the rest of our life, but the benefit is we 
get a discount on food. We get our health insurance. We will move 
around every 2 years. We get a housing allowance. It is the life we 
have chosen. We understand the sacrifices we are making, and we budget 
accordingly.
  These are business owners, policemen, nurses, doctors, engineers, 
scientists who answer the call, put the uniform on, and sometimes 
answer that call in 24 hours, literally, or in just a few weeks. They 
kiss their children goodbye--maybe the wife is the spouse who is 
leaving. Maybe it is the husband. They tell everyone goodbye. They 
leave and they are gone for 18 months.
  Under our current rules, which are not working, not only does that 
soldier make the sacrifice but our Government is asking that family in 
some cases to take a 30- to 40-percent decrease in pay. I just cannot 
understand it. Nothing about it makes sense. It defies common sense. 
How can we recruit Guard and Reserve, then send them to long 
deployments, sometimes without even the equipment they need--which is a 
whole other issue--but ask their families to take a 30- and 40-percent 
decrease? I do not understand it.
  I know we have not done this in the past, but this Senator from 
Louisiana thinks it is time to do it for the future. I hope we can 
again take bipartisan action on this Senate floor, as we have done so 
many times before, to support the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Illinois, at least in the Federal employ, our own engineers, our own 
scientists, our own nurses, our own doctors, our own office 
administrators, when we ask them to put the uniform on and go to the 
frontline to take the bullets, that as an employer we do not say: And 
also, by the way, we would like your spouse and your children to live 
on 30 percent less income while you are away.
  If the country was in crisis in terms of no money for anyone and we 
were all on rations and we were all sacrificing financially and we did 
not have the money, I think these families would say: Look, we are all 
in the same boat. We are serving the country. We will take the 30-
percent cut in pay. But what gets me, what galls me, what makes me so 
angry is, this Congress is giving other families who do not put the 
uniform on, other families who are making upwards of $350,000, 
$400,000, $500,000, tax cuts, and we cannot seem to find the will, the 
energy, or the focus to help the small group of families that one could 
argue are bearing the entire burden in some cases--let me repeat, the 
entire burden of the war on terror. I do not understand it. Senator 
Durbin does not understand it. Senator Bayh does not understand it. The 
Senators have voted now unanimously.
  What happens to this amendment when it goes to the House of 
Representatives? What should I tell the Guard and Reserve families who 
went to Iraq, over 6,000 of them--3,000 of them just came home and a 
third of the ones who just came home came home to no house, no school, 
and no church. Now I have to go home and say that Congress is going to 
get ready to pass another spending bill, another tax bill, and I am 
sorry, yes, you have, once again, been left out. I do not even know how 
to explain it because it cannot be explained.
  Senator Durbin's amendment simply says, let the Federal Government be 
the leader. Let the Federal Government set the pace as an employer. Let 
us at least do what other States and other employers are doing, fill 
the gap, stand in the gap for them. They are taking the bullets. They 
are taking the risk with their lives. Why would we ask our Federal 
employees to take a serious pay cut? I do not think we should. Again, 
if we did not have any money at all, if we were just flat broke, then 
maybe we would have to. We give money away to everybody, but we cannot 
give it to our Federal employees who are serving this country twice: as 
public servants so they do not get a very high salary normally, and 
then they go to the frontlines and take the bullets and get a salary 
cut even lower, and we think that is perfectly fine.
  Well, this Senator does not think it is fine. This Senator thinks we 
can do

[[Page S12583]]

better. This Senator thinks we need to have better priorities. This 
Senator believes we need to have different priorities that support our 
Nation, support our services, support our Guard and Reserve, and it 
would ultimately support the country. And, frankly, it is the right 
thing to do.
  I see the Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this is an important amendment. It has been 
offered on behalf of Senator Bayh, by Senator Durbin. Senator Landrieu 
is a very passionate and persuasive supporter of this amendment. I 
think Senators Bayh, Durbin, and Landrieu are right; that we basically 
designed the Guard and Reserve force to be a strategic reserve. As a 
practical matter, now they are effectively part of our operational 
forces. We have to change this arrangement so they do not take such a 
severe hit as they are being called up, and they are now in for longer 
and longer periods. I do not have the statistics on how long the 
average period of callup is now, but I am quite confident that if we 
could compare the length of the callup, say, during the last few years 
to the periods between 1973, when we ended the draft, that we would see 
there has been a dramatic increase in the length of the callup.
  I support the amendment. I think we can make some real progress--I 
hope we can--this year in conference on this matter. It is a reasonable 
cost, a fair cost. It is something on which we can do better, and the 
troops deserve that we do better.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first I commend all Senators who have 
participated in this debate. Each time I listen to the distinguished 
Senator from Louisiana, I say to my ranking member, she was a very 
valued member of our committee before she went AWOL.
  Mr. LEVIN. She is still part of the Guard and Reserve, though.
  Mr. WARNER. Yes, proceeding to the Appropriations Committee, where 
some think all power resides in the Senate.
  Nevertheless, to think that the Senator found time to work on this 
amendment, as she has on a number of personnel issues through the 
years--I remember the last authorization bill. Does the Senator from 
Michigan remember that?
  Mr. LEVIN. I do, indeed.
  Mr. WARNER. One of the last amendments we were dealing with was on 
personnel issues. Anyway, the Senator from Louisiana found time to be 
here, given the tremendous burdens that she has in connection with the 
tragic suffering in her State, past, present, and possibly the future. 
I point out to my colleagues a provision comparable to this is in the 
House bill now in conference, therefore, that we go to.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today for a cause that is essential 
to preserving our Nation's security by ensuring the Guard and Reserve 
remain a vital component of our national security structure. I also 
rise to defend our moral obligation to do right by our fellow citizens 
who bear the burden of battle and by their loved ones who make it 
possible for them to do that by supporting them here at home.
  No one should be forced to choose between doing right by their family 
and their loved ones and doing right by their country, but too often 
today we have placed thousands of our fellow citizens in exactly that 
position. That is what this amendment is designed to correct.
  We now have 145,000 guardsmen and reservists serving who have been 
called to active duty. Fully 35 percent of our troops in Iraq are 
guardsmen and reservists, many of them putting their lives in harm's 
way. Just this last week, I took the liberty of spending a couple of 
hours out at Walter Reed Army Hospital. Many of the most grievously 
injured there have served in the Guard and Reserve. We owe it to do 
right by them.
  Their deployments are lasting longer than before. Since the Korean 
War, it is our practice to only have them called to active duty for no 
more than 6 months. But today, it is routine, not at all uncommon, for 
them to be called to active duty for more than a year and sometimes 
multiple calls.
  Mr. President, 51 percent of these individuals whose lives we are 
disrupting, 51 percent who are serving, many of them in harm's way, 
suffer a substantial loss of income, what I have referred to as the 
``patriot penalty.'' The average loss of income is about $4,400 per 
soldier--a material amount of money for many Americans. Our amendment, 
with the support of Senator Durbin, Senator Landrieu, the active 
support of Senators Warner and Levin, would help to correct this 
situation by providing up to $3,000 per month in making up lost income 
for our Reserve and Guard men and women.
  This is important to maintaining the Guard as a critical component of 
our national security structure. We are currently running, in the Army 
Guard, about 24 percent below our recruiting goals. The commander of 
the Reserve not too long ago described his force as ``a broken force.'' 
At a time when we are relying upon the Guard and the Reserve more than 
ever before, we must ensure that we act to maintain our recruiting 
goals and to ensure the morale of the force.
  Many laudable private firms have risen to the challenge by providing 
for their employees but, regrettably, not all do so. About 29 percent 
of employers are currently doing that, but that still leaves the bulk 
of our Guard men and women and our reservists without, so we have acted 
to make up that gap. It is not a burden they could have reasonably 
anticipated, given the difference in callups today versus before.
  I again thank my distinguished colleagues, the Senator from Virginia 
and the Senator from Michigan. Once again, I thank my colleague Dick 
Durbin, who has been extremely gracious and who has been a strong 
leader in this capacity.
  I will conclude by saying the true test of a strong society is not 
only the armaments we purchase but how we support those who bear the 
burden of battle and their loved ones here at home. If we can help them 
pay the mortgage or keep food on the table while they are serving us in 
Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, it is not only the intelligent 
thing to do, it is the morally responsible thing to do. That is what 
this amendment would accomplish.
  I thank my colleagues for their graciousness and their support.
  Mr. WARNER. I urge adoption of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2483) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I say to my colleagues, this is a matter that we will 
carefully review in conference. It has failed to survive in previous 
conferences, but I think this time it may, particularly because of the 
question of recruiting and the difficulty of the Reserves and Guard and 
the adjustment to family life. As the Senator pointed out, hundreds 
upon hundreds of thousands--700,000 I believe--have been involved in 
this conflict.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator would yield on that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. It seems to me, the fact that there is a provision in both 
bills does increase the opportunity and the likelihood this time around 
that we will come out of conference with something. All we can do is 
continue to try, but I am a little more optimistic now that this 
amendment passed. Again, we thank the Senators from Indiana, Illinois, 
and Louisiana for their leadership.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I see the lead sponsor of the amendment on the floor, 
so let me be brief so he can close out. I thank the leadership for 
accepting this amendment. I know they will fight hard to keep this in 
conference as we move forward because it really is an important part of 
our strategic alignment for the future. I thank the chairman and the 
ranking member for their

[[Page S12584]]

leadership not just today but over time, for doing the right thing by 
our troops and always being willing to think about new ways of making 
our military stronger and better.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. WARNER. If I can make one comment before our distinguished 
colleague from Louisiana leaves the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. There comes a time every now and then to reflect on the 
past with a sense of humor. When I was a young Senator many years ago, 
one of the Senator's predecessors was Russell Long. His expertise was 
in the area of taxes. How many times, I ask my good friend from 
Michigan, would I hear him in these vigorous floor debates come over 
and say: We will drop it in conference; accept it?
  Mr. LEVIN. Usually with his arm around you.
  Mr. WARNER. With his arm around you shaking you like a tree. But we 
are not saying that.
  I just thought maybe that little bit of color might remind 
Louisianans of his proud record in the Senate.
  Mr. President, this is another example of how the managers, in the 
course of colloquies, can work out amendments. I strongly urge 
colleagues to come forward because we are getting down to the few 
amendments that are remaining in the hopes that this bill can be acted 
on for final passage tomorrow, as early as possible in the day.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, my understanding is that at 5:30 there will 
be two votes. I am wondering if Senator Lautenberg's amendment has 
been--I know it has been offered. I am wondering whether there is 
further debate on the Lautenberg amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to say to my colleague at the 
present time I am drafting an amendment in the second degree. As soon 
as I have it, I will be prepared to debate it on the floor and let the 
matter go to a vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I think it is very helpful that Senator Lautenberg be 
informed that there is a plan to offer a second-degree amendment so 
perhaps he can then be prepared to come to the floor and debate 
whatever that second-degree amendment is.
  Mr. WARNER. I would propose to do it. I would have to check. There 
are three amendments, and actually the fourth is the pending amendment. 
I will see if he cannot possibly bring up his amendment right after the 
two votes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Perhaps during those two votes, if the chairman so 
desires, we could try to line up the rest of the business for tonight.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my partner, who has been most helpful in getting 
this bill passed. We are going to try and facilitate that.
  Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I have many of my colleagues to thank for 
their graciousness and for their attention to an issue of significant 
importance to our country. I would like to start with my friend and 
colleague, Dick Durbin from Illinois, who has cared about this issue 
for many years, particularly with regard to our Federal employees who 
are bearing the burden of battle today on our behalf just as they work 
for us in their civilian capacities here at home.
  Senator Durbin has been a model of comity and accommodation and in a 
body that is too often driven by other interests. I thank him profusely 
for his consideration here today.
  I also thank Senator Landrieu for her longstanding interest in this 
issue. She has had a somewhat different approach, but it would achieve 
the same objective--helping our Guard men and women and their families 
while they are serving our country.
  I also express my appreciation to the two leaders on the Armed 
Services Committee, Senators Warner and Levin, for their courtesy. I 
thank you for accepting our amendment. I know you share our conviction 
about doing right by our brave men and women in the Guard and Reserve, 
and I wish to express my personal appreciation for your accommodation 
in this regard. I know there are occasionally differences of opinion 
about some aspects of this, and the fact that we could work through 
them at this moment means a great deal to me, as I know it does to the 
families of the Guard men and women we are attempting to help.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Indiana has 
had a lot on his mind here recently with the tragic natural disaster in 
his State, and I thank him for finding the time to come to the Chamber 
and offer this amendment. I recall, during the markup of the Armed 
Services bill, he, being a very valued member of the committee, had 
this general concept in mind. The Senator advised the committee as a 
whole in the markup session that at the time this bill reached the 
floor, he would have formulated his thoughts and done his research and 
gathered his colleagues and would present this bill. That he has done, 
and in that he has succeeded. This is a matter we will take up in 
conference with careful consideration.
  I thank our colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me add my thanks to the Senator from 
Indiana for his eloquent, passionate portrayal of the needs and 
responsibilities we have to carry out toward our guardsmen and 
reservists.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is just a matter of minutes before we 
start the votes. Perhaps the distinguished Senator from Georgia would 
like to make some explanation about the vote coming up?


                           Amendment No. 2433

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, these next couple of votes involve an 
amendment I filed and an amendment the Senator from Illinois, Mr. 
Durbin, has filed. I think the significant thing about both amendments 
is that we are finally starting to recognize that, because we are 
calling up our Guard and Reserve folks on an all too regular basis 
these days, and because today, as we enjoy the freedoms that we 
sometimes take for granted in this country, we have troops serving in 
Iraq, 60 percent of whom are Guard and Reserve troops, it is necessary 
that we continue down the path we have been down for the last several 
years under the leadership of Senator Warner and Senator Levin, trying 
to increase the benefits to our Guard and Reserve and the families of 
those brave men and women. Both these amendments seek to do that.
  There is a fundamental difference in the two amendments, though. My 
amendment, the underlying amendment, provides for a reduction in 
retirement age from 60 to 55 for reservists, based upon the activation 
of those reservists and Guard men and women into contingency areas. For 
every 3 months they have been activated and sent into a conflict, they 
receive a 1-for-1 or 3-month reduction in the retirement age, from 60 
down to the minimum or lower level of 55. The Durbin amendment simply 
would not make that kind of 1-to-1 offset but would treat the Guard and 
Reserve the same as the Active-Duty folks. Unfortunately, the 
difference between the two is we cannot afford the Durbin amendment.
  What my amendment does is to ultimately allow the reduction down to 
age 55 for those Reserve and Guard people who are activated. It has a 
cost, over 5 years, of about $320 million. The Durbin amendment has a 
cost of about $4.8 billion over that same 5-year period. That is such a 
significant difference that, in my opinion, we will never get that 
done.
  My amendment can be done. It is a movement in the right direction, to 
recognize that we are calling up these folks on a more regular basis 
and that we should continue to provide them and their families with 
some security measures from the standpoint of incentivizing them to go 
into the Guard and Reserve and stay in the Guard and Reserve.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.

[[Page S12585]]

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. The Durbin amendment would not do that. Mine would.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote be 
delayed by 5 minutes so the Senators may have a minute or 2, I can have 
a minute or 2, and the Senator from Michigan can have a minute or 2.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, if we are going to call on these brave 
volunteers, we need to incentivize them, and my amendment does that. It 
seeks to call on the individual from a volunteer standpoint. It doesn't 
seek to protect the top level, the officers and the uppercrust, the 
enlisted personnel. It seeks to protect all members of the Guard and 
Reserve from the enlisted standpoint and give them an opportunity to 
reduce their retirement age from 60 down to 55.
  I think it is fair. I think it is reasonable. And I think it is 
supportable.
  I ask my colleagues to support my amendment and to vote against the 
Durbin amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hagel be added as a cosponsor of 
my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I likewise ask to be added as a cosponsor 
of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I strongly support the Chambliss 
amendment.
  I want to bring to the attention of colleagues that a minute ago we 
accepted another amendment which will go to conference, and I am quite 
confident that out of that conference will come a package of further 
compensation to the men and women for the Guard and Reserve for other 
reasons. But in this bill we are adding enormous benefits for the men 
and women in the Armed Forces, all of which are justified in many 
areas. The Senator has picked out an area which has been under 
consideration for some period of time. But I point out that the cost of 
the Durbin second degree, which vote will follow this one, must be 
considered in the area of $1 billion for their 2006 and $10 billion 
over the next 10 years. That is 10 times, according to my calculation, 
the cost to the Federal taxpayer of the amendment of the Senator from 
Georgia.
  Am I correct?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. So I urge my colleagues we must show some restraint as we 
are going through a number of valid and important increments in pay and 
benefits for the men and women in the Armed Forces. In essence, the 
Chambliss amendment is an adaptation of the Durbin amendment but at 
one-tenth the cost because I think you are more equitably treating 
those who have served in periods of active service.
  I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support very much the Chambliss 
amendment. I think it makes an important statement, as well as taking 
an important step toward greater equity relative to retirement. The 
Senator from Georgia has described his amendment, and I will not 
describe it again because he has accurately described it.
  I commend him for this amendment. It is an important amendment.
  I ask the Presiding Officer whether there is time between the vote on 
the Chambliss amendment and the Durbin amendment for an explanation of 
the Durbin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. LEVIN. I will be in a position of supporting the Chambliss and 
Durbin amendments. While the Chambliss amendment takes an important 
step, the Durbin amendment takes three or four important steps in the 
right direction allowing earlier retirement. Where there has been 25 
years of service, for instance, retirement would be allowed at age 55. 
Where there has been 24 years of service under the Durbin amendment, 
retirement would be allowed at age 56. There is a greater cost. I think 
it is justified. We will talk more about that in the minute which has 
been allowed on the Durbin amendment.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter 
from the Naval Reserve Association in support of my amendment be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    Naval Reserve Association,

                                 Alexandria. VA, November 8, 2005.
     Sen. Saxby Chambliss,
     Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Chambliss: I am writing on behalf of the 
     members of the Naval Reserve Association in support of your 
     amendment to reduce the age at which reserve component 
     members receive their retirement pension.
       An active component member retiring at 20 years of service 
     receives a pension immediately upon retirement. A reserve 
     component member serving the same number of qualifying years 
     cannot. Reducing the age from 60, will be a positive step in 
     mitigating this disparity. A more equitable retirement 
     program will aid greatly in recruiting and retaining members 
     in the Navy Reserve, and all reserve components. When the age 
     limit for receipt of retired pay by reserve component members 
     was set decades ago, the Navy Reserve, and other reserve 
     components, was not relied upon the way it is today.
       The objective is to support the reduction of the age for 
     retirement eligibility from its current level to one that is 
     consistent with today's utilization of the reserve component. 
     Your new legislation which links that reduction to duty in a 
     recalled to active duty status accomplishes that goal.
       I look forward to working together in support of a strong 
     and viable Navy Reserve, and all reserve components. Again, 
     on behalf of the members of the Naval Reserve Association and 
     members of the Navy Reserve, thank you for all your hard work 
     on our behalf.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Casey W. Coane,
                               RADM, USN (Ret) Executive Director.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I also ask for the yeas and nays on the 
Durbin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Georgia. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 314 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     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
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The amendment (No. 2433) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided on the upcoming amendment.
  The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we have this vote. We are making great 
progress on this bill. I will be consulting with the leadership. There 
is a

[[Page S12586]]

possibility we would like to continue tonight, but with regard to 
further rollcall votes, we will have to consult our respective leaders 
to determine that. We will do that as quickly as possible so as to 
convenience Senators. But this bill will go on tonight. It may well be 
we debate amendments and stack them for the morning.
  Mr. LEVIN. Is there any way of determining that now?
  Mr. WARNER. Well, I have to get my leader, I have to tell you. I know 
he came on and off the floor.
  Mr. President, the managers wish to advise the Senate that this will 
probably be the last rollcall vote tonight. But we will continue to 
debate amendments and stack them for a time agreed upon by the two 
leaders for tomorrow morning.


                    Amendment No. 2473, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the amendment?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of the 
Chamber for 60 seconds.
  The last amendment by Senator Chambliss received 99 votes. We all 
joined in supporting it. It was a good amendment. This amendment, which 
I am offering, I think is better. Here is why.
  Under the amendment offered by Senator Chambliss, you could reduce 
the age at which you are eligible as a reservist to start receiving 
your retirement based on the time you spent mobilized, activated. This 
amendment says you could reduce it by the time served in the Reserve.
  Right now, no matter when you start, how long you serve, you cannot 
draw the first dollar in retirement until you are 60 years old. Under 
my amendment, if you have served 25 years in the Reserve, you could 
start drawing it at age 55, which is the common retirement age for 
civil servants, for Federal employees.
  My amendment is endorsed by the National Guard Association, the 
Military Officers Association, and the Reserve Officers Association.
       Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators 
     Corzine and Landrieu as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who seeks time in opposition?
  The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, as I said earlier, while I sympathize 
with the Senator from Illinois, because this is a critical issue, it is 
simply a matter of not being able to provide the funding for this 
particular retirement bill.
  We had this issue up last year, and we did not get the funding for 
it. My bill takes a more reasonable approach. It rewards those men and 
women who are serving in Iraq today.
  I ask that we render a ``no'' vote against this amendment so we can 
make a strong move to include my amendment in the conference report 
that will be forthcoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 59, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 315 Leg.]

                                YEAS--40

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

                                NAYS--59

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The amendment (No. 2473), as modified, was rejected.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from 
Missouri and the Senator from Connecticut. This is one of the 
amendments in the 12 on this side of the aisle. I would like to have 
this amendment move forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2477

  Mr. Talent. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Talent], for himself, Mr. 
     Warner, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. 
     Lieberman, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Feinstein, and Ms. Collins, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2477.

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

   (Purpose: To modify the multiyear procurement authority for C-17 
                               aircraft)

       Strike section 131 and insert the following:

     SEC. 131. C-17 AIRCRAFT PROGRAM AND INTER-THEATER AIRLIFT 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Multiyear Procurement Authorized.--The Secretary of the 
     Air Force may, in accordance with section 2306b of title 10, 
     United States Code, enter into a multiyear contract, 
     beginning with the fiscal year 2006 program year, for the 
     procurement of up to 42 additional C-17 aircraft.
       (b) Certification Required.--Before the exercise of the 
     authority in subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall 
     submit to the congressional defense committees a 
     certification that the additional airlift capacity to be 
     provided by the C-17 aircraft to be procured under the 
     authority is consistent with the quadrennial defense review 
     under section 118 of title 10, United States Code, to be 
     submitted to Congress with the budget of the President for 
     fiscal year 2007 (as submitted under section 1105(a) of title 
     31, United States Code), as qualified by subsection (c).
       (c) Additional Explanation of Inter-Theater Airlift 
     Requirements.--
       (1) Inclusion in quadrennial defense review.--The Secretary 
     of Defense shall, as part of the quadrennial defense review 
     in 2005 and in accordance with the provisions of section 
     118(d)(9) of title 10, United States Code, carry out an 
     assessment of the inter-theater airlift capabilities required 
     to support the national defense strategy.
       (2) Additional information.--In including the assessment 
     required by paragraph (1) in the quadrennial defense review 
     as required by that paragraph, the Secretary shall explain 
     how the recommendations for future airlift force structure 
     requirements in that quadrennial defense review take into 
     account the following:
       (A) The increased airlift demands associated with the Army 
     modular brigade combat teams.
       (B) The objective to deliver a brigade combat team anywhere 
     in the world within four to seven days, a division within 10 
     days, and multiple divisions within 20 days.
       (C) The increased airlift demands associated with the 
     expanded scope of operational activities of the Special 
     Operations forces.
       (D) The realignment of the overseas basing structure in 
     accordance with the Integrated Presence and Basing Strategy.
       (E) Adjustments in the force structure to meet homeland 
     defense requirements.
       (F) The potential for simultaneous homeland defense 
     activities and major combat operations.
       (G) Potential changes in requirements for intra-theater 
     airlift or sealift capabilities.
       (d) Maintenance of C-17 Aircraft Production Line.--In the 
     event the Secretary of Defense is unable to make the 
     certification specified in subsection (b), the Secretary of 
     the Air Force should procure sufficient C-17 aircraft to 
     maintain the C-17 aircraft production line at not less than 
     the minimum sustaining rate until sufficient flight test data 
     regarding improved C-5 aircraft mission capability rates as a 
     result of the Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program 
     and Avionics Modernization Program have been obtained to 
     determine the validity of assumptions concerning the C-5 
     aircraft used in the Mobility Capabilities Study.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, Senator Lieberman and I are offering an 
amendment that we believe is crucial to providing our Armed Forces with 
the air transport capabilities they

[[Page S12587]]

need. The amendment has been cosponsored by Chairman Warner and 
Senators Stevens, Boxer, Feinstein, Cornyn, Chambliss, and others. In 
addition, we have worked closely with the chairman and Senator Levin 
and committee staff, and the amendment has been cleared on both sides. 
I am grateful to the managers of the bill for their work on this 
important legislation.
  The Defense Department's current intertheater airlift requirement was 
established by the Mobility Requirement Study, called MRS-05, which was 
released in December 2000. That study identified the airlift necessary 
to conduct high-priority missions in support of two major theater wars. 
That was the national military strategy at the time, to be able to 
conduct two major theater wars at the same time.
  Even back in 2001, recently retired TRANSCOM Commander, GEN John 
Handy, identified the Department's pre-September 11 intertheater 
airlift requirements as inadequate. He characterized that study, which 
was a pre-9/11 study, shortly after its release as a historical 
document, not of great value, because in his judgment it significantly 
underestimated the true airlift requirements of the Department even at 
that time. I will expand on this point in a few minutes.
  We are now learning that the Department's most recent study has 
completely failed to readjust the airlift requirement in light of all 
the different missions in which the United States is now and will be 
engaged for years to come--the global war on terror, international 
humanitarian relief missions, expanded special operations and training, 
to say nothing of our need to support the underlying national military 
strategy needs.
  The C-17 is the primary intertheater air transport used by the United 
States to deploy and sustain forces overseas. It has delivered 70 
percent of the cargo airlifted into Iraq. It has turned in stellar 
performances in theaters from Kosovo to Afghanistan to the global war 
on terror in all its various locations. In addition, the C-17 played a 
key role in several recent humanitarian relief missions, including the 
response to the gulf coast hurricanes and the earthquake in Pakistan.
  The Chief of Staff for the Air Force, GEN Michael Moseley, recently 
said that the C-17 has ``proven its worth in gold.''
  The real question before the Senate is not whether we need additional 
intertheater airlift but how much more airlift is required. The Air 
Force's longstanding position, reiterated time and again over the last 
few years, has been at least 222 C-17s--42 more than the planned 
procurement of 180 aircraft--are needed to meet growing airlift 
requirements. General Handy repeatedly testified that 222 C-17s would 
be the minimum necessary to meet our airlift requirements and that even 
more may be needed, and this is in addition to other programs for 
increasing the lift capabilities of the Department.
  The Department's decision regarding future C-17 production is, we 
believe, imminent. Senator Lieberman and I believe if we do not procure 
additional transports, our intertheater airlift capabilities will be 
inadequate to meet our military's needs. We will lack the lift 
capability needed to deploy and adequately sustain forces overseas.
  While our primary responsibilities must be to our military personnel 
and national security, there is also a significant economic stake for 
many States. C-17 production generates approximately $8.4 billion in 
economic activity and is supported by 702 suppliers in 42 States. This 
is a major industrial base issue. St. Louis is one of the essential 
suppliers of components for the C-17. I have had the privilege of 
visiting workers who build parts for the plane.
  There are over 1,800 people throughout Missouri who help build the C-
17, which generates more than $776 million in economic impact. States 
such as California, New York, Illinois, Iowa, Connecticut, Florida, and 
Washington have over 491 C-17 suppliers that generate over $5.5 billion 
of economic activity in these States alone.
  Despite the facts I recited before about airlift, it has been 
reported that the draft version of the new Mobility Capabilities Study 
recommends no further C-17 production beyond 180 aircraft, at least 42 
transports short of the minimum number required. Incredibly, the new 
Mobility Capabilities Study calls for the same transport force 
structure planned before 9/11, and it sets forth the same airlift 
requirement in the pre-9/11 days. Again, even before 9/11, the head of 
TRANSCOM, General Handy, said the Department's estimate of its airlift 
requirement was out of date. Yet the draft study doesn't increase that 
requirement, even given the undeniable additional needs since the 
global war on terror began.
  The Talent-Lieberman amendment would accomplish three objectives to 
protect the lift capability needed to deploy and sustain forces 
overseas.
  First, it would authorize a multiyear contract for the purchase of up 
to 42 additional C-17 aircraft.
  Second, the amendment urges the Secretary of the Air Force to sustain 
the production line by procuring a minimum sustaining production rate 
of C-17s per year at least until further assessment of airlift needs 
are completed.
  Third, it requires the Secretary of Defense to certify whether there 
is a need for additional C-17s by assessing the additional intertheater 
airlift requirements generated by seven factors which have to be 
considered but which were not considered, we believe, in the flawed 
mobility study, including the Army's shift to brigade combat teams, its 
goal of deploying a brigade anywhere in the world in 4 to 7 days, and a 
division anywhere in the world in 10 days, our increased involvement in 
international humanitarian relief missions and deployment back to the 
United States of forces as part of the Global Posture Review.
  We cannot pull back from forward bases around the world. We cannot 
adapt increased requirements for being able to move substantial forces 
of the Army around the world. We cannot fight a global war on terror 
everywhere and perform humanitarian relief functions around the world. 
We cannot do these things without adequate lift.
  What is at stake is the ability of the United States to project its 
military power on the world and to project aid where necessary on a 
humanitarian basis around the world. It is this airlift which enables 
us to do the other transformational things in the military which are 
the way we hope to sustain an adequate military force while also having 
some economies.
  Senator Lieberman and I offer this amendment because intertheater 
airlift is the means by which our forces deploy on short notice 
anywhere in the world and a primary means by which we sustain deployed 
forces. When the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, the recently retired 
head of TRANSCOM, and others who understand the central importance of 
airlift for our services tell us about how vital this aircraft is to 
the military's air transport needs, we believe it is prudent to take 
their word for it and plan accordingly.
  It is my understanding this amendment has been agreed to on both 
sides. We are certainly grateful for that. I appreciate the leadership 
of the floor managers in being able to reach that agreement.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time? The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the 
amendment that I am privileged to cosponsor with my friend from 
Missouri. He spoke very comprehensively and eloquently about it. I will 
say a few words and associate myself with everything he has said.
  This is all about strategic airlift. It is all about the ability to 
deploy our forces and the equipment and materials to sustain them to 
battlefields around the world. The C-17, a remarkable aircraft, has 
done that with enormous efficiency, reliability, and skill.
  I have been around here long enough now that I remember when the 
military was pleading with us in Congress to authorize and appropriate 
for the development of a new strategic airlift capacity. It became the 
C-17. I remember the arguments. The strategic airlift is like the long 
pole in a tent. If the pole is gone, the tent collapses. If you cannot 
get your forces, material, and equipment to support them to the field 
of battle around the world--the fields of battle are not only dispersed 
around the world but in very different circumstances often without 
typical or

[[Page S12588]]

conventional airfields on which to land--then you can't fight the 
battle.
  From that plea over a period of years came the design and 
construction of the C-17. I remember the first day I saw the first C-17 
fly into an airfield in East Hartford, associated with Pratt & Whitney 
who, I am proud to say, builds the engines for these planes. It is 
remarkable. It is an enormous plane. The pilots flew it with an ease 
and mobility that made it seem like a much smaller plane.
  It has performed admirably over the years. Time after time, members 
of the Armed Services Committee, on which the Senator from Missouri and 
I are privileged to serve, have heard our warfighting commanders tell 
us that they don't have enough strategic airlift.
  I am privileged to serve as the ranking Democrat on the Airland 
Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee. We authorize strategic 
airlift, and here, too, we have heard over and over, one, about the 
need and, two, about the enormously impressive performance of the C-17.
  It is the heart of our strategic airlift. The Air Force, as my friend 
from Missouri, Senator Talent, has said, has contended over and over--
and this reaches a level of a plea also--that we need 222 C-17s. That 
is a position held by the U.S. Transportation Command, which is 
responsible for the planning and providing of strategic transportation 
for our military.
  Here is the problem and what brings Senator Talent and I and a very 
broad group of Senators of both parties to offer this amendment.
  A study has recently been completed by the Department of Defense 
called the Mobility Capabilities Study. It concludes, uniquely--no one 
else has--that the need now is only for 180 C-17s; again, at odds with 
the Transportation Command. Here is the problem. If that position holds 
and we stop production of the C-17 at 180, that would mean production 
would end in 2008 and the production line would close. It is hard to 
start it up again--impossible to start it up again. A lot of people 
around the country, including in Connecticut, will lose their jobs.
  There is a fundamental flaw to the Mobility Capabilities Study. It is 
simply that the case has not been made that we are going to adequately 
support our military with 180 of these planes. We need 222.
  The Mobility Capabilities Study has serious limits and flaws. The 
first point is that it started several years ago, and its conclusions 
are based on assumptions that I contend are no longer valid.
  Among these that concern me most are the assumptions that the 
planning scenarios in place during the study, the war situation 
scenarios, need situation scenarios, are still valid. Also, that there 
will be no increase in demand from revisions in those planning 
scenarios, that there will be no increase in what we call intertheater 
demand--within the theater--demand for strategic airlift, and there 
will be no significant increase in concurrent demand associated with 
homeland defense at the same time there are major combat operations 
overseas underway.
  Senator Talent pointed out that recently the C-17s were used to bring 
critically important materials into the gulf coast area after Hurricane 
Katrina struck.
  I say that all of these assumptions of the Mobility Capabilities 
Study, which reached this unique conclusion that we will be safe with 
180 C-17s, are suspect. The fact is, the Department of Defense is now 
looking at some very different military planning scenarios which would 
occasion very significant demand for the C-17 strategic airlift 
capacity.
  We know that in-theater demand for this capacity has obviously 
increased in Iraq because of the danger of ground movement, and the C-
17s have met that need brilliantly and reliably.
  Subsequent insurgencies, the kinds of unconventional conflicts and 
threats we are likely to face in the years ahead, will also require the 
kind of unique capacity that this aircraft has to carry an enormous 
amount of material or personnel and land in very unconventional and 
different topographies.
  There is now, as we know, a Quadrennial Defense Review underway. That 
is done every 4 years within the Pentagon to sketch out--more than 
sketch out--to define and delineate the strategic and specific materiel 
needs of our military to execute the national military strategy. That 
QDR is underway and probably will address these issues. I personally 
believe that the QDR will increase the requirement for strategic 
airlift, not decrease it, as the Mobility Capabilities Study suggests.
  This amendment is protection against the implementation of the 
Mobility Capabilities Study numbers prematurely, of the shutting down 
of these production lines, of the loss of jobs, and of the inability to 
meet the strategic airlift needs of our military.
  The amendment says the Secretary of the Air Force may execute a 
multiyear contract for the 42 more airplanes that would bring us to the 
222 standing requirement, that the Department of Defense must 
reconsider the validity of those Mobility Capabilities Study 
assumptions during the QDR, and that the production line for the C-17s 
and all component parts must be kept operating at least at a minimum 
sustaining rate until we are confident of what we need.
  This is a hedge against a precipitous and, I would say, dangerous 
decision made based on a single study done within the Pentagon.
  I am grateful for the encouragement and, I hope and believe, support 
of the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the ranking 
Democrat. I thank Senator Talent for all the work he has done to bring 
this forward. It has been a pleasure working with him.
  I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I strongly endorse the amendment by our 
colleagues, both the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from 
Connecticut. They have carefully discussed with us the process by which 
they arrived at this conclusion. I must say, putting aside a little 
modesty, years and years ago, I was the one who on several occasions 
worked with others in this Senate to save the C-17 from even coming 
into being. We could see the needs into the future.
  This plane has been an absolute, rock-solid performer in our 
inventory of airlift. I think this amendment comes at a critical time, 
expressing the desires of the Congress. It gives flexibility to the 
Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary of Defense to proceed. I 
strongly support it.
  At this time, it may be necessary to put in a quorum call so the 
matter can be discussed. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my friend 
and colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, be added as an original 
cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. He has been a steadfast and I would go so far as to 
say a fervent supporter of the C-17 over the years of the existence of 
this program, and on behalf of Senator Talent, I ask that when a vote 
is taken on this amendment, it be taken by rollcall.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we support this amendment. The Secretary's 
certification that is involved should not be related to the mobility 
capability study because that will not make any recommendations for 
changing airlift requirements. The certification should be related to 
the Quadrennial Defense Review because if there are changes in the 
national military strategy that affect airlift requirements, those 
should be reflected in the QDR.
  If the Air Force does not buy any more C-17 aircraft after 2007, 
Boeing may have to close down its production line after delivering the 
last of 180 C-17s. That would be before we have the testing data on the 
C-5 upgrades because that data will not be available until 2008.
  Given the fact there are some risks those upgrades will not achieve 
the mission-capable rates the DOD expects and then make it possible for 
us to meet our lift requirements, this is a positive amendment. It 
gives some real flexibility and discretion to the Secretary of Defense.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

[[Page S12589]]

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, do I understand the Senators desire a 
rollcall vote?
  Mr. TALENT. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. We will schedule this vote at a time in consultation with 
our respective leaders. There may be some other matters that we have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I again thank the chairman and ranking 
member for their hard work. The Senator from Connecticut and I talked 
about it. We thought this measure, going to the heart of such an 
important requirement, was worthy of a rollcall vote. I do appreciate 
the chairman's patience on that.
  Mr. WARNER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMint). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senate is now in session on the bill; is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                           Amendment No. 2478

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to amend my amendment, No. 
2478, which I introduced earlier, to include another paragraph to 
clarify exactly what we mean. I listened to recommendations that we use 
other language that again further clarifies the intent here.
  The intent, very simply, is to say if someone violates the rules for 
transferring classified information knowingly, then we think they 
should lose that opportunity for access to that.
  That was the sole purpose. I offer it.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to second-
degree my amendment. I send it to the desk for consideration.
  Mr. LEVIN. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Parliamentary inquiry: It is my understanding the Senator 
has a right to send a second-degree amendment to the desk without 
consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may second-degree his own 
amendment without consent.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my understanding of the parliamentary 
situation is that the ruling of the Chair is correct, that a Senator 
may send an amendment in the second degree. But under the underlying 
unanimous consent agreement on which we are operating on this bill, all 
time has to be yielded back before the second-degree amendment may be 
offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey asked consent to 
second-degree his amendment. The amendment is not currently the pending 
question, nor has all time expired on the first-degree amendment, so it 
is appropriate to ask consent at this time.
  Is there objection?
  Mr. WARNER. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


    amendments Nos. 1316, as Modified; 1329, as Modified; 1382, as 
Modified; 1410, 1438, 1444, 1469, as Modified; 1471, 1534, 1543, 1544, 
 as Modified; 1550, as Modified; 1559, as Modified; 1560, as Modified; 
  1562, 1567, as Modified; 1885, 2484, 2485, 2486, 2487, 2488, 2489, 
  2490, 2491, 2492, 2493, 2494, 2495, 2496, 2497, 2498, 2499 to 1396; 
         2500, 2501, 2502, 2503, 2504, 2505, and 2506, en bloc

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in consultation with the distinguished 
Senator from Michigan, I send a managers' package of some 40 amendments 
to the desk which have been cleared by myself and the ranking member.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendments have been cleared on our 
side.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate 
consider those amendments en bloc, the amendments be agreed to, and the 
motions to reconsider be laid upon the table. Finally, I ask unanimous 
consent that any statements relating to any of these individual 
amendments be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:


                    amendment no. 1316, as modified

 (Purpose: To authorize, with an offset, an additional $5,000,000 for 
research, development, test, and evaluation for the Army for the Joint 
                      Service Small Arms Program)

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

     SEC. 213. JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS PROGRAM.

       (a) Increased Amount for Research, Development, Test, and 
     Evaluation, Army.--The amount authorized to be appropriated 
     by section 201(1) for research, development, test, and 
     evaluation for the Army is hereby increased by $5,000,000.
       (b) Availability of Amount.--Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 201(1) for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation for the Army, as increased by subsection 
     (a), $5,000,000 may be available for the Joint Service Small 
     Arms Program.
       (c) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 301(4) is hereby reduced by $5,000,000.


                    amendment no. 1329, as modified

 (Purpose: To authorize, with an offset, an additional $1,000,000 for 
procurement for the Marine Corps for General Property for Field Medical 
        Equipment for the Rapid Intravenous (IV) Infusion Pump)

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

     SEC. 124. RAPID INTRAVENOUS INFUSION PUMP.

       (a) Additional Amount for Procurement for the Marine 
     Corps.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by section 
     102(b) for procurement for the Marine Corps is hereby 
     increased by $1,000,000.
       (b) Availability of Amount.--Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 102(b) for procurement for the Marine 
     Corps, as increased by subsection (a), $1,000,000 may be 
     available for General Property for Field Medical Equipment 
     for the Rapid Intravenous (IV) Infusion Pump.
       (c) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 301(4) is hereby reduced by $1,000,000.


                    amendment no. 1382, as modified

 (Purpose: To require a report on the aircraft of the Army to perform 
  the High-altitude Aviation Training Site of the Army National Guard)

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

     SEC. 330. REPORT ON AIRCRAFT TO PERFORM HIGH-ALTITUDE 
                   AVIATION TRAINING SITE

       Not later than December 15, 2005, the Secretary of the Army 
     shall submit to the congressional defense committee a report 
     containing the following:
       (1) An evaluation of the type of aircraft available in the 
     inventory of the Army that is most suitable to perform the 
     High-altitude Aviation Training Site (HAATS) mission.
       (2) A determination of when such aircraft may be available 
     for assignment to the HAATS.


                           amendment no. 1410

   (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress concerning actions to 
             support the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty)

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

     SEC. 1205. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON SUPPORT FOR NUCLEAR NON-
                   PROLIFERATION TREATY.

       Congress--
       (1) reaffirms its support for the objectives of the Treaty 
     on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at 
     Washington, London, and Moscow July 1, 1968, and entered into 
     force March 5, 1970 (the ``Nuclear Non-Proliferation 
     Treaty'');
       (2) expresses its support for all appropriate measures to 
     strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to attain 
     its objectives; and
       (3) calls on all parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation 
     Treaty--
       (A) to insist on strict compliance with the non-
     proliferation obligations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation 
     Treaty and to undertake effective enforcement measures 
     against states that are in violation of their obligations 
     under the Treaty;
       (B) to agree to establish more effective controls on 
     enrichment and reprocessing technologies that can be used to 
     produce materials for nuclear weapons;
       (C) to expand the ability of the International Atomic 
     Energy Agency to inspect and monitor compliance with 
     safeguard agreements and standards to which all states should 
     adhere through existing authority

[[Page S12590]]

     and the additional protocols signed by the states party to 
     the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty;
       (D) to demonstrate the international community's unified 
     opposition to a nuclear weapons program in Iran by--
       (i) supporting the efforts of the United States and the 
     European Union to prevent the Government of Iran from 
     acquiring a nuclear weapons capability; and
       (ii) using all appropriate diplomatic means at their 
     disposal to convince the Government of Iran to abandon its 
     uranium enrichment program;
       (E) to strongly support the ongoing United States 
     diplomatic efforts in the context of the six-party talks that 
     seek the verifiable and irreversible disarmament of North 
     Korea's nuclear weapons programs and to use all appropriate 
     diplomatic means to achieve this result;
       (F) to pursue diplomacy designed to address the underlying 
     regional security problems in Northeast Asia, South Asia, and 
     the Middle East, which would facilitate non-proliferation and 
     disarmament efforts in those regions;
       (G) to accelerate programs to safeguard and eliminate 
     nuclear weapons-usable material to the highest standards to 
     prevent access by terrorists and governments;
       (H) to halt the use of highly enriched uranium in civilian 
     reactors;
       (I) to strengthen national and international export 
     controls and relevant security measures as required by United 
     Nations Security Council Resolution 1540;
       (J) to agree that no state may withdraw from the Nuclear 
     Non-Proliferation Treaty and escape responsibility for prior 
     violations of the Treaty or retain access to controlled 
     materials and equipment acquired for ``peaceful'' purposes;
       (K) to accelerate implementation of disarmament obligations 
     and commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 
     for the purpose of reducing the world's stockpiles of nuclear 
     weapons and weapons-grade fissile material; and
       (L) to strengthen and expand support for the Proliferation 
     Security Initiative.


                           amendment no. 1438

    (Purpose: To redesignate the Naval Reserve as the Navy Reserve)

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of July 22, 2005, under 
``Text of Amendments.''


                           amendment no. 1444

(Purpose: To ensure that any reimbursement for services is retained for 
                       fire protection activity)

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

     SEC. 1073. RETENTION OF REIMBURSEMENT FOR PROVISION OF 
                   RECIPROCAL FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES.

       Section 5 of the Act of May 27, 1955 (chapter 105; 69 Stat. 
     67; 42 U.S.C. 1856d) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Funds'' and inserting ``(a) Funds''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), all 
     sums received for any Department of Defense activity for fire 
     protection rendered pursuant to this Act shall be credited to 
     the appropriation fund or account from which the expenses 
     were paid. Amounts so credited shall be merged with funds in 
     such appropriation fund or account and shall be available for 
     the same purposes and subject to the same limitations as the 
     funds with which the funds are merged.''.


                    amendment no. 1469, as modified

 (Purpose: To renew the moratorium on the return of veterans memorial 
   objects to foreign nations without specific authorization in law)

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

     SEC. 1073. RENEWAL OF MORATORIUM ON RETURN OF VETERANS 
                   MEMORIAL OBJECTS TO FOREIGN NATIONS WITHOUT 
                   SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION IN LAW.

       Section 1051(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65; 113 Stat. 763; 10 
     U.S.C. 2572 note) is amended by inserting ``, and during the 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and ending on 
     September 30, 2010.


                           amendment no. 1471

(Purpose: To require a study on the deployment times of members of the 
      National Guard and Reserves in the global war on terrorism)

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

     SEC. 538. DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD STUDY ON DEPLOYMENT OF 
                   MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES IN 
                   THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM.

       (a) Study Required.--The Defense Science Board shall 
     conduct a study on the length and frequency of the deployment 
     of members of the National Guard and the Reserves as a result 
     of the global war on terrorism.
       (b) Elements.--The study required by subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) An identification of the current range of lengths and 
     frequencies of deployments of members of the National Guard 
     and the Reserves.
       (2) An assessment of the consequences for force structure, 
     morale, and mission capability of deployments of members of 
     the National Guard and the Reserves in the course of the 
     global war on terrorism that are lengthy, frequent, or both.
       (3) An identification of the optimal length and frequency 
     of deployments of members of the National Guard and the 
     Reserves during the global war on terrorism.
       (4) An identification of mechanisms to reduce the length, 
     frequency, or both of deployments of members of the National 
     Guard and the Reserves during the global war on terrorism.
       (c) Report.--Not later than May 1, 2006, the Defense 
     Science Board shall submit to the congressional defense 
     committees a report on the study required by subsection (a). 
     The report shall include the results of the study and such 
     recommendations as the Defense Science Board considers 
     appropriate in light of the study.


                           amendment no. 1534

    (Purpose: To permit the Department of Defense and other Federal 
 agencies to enter into reciprocal agreements with fire organizations 
  for emergency medical services, hazardous material containment, and 
                       other emergency services)

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

     SEC. 1073. EXPANSION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES UNDER RECIPROCAL 
                   AGREEMENTS.

       Subsection (b) of the first section of the Act of May 27, 
     1955 (69 Stat. 66, chapter 105; 42 U.S.C. 1856(b)) is amended 
     by striking ``and fire fighting'' and inserting ``, fire 
     fighting, and emergency services, including basic and 
     advanced life support, hazardous material containment and 
     confinement, and special rescue events involving vehicular 
     and water mishaps, and trench, building, and confined space 
     extractions''.


                           amendment no. 1543

(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Energy to carry out certain new 
    plant projects for defense nuclear non-proliferation activities)

       On page 372, line 3, insert after ``$1,637,239,000'' the 
     following: ``, of which amount $338,565,000 shall be 
     available for project 99-D-143, the Mixed Oxide Fuel 
     Fabrication Facility, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South 
     Carolina, and $24,000,000 shall be available fro project 99-
     D-141, the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility, Savannah 
     River Site, Aiken, South Carolina''.


                    amendment no. 1544, as modified

 (Purpose: To authorize, with an offset, an additional $6,000,000 for 
  Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, for research and 
  development on Long Wavelength Array low frequency radio astronomy 
                              instruments)

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

     SEC. 213. LONG WAVELENGTH ARRAY LOW FREQUENCY RADIO ASTRONOMY 
                   INSTRUMENTS.

       (a) Additional Amount for Research, Development, Test, and 
     Evaluation, Navy.--The amount authorized to be appropriated 
     by section 201(2) for research, development, test, and 
     evaluation for the Navy is hereby increased by $6,000,000.
       (b) Availability of Amount.--
       (1) In general.--Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 201(2) for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation for the Navy, as increased by subsection 
     (a), $6,000,000 may be available for research and development 
     on Long Wavelength Array low frequency radio astronomy 
     instruments.
       (2) Construction with other amounts.--The amount available 
     under paragraph (1) for the purpose set forth in that 
     paragraph is in addition to any other amounts available under 
     this Act for that purpose.
       (c) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 301(4) for operation and maintenance for the Air 
     Force is hereby reduced by $6,000,000.


                    amendment no. 1550, as modified

 (Purpose: To improve national security through the establishment of a 
Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps Pilot Project within the Department of 
Defense comprised of citizens fluent in foreign languages who would be 
   available to provide translation services and related duties, as 
                                needed)

       On page 48, line 21, strike ``$18,584,469,000'' and insert 
     ``$18,581,369,000''.

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. PILOT PROJECT FOR CIVILIAN LINGUIST RESERVE CORPS.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Defense (referred to 
     in this section as the ``Secretary''), through the National 
     Security Education Program, shall conduct a 3-year pilot 
     project to establish the Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps, 
     which shall be composed of United States citizens with 
     advanced levels of proficiency in foreign languages who would 
     be available, upon request from the President, to perform any 
     services or duties with respect to such foreign languages in 
     the Federal Government as the President may require.
       (b) Implementation.--In establishing the Civilian Linguist 
     Reserve Corps, the Secretary, after reviewing the findings 
     and recommendations contained in the report required under 
     section 325 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2003 (Public Law 107-306; 116 Stat. 2393), shall--
       (1) identify several foreign languages that are critical 
     for the national security of the

[[Page S12591]]

     United States and the relative priority of each such 
     language;
       (2) identify United States citizens with advanced levels of 
     proficiency in those foreign languages who would be available 
     to perform the services and duties referred to in subsection 
     (a);
       (3) cooperate with other Federal agencies with national 
     security responsibilities to implement a procedure for 
     calling for the performance of the services and duties 
     referred to in subsection (a); and
       (4) implement a call for the performance of such services 
     and duties.
       (c) Contract Authority.--In establishing the Civilian 
     Linguist Reserve Corps, the Secretary may enter into 
     contracts with appropriate agencies or entities.
       (d) Feasibility Study.--During the course of the pilot 
     project, the Secretary shall conduct a study of the best 
     practices in implementing the Civilian Linguist Reserve 
     Corps, including--
       (1) administrative structure;
       (2) languages to be offered;
       (3) number of language specialists needed for each 
     language;
       (4) Federal agencies who may need language services;
       (5) compensation and other operating costs;
       (6) certification standards and procedures;
       (7) security clearances;
       (8) skill maintenance and training; and
       (9) the use of private contractors to supply language 
     specialists.
       (e) Reports.--
       (1) Evaluation reports.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter until the 
     expiration of the 3-year period beginning on such date of 
     enactment, the Secretary shall submit to Congress an 
     evaluation report on the pilot project conducted under this 
     section.
       (B) Contents.--Each report required under subparagraph (A) 
     shall contain information on the operation of the pilot 
     project, the success of the pilot project in carrying out the 
     objectives of the establishment of a Civilian Linguist 
     Reserve Corps, and recommendations for the continuation or 
     expansion of the pilot project.
       (2) Final report.--Not later than 6 months after the 
     completion of the pilot project, the Secretary shall submit 
     to Congress a final report summarizing the lessons learned, 
     best practices, and recommendations for full implementation 
     of the Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $3,100,000 for fiscal year 2006 to carry 
     out the pilot project under this section.
       (g) Offset.--The amounts authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 301(4) are hereby reduced by $3,100,000 from 
     operation and maintenance, Air Force.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 1559, AS MODIFIED

    (Purpose: To increase by $1,000,000 the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Army for research, development, test, and 
    evaluation, to be available for research on and facilitation of 
 technology for converting obsolete chemical munitions to fertilizer, 
                       and to provide an offset)

         On page 28, between lines 10 and 11, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 203. FUNDING FOR DEVELOPMENT OF DISTRIBUTED GENERATION 
                   TECHNOLOGIES.

       (a) Increase in Funds Available to Army for Research, 
     Development, Test, and Evaluation.--The amount authorized to 
     be appropriated by section 201(1) for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation for the Army maybe increased by 
     $1,000,000, with the amount of such increase to be available 
     for research on and facilitation of technology for converting 
     obsolete chemical munitions to fertilizer.
       (b) Reduction in Funds Available to Air Force.--The amount 
     authorized to be appropriated by section 301(4) for the Air 
     Force is hereby reduced by $1,000,000.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 1560, AS MODIFIED

    (Purpose: To increase by $1,500,000 the amount authorized to be 
   appropriated to the Navy for research within the High-Brightness 
           Electron Source program, and to provide an offset)

       On page 28, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:

     SEC. 203. FUNDING FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION FOR 
                   HIGH-BRIGHTNESS ELECTRON SOURCE PROGRAM.

       (a) Increase in Funds Available to Navy for Research, 
     Development, Test, and Evaluation.--The amount authorized to 
     be appropriated by section 201(2) for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation for the Navy maybe increased by 
     $1,500,000.
       (b) Reduction in Funds Available to Army for Procurement, 
     Ammunition.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 301(4) for the Air Force is hereby reduced by 
     $1,500,000.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1562

 (Purpose: To designate the annex to the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal 
   Building and United States Courthouse located at 333 Constitution 
Avenue Northwest in the District of Columbia as the ``William B. Bryant 
                                Annex'')

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

     SEC. 2887. DESIGNATION OF WILLIAM B. BRYANT ANNEX.

       (a) Designation.--The annex to the E. Barrett Prettyman 
     Federal Building and United States Courthouse located at 333 
     Constitution Avenue Northwest in the District of Columbia 
     shall be known and designated as the ``William B. Bryant 
     Annex''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     annex referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 
     reference to the ``William B. Bryant Annex''.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 1567, AS MODIFIED

    (Purpose: To modify the exclusion from officer distribution and 
  strength limitations of officers serving in intelligence community 
                               positions)

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

     SEC. 509. APPLICABILITY OF OFFICER DISTRIBUTION AND STRENGTH 
                   LIMITATIONS TO OFFICERS SERVING IN INTELLIGENCE 
                   COMMUNITY POSITIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 528 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 528. Exclusion: officers serving in certain 
       intelligence positions

       ``(a) Exclusion of Officer Serving in Certain CIA 
     Positions.--When either of the individuals serving in a 
     position specified in subsection (b) is an officer of the 
     armed forces, one of those officers, while serving in such 
     position, shall be excluded from the limitations in sections 
     525 and 526 of this title while serving in such position.
       ``(b) Covered Positions.--The positions referred to in this 
     subsection are the following:
       ``(1) Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
       ``(2) Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
       ``(c) Associate Director of CIA for Military Support.--An 
     officer of the armed forces serving in the position of 
     Associate Director of the Central Intelligence Agency for 
     Military Support, while serving in that position, shall be 
     excluded from the limitations in sections 525 and 526 of this 
     title while serving in such position.
       ``(d) Officers Serving in Office of DNI.--Up to 5 general 
     and flag officers of the armed forces assigned to positions 
     in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence 
     designated by agreement between the Secretary of Defense and 
     the Director of National Intelligence shall be excluded from 
     the limitations in sections 525 and 526 of this title while 
     serving in such positions.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 32 of such title is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 528 and inserting the following 
     new item:

``528. Exclusion: officers serving in certain intelligence 
              positions.''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1885

  (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of the Navy to provide for the 
welfare of Special Category Residents at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, 
                                 Cuba)

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

     SEC. 330. WELFARE OF SPECIAL CATEGORY RESIDENTS AT NAVAL 
                   STATION GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Navy may provide for 
     the general welfare, including subsistence, housing, and 
     health care, of any person at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, 
     Cuba, who is designated by the Secretary, not later than 90 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, as a so-
     called ``special category resident''.
       (b) Prohibition on Construction of Facilities.--The 
     authorization in subsection (a) shall not be construed as an 
     authorization for the construction of new housing facilities 
     or medical treatment facilities.
       (c) Construction of Prior Use of Funds.--The provisions of 
     chapter 13 of title 31, United States Code, are hereby deemed 
     not to have applied to the obligation or expenditure of funds 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act for the general 
     welfare of persons described in subsection (a).


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2484

 (Purpose: To authorize, with an offset, an additional $1,000,000 for 
 research, development, test, and evaluation for the Army for Warhead/
           Grenade Scientific Based Manufacturing Technology)

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

     SEC. 213. WARHEAD/GRENADE SCIENTIFIC BASED MANUFACTURING 
                   TECHNOLOGY.

       (a) Additional Amount for Research, Development, Test, and 
     Evaluation for the Army.--The amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 201(1) for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation for the Army is hereby increased by 
     $1,000,000.
       (b) Availability of Amount.--Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 201(1) for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation for the Army, as increased by subsection 
     (a), $1,000,000 may be available for Weapons and Ammunition 
     Technology (PE#602624A) for Warhead/Grenade Scientific Based 
     Manufacturing Technology.
       (c) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 301(4) for operation and maintenance, Air Force 
     activities is hereby reduced by $1,000,000.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2485

   (Purpose: To establish the National Foreign Language Coordination 
     Council to develop and implement a foreign language strategy)

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')

[[Page S12592]]

                           AMENDMENT NO. 2486

  (Purpose: To provide, with an offset, an additional $16,000,000 for 
 Operation and Maintenance, Army, for the Point of Maintenance/Arsenal/
                         Depot AIT Initiative)

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

     SEC. 330. POINT OF MAINTENANCE/ARSENAL/DEPOT AIT INITIATIVE.

       (a) Additional Amount for Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by section 
     301(1) for operation and maintenance for the Army is hereby 
     increased by $10,000,000.
       (b) Availability of Amount.--Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 301(1) for operation and maintenance 
     for the Army, as increased by subsection (a), $16,000,000 may 
     be available for the Point of Maintenance/Arsenal/Depot AIT 
     (AD-AIT) Initiative.
       (c) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 301(4) is hereby reduced by $10,000,000, with the 
     amount of the reduction to be derived from amounts authorized 
     to be appropriated by that section for the Air Force.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2487

  (Purpose: To provide, with an offset, an additional $4,500,000 for 
Operation and Maintenance, Army, for procurement of the RI-2200 and RI-
  2400 Long Arm High-Intensity Arc Metal Halide Handheld Searchlight)

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

     SEC. 330. LONG ARM HIGH-INTENSITY ARC METAL HALIDE HANDHELD 
                   SEARCHLIGHT.

       (a) Additional Amount for Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by section 
     301(1) for operation and maintenance for the Army is hereby 
     increased by $4,500,000.
       (b) Availability of Amount.--Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 301(1) for operation and maintenance 
     for the Army, as increased by subsection (a), $4,500,000 may 
     be available for the Long Arm High-Intensity Arc Metal Halide 
     Handheld Searchlight.
       (c) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 301(4) is hereby reduced by $4,500,000, with the 
     amount of the reduction to be derived from amounts authorized 
     to be appropriated by that section for the Air Force.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2488

 (Purpose: To support the acquisition of foreign language skills among 
         participants in the Reserve Officers' Training Corps)

       On page 92, after line 25, add the following:

     SEC. 538. PROMOTION OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE SKILLS AMONG MEMBERS 
                   OF THE RESERVE OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall support the 
     acquisition of foreign language skills among cadets and 
     midshipmen in the Reserve Officers' Training Corps, including 
     through the development and implementation of--
       (1) incentives for cadets and midshipmen to participate in 
     study of a foreign language, including special emphasis for 
     Arabic, Chinese, and other ``strategic languages'', as 
     defined by the Secretary of Defense in consultation with 
     other relevant agencies; and
       (2) a recruiting strategy to target foreign language 
     speakers, including members of heritage communities, to 
     participate in the Reserve Officers' Training Corps.
       (b) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit 
     to the congressional defense committees a report on the 
     actions taken to carry out this section.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2489

 (Purpose: To make available, with an offset, $3,000,000 for Research, 
  Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, for assurance for the 
                     Field Programmable Gate Array)

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

     SEC. 213. FIELD PROGRAMMABLE GATE ARRAY.

       (a) Additional Amount for Research, Development, Test, and 
     Evaluation, Air Force.--The amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 201(3) for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation for the Air Force is hereby increased by 
     $3,000,000.
       (b) Availability of Amount.--Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 201(3) for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation for the Air Force, as increased by 
     subsection (a), $3,000,000 may be available for Space 
     Technology (PE # 0602601F) for research and development on 
     the reliability of field programmable gate arrays for space 
     applications, including design of an assurance strategy, 
     reference architectures, research and development on 
     reliability and radiation hardening, and outreach to industry 
     and localities to develop core competencies.
       (c) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 301(4) is hereby reduced by $3,000,000.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2490

   (Purpose: To provide for Department of Defense support of certain 
                      Paralympic sporting events)

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

     SEC. __. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SUPPORT FOR CERTAIN PARALYMPIC 
                   SPORTING EVENTS.

       (a) Provision of Support.--Subsection (c) of section 2564 
     of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(4) A sporting event sanctioned by the United States 
     Olympic Committee through the Paralympic Military Program.
       ``(5) A national or international Paralympic sporting event 
     (other than one covered by paragraph (3) or (4))--
       ``(A) which is--
       ``(i) held in the United States or any of its territories 
     or commonwealths;
       ``(ii) governed by the International Paralympic Committee; 
     and
       ``(iii) sanctioned by the United States Olympic Committee; 
     and
       ``(B) for which participation exceeds 100 amateur 
     athletes.''.
       (b) Funding and Limitations.--Such section is further 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), and (f) as 
     subsections (e), (f), and (g), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) Funding for Support of Certain Events.--(1) Funds to 
     provide support for a sporting event described in paragraph 
     (4) or (5) of subsection (c) shall be derived from the 
     Support for International Sporting Competitions, Defense 
     account established by section 5802 of Public Law 104-208 
     (110 Stat. 3009-522), notwithstanding any limitation in such 
     section relating to the availability of funds in such account 
     for support of international sporting competitions.
       ``(2) The total amount that may be expended in any fiscal 
     year to provide support for a sporting event described in 
     paragraph (5) of subsection (c) may not exceed $1,000,000.''.


                           amendment no. 2491

  (Purpose: To delay until September 30, 2007, the limitation on the 
   procurement by the Department of Defense of systems that are not 
              equipped with the Global Positioning System)

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

     SEC. 244. DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE FOR LIMITATION ON 
                   PROCUREMENT OF SYSTEMS NOT GPS-EQUIPPED.

       (a) Delayed Effective Date.--Section 152(b) of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 
     103-160; 107 Stat. 1578), as amended by section 218(e) of the 
     Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261; 112 Stat. 1952; 10 U.S.C. 2281 
     note), is further amended by striking ``2005'' and inserting 
     ``2007''.
       (b) Ratification of Actions.--Any obligation or expenditure 
     of funds by the Department of Defense during the period 
     beginning on October 1, 2005, and ending on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act to modify or procure a Department of 
     Defense aircraft, ship, armored vehicle, or indirect-fire 
     weapon system that is not equipped with a Global Positioning 
     System receiver is hereby ratified.


                           amendment no. 2492

  (Purpose: To make available, with an offset, additional amounts for 
                    defense basic research programs)

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

     SEC. 213. DEFENSE BASIC RESEARCH PROGRAMS.

       (a) Army Programs.--(1) The amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 201(1) for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation for the Army is hereby increased by 
     $10,000,000.
       (2) Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by section 
     201(1) for research, development, test, and evaluation for 
     the Army, as increased by paragraph (1), $10,000,000 may be 
     available for Program Element 0601103A for University 
     Research Initiatives.
       (b) Navy Programs.--(1) The amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 201(2) for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation for the Navy is hereby increased by 
     $5,000,000.
       (2) Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by section 
     201(2) for research, development, test, and evaluation for 
     the Navy, as increased by paragraph (1), $5,000,000 may be 
     available for Program Element 0601103N for University 
     Research Initiatives.
       (c) Air Force Programs.--(1) The amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 201(3) for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation for the Air Force is hereby increased by 
     $10,000,000.
       (2) Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by section 
     201(3) for research, development, test, and evaluation for 
     the Air Force, as increased by paragraph (1), $10,000,000 may 
     be available for Program Element 0601103F for University 
     Research Initiatives.
       (d) Defense-Wide Activities.--(1) The amount authorized to 
     be appropriated by section 201(4) for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation for Defense-wide activities is hereby 
     increased by $15,000,000.
       (2) Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by section 
     201(4) for research, development, test, and evaluation for 
     Defense-wide activities, as increased by paragraph (1)--
       (A) $10,000,000 may be available for Program Element 
     0601120D8Z for the SMART National Defense Education Program; 
     and
       (B) $5,000,000 may be available for Program Element 
     0601101E for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 
     University Research Program in Computer Science and 
     Cybersecurity.

[[Page S12593]]

       (e) Offsets.--(1) The amount authorized to be appropriated 
     by section 301(c), Operation and Maintenance, Navy, is hereby 
     reduced by $40,000,000.


                           amendment no. 2493

    (Purpose: To improve the provision relating to clarification of 
            authority of military legal assistance counsel)

       On page 96, strike lines 19 and 20 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(2) Military legal assistance may be provided only by a 
     judge advocate or a civilian attorney who is a member of the 
     bar of a Federal court or of the highest court of a State.
       ``(3) In this subsection, the term `military legal 
     assistance' includes--


                           amendment no. 2494

(Purpose: To provide an education loan repayment program for chaplains 
                        in the Selected Reserve)

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

     SEC. 653. EDUCATION LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM FOR CHAPLAINS IN 
                   THE SELECTED RESERVE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 1609 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 16303. Education loan repayment program: chaplains 
       serving in the Selected Reserve

       ``(a) Authority To Repay Education Loans.--Under 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense and 
     subject to the provisions of this section, the Secretary 
     concerned may, for purposes of maintaining adequate numbers 
     of chaplains in the Selected Reserve, repay a loan that--
       ``(1) was used by a person described in subsection (b) to 
     finance education resulting in a Masters of Divinity degree; 
     and
       ``(2) was obtained from an accredited theological seminary 
     as listed in the Association of Theological Schools (ATS) 
     handbook.
       ``(b) Eligible Persons.--(1) Except as provided in 
     paragraph (2), a person described in this subsection is a 
     person who--
       ``(A) satisfies the requirements specified in subsection 
     (c);
       ``(B) holds, or is fully qualified for, an appointment as a 
     chaplain in a reserve component of an armed force; and
       ``(C) signs a written agreement to serve not less than 
     three years in the Selected Reserve.
       ``(2) A person accessioned into the Chaplain Candidate 
     Program is not eligible for the repayment of loans under 
     subsection (a).
       ``(c) Academic and Professional Requirements.--The 
     requirements specified in this subsection are such 
     requirements for accessioning and commissioning of chaplains 
     as are prescribed by the Secretary concerned in regulations.
       ``(d) Loan Repayment.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the 
     repayment of a loan under this section may consist of payment 
     of the principal, interest, and related expenses of such 
     loan.
       ``(2) The amount of any repayment of a loan made under this 
     section on behalf of a person may not exceed $20,000 for each 
     three year period of obligated service that the person agrees 
     to serve in an agreement described in subsection (b)(3). Of 
     such amount, not more than an amount equal to 50 percent of 
     such amount may be paid before the completion by the person 
     of the first year of obligated service pursuant to such 
     agreement. The balance of such amount shall be payable at 
     such time or times as are prescribed by the Secretary 
     concerned in regulations.
       ``(e) Effect of Failure To Complete Obligation.--A person 
     on behalf of whom repayment of a loan is made under this 
     section who fails, during the period of obligated service the 
     person agrees to serve in an agreement described in 
     subsection (b)(3), to serve satisfactorily in the Selected 
     Reserve may, at the election of the Secretary concerned, be 
     required to pay the United States an amount equal to any 
     amount of repayments made on behalf of the person in 
     connection with the agreement.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 1609 of such title is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new item:

``16303. Education loan repayment program: chaplains serving in the 
              Selected Reserve.''.


                           amendment no. 2495

 (Purpose: To modify and improve the National Call to Service program)

       At the end of subtitle F of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 573. NATIONAL CALL TO SERVICE PROGRAM.

       (a) Limitation to Domestic National Service Programs.--
     Subsection (c)(3)(D) of section 510 of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``in the Peace Corps, 
     Americorps, or another national service program'' and 
     inserting ``in Americorps or another domestic national 
     service program''.
       (b) Administration of Education Incentives by Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs.--Paragraph (2) of subsection (h) of such 
     section is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2)(A) Educational assistance under paragraphs (3) or (4) 
     of subsection (e) shall be provided through the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs under an agreement to be entered into by the 
     Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 
     The agreements shall include administrative procedures to 
     ensure the prompt and timely transfer of funds from the 
     Secretary concerned to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for 
     the making of payments under this section.
       ``(B) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the 
     provisions of sections 503, 511, 3470, 3471, 3474, 3476, 
     3482(g), 3483, and 3485 of title 38 and the provisions of 
     subchapters I and II of chapter 36 of such title (with the 
     exception of sections 3686(a), 3687, and 3692) shall be 
     applicable to the provision of educational assistance under 
     this chapter. The term `eligible veteran' and the term 
     `person', as used in those provisions, shall be deemed for 
     the purpose of the application of those provisions to this 
     section to refer to a person eligible for educational 
     assistance under paragraph (3) or (4) of subsection (e).''.


                           amendment no. 2496

(Purpose: To provide for the policy of the Department of Defense on the 
 recruitment and enlistment of home schooled individuals in the Armed 
                                Forces)

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

     SEC. 522. RECRUITMENT AND ENLISTMENT OF HOME SCHOOLED 
                   STUDENTS IN THE ARMED FORCES.

       (a) Policy on Recruitment and Enlistment.--
       (1) Policy required.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     prescribe a policy on the recruitment and enlistment of home 
     schooled students in the Armed Forces.
       (2) Uniformity across the armed forces.--The Secretary 
     shall ensure that the policy prescribed under paragraph (1) 
     applies, to the extent practicable, uniformly across the 
     Armed Forces.
       (b) Elements.--The policy under subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) An identification of a graduate of home schooling for 
     purposes of recruitment and enlistment in the Armed Forces 
     that is in accordance with the requirements described in 
     subsection (c).
       (2) Provision for the treatment of graduates of home 
     schooling with no practical limit with regard to enlistment 
     eligibility.
       (3) An exemption of graduates of home schooling from the 
     requirement for a secondary school diploma or an equivalent 
     (GED) as a precondition for enlistment in the Armed Forces.
       (c) Home School Graduates.--In prescribing the policy, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall prescribe a single set of criteria 
     to be utilized by the Armed Forces in determining whether an 
     individual is a graduate of home schooling. The Secretary 
     concerned shall ensure compliance with education credential 
     coding requirements.
       (d) Secretary Concerned Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``Secretary concerned'' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 101(a)(9) of title 10, United States Code.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2497

 (Purpose: To make available, with an offset, $10,000,000 for Project 
                                Sheriff)

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

     SEC. 213. PROJECT SHERIFF.

       (a) Availability of Amount.--Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 201(4) for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation for Defense-wide activities, the amount 
     available for the Force Transformation Directorate may be 
     increased by $10,000,000, with the amount of the increase to 
     be available for Project Sheriff.
       (b) Offset.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 301(4) is hereby reduced by $10,000,000.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2498

 (Purpose: To make available, with an offset, an additional $5,000,000 
   for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, for Medium 
                    Tactical Vehicle Modifications)

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

     SEC. 213. MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE MODIFICATIONS.

       (a) Additional Amount for Research, Development, Test, and 
     Evaluation, Army.--The amount authorized to be appropriated 
     by section 201(1) for Research, Development, Test, and 
     Evaluation for the Army, is hereby increased by $5,000,000.
       (b) Availability of Amount.--Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 201(1) for Research, Development, 
     Test, and Evaluation for the Army, as increased by subsection 
     (a), $5,000,000 may be available for Medium Tactical Vehicle 
     Modifications.
       (c) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 301(4) for Operation and Maintenance for the Air 
     Force is hereby reduced by $5,000,000.


                AMENDMENT NO. 2499 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1396

               (Purpose: To make a technical correction)

     On page 2, line 16, strike ``$3,008,982,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,108,982,000''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2500

  (Purpose: To extend by one year the date of the final report of the 
advisory panel on laws and regulations on acquisition practices and to 
                       require an interim report)

       At the end of subtitle E of title VIII, add the following:

     SEC. 846. REPORTS OF ADVISORY PANEL ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS 
                   ON ACQUISITION PRACTICES.

       (a) Extension of Final Report.--Section 1423(d) of the 
     Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (title XIV of Public 
     Law 108-136; 117 Stat. 1669; 41 U.S.C. 405 note) is amended 
     by striking ``one year'' and inserting ``two years''.
       (b) Requirement for Interim Report.--That section is 
     further amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Not later than''; and

[[Page S12594]]

       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Not later than one year after the date of the 
     establishment of the panel, the panel shall submit to the 
     official and committees referred to in paragraph (1) an 
     interim report on the matters set forth in that paragraph.''.


                           Amendment No. 2501

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       (a) Findings.--
       (1) According to the Department of State, drug trafficking 
     organizations shipped approximately nine tons of cocaine to 
     the United States through the Dominican Republic in 2004, and 
     are increasingly using small, high-speed watercraft.
       (2) Drug traffickers use the Caribbean corridor to smuggle 
     narcotics to the United States via Puerto Rico and the 
     Dominican Republic. This route is ideal for drug trafficking 
     because of its geographic expanse, numerous law enforcement 
     jurisdictions and fragmented investigative efforts.
       (3) The tethered aerostat system in Lajas, Puerto Rico 
     contributes to deterring and detecting smugglers moving 
     illicit drugs into Puerto Rico. The aerostat's range and 
     operational capabilities allow it to provide surveillance 
     coverage of the eastern Caribbean corridor and the strategic 
     waterway between Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic, 
     known as the Mona Passage.
       (4) Including maritime radar on the Lajas aerostat will 
     expand its ability to detect suspicious vessels in the 
     eastern Caribbean corridor.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--Given the above findings, it is 
     the Sense of the Senate that--
       (1) Congress and the Department of Defense fully fund the 
     Counter-Drug Tethered Aerostat program.
       (2) Department of Defense install maritime radar on the 
     Lajas, Puerto Rico aerostat.


                           amendment no. 2502

    (Purpose: To modify the designation of facilities and resources 
          constituting the Major Range and Test Facility Base)

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

     SEC. 244. DESIGNATION OF FACILITIES AND RESOURCES 
                   CONSTITUTING THE MAJOR RANGE AND TEST FACILITY 
                   BASE.

       (a) Department of Defense Test Resource Management 
     Center.--Section 196(h) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``Director of Operational Test and 
     Evaluation'' and inserting ``Secretary of Defense''.
       (b) Institutional Funding of Test and Evaluation 
     Activities.--Section 232(b)(1) of the Bob Stump National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 
     107-314; 116 Stat. 2490) is amended by striking ``Director of 
     Operational Test and Evaluation'' and inserting ``Secretary 
     of Defense''.


                           amendment no. 2503

  (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Energy to purchase certain 
essential mineral rights and resolve natural resource damage liability 
                                claims)

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

     SEC. 3114. ROCKY FLATS ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY SITE.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Essential mineral right.--The term ``essential mineral 
     right'' means a right to mine sand and gravel at Rocky Flats, 
     as depicted on the map.
       (2) Fair market value.--The term ``fair market value'' 
     means the value of an essential mineral right, as determined 
     by an appraisal performed by an independent, certified 
     mineral appraiser under the Uniform Standards of Professional 
     Appraisal Practice.
       (3) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``Rocky 
     Flats National Wildlife Refuge'', dated July 25, 2005, and 
     available for inspection in appropriate offices of the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of 
     Energy.
       (4) Natural resource damage liability claim.--The term 
     ``natural resource damage liability claim'' means a natural 
     resource damage liability claim under subsections (a)(4)(C) 
     and (f) of section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9607) arising from hazardous substances releases at or from 
     Rocky Flats that, as of the date of enactment of this Act, 
     are identified in the administrative record for Rocky Flats 
     required by the National Oil and Hazardous Substances 
     Pollution Contingency Plan prepared under section 105 of that 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 9605).
       (5) Rocky flats.--The term ``Rocky Flats'' means the 
     Department of Energy facility in the State of Colorado known 
     as the ``Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site''.
       (6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Energy.
       (7) Trustees.--The term ``Trustees'' means the Federal and 
     State officials designated as trustees under section 
     107(f)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9607(f)(2)).
       (b) Purchase of Essential Mineral Rights.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, such amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated under subsection (c) shall be available to the 
     Secretary to purchase essential mineral rights at Rocky 
     Flats.
       (2) Conditions.--The Secretary shall not purchase an 
     essential mineral right under paragraph (1) unless--
       (A) the owner of the essential mineral right is a willing 
     seller; and
       (B) the Secretary purchases the essential mineral right for 
     an amount that does not exceed fair market value.
       (3) Limitation.--Only those funds authorized to be 
     appropriated under subsection (c) shall be available for the 
     Secretary to purchase essential mineral rights under 
     paragraph (1).
       (4) Release from liability.--Notwithstanding any other law, 
     any natural resource damage liability claim shall be 
     considered to be satisfied by--
       (A) the purchase by the Secretary of essential mineral 
     rights under paragraph (1) for consideration in an amount 
     equal to $10,000,000;
       (B) the payment by the Secretary to the Trustees of 
     $10,000,000; or
       (C) the purchase by the Secretary of any portion of the 
     mineral rights under paragraph (1) for--
       (i) consideration in an amount less than $10,000,000; and
       (ii) a payment by the Secretary to the Trustees of an 
     amount equal to the difference between--

       (I) $10,000,000; and
       (II) the amount paid under clause (i).

       (5) Use of funds.--
       (A) In general.--Any amounts received under paragraph (4) 
     shall be used by the Trustees for the purposes described in 
     section 107(f)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9607(f)(1)), including--
       (i) the purchase of additional mineral rights at Rocky 
     Flats; and
       (ii) the development of habitat restoration projects at 
     Rocky Flats.
       (B) Condition.--Any expenditure of funds under this 
     paragraph shall be made jointly by the Trustees.
       (C) Additional funds.--The Trustees may use the funds 
     received under paragraph (4) in conjunction with other 
     private and public funds.
       (6) Exemption from national environmental policy act.--Any 
     purchases of mineral rights under this subsection shall be 
     exempt from the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       (7) Rocky flats national wildlife refuge.--
       (A) Transfer of management responsibilities.--The Rocky 
     Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001 (16 U.S.C. 668dd 
     note; Public Law 107-107) is amended--
       (i) in section 3175--

       (I) by striking subsections (b) and (f); and
       (II) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), and (e) as 
     subsections (b), (c), and (d), respectively; and

       (ii) in section 3176(a)(1), by striking ``section 3175(d)'' 
     and inserting ``section 3175(c)''.
       (B) Boundaries.--Section 3177 of the Rocky Flats National 
     Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001 (16 U.S.C. 668dd note; Public Law 
     107-107) is amended by striking subsection (c) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(c) Composition.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     refuge shall consist of land within the boundaries of Rocky 
     Flats, as depicted on the map--
       ``(A) entitled `Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge';
       ``(B) dated July 25, 2005; and
       ``(C) available for inspection in the appropriate offices 
     of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the 
     Department of Energy.
       ``(2) Exclusions.--The refuge does not include--
       ``(A) any land retained by the Department of Energy for 
     response actions under section 3175(c);
       ``(B) any land depicted on the map described in paragraph 
     (1) that is subject to 1 or more essential mineral rights 
     described in section 3114(a) of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 over which the 
     Secretary shall retain jurisdiction of the surface estate 
     until the essential mineral rights--
       ``(i) are purchased under subsection (b) of that Act; or
       ``(ii) are mined and reclaimed by the mineral rights 
     holders in accordance with requirements established by the 
     State of Colorado; and
       ``(C) the land depicted on the map described in paragraph 
     (1) on which essential mineral rights are being actively 
     mined as of the date of enactment of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 until--
       ``(i) the essential mineral rights are purchased; or
       ``(ii) the surface estate is reclaimed by the mineral 
     rights holder in accordance with requirements established by 
     the State of Colorado.
       ``(3) Acquisition of additional land.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraph (2), upon the purchase of the mineral rights or 
     reclamation of the land depicted on the map described in 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) transfer the land to the Secretary of the Interior 
     for inclusion in the refuge; and
       ``(B) the Secretary of the Interior shall--
       ``(i) accept the transfer of the land; and
       ``(ii) manage the land as part of the refuge.''.
       (c) Funding.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Secretary for the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology 
     Site

[[Page S12595]]

     for fiscal year 2006, $10,000,000 may be made available to 
     the Secretary for the purposes described in subsection (b).


                           amendment no. 2504

 (Purpose: To authorize, with an offset, an additional $4,000,000 for 
research, development, test, and evaluation for the Air Force for Aging 
                    Military Aircraft Fleet Support)

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

     SEC. 213. AGING MILITARY AIRCRAFT FLEET SUPPORT.

       (a) Additional Amount for Research, Development, Test, and 
     Evaluation for the Air Force.--The amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 201(3) for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation for the Air Force is hereby increased by 
     $4,000,000.
       (b) Availability of Amount.--Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 201(3) for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation for the Air Force, as increased by 
     subsection (a), $4,000,000 may be available for Program 
     Element #63112F for Aging Military Aircraft Fleet Support.
       (c) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 301(4) for operation and maintenance for Air Force 
     activities is hereby reduced by $4,000,000.


                           amendment no. 2505

 (Purpose: To make United States nationals eligible for appointment to 
              the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps)

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

     SEC. 537. ELIGIBILITY OF UNITED STATES NATIONALS FOR 
                   APPOINTMENT TO THE SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS' 
                   TRAINING CORPS.

       (a) In General.--Section 2107(b)(1) of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting ``or national'' after 
     ``citizen''.
       (b) Army Reserve Officers Training Programs.--Section 
     2107a(b)(1) of such title is amended by inserting ``or 
     national'' after ``citizen''.
       (c) Eligibility for Appointment as Commissioned Officers.--
     Section 532(f) of such title is amended by inserting ``, or 
     for a United States national otherwise eligible for 
     appointment as a cadet or midshipman under section 2107(a) of 
     this title or as a cadet under section 2107a of this title,'' 
     after ``for permanent residence''.


                           amendment no. 2506

(Purpose: To require a report on cooperation between the Department of 
   Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on 
        research, development, test, and evaluation activities)

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

     SEC. 244. REPORT ON COOPERATION BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF 
                   DEFENSE AND THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE 
                   ADMINISTRATION ON RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, 
                   AND EVALUATION ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense 
     and the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration shall jointly submit to Congress a report 
     setting forth the recommendations of the Secretary and the 
     Administrator regarding cooperative activities between the 
     Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration related to research, development, test, and 
     evaluation on areas of mutual interest to the Department and 
     the Administration.
       (b) Areas Covered.--The areas of mutual interest to the 
     Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration referred to in subsection (a) may include, but 
     not be limited to, areas relating to the following:
       (1) Aeronautics research.
       (2) Facilities, personnel, and support infrastructure.
       (3) Propulsion and power technologies.
       (4) Space access and operations.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that time until 
11:30 a.m. tomorrow be equally divided in the usual form, and that at 
11:30 the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Dorgan amendment 
No. 2476, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Talent amendment 
No. 2477, with no second degrees in order to those amendments prior to 
the votes; further, that there be 3 minutes equally divided between the 
votes.
  Mr. LEVIN. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote to approve the 
fiscal year 2006 Defense authorization bill. The passage of this 
legislation is important to all Americans who are now serving in the 
U.S. Armed Forces, but especially to those who are serving in harm's 
way.
  Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan require all the support that our 
Nation can give them until the day that they can return to their homes. 
Our military prides itself in being the most capable and the best 
trained fighting force in the entire world. The Constitution places in 
Congress the responsibility to ``raise and support armies'' and to 
``provide and maintain a navy.'' It is therefore of the greatest 
importance that Congress provide our troops with the equipment that 
they need for their dangerous missions.
  The wars that continue in Iraq and Afghanistan are unlike the 
conflicts that the United States has fought in the past two decades. In 
the first Persian Gulf War or Kosovo, our military depended on high-
tech aircraft and smart bombs to quickly overwhelm our enemies. Today, 
in Iraq, our awesome airpower is of limited use. The wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan are, by and large, the wars of the soldier and the marine. 
These are the wars of the foot soldier, carried out in the hostile 
streets of foreign cities. These troops do not enjoy the near-
invulnerability of stealth aircraft or cruise missiles. Our troops do 
not see the enemy as a blip on a radar screen, because often the enemy 
is seen eye to eye.
  With this being the reality of urban warfare, there must be a new 
focus on providing our ground troops with the equipment that they need 
to fight and survive in the urban combat environment. The Defense 
authorization bill reported by the Armed Services Committee makes steps 
in this direction. It authorizes $1.4 billion in spending to protect 
our troops serving overseas. This figure includes $500 million to 
detect and destroy roadside bombs, $344 million for up-armored HMMWVs, 
and $118 million for body armor.
  But more must be done to provide our troops with the next generation 
of weapons that will help our troops prevail in ground combat. More 
needs to be done to apply the technology that allows our military to 
dominate the air and the seas to build a new generation of weapons that 
will allow our troops to dominate the ground. One such technology that 
deserves investigation is the SPIKE missile system currently being 
developed by the Navy. The SPIKE missile is designed to be a low-cost, 
lightweight, precision-guided rocket that would allow our troops to 
accurately engage enemies at great range. If this technology is 
successful, it could provide our ground troops with the same sort of 
revolutionary advantage that precision-guided munitions provided to our 
advanced aircraft a decade ago.
  There are also emerging opportunities for the use of unmanned aerial 
vehicles to support the warfighter on the ground. While important UAVs 
like Global Hawk provide intelligence about what is going on in large 
sections of a country, our ground troops often need to know what is 
happening on the other side of a hill. Smaller UAVs can provide our 
troops with a decisive advantage in urban environments. Important 
projects like SWARM, being developed by Augusta Systems in Morgantown, 
are exploring ways to allow small UAVs to work together to seek out our 
enemies on the battlefield, eliminating the chance that our troops 
could be taken by surprise. The next step is to use small UAVs as ways 
to strike first, before our ground troops come into the range of our 
enemy's weapons. Our military is only beginning to tap the growing 
potential of UAV technology to support our troops on the ground.
  The Department of Defense is currently engaged in the Quadrennial 
Defense Review, a top-to-bottom study of our military strategy, 
posture, and equipment that will guide this Nation's defense research 
and development and procurement policies for the next 4 years. With 
this review underway, it is an ideal opportunity to place a new 
emphasis on bringing cutting-edge technology to our troops on the 
ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. I urge the Secretary of Defense, the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the other Pentagon officials 
who are carrying out this study to broaden their view of what our 
troops require.
  The QDR should propose new technologies to protect our troops from 
the threats that they face in combat, and it should also accelerate the 
development of new weapons systems that allow our soldiers to dominate 
the battlefield in urban environments. The Department of Defense should 
place these efforts on the top of its priorities: we should not wait 
for the next war to give our troops the advantage of new, high-tech 
weapons. Instead, the Pentagon and Congress should make every effort to 
arm our troops with the next generation of technology, today. For so 
long as our troops are serving in

[[Page S12596]]

harm's way, we must give them not only the armor and protection, but 
also the weapons, that they need to ensure that they will come home 
safely.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, last night the Senate passed an 
amendment that I offered to this bill that represents another step 
toward enhancing and strengthening transition services that are 
provided to our military personnel and builds upon an amendment that I 
offered to this bill last year. I want to thank the chairman and the 
ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for working with me to 
accept this amendment.
  As the Senate conducts its business today, thousands of our brave men 
and women in uniform are in harm's way in Iraq, Afghanistan, and 
elsewhere around the globe. These men and women serve with distinction 
and honor, and we owe them our heartfelt gratitude.
  We also owe them our best effort to ensure that they receive the 
benefits to which their service in our Armed Forces has entitled them. 
I have heard time and again from military personnel and veterans who 
are frustrated with the system by which they apply for benefits or 
appeal claims for benefits. I have long been concerned that tens of 
thousands of our veterans are unaware of Federal health care and other 
benefits for which they may be eligible, and I have undertaken numerous 
legislative and oversight efforts to ensure that the Department of 
Veterans Affairs makes outreach to our veterans and their families a 
priority.
  While we should do more to support our veterans, we must also ensure 
that the men and women who are currently serving in our Armed Forces 
receive adequate pay and benefits, as well as services that help them 
to make the transition from active duty to civilian life. I am 
concerned that we are not doing enough to support our men and women in 
uniform as they prepare to retire or otherwise separate from the 
service or, in the case of members of our National Guard and Reserve, 
to demobilize from active-duty assignments and return to their civilian 
lives while staying in the military or preparing to separate from the 
military. We must ensure that their service and sacrifice, which is 
much lauded during times of conflict, is not forgotten once the battles 
have ended and our troops have come home.
  Earlier this year I introduced legislation, the Veterans Enhanced 
Transition Services Act, VETS Act, which would help to ensure that all 
military personnel have access to the same transition services as they 
prepare to leave the military to reenter civilian life, or, in the case 
of members of the National Guard and Reserve, as they prepare to 
demobilize from active-duty assignments and return to their civilian 
lives and jobs or education while remaining in the military.
  I have heard from a number of Wisconsinites and members of military 
and veterans service organizations that our men and women in uniform do 
not all have access to the same transition counseling and medical 
services as they are demobilizing from service in Iraq, Afghanistan, 
and elsewhere. I have long been concerned about reports of uneven 
provision of services from base to base and from service to service. 
All of our men and women in uniform have pledged to serve our country, 
and all of them, at the very least, deserve to have access to the same 
services in return.
  I am pleased that the VETS Act is supported by a wide range of groups 
that are dedicated to serving our men and women in uniform and veterans 
and their families. These groups include: the American Legion; the 
Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States; the 
National Coalition for Homeless Veterans; the Paralyzed Veterans of 
America; the Reserve Officers Association; the Veterans of Foreign 
Wars; the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs; the Wisconsin 
National Guard; the American Legion, Department of Wisconsin; Disabled 
American Veterans, Department of Wisconsin; the Wisconsin Paralyzed 
Veterans of America; the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Department of 
Wisconsin; and the Wisconsin State Council, Vietnam Veterans of 
America.
  I introduced similar legislation during the 108th Congress, and I am 
pleased that a provision that I authored which was based on that bill 
was enacted as part of the fiscal year 2005 Defense authorization bill.
  In response to concerns I have heard from a number of my 
constituents, my amendment, in part, directed the Secretaries of 
Defense and Labor to jointly explore ways in which DoD training and 
certification standards could be coordinated with Government and 
private sector training and certification standards for corresponding 
civilian occupations. The Secretaries of Defense and Labor submitted 
their report, ``Study on Coordination of Job Training Standards with 
Certification Standards for Military Occupational Specialties,'' in 
September of this year. It is my hope that this report will serve as a 
useful tool as the Departments seek to help military personnel who wish 
to pursue civilian employment related to their military specialties to 
make the transition from the military to comparable civilian jobs.
  In addition, this amendment required the Government Accountability 
Office, GAO, to undertake a comprehensive analysis of existing 
transition services for our military personnel that are administered by 
the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Labor, and to make 
recommendations to Congress on how these programs can be improved. My 
amendment required GAO to focus on two issues: how to achieve the 
uniform provision of appropriate transition services to all military 
personnel, and the role of post-deployment and predischarge health 
assessments as part of the larger transition program. GAO released its 
study ``Military and Veterans' Benefits: Enhanced Services Could 
Improve Transition Assistance for Reserves and National Guard'' in May 
2005, and it plans to release its study on health assessments in the 
near future.
  In July of this year, GAO provided testimony on its transition 
services report to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs Subcommittee 
on Economic Opportunity. That hearing could not have been more timely. 
We owe it to our men and women in uniform to improve transition 
programs now as we continue to welcome home thousands of military 
personnel who are serving our country in Iraq, Afghanistan, and 
elsewhere. I commend the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and 
Labor for the steps they have taken thus far to improve these important 
programs. We should not miss an opportunity to help the men and women 
who are currently serving our country, and I am pleased that the 
chairman and the ranking member agreed to accept a number of provisions 
from my legislation as an amendment to the fiscal year 2006 Defense 
authorization bill.
  Under current law, the Department of Defense, together with the 
Departments of Veterans Affairs, VA, and Labor, provide preseparation 
counseling for military personnel who are preparing to leave the Armed 
Forces through the Transition Assistance Program/Disabled Transition 
Assistance Program, TAP/DTAP. This counseling provides servicemembers 
with valuable information about benefits that they have earned through 
their service to our country such as education benefits through the GI 
Bill and health care and other benefits through the VA. Personnel also 
learn about programs such as Troops to Teachers and have access to 
employment assistance for themselves and, where appropriate, their 
spouses.
  My amendment would ensure that National Guard and Reserve personnel 
who are on active duty for at least 180 days are able to participate in 
this important counseling prior to being demobilized. In its recent 
report on transition services, GAO found that ``[d]uring their rapid 
demobilization, the Reserve and National Guard members may not receive 
all the information on possible benefits to which they are entitled. 
Notably, certain education benefits and medical coverage require 
servicemembers to apply while they are still on active duty. However, 
even after being briefed, some Reserve and National Guard members were 
not aware of the timeframes within which the needed to act to secure 
certain benefits before returning home. In addition, most members of 
the Reserves and National Guard did not have the opportunity to attend 
an employment workshop during demobilization.''

  In response to these findings, GAO recommended that ``DoD, in 
conjunction with DoL and the VA, determine

[[Page S12597]]

what demobilizing Reserve and National Guard members need to make a 
smooth transition and explore options to enhance their participation in 
TAP.'' GAO also recommended that ``VA take steps to determine the level 
of participation in DTAP to ensure those who may have especially 
complex needs are being served.''
  In addition to ensuring that all discharging and demobilizing 
military personnel are able to participate in TAP/DTAP, we should take 
steps to improve the uniformity of services provided to personnel by 
ensuring that consistent transition briefings occur across the services 
and at all demobilization/discharge locations. In its report, GAO noted 
that ``[t]he delivery of TAP may vary in terms of the amount of 
personal attention participants receive, the length of the components, 
and the instructional methods used.'' We should make every effort to 
ensure that those who have put themselves in harm's way on our behalf 
have access to the same transition services no matter their discharge/
demobilization location or the branch of the Armed Forces in which they 
serve. I look forward to reviewing the Department's progress on GAO's 
recommendations in this area.
  In order to improve the breadth of information provided to Members 
during TAP/DTAP, my amendment would require preseparation counseling 
programs to include the provision of information regarding 
certification and licensing requirements in civilian occupations and 
information on identifying military occupations that have civilian 
counterparts, information concerning veterans small business ownership 
and entrepreneurship programs offered by the Federal Government, 
information concerning employment and reemployment rights and veterans 
preference in Federal employment and Federal procurement opportunities, 
information concerning housing counseling assistance, and a description 
of the health care and other benefits to which the member may be 
entitled through the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  In addition to the uneven provision of transition services, I have 
long been concerned about the immediate and long-term health effects 
that military deployments have on our men and women in uniform. I 
regret that, too often, the burden of responsibility for proving that a 
condition is related to military service falls on the personnel 
themselves. Our men and women in uniform deserve the benefit of the 
doubt, and should not have to fight the Department of Defense or the VA 
for benefits that they have earned through their service to our Nation.
  Since coming to the Senate in 1993, I have worked to focus attention 
on the health effects that are being experienced by military personnel 
who served in the Persian Gulf war. More than 10 years after the end of 
the gulf war, we still don't know why so many veterans of that conflict 
are experiencing medical problems that have become known as gulf war 
illness. Military personnel who are currently deployed to the Persian 
Gulf region face many of the same conditions that existed in the early 
1990s. I have repeatedly pressed the Departments of Defense and 
Veterans Affairs to work to unlock the mystery of this illness and to 
study the role that exposure to depleted uranium may play in this 
condition. We owe it to these personnel to find these answers, and to 
ensure that those who are currently serving in the Persian Gulf region 
are adequately protected from the many possible causes of gulf war 
illness.
  Part of the process of protecting the health of our men and women in 
uniform is to ensure that the Department of Defense carries out its 
responsibility to provide post-deployment physicals for military 
personnel. I am deeply concerned about stories of personnel who are 
experiencing long delays as they wait for their post-deployment 
physicals and who end up choosing not to have these important physicals 
in order to get home to their families that much sooner. I am equally 
concerned about reports that some personnel who did not receive such a 
physical--either by their own choice or because such a physical was not 
available--are now having trouble as they apply for benefits for a 
service-connected condition.
  I firmly believe, as do the military and veterans groups that support 
my bill, that our men and women in uniform are entitled to a prompt, 
high quality physical examination as part of the demobilization 
process. These individuals have voluntarily put themselves into harm's 
way for our benefit. We should ensure that the Department of Defense 
makes every effort to determine whether they have experienced, or could 
experience, any health effects as a result of their service. Thus I am 
pleased that the fiscal year 2005 defense authorization bill included a 
provision to tighten the requirement for a predischarge/post-
demobilization health assessment.
  It is vitally important that these assessments include a mental 
health component. Our men and women in uniform serve in difficult 
circumstances far from home, and too many of them witness or experience 
violence and horrific situations that most of us cannot even begin to 
imagine. I have heard concerns that these brave men and women, many of 
whom are just out of high school or college when they sign up, may 
suffer long-term physical and mental fallout from their experiences and 
may feel reluctant to seek counseling or other assistance to deal with 
their experiences.
  Some Wisconsinites have told me that they are concerned that the 
multiple deployments of our National Guard and Reserve could lead to 
chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, which could have its 
roots in an experience from a previous deployment and which could come 
to the surface by a triggering event that is experienced on a current 
deployment. The same is true for full-time military personnel who have 
served in a variety of places over their careers. I am pleased that the 
Senate has already accepted an amendment offered by the Senator from 
Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, that will require that personnel receive 
mental health screenings prior to deployment into a combat zone, not 
later than 30 days after return from such a deployment, and not later 
than 120 days after return from such a deployment.
  We can and should do more to ensure that the mental health of our men 
and women in uniform is a top priority, and that the stigma that is too 
often attached to seeking assistance is ended. One step in this process 
is to ensure that personnel who have symptoms of PTSD and related 
illnesses have access to appropriate clinical services, through DoD, 
the VA, or a private sector health care provider. To that end, my 
amendment would require that the health care professionals who are 
assessing demobilizing military personnel provide all personnel who may 
need followup care for a physical or psychological condition with 
information on appropriate resources through DoD or the VA and in the 
private sector that these personnel may use to access additional 
followup care if they so choose.
  I commend the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs for 
issuing in March 2005 a memorandum to the Assistant Secretaries for the 
Army, Navy, and Air Force directing them to extend the Pentagon's 
current post-deployment health assessment process to include a 
reassessment of ``global health with a specific emphasis on mental 
health'' to occur 3 to 6 months post-deployment. At a hearing of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee's Personnel Subcommittee earlier this 
year, the Assistant Secretary stated that the services were in the 
process of implementing a program that would include a ``screening 
procedure with a questionnaire and a face-to-face interaction at about 
three months'' post-deployment. He also noted that the idea for this 
program came from ``front line people'' and that he ``asked them . . . 
`do you think we should make it mandatory?' and the answer was: yes.'' 
This sentiment makes it even more important that the initial post-
deployment mental health assessment be strengthened and that it be 
mandatory as well so that health care professionals have a benchmark 
against which to measure the results of the followup screening process. 
I am pleased that the Pentagon has undertaken this effort, and I 
believe that the provisions in Senator Landrieu's amendment and in my 
amendment will further enhance this process and help to ensure that we 
are properly caring for the mental health of our men and women in 
uniform.
  In addition, in order to ensure that all military personnel who are 
eligible

[[Page S12598]]

for medical benefits from the VA learn about and receive these 
benefits, my amendment would require that, as part of the 
demobilization process, assistance be provided to eligible members to 
enroll in the VA health care system.
  Finally, my amendment will require the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Secretaries of Labor and Veterans Affairs, to 
report to Congress on the actions taken by those Departments to ensure 
that the Transition Assistance Program is functioning effectively to 
provide members with timely and comprehensive transition assistance. As 
part of the report, the Secretary will be required to include a review 
of transition assistance that has been/is being provided to members 
deployed as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring 
Freedom, in support of other contingency operations, and members of the 
National Guard who were activated in support of relief efforts 
following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I look forward to reviewing this 
report.
  Again, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their 
assistance on this important issue.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to bring my colleagues' 
attention to a provision in sections 231-235 in the Defense 
authorization bill titled ``High Performance Defense Manufacturing 
Technology Research and Development.''
  I introduced this legislation with my colleague Senator Collins to 
address erosion in our defense manufacturing base that threatens our 
national security and ultimately our economy overall. We are running 
major deficits with China in defense critical manufacturing areas, such 
as computer hardware--$25 billion--and electronics machinery and 
parts--$23 billion--as U.S. production drifts offshore. We are 
transferring major portions of our circuit board, semiconductor, 
machine tool, and weapon system metal casting manufacturing to China 
and other nations because of lower wage and lower production costs. 
Without productivity breakthroughs, the U.S. defense manufacturing base 
will continue to erode.
  In the high-tech sector, manufacturing needs and research and 
development needs are highly correlated. As a result, research and 
development, R&D, centers are often located near manufacturing 
facilities. If we continue to lose the manufacturing base, we may well 
lose over time critical research and development capabilities and 
damage our ability to innovate. And if we hurt both of those we may 
also lose our military technical leadership. This ultimately puts our 
warfighters in harms way. Clearly, the Department of Defense (DOD) has 
a huge stake in rebuilding the defense manufacturing base.
  The DOD needs advanced manufacturing technologies and processes to 
achieve productivity breakthroughs to drive down costs in mature 
defense supply sectors. But it also needs advanced manufacturing 
techniques to spark the next generation of advances in defense related 
technologies; technologies that our warfighters deserve. This 
legislation proposes four basic things.
  One, it calls, in section 231, for a R&D effort focused on developing 
new advanced manufacturing technology and information technology, IT, 
operating models. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics, acting through the Director of Defense 
Research and Engineering and with other appropriate defense programs 
and agencies such as the Manufacturing Technology Program, the Defense 
Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA, and other defense research 
activities, is to undertake research and development to develop 
critical manufacturing productivity breakthrough approaches and the 
technologies and systems to support them--section 231(b)(1). These 
could include such breakthrough opportunity areas as distributed and 
desktop manufacturing, quality inspection that is built into the 
production process, small lot manufacturing that is as cost-efficient 
as mass production, use of revolutionary materials and methods of 
fabrication, and the ability to manufacture devices and machines at the 
nanoscale. Productivity breakthroughs will ultimately help reduce 
weapon systems costs and support surge capacity.
  The legislation also directs the Under Secretary of the Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to undertake R&D to develop a 
new model, an extended production enterprise--section 231(b)(2)--using 
IT and new business models, that integrates services, design, and 
manufacturing stages, to achieve major new efficiencies and cost 
savings. Included as part of this research effort, the development of 
the interoperable software for the extended production enterprise, and 
the corresponding interoperability standards behind it should also be a 
focus working with the defense industries to develop the organizational 
model required.
  Two, the legislation directs DOD's Manufacturing Technology Program, 
ManTech, to undertake technology transition including prototyping and 
test beds--section 232(a) and (b)--for new manufacturing processes and 
technologies that emerge from this R&D effort. Collaboration 
established through a memorandum of agreement--section 232(a)(2)--
between DDRE, ManTech, and other appropriate DOD organizations is 
needed to ensure an efficient transition of manufacturing technologies 
from the research stage described above to ManTech, which will 
undertake the development of prototypes and testbeds--section 232(b). 
ManTech currently is funded at $237 million for fiscal year 2005, all 
of which is directly tied to the near term needs of the Services. The 
Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology Panel, which has coordination 
responsibility for manufacturing research in DOD, does not have funding 
independent of the Services to initiate new efforts focusing on longer 
term, higher risk, higher payoff technologies and processes. Thus, the 
programs currently underway at ManTech are short-term focused projects 
addressing immediate needs. ManTech needs to balance the current 
shorter term portfolio by including a focus on longer term, higher risk 
manufacturing processes and technology development that are industry 
game changers and yield big efficiencies and cost savings to DOD.
  Additionally, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics should coordinate activities within ManTech--
section 232(b)(2)--with activities under the Small Business Innovation 
Research Program, SBIR, and the Small Business Technology Transfer 
Program, STTR. Executive Order 13329, entitled ``Encouraging Innovation 
in Manufacturing,'' requires all SBIR/STTR Programs to give priority to 
research programs that help to advance innovation in manufacturing. 
ManTech could benefit significantly from this work currently underway.
  Working with industry, ManTech should develop a new program to 
utilize these new manufacturing improvements and processes in the 
defense manufacturing base--section 232(c). A key way for ManTech to 
achieve this would be by collaboratively developing and issuing a new 
performance threshold--a new benchmark system--to ensure ongoing 
quality and continuous focus on improved and innovative manufacturing 
procedures developed through the R&D and prototyping described above. 
Results from the R&D on manufacturing technologies and processes and on 
the extended production enterprise would be incorporated into the new 
performance threshold which could become a new DOD acquisition 
standard--section 232(c)--for procurement. Similar to the quality 
focused initiative, 6 Sigma, a program aimed to improve process 
reproducibility and reliability by eliminating defects and process 
output variation, this new standard would be disseminated into industry 
where similar efficiencies and productivity gains could be realized. In 
order to encourage full adoption of the new manufacturing improvements 
and processes, including a new performance standard, incentives for 
contractors in the defense manufacturing base to incorporate and 
utilize the manufacturing enhancements should subsequently be developed 
by ManTech--section 232(d)(4).
  Third, it establishes mechanisms to efficiently disseminate 
technological developments to the broader defense manufacturing base--
section 232(d)--including outreach through the Department of Commerce's 
Manufacturing Partnership program, section 232(d)(2), an established 
program proven to be effective in assisting small and mid-sized

[[Page S12599]]

American manufacturers, including numerous defense manufacturers and 
suppliers. It has traditionally focused on providing technical 
assistance in manufacturing operational efficiency and quality and is 
now evaluating additional roles in providing tools and assistance to 
promote innovation. DOD could use this existing mechanism to help it 
reach its defense manufacturing base with these advances.
  The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics should also consider outreach through public-private 
partnerships--section 232(d)(1). Because the prototyping and 
engineering development stages are extremely expensive, collaborative 
facilities and testbeds--section 232(b)(1)--should be established to 
severely reduce the risk, cost, and time of development for new 
technologies important for national defense. These centers should also 
educate and train researchers and employees to help assure smooth 
production process implementation. Such shared facilities, cost shared 
with both large and small participating firms that are world-class 
centers for production development, could potentially solve a key DOD 
problem in technology transition.
  Specifically, in implementing the prototype and testbed provisions, 
section 232(b), the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics can consider establishing one or more pilot 
manufacturing centers in manufacturing fields important to the 
production of advanced defense technologies. These centers can be 
shared production facilities of the Federal Government and the private 
sector that focus on production development including the invention 
prototyping and engineering development stages. For example, the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics could 
permit the participation of State and local governments and could carry 
out a competition to determine the optimal private sector participants 
in any manufacturing center.
  Fourth, the legislation--section 233--directs the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to identify and 
develop a strategy working with industry in a technology area 
beneficial to the military where a technology development roadmap and 
strategy is needed to ensure the manufacturing technologies and 
processes are available to support this breakthrough technology. 
Consideration should be given to next generation technologies such as 
advanced micromanufacturing and nanomanufacturing, other emerging 
process technologies, model based enterprise, intelligent systems, 
enterprise integration and knowledge applications. A task force should 
be established, in cooperation with the private sector, to map a cross-
service strategy for fabrication processes and technologies needed to 
support the roadmaps identified.
  Importantly, this legislation not only would fund the needed research 
in manufacturing technologies and processes but provides the structure 
to bring the technology to utilization, to avoid the problem of leaving 
valuable technology ``on the shelf.'' Additionally, it initiates the 
development of a long-term vision for the Department around 
manufacturing technologies and processes needed for our military.
  I would like to point out that this legislation is based on the 
manufacturing recommendations from the National Innovation Initiative 
report released by the Council on Competitiveness in December, a report 
supported by prominent business, academic, and government leaders.
  Additionally, I received letters from two key manufacturing 
organizations supporting this proposal, the Association for 
Manufacturing Technology, AMT, and National Coalition for Advanced 
Manufacturing, NACFAM, which stress the critical importance of passing 
this legislation.
  And lastly, I would like to reiterate that this legislation is in 
line with the Executive order issued by President Bush to encourage 
innovation in manufacturing in Federal agencies, including through SBIR 
and STTR to assist the private sector, especially small businesses in 
manufacturing innovation efforts.
  This legislation will help move the U.S. defense manufacturing base 
ahead of global competition as well as provide support for new 
technologies that we are at risk of losing. The aim of this legislation 
is a first step in an overall effort needed to preserve our military 
excellence and national security.
  Mr. McCain. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly in favor of a 
provision in the Department of Defense authorization bill that would 
require the Department to study the feasibility of procuring satellite 
capacity through multiyear contracts. I worked with Chairman Warner and 
Ranking Member Levin to address this issue in the underlying bill, and 
while I am pleased that the committee's leadership has accepted the 
provision, I am disappointed that Congress must once again request the 
Department to study this issue.
  Last year, Congress included a provision in the Department of Defense 
authorization bill to require the Department to scrutinize its 
commercial satellite capacity procurement practices and report to 
Congress its findings and recommendations. That study was completed, 
albeit after the statutory deadline and too late for many of the 
recommendations to be implemented in this year's authorization bill. 
The study also failed to specifically review the issue of multiyear 
contracting. Therefore, Congress will be more explicit this year in its 
request and will once again await the Department's findings.
  The study on multiyear contracting is necessary because many in the 
satellite industry and the Government question whether the Department 
of Defense's general policy of procuring leased satellite capacity on a 
year-to-year basis is resulting in the best price for the Government 
and the taxpayers. In contrast to the Government, other entities 
purchasing leased satellite capacity for communications services, such 
as CNN and FOX, negotiate multiyear contracts and are receiving lower 
prices for the same services. The Federal Government, with the 
Department of Defense as the main buyer, is the world's largest 
consumer of leased satellite capacity and, as such, the Government 
should be able to negotiate the lowest price and the most flexible 
terms for leased satellite capacity.
  Last year, the Government Accountability Office studied the 
Department's procurement process for leased satellite capacity and 
found that the Department's procedures were uncoordinated, frustrating 
for military commanders, and overly expensive to U.S. taxpayers. Using 
the results of the GAO study, along with the Department's study 
completed this year and the findings on the multiyear contract issue, I 
hope Congress will finally have the necessary information to consider 
wholesale satellite procurement reforms during next year's 
authorization process.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, when the Senate was considering S. 1042, 
the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006, earlier 
this year, there was rather extensive debate over a $4 million funding 
item called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, RNEP. This item was a 
feasibility study to be conducted by the Department of Energy to 
determine whether an existing nuclear weapon could be modified so that 
it could destroy hardened and deeply buried targets.
  Since the time of our earlier debate on this matter, our colleagues 
on the Appropriations Committee have completed work on the conference 
report for Energy and Water appropriations. The conferees have reached 
agreement on appropriations for the Department of Energy and have 
agreed to eliminate funding for continued research on the Robust 
Nuclear Earth Penetrator at the request of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration.
  In light of this outcome and the elimination of funding, an amendment 
to S. 1042 has been cleared on both sides which will remove the 
authorization for the Department of Energy to continue the feasibility 
study.
  I note for my colleagues, however, that the Senate Armed Services 
Committee received a letter from Gen. James Cartwright, the Commander 
of U.S. Strategic Command, dated November 1,2005, which emphasizes the 
need for continued work on earth penetrating weapons which can be 
either nuclear or conventional. General Cartwright states his support 
for research to validate computer models of the impact physics of 
penetrating warheads into hard surface geologies. What the general is 
essentially saying is: Just

[[Page S12600]]

because the funds have gone away doesn't mean that the problem has gone 
away.
  I think the general's statement is very reasonable. I would hope that 
with the tremendous investment that this Congress directs into defense 
research and development, at some point and in some fashion, we could 
work together to address the military need the general has identified.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, the decisions made by the Base Realignment 
and Closure Commission are final. All around the country communities 
are now forced to deal with the difficult reality of how to approach 
the redevelopment and transfer of a local military facility that is 
being closed. In my State of Wisconsin, the city of Milwaukee is faced 
with the difficult prospect of what to do after the 440th Airlift Wing 
leaves Mitchell Field. The community, the State, and our congressional 
delegation fought long and hard to protect the proud men and women of 
the 440th, but we were not able to convince the Commission that closing 
the 440th would be a mistake.
  Senator Snowe offered an amendment that I believe will make the 
process of transferring and redeveloping base properties easier and 
faster. Senator Snowe proposed to allow the property to go directly to 
a local redevelopment agent and avoid the current complicated and time 
consuming process. A faster process means a quicker return to economic 
vitality, and I support that.
  Senator Snowe also proposed that the local community not have to pay 
for the land the Federal Government is giving up. It is only fitting 
that in these communities that have given so much to our military men 
and women that we give something back. Pulling up stakes and removing 
an important economic engine is bad enough, but to then expect the 
redevelopers to pay for the land as well just adds insult to injury. It 
is unfortunate that this amendment that will make the transition 
process easier for Milwaukee and communities around the country was not 
accepted.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, U.S. competitiveness in the high-tech 
sector of semiconductors, an important enabler in today's world 
providing the basis for nearly all electronic products and systems used 
in both consumer and military applications, is at risk. As we all are 
aware, global competition is on the rise, U.S. basic research 
investment is on the decline, and there is serious concern regarding 
the U.S. science and technology talent base. These issues have long 
been a concern of mine not only for the health of our economy but also 
for maintaining and preserving our national security. I released a 
whitepaper back in June of 2003 titled ``National Security Aspects of 
the Global Migration of the U.S. Semiconductor Industry'' that 
discusses and highlights the importance of addressing the accelerating 
shift in manufacturing overseas. Historically, shifts in manufacturing 
result over time in migration of research and development which, 
unfortunately, means we will be essentially offshoring our innovation 
capacity itself. In the March 21, 2005, edition of Business Week, the 
cover story article titled ``Outsourcing Innovation'' exactly addresses 
this issue. The article discusses how Western corporations began 
offshoring manufacturing in the 1980s and 1990s to increase efficiency 
and to focus on research and development and proceeds to say how ``that 
pledge has now passed.'' Companies such as Dell, Motorola, and Phillips 
are buying designs of digital devices from abroad, slightly altering 
the device, and then branding the product with their name.
  In addition, there is another aspect of the semiconductor industry 
that cannot be overlooked, the limitation of Moore's Law. There will 
soon be physical barriers blocking the continued diminution of 
transistor size, and the financial barriers will become even more 
extraordinary. This situation would inevitably lead to the slowing or 
stopping of chip manufacturer's progress unless we bring nanotechnology 
to fruition in the semiconductor world.
  I think it is pretty clear that it is more important than ever to 
create an environment in the United States which promotes research and 
development and fosters innovation. The Defense Science Board Task 
Force released to the Congress in April 2005 the final report titled 
``High Performance Microchip Supply'' which was in part a response to 
the issues I raised in my 2003 report. The report outlines a series of 
recommendations to help ensure the long-term health of the U.S. 
microchip design, development, and manufacturing industries. The report 
emphasizes the importance of maintaining technical superiority in the 
semiconductor industry in order to lead in the application of 
electronics to support the warfighter. This lead is critical to the 
foundation of the next generation of U.S. security strategy network 
centric warfare superiority. The report specifically stresses the need 
for trusted and assured suppliers of integrated circuit components and 
emphasizes that ``trust cannot be added to integrated circuits after 
fabrication; electrical testing and reverse engineering cannot be 
relied upon to detect undesired alterations in military integrated 
circuits.'' Beyond highlighting the threat of IC device compromise, the 
report also highlights the risk associated with reliance on foreign 
suppliers to access high-performance microelectronics in time of war 
when quick response or surge capacity is needed and additionally, the 
report stresses the longer term risk of losing leading edge R&D in a 
technology area central to our economy. This latter point was a 
particular emphasis of my 2003 report referenced previously and this 
new report agrees.
  The DSB report calls for the Department of Defense's senior officials 
to advocate that a strongly competitive U.S. semiconductor base is not 
only a Department of Defense goal but should also be a national 
priority. Because DSB finds that research and development is closely 
coupled with a solid manufacturing base, and the U.S. semiconductor 
manufacturing base is going abroad, the United States will soon start 
to lose its R&D skill base which is essential for not only U.S. defense 
systems but general economic competitiveness.
  Given the low production volume of Department of Defense 
microelectronics parts, the report also recommends that the Department 
of Defense, working with the semiconductor industry and fabrication 
equipment suppliers, develops a cost-effective technology for the 
design and fabrication of low production volume, leading edge 
technology given the low volume demands of the Department of Defense.
  It states that an overall vision is needed that develops an approach 
to meet Department of Defense needs before a supply source becomes an 
emergency. This requires funding research that will sustain our 
technical superiority; the trusted foundry agreements assist in solving 
the immediate problems, not the longer term. Included in the overall 
vision, a plan is needed specifically for a Department of Defense 
acquisition strategy that encompasses both short- and long-term 
technology, acquisition and manufacturing capabilities to assure an 
ongoing supply of trusted microelectronic components.
  Although U.S. leadership in chip design does not in and of itself 
assure the trustworthiness of the microelectronic parts, it does put 
the Department of Defense in a superior position to potential 
adversaries whose systems rely on U.S. based suppliers. The Department 
of Defense needs to sustain this U.S. leadership by investing in 
research programs and ensuring a domestic supply of scientists and 
engineers who are skilled in this area. New programmable chip 
technology, which has intricate designs and therefore is more difficult 
to validate, is needed and efforts to develop next generation 
technologies in this area should be pursued.
  This DSB report clearly stresses the need for immediate action and 
lists key recommendations to help the Department of Defense develop not 
only a short-term plan to address the immediate needs but, importantly, 
a longer term vision as well. By the end of 2005, there will be 59 300 
mm fabrication plants worldwide with only 16 of these located in the 
United States. The United States cannot wait much longer; we need to 
address the global competitiveness issue today.
  The Department of Defense has been telling us for a year or more to 
wait for the Defense Science Board report. It has now finally arrived 
and an actual Department of Defense ``action plan'' to implement these 
recommendations

[[Page S12601]]

is needed. This is why I along with Senator Cornyn proposed an 
amendment, No. 2446, to the Defense Authorization Act, S. 1042, asking 
the Department of Defense to develop this action plan. I am pleased to 
see this amendment has been adopted unanimously by the Senate.
  The United States historically has lost manufacturing sectors as 
product cycles matured but our innovation system always filled that 
void by creating new sectors, opportunities, jobs and higher standards 
of living. I want to see that trend continue, and this amendment asks 
the Department of Defense to form a sound plan in this technology area.

                          ____________________