[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 151 (Tuesday, November 15, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12777-S12810]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1042, which the clerk will
report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1042) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2006 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed
Forces, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Graham amendment No. 2515, relating to the review of the
status of detainees of the United States Government.
Warner/Frist amendment No. 2518, to clarify and recommend
changes to the policy of the United States on Iraq and to
require reports on certain matters relating to Iraq.
Levin amendment No. 2519, to clarify and recommend changes
to the policy of the United States on Iraq and to require
reports on certain matters relating to Iraq.
Bingaman amendment No. 2523 (to amendment No. 2515), to
provide for judicial review of detention of enemy combatants.
Graham amendment No. 2524 (to amendment No. 2515), in the
nature of a substitute.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There will be 30 minutes for debate
equally divided between the bill's managers.
The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first, I advise the Senate that last night
for a period of 2 hours we had a very thorough debate on amendments of
my distinguished colleague from Michigan and amendments that I put in
with our distinguished leader, Mr. Frist, and I believe cosponsors of
Senator Levin, and we were joined by another colleague, Senator
Lieberman. Of course, Senators don't have access to that Record yet.
But I assure you the merits of both cases were thoroughly stated.
As we have 30 minutes divided between the two of us this morning, my
distinguished friend and I talked this morning, and he expressed an
interest in having his amendment voted first. As a matter of comity and
courtesy, we offer that to the Senator from Michigan. If that is his
desire, I ask unanimous consent that be the order in which votes be
taken.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, that would be acceptable, indeed, and I
think preferable from every perspective. It is our understanding there
is a suggestion to that effect from the Republican side. Whether it is
from the Republican side or our side, I think it is wise. I accept the
suggestion and do so with thanks to my good friend from Virginia.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, to inform the Senate, there are two
amendments. Basically, as we will explain momentarily, the amendments
are almost identical except in three areas. They are important areas,
and we will go into that in some detail here in a moment.
The Levin amendment will go first, and ours will go second. There
will be votes on both amendments.
We had the option to draw up an entirely different amendment, to go
into many ramifications and many issues that we feel very strongly
about on this side of the aisle. I take the responsibility. Or if
anyone wishes to share it with me, they may well do so. I felt that it
is so critical at this point in history with regard to the United
States policy towards Iraq, together with our coalition forces, that
the extent to which the Senate could speak with one voice had great
merit. Therefore, essentially on this side we looked at the amendment
of the Senator from Michigan and made, in my judgment, several minor
modifications and one very significant modification. That is the
standing.
As Senators vote, they will note the similarity between these
amendments. But I felt the Senator from Michigan and I have a very
strong feeling that the basic purpose of these amendments--whichever
one is voted and survives--is to send the strongest possible message to
the Iraqi people, the new government that will be formed subsequent to
December 15, that our country, together with our coalition partners,
has made enormous efforts, enormous sacrifice of life and limb,
contributions by the people not only from our country but a number of
other countries, to let them establish for themselves a form of
democracy.
I believe we have made great progress with several transitional
governments, a referendum vote, and now on the verge of what I
perceive--and I think the Senator from Michigan shares the view--of an
even stronger and larger vote to elect the permanent government.
The next 120 days, in my judgment, are critical--absolutely critical.
Every word that comes from the Congress of the United States will be
carefully scrutinized not only by the Iraqi people but by the nations
throughout the Middle East and indeed our coalition partners. We have
to be extremely careful in the formulation of those words and messages
so they are not misconstrued.
I feel, with all due respect to the amendment originally drawn by my
colleague from Michigan and others, that the last paragraph phrases a
timetable of withdrawal requiring the President to file a report every
90 days giving specific dates and other factors.
That is the major change between these two amendments. The amendment
of the Senator from Virginia strikes that last paragraph. I will go
into further detail momentarily as to exactly why. We made the effort
to have a bipartisan amendment. It is forward-looking.
Again, it is my intention to have the amendment on this side of the
aisle not contain any language that could be misconstrued as a
timetable which could establish and set up a fragile situation,
particularly on the eve of another election on December 15.
I thank my distinguished colleague from Michigan. I commend him for
much of the language he included in the amendment. I was privileged to
draw on it. However, it sends that message on which we have absolute
unity to the Iraqi people: We mean business. We have done our share.
Now the challenge is up to you.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 1 minute, and then I will yield to Senator
Kennedy.
I thank the Senator from Virginia for his words. There is no
timetable for withdrawal in the last paragraph. I, like him, urge
Members to read that paragraph. It simply says that the same type of
schedule which we all agreed to in paragraph 6 should also be proposed
with an estimated schedule relative to phased withdrawal if--if--the
conditions which we all agree upon should be set forth in the report
have been achieved.
That is what it does. That is an important message. It is not a
withdrawal timetable in paragraph 7, but each Member will reach their
own conclusion on that. It sends an important message, but it is not
the one the Senator from Virginia has characterized.
I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his strong
leadership.
I strongly support the Levin-Biden-Reid amendment on Iraq. Our
amendment expresses the clear sense of the Senate that the U.S.
military forces should not stay in Iraq indefinitely. Although many
disagree with the President about the war, we all honor the service and
sacrifice and heroism of our brave men and women in Iraq. Our Armed
Forces are serving courageously in Iraq, under enormously difficult
circumstances. The policy of our Government must be worthy of their
sacrifice. Unfortunately, it is not. The American people know it.
[[Page S12778]]
An open-ended commitment in Iraq is not in America's interests, and
it is not in Iraq's interests, either. Our amendment clearly states
that the commitment of our military is not open-ended. The goal of our
military should be to establish a legitimate functioning government,
not to dictate to it. If we want the new Iraqi government to succeed,
we need to give Iraq back to the Iraqi people. We need to let Iraq make
its own political decisions without American interference. We need to
train the Iraqi security forces, but we also need to reduce our
military presence.
There is widespread recognition that our overwhelming military
presence is inflaming the insurgency. After the election of a permanent
Iraqi government, we should begin a substantial and continuing drawdown
of U.S. forces. If additional forces are necessary during our drawdown
or when our drawdown is completed, they should have the support of the
Iraqi people and the United Nations and come from the international
community. American troops can participate, but, unlike the current
force, it should not consist mostly of Americans or be led by
Americans.
All nations of the world have an interest in Iraq's stability and
territorial integrity. Defenders of President Bush's failed stay-the-
course policy pretend that alternatives such as this are a cut-and-run
strategy. They are not.
Last February, General Abizaid said what makes it hard for the United
States is that an overbearing presence or a larger than acceptable
footprint in the region works against you. No one accused him of cut
and run.
Last July, GEN George Casey, commanding general of the Multi-National
Force in Iraq, talked about fairly substantial reduction of troops in
2006. No one has accused him of cut and run.
Just last month, America's Ambassador to Iraq said it is possible we
can adjust our courses, downsizing them in the course of next year. No
one has accused him of cut and run.
This month, Mel Laird, Secretary of Defense of the Nixon
administration, wrote in the current issue of the Journal of Foreign
Affairs that our presence is what feeds the insurgency, and our gradual
withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis
to stand up to the insurgency. No one has accused him of cut and run.
We need to have an open and honest debate about our future military
presence in Iraq. An open-ended commitment of our military forces does
not serve America's best interests and does not serve Iraqi's
interests, either. Our current misguided policy has turned Iraq into a
quagmire with no end in sight. It is urgent for the administration to
adopt an honest and effective plan to end the violence and stabilize
Iraq so that our soldiers can begin to come home with dignity and
honor.
Last Friday, President Bush outlined a new bumper-sticker slogan for
his misguided policy in Iraq: ``Strategy for Victory.'' But it is still
the same failed strategy. He should have called it ``Strategy for
Quagmire.''
Our men and women in uniform deserve better, much better from this
President. So does the Nation. We can do better. I urge my colleagues
to support the Levin-Biden-Reid amendment.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Amendments Nos. 1345, 1354, 1468, as Modified; 1500, as Modified; 1518,
1522, as Modified; 1538, 1898, 1902, 2525, 2526, 2527, 2528, 2529,
2530, 2531, 2532, 2533, 2534, 2535, 2536, 2537, 2538, 2539, 2540, 2541,
2542, 2543, 2544, 2545, 2546, 2547, 2548, 2549, 2550, 2551, 2552, 2553,
2554, 2555, 2556, 2557, 2558, 2559, 2560, 2561, 2562, 2563, 2564, 2565,
2566, 2567, 2568, 2569, 2570, 2571, 2572, 2573, 2574, 2575, 2576, 2577,
2578, 2579, en bloc
Mr. WARNER. At this juncture, the distinguished Senator from Michigan
and I would like to offer our managers' package to this bill. I send a
managers' package of some 64 amendments to the desk. They have been
cleared by both sides.
Mr. LEVIN. The amendments have been cleared on our side.
Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the
amendments en bloc, the amendments en bloc be agreed to, the motions to
reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to any
of these individual amendments be printed in the Record.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 1345
(Purpose: To provide for expedited action in bid protests conducted
under OMB Circular A-76)
On page 292, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
SEC. 1106. BID PROTESTS BY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES IN ACTIONS UNDER
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET CIRCULAR A-76.
(a) Eligibility to Protest.--(1) Section 3551(2) of title
31, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(2) The term `interested party'--
``(A) with respect to a contract or a solicitation or other
request for offers described in paragraph (1), means an
actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct economic
interest would be affected by the award of the contract or by
failure to award the contract; and
``(B) with respect to a public-private competition
conducted under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76
regarding performance of an activity or function of a Federal
agency, includes--
``(i) any official who submitted the agency tender in such
competition; and
``(ii) any one person who, for the purpose of representing
them in a protest under this subchapter that relates to such
competition, has been designated as their agent by a majority
of the employees of such Federal agency who are engaged in
the performance of such activity or function.''.
(2)(A) Subchapter V of chapter 35 of such title is amended
by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 3557. Expedited action in protests for Public-Private
competitions
``For protests in cases of public-private competitions
conducted under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76
regarding performance of an activity or function of Federal
agencies, the Comptroller General shall administer the
provisions of this subchapter in a manner best suited for
expediting final resolution of such protests and final action
in such competitions.''.
(B) The chapter analysis at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
3556 the following new item:
``3557. Expedited action in protests for public-private
competitions.''.
(b) Right to Intervene in Civil Action.--Section 1491(b) of
title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(5) If a private sector interested party commences an
action described in paragraph (1) in the case of a public-
private competition conducted under Office of Management and
Budget Circular A-76 regarding performance of an activity or
function of a Federal agency, then an official or person
described in section 3551(2)(B) of title 31 shall be entitled
to intervene in that action.''.
(c) Applicability.--Subparagraph (B) of section 3551(2) of
title 31, United States Code (as added by subsection (a)),
and paragraph (5) of section 1491(b) of title 28, United
States Code (as added by subsection (b)), shall apply to--
(1) protests and civil actions that challenge final
selections of sources of performance of an activity or
function of a Federal agency that are made pursuant to
studies initiated under Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-76 on or after January 1, 2004; and
(2) any other protests and civil actions that relate to
public-private competitions initiated under Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-76 on or after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
AMENDMENT NO. 1354
(Purpose: To authorize the participation of members of the Armed Forces
in the Paralympic Games)
At the appropriate place in title V, insert the following:
SEC. __. PARTICIPATION OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES IN THE
PARALYMPIC GAMES.
Section 717(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``and Olympic Games'' and inserting ``,
Olympic Games, and Paralympic Games,''.
AMENDMENT NO. 1468, As Modified
(Purpose: Relating to contracting in the procurement of certain
supplies and services)
At the end of subtitle A of title VIII, add the following:
SEC. 807. CONTRACTING FOR PROCUREMENT OF CERTAIN SUPPLIES AND
SERVICES.
(a) Modification of Limitation on Conversion to Contractor
Performance.--Section 8014(a)(3) of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-287; 118 Stat. 972)
is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, payment that
could be used in lieu of such a plan, health savings account,
or medical savings account'' after ``health insurance plan'';
and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``that requires'' and
all that follows through the end and inserting ``that does
not comply with the requirements of any Federal law governing
the provision of health care benefits by Government
contractors that would be applicable if the contractor
performed the activity or function under the contract.''.
[[Page S12779]]
AMENDMENT NO. 1500, As Modified
(Purpose: To require a strategy and report by the Secretary of Defense
regarding the impact on small businesses of the requirement to use
radio frequency identifier technology)
On page 237, after line 17, insert the following:
SEC. 846. RADIO FREQUENCY IDENTIFIER TECHNOLOGY.
(a) Small Business Strategy.--As part of implementing its
requirement that contractors use radio frequency identifier
technology, the Secretary of Defense shall develop and
implement a strategy to educate the small business community
regarding radio frequency identifier technology requirements,
compliance, standards, and opportunities.
(b) Reporting.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
a report to the Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship and the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate and the Committee on Small Business and the Committee
on Armed Services of the House of Representatives detailing
the status of the efforts by the Secretary of Defense to
establish requirements for radio frequency identifier
technology used in Department of Defense contracting,
including--
(A) standardization of the data required to be reported by
such technology; and
(B) standardization of the manufacturing quality required
for such technology; and
(C) the status of the efforts of the Secretary of Defense
to develop and implement a strategy to educate the small
business community, as required by subsection (a)(2).
AMENDMENT NO. 1518
(Purpose: To require lenders to include information regarding the
mortgage and foreclosure rights of servicemembers under the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act)
At the end of subtitle E of title VI, add the following:
SEC. 653. SERVICEMEMBERS RIGHTS UNDER THE HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1968.
(a) In General.--Section 106(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Housing
and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C.
1701x(c)(5)(A)(ii)) is amended--
(1) in subclause (II), by striking ``; and'' and inserting
a semicolon;
(2) in subclause (III), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(IV) notify the homeowner by a statement or notice,
written in plain English by the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development, in consultation with the Secretary of
Defense and the Secretary of the Treasury, explaining the
mortgage and foreclosure rights of servicemembers, and the
dependents of such servicemembers, under the Servicemembers
Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 501 et seq.), including the
toll-free military one source number to call if
servicemembers, or the dependents of such servicemembers,
require further assistance.''.
(b) No Effect on Other Laws.--Nothing in this section shall
relieve any person of any obligation imposed by any other
Federal, State, or local law.
(c) Disclosure Form.--Not later than 150 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development shall issue a final disclosure form to
fulfill the requirement of section 106(c)(5)(A)(ii)(IV) of
the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C.
1701x(c)(5)(A)(ii)).
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made under subsection
(a) shall take effect 150 days after the date of enactment of
this Act.
AMENDMENT NO. 1522, AS MODIFIED
At the end of subtitle D of title VIII, add the following:
SEC. 834. TRAINING FOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION WORKFORCE ON THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE BERRY AMENDMENT.
(a) Training During Fiscal Year 2006.--The Secretary of
Defense shall ensure that each member of the defense
acquisition workforce who participates personally and
substantially in the acquisition of textiles on a regular
basis receives training during fiscal year 2006 on the
requirements of section 2533a of title 10, United States Code
(commonly referred to as the ``Berry Amendment''), and the
regulations implementing that section.
(b) Inclusion of Information in New Training Programs.--The
Secretary shall ensure that any training program for the
defense acquisition workforce development or implemented
after the date of the enactment of this Act includes
comprehensive information on the requirements described in
subsection (a).
amendment no. 1538
(Purpose: To provide a termination date for the Small Business
Competitiveness Demonstration Program)
On page 237, after line 17, insert the following:
SEC. 846. TERMINATION OF PROGRAM.
Section 711(c) of the Small Business Competitive
Demonstration Program Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 644 note) is
amended by inserting after ``January 1, 1989'' the following:
``, and shall terminate on the date of enactment of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006''.
amendment no. 1898
(Purpose: To authorize the disposal and sale to qualified entities of
up to 8,000,000 pounds of tungsten ores and concentrates from the
National Defense Stockpile)
On page 379, after line 22, add the following:
SEC. 3302. AUTHORIZATION FOR DISPOSAL OF TUNGSTEN ORES AND
CONCENTRATES.
(a) Disposal Authorized.--The President may dispose of up
to 8,000,000 pounds of contained tungsten in the form of
tungsten ores and concentrates from the National Defense
Stockpile in fiscal year 2006.
(b) Certain Sales Authorized.--The tungsten ores and
concentrates disposed under subsection (a) may be sold to
entities with ore conversion or tungsten carbide
manufacturing or processing capabilities in the United
States.
AMENDMENT NO. 1902
(Purpose: To acquire a report on records maintained by the Department
of Defense on civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq)
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert:
REPORT
Sec. . Not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of Defense shall submit a report to the
Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Appropriations with the following information--
(a) Whether records of civilian casualties in Afghanistan
and Iraq are kept by United States Armed Forces, and if so,
how and from what sources this information is collected,
where it is kept, and who is responsible for maintaining such
records.
(b) Whether such records contain (1) any information
relating to the circumstances under which the casualties
occurred and whether they were fatalities or injuries; (2) if
any condolence payment, compensation, or assistance was
provided to the victim or to the victim's family; and (3) any
other information relating to the casualties.
AMENDMENT NO. 2525
(Purpose: To provide for the temporary inapplicability of the Berry
Amendment to procurements of specialty metals that are used to produce
force protection equipment needed to prevent combat fatalities in Iraq
and Afghanistan)
On page 213, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
SEC. 807. TEMPORARY INAPPLICABILITY OF BERRY AMENDMENT TO
PROCUREMENTS OF SPECIALTY METALS USED TO
PRODUCE FORCE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT.
(a) In General.--Section 2533a(a) of title 10, United
States Code, shall not apply to the procurement, during the
2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this
Act, of specialty metals if such specialty metals are used to
produce force protection equipment needed to prevent combat
fatalities in Iraq or Afghanistan.
(b) Treatment of Procurements Within Period.--For the
purposes of subsection (a), a procurement shall be treated as
being made during the 2-year period described in that
subsection to the extent that funds are obligated by the
Department of Defense for that procurement during that
period.
AMENDMENT NO. 2526
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate with regard to manned
space flight)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ------. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING MANNED SPACE
FLIGHT.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) human spaceflight preeminence allows the United States
to project leadership around the world and forms an important
component of United States national security;
(2) continued development of human spaceflight in low-Earth
orbit, on the Moon, and beyond adds to the overall national
strategic posture;
(3) human spaceflight enables continued stewardship of the
region between the earth and the Moon--an area that is
critical and of growing national and international security
relevance;
(4) human spaceflight provides unprecedented opportunities
for the United States to lead peaceful and productive
international relationships with the world community in
support of United States security and geo-political
objectives;
(5) a growing number of nations are pursuing human
spaceflight and space-related capabilities, including China
and India;
(6) past investments in human spaceflight capabilities
represent a national resource that can be built upon and
leveraged for a broad range of purposes, including national
and economic security; and
(7) the industrial base and capabilities represented by the
Space Transportation System provide a critical dissimilar
launch capability for the nation.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that it is in the national security interest of the United
States to maintain preeminence in human spaceflight.
AMENDMENT NO. 2527
(Purpose: To require an annual report on the costs incurred by the
Department of Defense in implementing or supporting resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council)
On page 286, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
[[Page S12780]]
SEC. 1073. ANNUAL REPORT ON COSTS TO CARRY OUT UNITED NATIONS
RESOLUTIONS.
(a) Requirement for Annual Report.--The Secretary of
Defense and the Secretary of State shall submit to the
congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on International
Relations of the House of Representatives an annual report
that sets forth all direct and indirect costs (including
incremental costs) incurred by the Department of Defense
during the preceding year in implementing or supporting any
resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council,
including any such resolution calling for international
sanctions, international peacekeeping operations,
international peace enforcement operations, monitoring
missions, observer missions, or humanitarian missions
undertaken by the Department of Defense. Each such report
shall include an aggregate of all such Department of Defense
costs by operation or mission, the percentage of the United
States contribution by operation or mission, and the total
cost of each operation or mission.
(b) Costs for Assisting Foreign Troops.--The Secretary of
Defense and the Secretary of State shall detail in each
annual report required by this section all direct and
indirect costs (including incremental costs) incurred in
training, equipping, and otherwise assisting, preparing,
resourcing, and transporting foreign troops for implementing
or supporting any resolution adopted by the United Nations
Security Council, including any such resolution calling for
international sanctions, international peacekeeping
operations, international peace enforcement operations,
monitoring missions, observer missions, or humanitarian
missions.
(c) Credit and Compensation.--The Secretary of Defense and
the Secretary of State shall detail in each annual report
required by this section all efforts made to seek credit
against past United Nations expenditures and all efforts made
to seek compensation from the United Nations for costs
incurred by the Department of Defense in implementing and
supporting United Nations activities.
(d) Form of Report.--Each annual report required by this
section shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may
include a classified annex.
AMENDMENT NO. 2528
(Purpose: To provide for the Administrator of the Small Business
Administration's determination)
On page 237, after line 17, insert the following:
SEC. 846. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN SECURITY EXPENSES FROM
CONSIDERATION FOR PURPOSE OF SMALL BUSINESS
SIZE STANDARDS.
Section 3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)),
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Exclusion of certain security expenses from
consideration for purpose of small business size standards.--
``(A) Determination required.--Not later than 30 days after
the date of enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator
shall review the application of size standards established
pursuant to paragraph (2) to small business concerns that are
performing contracts in qualified areas and determine whether
it would be fair and appropriate to exclude from
consideration in the average annual gross receipts of such
small business concerns any payments made to such small
business concerns by Federal agencies to reimburse such small
business concerns for the cost of subcontracts entered for
the sole purpose of providing security services in a
qualified area.
``(B) Action required.--Not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator shall
either--
``(i) initiate an adjustment to the size standards, as
described in subparagraph (A), if the Administrator
determines that such an adjustment would be fair and
appropriate; or
``(ii) provide a report to the Committee on Small Business
and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the Committee on Small
Business of the House of Representatives explaining in detail
the basis for the determination by the Administrator that
such an adjustment would not be fair and appropriate.
``(C) Qualified areas.--In this paragraph, the term
`qualified area' means--
``(i) Iraq,
``(ii) Afghanistan, and
``(iii) any foreign country which included a combat zone,
as that term is defined in section 112(c)(2) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, at the time of performance of the
relevant Federal contract or subcontract.''.
AMENDMENT NO. 2529
(Purpose: To encourage small business contracting in overseas
procurements)
On page 237, after line 17, insert the following:
SEC. 846. SMALL BUSINESS CONTRACTING IN OVERSEAS
PROCUREMENTS.
Section 15(g) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(g))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Small business contracting in overseas
procurements.--
``(A) Statement of congressional policy.--It is the policy
of the Congress that Federal agencies shall endeavor to meet
the contracting goals established under this subsection,
regardless of the geographic area in which the contracts will
be performed.
``(B) Authorization to use contracting mechanisms.--Federal
agencies are authorized to use any of the contracting
mechanisms authorized in this Act for the purpose of
complying with the Congressional policy set forth in
subparagraph (A).
``(C) Report to congressional committees.--Not later than 1
year after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the
Administrator and the Chief Counsel for Advocacy shall submit
to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of
the Senate and Committee on Small Business of the House of
Representatives a report on the activities undertaken by
Federal agencies, offices, and departments to carry out this
paragraph.''.
AMENDMENT NO. 2530
(Purpose: To ensure fair access to multiple-award contracts)
On page 237, after line 17, insert the following:
SEC. 846. FAIR ACCESS TO MULTIPLE-AWARD CONTRACTS.
Section 15(g) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(g))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Fair access to multiple-award contracts.--
``(A) Statement of congressional policy.--It is the policy
of the Congress that Federal agencies shall endeavor to meet
the contracting goals established under this subsection with
regard to orders under multiple-award contracts, including
Federal Supply Schedule contracts and multi-agency contracts.
``(B) Authorization for limited competition.--The head of a
contracting agency may include in any contract entered under
section 2304a(d)(1)(B) or 2304b(e) of title 10, United States
Code, a clause setting aside a specific share of awards under
such contract pursuant to a competition that is limited to
small business concerns, if the head of the contracting
agency determines that such limitation is necessary to comply
with the congressional policy stated in subparagraph (A).
``(C) Report requirement.--
``(i) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator shall
submit a report on the level of participation of small
business concerns in multiple-award contracts, including
Federal Supply Schedule contracts, to the Committee on Small
Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the Committee
on Small Business of the House of Representatives.
``(ii) Contents.--The report required by clause (i) shall
include, for the most recent 2-year period for which data are
available--
``(I) the total number of multiple-award contracts;
``(II) the total number of small business concerns that
received multiple-award contracts;
``(III) the total number of orders under multiple-award
contracts;
``(IV) the total value of orders under multiple-award
contracts;
``(V) the number of orders received by small business
concerns under multiple-award contracts;
``(VI) the value of orders received by small business
concerns under multiple-award contracts;
``(VII) the number of small business concerns that received
orders under multiple-award contracts; and
``(VIII) such other information as may be relevant.''.
AMENDMENT NO. 2531
(Purpose: To address research and development efforts for purposes of
small business research)
On page 218, strike line 1 and all that follows through
page 220, line 5, and insert the following:
SEC. 814. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS FOR PURPOSES OF
SMALL BUSINESS RESEARCH.
(a) In General.--Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 638) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(x) Research and Development Focus.--
``(1) Revision and update of criteria and procedures of
identification.--In carrying out subsection (g), the
Secretary of Defense shall, not less often than once every 4
years, revise and update the criteria and procedures utilized
to identify areas of the research and development efforts of
the Department of Defense which are suitable for the
provision of funds under the Small Business Innovation
Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer
Program.
``(2) Utilization of plans.--The criteria and procedures
described in paragraph (1) shall be developed through the use
of the most current versions of the following plans:
``(A) The joint warfighting science and technology plan
required under section 270 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (10 U.S.C. 2501 note).
``(B) The Defense Technology Area Plan of the Department of
Defense.
``(C) The Basic Research Plan of the Department of Defense.
``(3) Input in identification of areas of effort.--The
criteria and procedures described in paragraph (1) shall
include input in the identification of areas of research and
development efforts described in that paragraph from
Department of Defense program managers (PMs) and program
executive officers (PEOs).
``(y) Commercialization Pilot Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of each military department is authorized to create
and administer
[[Page S12781]]
a `Commercialization Pilot Program' to accelerate the
transition of technologies, products, and services developed
under the Small Business Innovation Research Program to Phase
III, including the acquisition process.
``(2) Identification of research programs for accelerated
transition to acquisition process.--In carrying out the
Commercialization Pilot Program, the Secretary of Defense and
the Secretary of each military department shall identify
research programs of the Small Business Innovation Research
Program that have the potential for rapid transitioning to
Phase III and into the acquisition process.
``(3) Limitation.--No research program may be identified
under paragraph (2), unless the Secretary of the military
department concerned certifies in writing that the successful
transition of the program to Phase III and into the
acquisition process is expected to meet high priority
military requirements of such military department.
``(4) Funding.--For payment of expenses incurred to
administer the Commercialization Pilot Program under this
subsection, the Secretary of Defense and each Secretary of a
military department is authorized to use not more than an
amount equal to 1 percent of the funds available to the
Department of Defense or the military department pursuant to
the Small Business Innovation Research Program. Such funds--
``(A) shall not be subject to the limitations on the use of
funds in subsection (f)(2); and
``(B) shall not be used to make Phase III awards.
``(5) Evaluative report.--At the end of each fiscal year,
the Secretary of Defense and each Secretary of a military
department shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services
and the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of
the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services and the
Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives
an evaluative report regarding activities under the
Commercialization Pilot Program. The report shall include--
``(A) an accounting of the funds used in the
Commercialization Pilot Program;
``(B) a detailed description of the Commercialization Pilot
Program, including incentives and activities undertaken by
acquisition program managers, program executive officers, and
by prime contractors; and
``(C) a detailed compilation of results achieved by the
Commercialization Pilot Program, including the number of
small business concerns assisted and a number of inventions
commercialized.
``(6) Sunset.--The pilot program under this subsection
shall terminate at the end of fiscal year 2009.''.
(b) Implementation of Executive Order 13329.--Section 9 of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) to provide for and fully implement the tenets of
Executive Order 13329 (Encouraging Innovation in
Manufacturing).'';
(2) in subsection (g)--
(A) in paragraph (9), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (10), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(11) provide for and fully implement the tenets of
Executive Order 13329 (Encouraging Innovation in
Manufacturing).''; and
(3) in subsection (o)--
(A) in paragraph (14), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (15), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(16) provide for and fully implement the tenets of
Executive Order 13329 (Encouraging Innovation in
Manufacturing).''.
(c) Testing and Evaluation Authority.--Section 9(e) of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(9) the term `commercial applications' shall not be
construed to exclude testing and evaluation of products,
services, or technologies for use in technical or weapons
systems, and further, awards for testing and evaluation of
products, services, or technologies for use in technical or
weapons systems may be made in either the second or the third
phase of the Small Business Innovation Research Program and
of the Small Business Technology Transfer Program, as defined
in this subsection.''.
AMENDMENT NO. 2532
(Purpose: To clarify that the Small Business Administration has
authority to provide disaster relief for small business concerns
damaged by drought)
On page 237, after line 17, insert the following:
SEC. 846. DISASTER RELIEF FOR SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS DAMAGED
BY DROUGHT.
(a) Drought Disaster Authority.--
(1) Definition of disaster.--Section 3(k) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(k)) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(k)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) For purposes of section 7(b)(2), the term `disaster'
includes--
``(A) drought; and
``(B) below average water levels in the Great Lakes, or on
any body of water in the United States that supports commerce
by small business concerns.''.
(2) Drought disaster relief authority.--Section 7(b)(2) of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)(2)) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``(including drought), with respect to
both farm-related and nonfarm-related small business
concerns,'' before ``if the Administration''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``the Consolidated
Farmers Home Administration Act of 1961 (7 U.S.C. 1961)'' and
inserting the following: ``section 321 of the Consolidated
Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1961), in which
case, assistance under this paragraph may be provided to
farm-related and nonfarm-related small business concerns,
subject to the other applicable requirements of this
paragraph''.
(b) Limitation on Loans.--From funds otherwise appropriated
for loans under section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 636(b)), not more than $9,000,000 may be used during
each of fiscal years 2005 through 2008, to provide drought
disaster loans to nonfarm-related small business concerns in
accordance with this section and the amendments made by this
section.
(c) Prompt Response to Disaster Requests.--Section
7(b)(2)(D) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)(2)(D))
is amended by striking ``Upon receipt of such certification,
the Administration may'' and inserting ``Not later than 30
days after the date of receipt of such certification by a
Governor of a State, the Administration shall respond in
writing to that Governor on its determination and the reasons
therefore, and may''.
(d) Rulemaking.--Not later than 45 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Small
Business Administration shall promulgate final rules to carry
out this section and the amendments made by this section.
AMENDMENT NO. 2533
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to maintain a website
listing information on Federal contractor misconduct, and to require a
report on Federal sole source contracts related to Iraq reconstruction)
At the appropriate place in title VIII, insert the
following:
SEC. . ENSURING TRANSPARENCY IN FEDERAL CONTRACTING.
(a) Publication of Information on Federal Contractor
Penalties and Violations.--
(1) The Secretary of Defense shall maintain a publicly-
available website that provides information on instances in
which major contractors have been fined, paid penalties or
restitution, settled, pled guilty to, or had judgments
entered against them in connection with allegations of
improper conduct. The website shall be updated not less than
once a year.
(2) For the purpose of this subsection, a major contractor
is a contractor that receives at least $100,000,000 in
Federal contracts in the most recent fiscal year for which
data are available.
(b) Report on Federal Sole Source Contracts Related to Iraq
Reconstruction.--
(1) Report required.--Not later than 120 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator for
Federal Procurement Policy shall submit to Congress a report
on all sole source contracts in excess of $2,000,000 entered
into by executive agencies in connection with Iraq
reconstruction from January 1, 2003, through the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(2) Content.--The report submitted under paragraph (1)
shall include the following information with respect to each
such contract:
(A) The date the contract was awarded.
(B) The contract number.
(C) The name of the contractor.
(D) The amount awarded.
(E) A brief description of the work to be performed under
the contract.
(3) Executive agency defined.--In this subsection, the term
``executive agency'' has the meaning given such term in
section 4 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41
U.S.C. 403).
AMENDMENT NO. 2534
(Purpose: To provide for improved assessment of public-private
competition for work performed by civilian employees of the Department
of Defense)
On page 213, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
SEC. 807. PUBLIC-PRIVATE COMPETITION FOR WORK PERFORMED BY
CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE.
(a) Limitation.--Section 2461(b) of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(5)(A) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a function of the
Department of Defense performed by 10 or more civilian
employees may not be converted, in whole or in part, to
performance by a contractor unless the conversion is based on
the results of a public-private competition process that--
``(i) formally compares the cost of civilian employee
performance of that function with the costs of performance by
a contractor;
``(ii) creates an agency tender, including a most efficient
organization plan, in accordance with Office of Management
and Budget Circular A-76, as implemented on May 29, 2003; and
[[Page S12782]]
``(iii) requires continued performance of the function by
civilian employees unless the competitive sourcing official
concerned determines that, over all performance periods
stated in the solicitation of offers for performance of the
activity or function, the cost of performance of the activity
or function by a contractor would be less costly to the
Department of Defense by an amount that equals or exceeds the
lesser of $10,000,000 or 10 percent of the most efficient
organization's personnel-related costs for performance of
that activity or function by Federal employees.
``(B) Any function that is performed by civilian employees
of the Department of Defense and is proposed to be
reengineered, reorganized, modernized, upgraded, expanded, or
changed in order to become more efficient shall not be
considered a new requirement for the purpose of the
competition requirements in subparagraph (A) or the
requirements for public-private competition in Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-76.
``(C) A function performed by more than 10 Federal
Government employees may not be separated into separate
functions for the purposes of avoiding the competition
requirement in subparagraph (A) or the requirements for
public-private competition in Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-76.
``(D) The Secretary of Defense may waive the requirement
for a public-private competition under subparagraph (A) in
specific instances if--
``(i) the written waiver is prepared by the Secretary of
Defense or the relevant Assistant Secretary of Defense,
Secretary of a military department, or head of a Defense
Agency;
``(ii) the written waiver is accompanied by a detailed
determination that national security interests preclude
compliance with the requirement for a public-private
competition; and
``(iii) a copy of the waiver is published in the Federal
Register within 10 working days after the date on which the
waiver is granted, although use of the waiver need not be
delayed until its publication.''.
(b) Inapplicability to Best-Value Source Selection Pilot
Program.--Paragraph (5) of section 2461(b) of title 10,
United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall not
apply with respect to the pilot program for best-value source
selection for performance of information technology services
authorized by section 336 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136;
117 Stat. 1444; 10 U.S.C. 2461 note).
(c) Repeal of Superseded Law.--Section 327 of the Ronald W.
Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2005 (Public Law 108-375; 10 U.S.C. 2461 note) is repealed.
SEC. 808. PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN WORK BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES.
(a) Guidelines.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe
guidelines and procedures for ensuring that consideration is
given to using Federal Government employees on a regular
basis for work that is performed under Department of Defense
contracts and could be performed by Federal Government
employees.
(2) Criteria.--The guidelines and procedures prescribed
under paragraph (1) shall provide for special consideration
to be given to contracts that--
(A) have been performed by Federal Government employees at
any time on or after October 1, 1980;
(B) are associated with the performance of inherently
governmental functions;
(C) were not awarded on a competitive basis; or
(D) have been determined by a contracting officer to be
poorly performed due to excessive costs or inferior quality.
(b) New Requirements.--
(1) Limitation on requiring public-private competition.--No
public-private competition may be required under Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-76 or any other provision of
law or regulation before the performance of a new requirement
by Federal Government employees commences, the performance by
Federal Government employees of work pursuant to subsection
(a) commences, or the scope of an existing activity performed
by Federal Government employees is expanded. Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-76 shall be revised to
ensure that the heads of all Federal agencies give fair
consideration to the performance of new requirements by
Federal Government employees.
(2) Consideration of federal government employees.--The
Secretary of Defense shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, ensure that Federal Government employees are
fairly considered for the performance of new requirements,
with special consideration given to new requirements that
include functions that--
(A) are similar to functions that have been performed by
Federal Government employees at any time on or after October
1, 1980; or
(B) are associated with the performance of inherently
governmental functions.
(c) Use of Flexible Hiring Authority.--The Secretary shall
include the use of the flexible hiring authority available
through the National Security Personnel System in order to
facilitate performance by Federal Government employees of new
requirements and work that is performed under Department of
Defense contracts.
(d) Inspector General Report.--Not later than 180 days
after the enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
report on the compliance of the Secretary of Defense with the
requirements of this section.
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``National Security Personnel System'' means
the human resources management system established under the
authority of section 9902 of title 5, United States Code.
(2) The term ``inherently governmental function'' has the
meaning given that term in section 5 of the Federal
Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-270;
112 Stat. 2384; 31 U.S.C. 501 note).
AMENDMENT NO. 2535
(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that the President should
take immediate steps to establish a plan to address the military and
economic development of China)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. THE UNITED STATES-CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY
REVIEW COMMISSION.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The 2004 Report to Congress of the United States-China
Economic and Security Review Commission states that--
(A) China's State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) lack adequate
disclosure standards, which creates the potential for United
States investors to unwittingly contribute to enterprises
that are involved in activities harmful to United States
security interests;
(B) United States influence and vital long-term interests
in Asia are being challenged by China's robust regional
economic engagement and diplomacy;
(C) the assistance of China and North Korea to global
ballistic missile proliferation is extensive and ongoing;
(D) China's transfers of technology and components for
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their delivery systems
to countries of concern, including countries that support
acts of international terrorism, has helped create a new tier
of countries with the capability to produce WMD and ballistic
missiles;
(E) the removal of the European Union arms embargo against
China that is currently under consideration in the European
Union would accelerate weapons modernization and dramatically
enhance Chinese military capabilities;
(F) China is developing a leading-edge military with the
objective of intimidating Taiwan and deterring United States
involvement in the Strait, and China's qualitative and
quantitative military advancements have already resulted in a
dramatic shift in the cross-Strait military balance toward
China; and
(G) China's growing energy needs are driving China into
bilateral arrangements that undermine multilateral efforts to
stabilize oil supplies and prices, and in some cases may
involve dangerous weapons transfers.
(2) On March 14, 2005, the National People's Congress
approved a law that would authorize the use of force if
Taiwan formally declares independence.
(b) Sense of Congress.--
(1) Plan.--It is the sense of Congress that the President
should take immediate steps to establish a coherent and
comprehensive plan to address the emergence of China
economically, diplomatically, and militarily, to promote
mutually beneficial trade relations with China, and to
encourage China's adherence to international norms in the
areas of trade, international security, and human rights.
(2) Contents.--The plan should contain the following:
(A) Actions to address China's policy of undervaluing its
currency, including--
(i) encouraging China to continue to upwardly revalue the
Chinese yuan against the United States dollar;
(ii) allowing the yuan to float against a trade-weighted
basket of currencies; and
(iii) concurrently encouraging United States trading
partners with similar interests to join in these efforts.
(B) Actions to make better use of the World Trade
Organization (WTO) dispute settlement mechanism and
applicable United States trade laws to redress China's trade
practices, including exchange rate manipulation, denial of
trading and distribution rights, insufficient intellectual
property rights protection, objectionable labor standards,
subsidization of exports, and forced technology transfers as
a condition of doing business. The United States Trade
Representative should consult with our trading partners
regarding any trade dispute with China.
(C) Actions to encourage United States diplomatic efforts
to identify and pursue initiatives to revitalize United
States engagement in East Asia. The initiatives should have a
regional focus and complement bilateral efforts. The Asia-
Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) offers a ready
mechanism for pursuit of such initiatives.
(D) Actions by the administration to work with China to
prevent proliferation of prohibited technologies and to
secure China's agreement to renew efforts to curtail North
Korea's commercial export of ballistic missiles.
[[Page S12783]]
(E) Actions by the Secretaries of State and Energy to
consult with the International Energy Agency with the
objective of upgrading the current loose experience-sharing
arrangement whereby China engages in some limited exchanges
with the organization, to a more structured arrangement.
(F) Actions by the administration to develop a coordinated,
comprehensive national policy and strategy designed to
maintain United States scientific and technological
leadership and competitiveness, in light of the rise of China
and the challenges of globalization.
(G) Actions to review laws and regulations governing the
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS),
including exploring whether the definition of national
security should include the potential impact on national
economic security as a criterion to be reviewed, and whether
the chairmanship of CFIUS should be transferred from the
Secretary of the Treasury to a more appropriate executive
branch agency.
(H) Actions by the President and the Secretaries of State
and Defense to press strongly their European Union
counterparts to maintain the EU arms embargo on China.
(I) Actions by the administration to discourage foreign
defense contractors from selling sensitive military use
technology or weapons systems to China. The administration
should provide a comprehensive annual report to the
appropriate committees of Congress on the nature and scope of
foreign military sales to China, particularly sales by Russia
and Israel.
AMENDMENT NO. 2536
(Purpose: To require a report on the development and utilization by the
Department of Defense of robotics and unmanned ground vehicle systems)
At the end of subtitle E of title II, add the following:
SEC. __. REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF ROBOTICS AND
UNMANNED GROUND VEHICLE SYSTEMS.
(a) Report Required.--Not later than nine months after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics shall
submit to the congressional defense committees a report on
the development and utilization of robotics and unmanned
ground vehicle systems by the Department of Defense.
(b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) A description of the utilization of robotics and
unmanned ground vehicle systems in current military
operations.
(2) A description of the manner in which the development of
robotics and unmanned ground vehicle systems capabilities
supports current major acquisition programs of the Department
of Defense.
(3) A detailed description, including budget estimates, of
all Department programs and activities on robotics and
unmanned ground vehicle systems for fiscal years 2004 through
2012, including programs and activities relating to research,
development, test and evaluation, procurement, and operation
and maintenance.
(4) A description of the long-term research and development
strategy of the Department on technology for the development
and integration of new robotics and unmanned ground vehicle
systems capabilities in support of Department missions.
(5) A description of any planned demonstration or
experimentation activities of the Department that will
support the development and deployment of robotics and
unmanned ground vehicle systems by the Department.
(6) A statement of the Department organizations currently
participating in the development of new robotics or unmanned
ground vehicle systems capabilities, including the specific
missions of each such organization in such efforts.
(7) A description of the activities of the Department to
collaborate with industry, academia, and other Government and
nongovernment organizations in the development of new
capabilities in robotics and unmanned ground vehicle systems.
(8) An assessment of the short-term and long-term ability
of the industrial base of the United States to support the
production of robotics and unmanned ground vehicle systems to
meet Department requirements.
(9) An assessment of the progress being made to achieve the
goal established by section 220(a)(2) of the Floyd D. Spence
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (as
enacted into law by Public Law 106-398; 114 Stat. 1654A-38)
that, by 2015, one-third of operational ground combat
vehicles be unmanned.
(10) An assessment of international research, technology,
and military capabilities in robotics and unmanned ground
vehicle systems.
amendment no. 2537
(Purpose: To modify and extend the pilot program on share-in-savings
contracts)
At the end of subtitle A of title VIII, add the following:
SEC. __. MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION OF PILOT PROGRAM ON
SHARE-IN-SAVINGS CONTRACTS.
(a) Inclusion of Information Technology Improvements in
Share-In-Savings.--Paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of section
2332 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following new sentence: ``Each such contract
shall provide that the contractor shall incur the cost of
implementing information technology improvements, including
costs incurred in acquiring, installing, maintaining, and
upgrading information technology equipment and training
personnel in the use of such equipment, in exchange for a
share of any savings directly resulting from the
implementation of such improvements during the term of the
contract.''.
(b) Contract Performance Evaluation.--Such subsection is
further amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``, to the maximum extent
practicable,'';
(2) by striking paragraph (4);
(3) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (7); and
(4) inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraphs:
``(4) The head of an agency that enters into contracts
pursuant to the authority of this section shall establish a
panel of employees of such agency, independent of any program
office or contracting office responsible for awarding and
administering such contracts, for the purpose of verifying
performance baselines and methodologies for calculating
savings resulting from the implementation of information
technology improvements under such contracts. Employees
assigned to any such panel shall have experience and
expertise appropriate for the duties of such panel.
``(5) Each contract awarded pursuant to the authority of
this section shall include a provision containing a
quantifiable baseline of current and projected costs, a
methodology for calculating actual costs during the period of
performance, and a savings share ratio governing the amount
of payments the contractor is to receive under such contract
that are certified by a panel established pursuant to
paragraph (4) to be financially sound and based on the best
available information.
``(6) Each contract awarded pursuant to the authority of
this section shall--
``(A) provide that aggregate payments to the contractor may
not exceed the amount the agency would have paid, in
accordance with the baseline of current and projected costs
incorporated in such contract, during the period covered by
such contract; and
``(B) require an independent annual audit of actual costs
in accordance with the methodology established under
paragraph (5)(B), which shall serve as a basis for annual
payments based on savings share ratio established in such
contract.''.
(c) Extension of Pilot Program.--Such section is further
amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(3)(B), by striking ``fiscal years
2003, 2004, and 2005'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2003
through 2007''; and
(2) in subsection (d), by striking ``September 30, 2005''
and inserting ``September 30, 2007''.
(d) Reports to Congress.--
(1) Secretary of defense reports.--Not later than March 31,
2006, and each year thereafter until the year after the
termination of the pilot program under section 2332 of title
10, United States Code (as amended by subsection (a)), the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report
containing a list of each contract entered into by each
Federal agency under such section during the preceding year
that contains terms providing for the contractor to implement
information technology improvements in exchange for a share
of the savings derived from the implementation of such
improvements. The report shall set forth, for each contract
listed--
(A) the information technology performance acquired by
reason of the improvements concerned;
(B) the total amount of payments made to the contractor
during the year covered by the report; and
(C) the total amount of savings or other measurable
benefits realized by the Federal agency during such year as a
result of such improvements.
(2) Comptroller general reports.--Not later than two months
after the Secretary submits a report required by paragraph
(1), the Comptroller General of the United States shall
submit to Congress a report on the costs and benefits to the
United States of the implementation of the technology
improvements under the contracts covered by such report,
together with such recommendations as the Comptroller General
considers appropriate.
amendment no. 2538
(Purpose: To provide for the supervision and management of the Defense
Business Transformation Agency)
At the end of subtitle C of title III, add the following:
SEC. __. SUPERVISION AND MANAGEMENT OF DEFENSE BUSINESS
TRANSFORMATION AGENCY.
Section 192 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Special Rule for Defense Business Transformation
Agency.--(1) The Defense Business Transformation Agency shall
be supervised by the vice chairman of the Defense Business
System Management Committee.
``(2) Notwithstanding the results of any periodic review
under subsection (c) with regard to the Defense Business
Transformation Agency, the Secretary of Defense shall
designate that the Agency be managed cooperatively by the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Business Transformation
and the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Financial
Management.''.
[[Page S12784]]
amendment no. 2539
(Purpose: To make available, with an offset, an additional $45,000,000
for aircraft procurement for the Air Force for the procurement of one
C-37B aircraft)
At the end of Subtitle D of title I, add the following:
SEC. 138. C-37B AIRCRAFT.
(a) Additional Amount for Aircraft Procurement, Air
Force.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by section
103(1) for aircraft procurement for the Air Force is hereby
increased by $45,000,000.
(b) Availability of Amount.--Of the amount authorized to be
appropriated by section 103(1) for aircraft for the Air
Force, as increased by subsection (a), up to $45,000,000 may
be used for the procurement of one C-37B aircraft.
(c) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by
section 301(1) for operation and maintenance for the Army is
hereby reduced by $25,000,000 and the amount authorized to be
appropriated by section 301(5) for O&M, defensewide is hereby
reduced by $20,000,000.
amendment no. 2540
(Purpose: To designate certain financial assistance for cadets at
military junior colleges as Ike Skelton Early Commissioning Program
Scholarships)
At the end of subtitle F of title V, insert the following:
SEC. __. DESIGNATION OF IKE SKELTON EARLY COMMISSIONING
PROGRAM SCHOLARSHIPS.
Section 2107a of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(j) Financial assistance provided under this section to a
cadet appointed at a military junior college is designated
as, and shall be known as, an `Ike Skelton Early
Commissioning Program Scholarship'.''.
amendment no. 2541
(Purpose: To modify eligibility for the position of President of the
Naval Postgraduate School)
At the end of subtitle H of title V, add the following:
SEC. __. MODIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR POSITION OF
PRESIDENT OF THE NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL.
Subsection (a) of section 7042 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(a)(1) The President of the Naval Postgraduate School
shall be one of the following:
``(A) An officer of the Navy not below the grade of rear
admiral (lower half) who is detailed to such position.
``(B) A civilian individual having qualifications
appropriate to the position of President of the Naval
Postgraduate School who is appointed to such position.
``(2) The President of the Naval Postgraduate School shall
be detailed or assigned to such position under paragraph (1)
by the Secretary of the Navy, upon the recommendation of the
Chief of Naval Operations.
``(3) An individual assigned as President of the Naval
Postgraduate School under paragraph (1)(B) shall serve in
such position for a term of not more than five years.''.
amendment no. 2542
(Purpose: To provide an additional death gratuity to the eligible
survivors of servicemembers who died between October 7, 2001, and May
11, 2005, from noncombat-related causes while on active duty)
On page 167, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
(c) Additional Death Gratuity.--In the case of an active
duty member of the armed forces who died between October 7,
2001, and May 11, 2005, and was not eligible for an
additional death gratuity under section 1478(e)(3)(A) of
title 10, United States Code (as added by section 1013(b) of
Public Law 109-13), the eligible survivors of such decedent
shall receive, in addition to the death gratuity available to
such survivors under section 1478(a) of such title, an
additional death gratuity of $150,000 under the same
conditions as provided under section 1478(e)(4) of such
title.
AMENDMENT NO. 2543
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate with regard to aeronautics
research and development)
At the end of subtitle G of title X, insert:
SEC. __. SENSE OF SENATE ON AERONAUTICS RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The advances made possible by Government-funded
research in emerging aeronautics technologies have enabled
longstanding military air superiority for the United States
in recent decades.
(2) Military aircraft incorporate advanced technologies
developed at research centers of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
(3) The vehicle systems program of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration has provided major technology
advances that have been used in every major civil and
military aircraft developed over the last 50 years.
(4) It is important for the cooperative research efforts of
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the
Department of Defense that funding of research on military
aviation technologies be robust.
(5) Recent National Aeronautics and Space Administration
and independent studies have demonstrated the
competitiveness, scientific merit, and necessity of existing
aeronautics programs.
(6) The economic and military security of the United States
is enhanced by the continued development of improved
aeronautics technologies.
(7) A national effort is needed to ensure that the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration can help meet future
aviation needs.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that it
is in the national security interest of the United States to
maintain a strong aeronautics research and development
program within the Department of Defense and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration.
AMENDMENT NO. 2544
(Purpose: To modify the limited acquisition authority for the commander
of the United States Joint Forces Command)
At the end of subtitle E of title VIII, add the following:
SEC. __. MODIFICATION OF LIMITED ACQUISITION AUTHORITY FOR
THE COMMANDER OF THE UNITED STATES JOINT FORCES
COMMAND.
(a) Scope of Authority.--Subsection (a) of section 167a of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking and
``and acquire'' and inserting ``, acquire, and sustain''.
(b) Inapplicability to Certain Systems Funded With
Operation and Maintenance Funds.--Subsection (d) of such
section is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) the total expenditure for operation and maintenance
is estimated to be $2,000,000 or more.''.
(c) Extension of Authority.--Subsection (f) of such section
is amended--
(1) by striking ``through 2006'' and inserting ``through
2009''; and
(2) by striking ``September 30, 2006'' and inserting
``September 30, 2009''.
AMENDMENT NO. 2545
(Purpose: To authorize certain emergency supplemental authorizations
for the Department of Defense)
At the end of subtitle A of title X, add the following:
SEC. __. AUTHORIZATION OF EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
(a) First Emergency Supplemental To Meet Needs Arising From
Hurricane Katrina.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated to
the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2005 in the Ronald
W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2005 (Public Law 108-375) are hereby adjusted, with respect
to any such authorized amount, by the amount by which
appropriations pursuant to such authorized amount are
increased by a supplemental appropriation, or by a transfer
of funds, pursuant to the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act to Meet Immediate Needs Arising From the
Consequences of Hurricane Katrina, 2005 (Public Law 109-61).
(b) Second Emergency Supplemental To Meet Needs Arising
From Hurricane Katrina.--Amounts authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of Defense for fiscal year
2005 in the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2005 are hereby adjusted, with respect to
any such authorized amount, by the amount by which
appropriations pursuant to such authorized amount are
increased by a supplemental appropriation, or by a transfer
of funds, pursuant to the Second Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act to Meet Immediate Needs Arising From the
Consequences of Hurricane Katrina, 2005 (Public Law 109-62).
(c) Supplemental Appropriations for Avian Flu
Preparedness.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated to the
Department of Defense for fiscal year 2006 in this Act are
hereby adjusted, with respect to any such authorized amount,
by the amount by which appropriations pursuant to such
authorized amount are increased by a supplemental
appropriation, or by a transfer of funds, arising from the
proposal of the Administration relating to avian flu
preparedness that was submitted to Congress on November 1,
2006.
(d) Amounts Reallocated for Hurricane-Related Disaster
Relief.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated to the
Department of Defense for fiscal year 2006 in this Act are
hereby adjusted, with respect to any such authorized amount,
by the amount by which appropriations pursuant to such
authorized amount are increased by a reallocation of funds
from the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency arising from the proposal of the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget on the reallocation of
amounts for hurricane-related disaster relief that was
submitted to the President on October 28, 2005, and
transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives on
that date.
(e) Amounts for Humanitarian Assistance for Earthquake
Victims in Pakistan.--There is authorized to be appropriated
as emergency supplemental appropriations for the Department
of Defense for fiscal year 2006, $40,000,000 for the use of
the Department of Defense for overseas, humanitarian,
disaster, and civic aid for the purpose of providing
humanitarian assistance to the victims of the earthquake that
devastated northern Pakistan on October 8, 2005.
[[Page S12785]]
(f) Reports on Use of Certain Funds.--
(1) Report on use of emergency supplemental funds.--Not
later than six months after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a report on the obligation
and expenditure, as of that date, of any funds appropriated
to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2005 pursuant to
the Acts referred to in subsections (a) and (b) as authorized
by such subsections. The report shall set forth--
(A) the amounts so obligated and expended; and
(B) the purposes for which such amounts were so obligated
and expended.
(2) Report on expenditure of reimbursable funds.--The
Secretary shall include in the report required by paragraph
(1) a statement of any expenditure by the Department of
Defense of funds that were reimbursable by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, or any other department or
agency of the Federal Government, from funds appropriated in
an Act referred to in subsection (a) or (b) to such
department or agency.
(3) Report on use of certain other funds.--Not later than
May 15, 2006, and quarterly thereafter through November 15,
2006, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a report on the obligation and expenditure, during
the previous fiscal year quarter, of any funds appropriated
to the Department of Defense as specified in subsection (c)
and any funds reallocated to the Department as specified in
subsection (d). Each report shall, for the fiscal year
quarter covered by such report, set forth--
(A) the amounts so obligated and expended; and
(B) the purposes for which such amounts were so obligated
and expended.
(g) Report on Assistance for Earthquake Victims in
Pakistan.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
to the congressional defense committees a report describing
Department of Defense efforts to provide relief to victims of
the earthquake that devastated northern Pakistan on October
8, 2005, and assessing the need for further reconstruction
and relief assistance.
AMENDMENT NO. 2546
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on certain matters
relating to the National Guard and Reserves)
At the end of subtitle C of title V, add the following:
SEC. __. SENSE OF SENATE ON CERTAIN MATTERS RELATING TO THE
NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES.
It is the sense of the Senate--
(1) to recognize the important and integral role played by
members of the Active Guard and Reserve and military
technicians (dual status) in the efforts of the Armed Forces;
and
(2) to urge the Secretary of Defense to promptly resolve
issues relating to appropriate authority for payment of
reenlistment bonsuses stemming from reenlistment contracts
entered into between January 14, 2005, and April 17, 2005,
involving members of the Army National Guard and military
technicians (dual status).
AMENDMENT NO. 2547
(Purpose: To authorize the disposal of ferromanganese from the National
Defense Stockpile)
At the end of title XXXIII of division C, add the
following:
SEC. 3302. DISPOSAL OF FERROMANGANESE.
(a) Disposal Authorized.--The Secretary of Defense may
dispose of up to 75,000 tons of ferromanganese from the
National Defense Stockpile during fiscal year 2006.
(b) Contingent Authority for Additional Disposal.--If the
Secretary of Defense completes the disposal of the total
quantity of ferromanganese authorized for disposal by
subsection (a) before September 30, 2006, the Secretary of
Defense may dispose of up to an additional 25,000 tons of
ferromanganese from the National Defense Stockpile before
that date.
(c) Certification.--The Secretary of Defense may dispose of
ferromanganese under the authority of subsection (b) only if
the Secretary submits written certification to the Committee
on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives, not later than 30
days before the commencement of disposal, that--
(1) the disposal of the additional ferromanganese from the
National Defense Stockpile is in the interest of national
defense;
(2) the disposal of the additional ferromanganese will not
cause undue disruption to the usual markets of producers and
processors of ferromanganese in the United States; and
(3) the disposal of the additional ferromanganese is
consistent with the requirements and purpose of the National
Defense Stockpile.
(d) Delegation of Responsibility.--The Secretary of Defense
may delegate the responsibility of the Secretary under
subsection (c) to an appropriate official within the
Department of Defense.
(e) National Defense Stockpile Defined.--In this section,
the term ``National Defense Stockpile'' means the stockpile
provided for in section 4 of the Strategic and Critical
Materials Stock Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98c).
AMENDMENT NO. 2548
(Purpose: To improve the Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support
Initiative)
At the end of subtitle C of title III, add the following:
SEC. __. ARMAMENT RETOOLING AND MANUFACTURING SUPPORT
INITIATIVE MATTERS.
(a) Inclusion of Additional Facilities Within Initiative.--
Section 4551(2) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by inserting ``, or a Government-owned, contractor-operated
depot for the storage, maintenance, renovation, or
demilitarization of ammunition,'' after ``manufacturing
facility''.
(b) Additional Consideration for Use of Facilities.--
Section 4554(b)(2) of such title is amended by adding at the
end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) The demilitarization and storage of conventional
ammunition.''.
AMENDMENT NO. 2549
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to consult with
appropriate State and local entities on transportation, utility
infrastructure, housing, schools, and family support activities related
to the planned addition of personnel or facilities to existing military
installations in connection with the closure or realignment of military
installations as part of the 2005 round of defense base closure and
realignment)
At the end of subtitle D of title XXVIII of division B, add
the following:
SEC. 2887. REQUIRED CONSULTATION WITH STATE AND LOCAL
ENTITIES ON TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING, AND OTHER
INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES RELATED TO THE ADDITION
OF PERSONNEL OR FACILITIES AT MILITARY
INSTALLATIONS AS PART OF 2005 ROUND OF DEFENSE
BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT.
Section 2905(a) of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10
U.S.C. 2687 note) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(3) In carrying out any closure or realignment under this
part that would add personnel or facilities to an existing
military installation, the Secretary shall consult with
appropriate State and local entities on matters affecting the
local community related to transportation, utility
infrastructure, housing, schools, and family support
activities during the development of plans to implement such
closure or realignment.''.
amendment no. 2550
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on reversionary interests
at Navy homeports)
At the end of subtitle D of title XXVIII of division B, add
the following:
SEC. 2887. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON REVERSIONARY INTERESTS AT
NAVY HOMEPORTS.
It is the sense of the Senate that, in implementing the
decisions made with respect to Navy homeports as part of the
2005 round of defense base closure and realignment, the
Secretary of the Navy should, consistent with the national
interest and Federal policy supporting cost-free conveyances
of Federal surplus property suitable for use as port
facilities, release or otherwise relinquish any entitlement
to receive, pursuant to any agreement providing for such
payment, compensation from any holder of a reversionary
interest in real property used by the United States for
improvements made to any military installation that is closed
or realigned as part of such base closure round.
amendment no. 2551
(Purpose: To require a report on claims related to the bombing of the
LaBelle Discotheque in Berlin, Germany)
At the end of subtitle G of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1073. REPORT ON CLAIMS RELATED TO THE BOMBING OF THE
LABELLE DISCOTHEQUE.
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the Government of Libya should be commended for the
steps the Government has taken to renounce terrorism and to
eliminate Libya's weapons of mass destruction and related
programs; and
(2) an important priority for improving relations between
the United States and Libya should be a good faith effort on
the part of the Government of Libya to resolve the claims of
members of the Armed Forces of the United States and other
United States citizens who were injured in the bombing of the
LaBelle Discotheque in Berlin, Germany that occurred in April
1986, and of family members of members of the Armed Forces of
the United States who were killed in that bombing.
(b) Reports.--
(1) Initial report.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit
to the appropriate congressional committees a report on the
status of negotiations between the Government of Libya and
United States claimants in connection with the bombing of the
LaBelle Discotheque in Berlin, Germany
[[Page S12786]]
that occurred in April 1986, regarding resolution of their
claims. The report shall also include information on efforts
by the Government of the United States to urge the Government
of Libya to make a good faith effort to resolve such claims.
(2) Update.--Not later than one year after enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees an update of the report
required by paragraph (1).
(c) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees''
means the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Armed
Services and the Committee on International Relations of the
House of Representatives.
amendment no. 2552
(Purpose: To provide that none of the funds authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of Energy under this Act may be made
available for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator)
On page 378, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
SEC. 3114. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR ROBUST NUCLEAR
EARTH PENETRATOR.
None of the funds authorized to be appropriated to the
Department of Energy under this Act may be made available for
the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.
amendment no. 2553
(Purpose: To require the identification of environmental conditions at
military installations closed or realigned as part of the 2005 round of
defense base closure and realignment)
At the end of subtitle D of title XXVIII of division B, add
the following:
SEC. 2887. IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AT
MILITARY INSTALLATIONS CLOSED OR REALIGNED
UNDER 2005 ROUND OF DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND
REALIGNMENT.
(a) Identification of Environmental Condition of
Property.--
(1) In general.--Not later than May 31, 2007, the Secretary
of Defense, in consultation with the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, other appropriate Federal
agencies, and State, tribal, and local government officials,
shall complete an identification of the environmental
condition of the real property (including groundwater) of
each military installation approved for closure or
realignment under the 2005 round of defense base closure and
realignment in accordance with section 120(h)(4) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9620(h)(4)).
(2) Results.--
(A) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date on
which an identification under paragraph (1) is completed, the
Secretary of Defense shall--
(i) provide a notice of the results of the identification
to--
(I) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency;
(II) the head of any other appropriate Federal agency, as
determined by the Secretary; and
(III) any affected State or tribal government official, as
determined by the Secretary; and
(ii) publish in the Federal Register the results of the
identification.
(B) Request for concurrence.--The Secretary shall include
in a notice provided under subclause (I) or (III) of
subparagraph (A)(i) a request for concurrence with the
identification in such form as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.
(3) Concurrence.--
(A) In general.--An identification under paragraph (1)
shall not be considered to be complete until--
(i) for a property that is a site, or part of a site, on
the National Priorities List developed by the President in
accordance with section 105(a)(8)(B) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B)), the date on which the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and each
appropriate State and tribal government official concur with
the identification; and
(ii) for any property that is not a site described in
clause (i), the date on which each appropriate State and
tribal government official concurs with the identification.
(B) Failure to act.--The Administrator, or a State or
tribal government official, shall be considered to concur
with an identification under paragraph (1) if the
Administrator or government official fails to make a
determination with respect to a request for concurrence with
such identification under paragraph (2)(B) by not later than
90 days after the date on which such request for concurrence
is received.
(b) Expediting Environmental Response.--The Secretary of
Defense shall coordinate with appropriate Federal, State,
tribal, and local governmental officials, as determined by
the Secretary, to expedite environmental response at military
installations approved for closure or realignment under the
2005 round of defense base closure and realignment.
(c) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress, as
part of each annual report under section 2706 of title 10,
United States Code, a report describing any progress made in
carrying out this section.
(d) Effect of Section.--Nothing in this section affects any
obligation of the Secretary with respect to any other Federal
or State requirement relating to--
(1) the environment; or
(2) the transfer of property.
amendment no. 2554
(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that the Secretary of
Defense should not transfer any unit from a military installation that
is closed or realigned until adequate facilities and infrastructure
necessary to support such unit and quality of life requirements are
ready at the receiving location)
At the end of subtitle D of title XXVIII, add the
following:
SEC. 2887. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON LIMITATION ON TRANSFER OF
UNITS FROM CLOSED AND REALIGNED MILITARY
INSTALLATIONS PENDING READINESS OF RECEIVING
LOCATIONS.
(a) Findings.--
(1) The Commission on Review of Overseas Military Facility
Structure of the United States, also known as the Overseas
Basing Commission, transmitted a report to the President and
Congress on August 15, 2005, that discussed considerations
for the return to the United States of up to 70,000 service
personnel and 100,000 family members and civilian employees
from overseas garrisons.
(2) The 2005 Base Closure and Realignment Commission
released a report on September 8, 2005, to the President that
assessed the closure and realignment decisions of the
Department of Defense, which would affect 26,830 military
personnel positions.
(3) Both of these reports expressed concerns that massive
movements of units, service personnel, and families may
disrupt unit operational effectiveness and the quality of
life for family members if not carried out with adequate
planning and resources.
(4) The 2005 Base Closure and Realignment Commission, in
its decision to close Fort Monmouth, included a provision
requiring the Secretary of Defense to provide a report that
``movement of organizations, functions, or activities from
Fort Monmouth to Aberdeen Proving Ground will be accomplished
without disruption of their support to the Global War on
Terrorism or other critical contingency operations, and that
safeguards exist to ensure that necessary redundant
capabilities are put in place to mitigate potential
degradation of such support, and to ensure maximum retention
of critical workforce''.
(5) The Overseas Basing Commission found that ``base
closings at home along with the return of yet additional
masses of service members and dependents from overseas will
have major impact on local communities and the quality of
life that can be expected. Movements abroad from established
bases into new locations, or into locations already in use
that will be put under pressure by increases in populations,
will impact on living conditions.''
(6) The Overseas Basing Commission notes that the four most
critical elements of quality of life as they relate to
restructuring of the global defense posture are housing,
military child education, healthcare, and service member and
family services.
(7) The Overseas Basing Commission recommended that
``planners must take a `last day-first day' approach to the
movement of units and families from one location to
another'', meaning that they must maintain the support
infrastructure for personnel until the last day they are in
place and must have the support infrastructure in place on
the first day troops arrive in the new location.
(8) The Overseas Basing Commission further recommended that
it is ``imperative that the `last day-first day' approach
should be taken whether the movement is abroad from one
locale to another, from overseas to the United States, or
from one base in CONUS [the continental United States] to yet
another as a result of base realignment and closures''.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Secretary of Defense should not transfer any unit from a
military installation closed or realigned due to the
relocation of forces under the Integrated Global Presence and
Basing Strategy or the 2005 round of defense base closure and
realignment until adequate facilities and infrastructure
necessary to support the unit's mission and quality of life
requirements for military families are ready for use at the
receiving location.
amendment no. 2555
(Purpose: To extend the period for which certain individuals in
families that include members of the Reserve and National Guard do not
have to reapply for supplemental security income benefits after a
period of ineligibility for such benefits)
In title VI, subtitle E, at the end, insert the following:
SEC. __. EXTENSION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR SSI FOR CERTAIN
INDIVIDUALS IN FAMILIES THAT INCLUDE MEMBERS OF
THE RESERVE AND NATIONAL GUARD.
Section 1631(j)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1383(j)(1)(B)) is amended by inserting ``(24 consecutive
months, in the case of such an individual whose ineligibility
for benefits under or pursuant to both such sections is a
result of being called to active duty pursuant to section
12301(d) or 12302 of title 10, United States Code, or section
502(f) of title 32, United States Code)'' after ``for a
period of 12 consecutive months''.
[[Page S12787]]
amendment no. 2556
(Purpose: To urge the prompt submission of interim reports on residual
beryllium contamination at Department of Energy vendor facilities)
On page 378, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
SEC. 3114. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING INTERIM REPORTS ON
RESIDUAL BERYLLIUM CONTAMINATION AT DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY VENDOR FACILITIES.
(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) Section 3169 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375;
42 U.S.C. 7384 note) requires the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health to submit, not later than
December 31, 2006, an update to the October 2003 report of
the Institute on residual beryllium contamination at
Department of Energy vendor facilities.
(2) The American Beryllium Company, Tallevast, Florida,
machined beryllium for the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge
Y-12, Tennessee, and Rocky Flats, Colorado, facilities from
1967 until 1992.
(3) The National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health has completed its evaluation of residual beryllium
contamination at the American Beryllium Company.
(4) Workers at the American Beryllium Company and other
affected companies should be made aware fo the site-specific
results of the study as soon as such results are available.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate to
urge the Director of the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health--
(1) to provide to Congress interim reports of residual
beryllium contamination at facilities not later than 14 days
after completing the internal review of such reports; and
(2) to publish in the Federal Register summaries of the
findings of such reports, including the dates of any
significant residual beryllium contamination, at such time as
the reports are provided to Congress under paragraph (1).
amendment no. 2557
(Purpose: To require a report on an expanded partnership between the
Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs for the
provision of health care services)
At the end of subtitle B of title VII, add the following:
SEC. __. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT ON EXPANDED PARTNERSHIP
BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS ON THE PROVISION
OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES.
(a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of
the United States shall submit to the appropriate committees
of Congress a report on the feasibility of an expanded
partnership between the Department of Defense and the
Department of Veterans Affairs for the provision of health
care services.
(b) Report Elements.--The report required by subsection (a)
shall include the following:
(1) An overview of the current health care systems of the
Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs,
including--
(A) the total number of eligible beneficiaries in each
system as of September 30, 2005;
(B) the total number of current consumers of health care
services in each system as of that date;
(C) the total cost of each system in the most recent fiscal
year for which complete cost data for both systems exists;
(D) the annual workload or production of health care by
beneficiary category in each system in the most recent fiscal
year for which complete data on workload or production of
health care for both systems exists;
(E) the total cost of health care by beneficiary category
in each system in the most recent fiscal year for which
complete cost data for both systems exists;
(F) the total staffing of medical and administrative
personnel in each system as of September 30, 2005;
(G) the number and location of facilities, including both
hospitals and clinics, operated by each system as of that
date; and
(H) the size, capacity, and production of graduate medical
education programs in each system as of that date.
(2) A comparative analysis of the characteristics of each
health care system, including a determination and comparative
analysis of--
(A) the mission of such systems;
(B) the demographic characteristics of the populations
served by such systems;
(C) the categories of eligibility for health care services
in such systems;
(D) the nature of benefits available by beneficiary
category in such systems;
(E) access to and quality of health care services in such
systems;
(F) the out-of-pocket expenses for health care by
beneficiary category in such systems;
(G) the structure and methods of financing the care for all
categories of beneficiaries in such systems;
(H) the management and acquisition of medical equipment and
supplies in such systems, including pharmaceuticals and
prosthetic and other medical assistive devices;
(I) the mix of health care services available in such
systems;
(J) the current inpatient and outpatient capacity of such
systems; and
(K) the human resource systems for medical personnel in
such systems, including the rates of compensation for
civilian employees.
(3) A summary of current sharing efforts between the health
care systems of the Department of Defense and the Department
of Veterans Affairs.
(4) An assessment of the advantages and disadvantages for
military retirees and their dependents participating in the
health care system of the Department of Veterans Affairs of
an expanded partnership betwen the health care systems of the
Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs,
with a separate assessment to be made for--
(A) military retirees and dependents under the age of 65;
and
(B) military retirees and dependents over the age of 65.
(5) Projections for the future growth of health care costs
for retirees and veterans in the health care systems of the
Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs,
including recommendations on mechanisms to ensure more
effective and higher quality services in the future for
military retirees and veterans now served by both systems.
(6) Options for means of achievinng a more effective
partnership between the health care systems of the Department
of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, including
options for the expansion of, and enhancement of access of
military retirees and their dependents to, the health care
system of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
(c) Solicitation of View.--In preparing the report required
by subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall seek the
views of representatives of military family organizations,
military retiree organizations, and organizations
representing veterans and their families.
(d) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress''
means--
(1) the Committees on Armed Services and Veterans Affairs'
of the Senate; and
(2) the Committees on Armed Services and Veterans Affairs'
of the House of Representatives.
amendment no. 2558
(Purpose: To authorize grants for local workforce investment boards for
the provision of services to spouses of certain members of the Armed
Forces)
At the end of subtitle C of title III, add the following:
SEC. __. GRANTS FOR LOCAL WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARDS FOR
SERVICES FOR CERTAIN SPOUSES OF MEMBERS OF THE
ARMED FORCES.
(a) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary of Defense may, from
any funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of
Defense, and in consultation with the Department of Labor,
make grants to local workforce investments boards established
under section 117 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29
U.S.C. 2832), or consortia of such boards, in order to permit
such boards or consortia of boards to provide services to
spouses of members of the Armed Forces described in
subsection (b).
(b) Covered Spouses.--Spouses of members of the Armed
Forces described in this subsection are spouses of members of
the Armed Forces on active duty, which spouses--
(1) have experienced a loss of employment as a direct
result of relocation of such members to accommodate a
permanent change in duty station; or
(2) are in a family whose income is significantly reduced
due to--
(A) the deployment of such members;
(B) the call or order of such members to active duty in
support of a contingency operation pursuant to a provision of
law referred to in section 101(a)(13)(B) of title 10, United
States Code;
(C) a permanent change in duty station of such members; or
(D) the incurral by such members of a service-connected
disability (as that term is defined in section 101(16) of
title 38, United States Code).
(c) Regulations.--Any grants made under this section shall
be made pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Secretary
in consultation with the Department of Labor. Such regulation
shall set forth--
(1) criteria for eligibility of workforce investment boards
for grants under this section;
(2) requirements for applications for such grants; and
(3) the nature of services to be provided using such
grants.
amendment no. 2559
(Purpose: To make available $7,000,000 from Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide, for the reimbursement of expenses related to the Rest and
Recuperation Leave Programs)
At the end of subtitle C of title III, add the following:
SEC. __. REST AND RECUPERATION LEAVE PROGRAMS.
(a) Availability of Funds For Reimbursement of Expenses.--
Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by section 301(5)
for operation and maintenance for Defense-wide activities,
$7,000,000 may be available for the
[[Page S12788]]
reimbursement of expenses of the Armed Forces Recreation
Centers related to the utilization of the facilities of the
Armed Forces Recreation Centers under official Rest and
Recuperation Leave Programs authorized by the military
departments or combatant commanders.
(b) Utilization of Reimbursements.--Amounts received by the
Armed Forces Recreation Centers under subsection (a) as
reimbursement for expenses may be utilized by such Centers
for facility maintenance and repair, utility expenses,
correction of health and safety deficiencies, and routine
ground maintenance.
(c) Regulations.--The utilization of facilities of the
Armed Forces Recreation Centers under Rest and Recuperation
Leave Programs, and reimbursement for expenses related to
such utilization of such facilities, shall be subject to
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.
amendment no. 2560
(Purpose: To require a report on the information given to individuals
enlisting in the Armed Forces of the so-called ``stop loss'' authority
of the Armed Forces)
At the end of subtitle B of title V, add the following:
SEC. __. REPORT ON INFORMATION ON STOP LOSS AUTHORITIES GIVEN
TO ENLISTEES IN THE ARMED FORCES.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Department of Defense began retaining selected
members of the Armed Forces beyond their contractual date of
separation from the Armed Forces, a policy commonly known as
``stop loss'', shortly after the events of September 11,
2001, and for the first time since Operation Desert Shield/
Desert Storm.
(2) The Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force discontinued
their use of stop loss authority in 2003. According to the
Department of Defense, a total of 8,992 marines, 2,600
sailors, and 8,500 airmen were kept beyond their separation
dates under that authority.
(3) The Army is the only Armed Force currently using stop
loss authority. The Army reports that, during September 2005,
it was retaining 6,929 regular component soldiers, 3,002
soldiers in the National Guard, and 2,847 soldiers in the
Army Reserve beyond their separation date. The Army reports
that it has not kept an account of the cumulative number of
soldiers who have been kept beyond their separation date.
(4) The Department of Defense Form 4/1, Enlistment/
Reenlistment Document does not give notice to enlistees and
reenlistees in the regular components of the Armed Forces
that they may be kept beyond their contractual separation
date during times of partial mobilization.
(5) The Department of Defense has an obligation to clearly
communicate to all potential enlistees and reenlistees in the
Armed Forces their terms of service in the Armed Forces.
(b) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the congressional defense committees a report on
the actions being taken to ensure that each individual being
recruited for service in the Armed Forces is provided, before
making a formal enlistment in the Armed Forces, precise and
detailed information on the period or periods of service to
which such individual may be obligated by reason of
enlistment in the Armed Forces, including any revisions to
Department of Defense Form 4/1.
(2) Elements.--The report under paragraph (1) shall
include--
(A) a description of how the Department informs enlistees
in the Armed Forces on--
(i) the so-called ``stop loss'' authority and the manner in
which exercise of such authority could affect the duration of
an individual's service on active duty in the Armed Forces;
(ii) the authority for the call or order to active duty of
members of the Individual Ready Reserve and the manner in
which such a call or order to active duty could affect an
individual following the completion of the individual's
expected period of service on active duty or in the
Individual Ready Reserve; and
(iii) any other authorities applicable to the call or order
to active duty of the Reserves, or of the retention of
members of the Armed Forces on active duty, that could affect
the period of service of an individual on active duty or in
the Armed Forces; and
(B) such other information as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
amendment no. 2561
(Purpose: To require preparation of a development plan for a national
coal-to-liquid fuels program)
At the end of subtitle G of title X of division A, add the
following:
SEC. 1073. COAL-TO-LIQUID FUEL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
(a) Definition of Designated Committees.--In this section,
the term ``designated committees'' means--
(1) the Committees on Armed Services, Energy and Natural
Resources, and Appropriations of the Senate; and
(2) the Committees on Armed Services, Energy and Commerce,
and Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
(b) Development Plan and Report.--Not later than 90 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, using amounts
available to the Department of Defense and the National
Energy Technology Laboratory of the Department of Energy--
(1) the Secretary of Energy, in coordination with the
Secretary of Defense, shall prepare and submit to the
designated committees a development plan for a coal-to-liquid
fuels program; and
(2) the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the
Secretary of Energy, shall prepare and submit to the
designated committees a report on the potential use of the
fuels by the Department of Defense.
(c) Requirements.--The development plan described in
subsection (b)(1) shall be prepared taking into
consideration--
(1) technology needs and developmental barriers;
(2) economic and national security effects;
(3) environmental standards and carbon capture and storage
opportunities;
(4) financial incentives;
(5) timelines and milestones;
(6) diverse regions having coal reserves that would be
suitable for liquefaction plants;
(7) coal-liquid fuel testing to meet civilian and military
engine standards and markets; and
(8) any roles other Federal agencies, State governments,
and international entities could play in developing a coal-
to-liquid fuel industry.
amendment no. 2562
(Purpose: To amend titles 10 and 38 of the United States Code, to
modify the circumstances under which a person who has committed a
capital offense is denied certain burial-related benefits and funeral
honors)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SECTION __. DENIAL OF CERTAIN BURIAL-RELATED BENEFITS FOR
INDIVIDUALS WHO COMMITTED A CAPITAL OFFENSE.
(a) Prohibition Against Interment in National Cemetery.--
Section 2411 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
``(1) A person whose conviction of a Federal capital crime
is final.''; and
(B) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
``(2) A person whose conviction of a State capital crime is
final.''; and
(2) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the death penalty or
life imprisonment'' and inserting ``a life sentence or the
death penalty''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the death penalty or
life imprisonment without parole may be imposed'' and
inserting ``a life sentence or the death penalty may be
imposed''.
(b) Denial of Certain Burial-Related Benefits.--Section 985
of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``who has been convicted
of a capital offense under Federal or State law for which the
person was sentenced to death or life imprisonment without
parole.'' and inserting ``described in section 2411(b) of
title 38.'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``convicted of a capital
offense under Federal law'' and inserting ``described in
section 2411(b) of title 38''; and
(3) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
``(c) Definition.--In this section, the term `burial'
includes inurnment.''.
(c) Denial of Funeral Honors.--Section 1491(h) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
(2) by striking `` means a decedent who--'' and inserting
the following: ``--
``(1) means a decedent who--'';
(3) in subparagraph (B), as redesignated, by striking the
period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) does not include any person described in section
2411(b) of title 38.''.
(d) Rulemaking.--
(1) Department of defense.--The Secretary of Defense shall
prescribe regulations to ensure that a person is not interred
in any military cemetery under the authority of the Secretary
or provided funeral honors under section 1491 of title 10,
United States Code, unless a good faith effort has been made
to determine whether such person is described in section
2411(b) of title 38, United States Code, or is otherwise
ineligible for such interment or honors under Federal law.
(2) Department of veterans affairs.--The Secretary of
Veterans Affairs shall prescribe regulations to ensure that a
person is not interred in any cemetery in the National
Cemetery System unless a good faith effort has been made to
determine whether such person is described in section 2411(b)
of title 38, United States Code, or is otherwise ineligible
for such interment under Federal law.
(e) Savings Provision.--The amendments made by subsections
(a), (b), and (c) shall not apply to any person whose
sentence for a Federal capital crime or a State capital crime
(as such terms are defined in section 2411(d) of title 38,
United States Code) was commuted by the President or the
Governor of a State.
[[Page S12789]]
amendment no. 2563
(Purpose: To require an annual report on the budgeting of the
Department of Defense related to key military equipment)
At the end of subtitle D of title X, add the following:
SEC. __. ANNUAL REPORTS ON BUDGETING RELATING TO KEY MILITARY
EQUIPMENT.
(a) In General.--Chapter 9 of title 10, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 234. Budgeting for key military equipment: annual
reports
``(a) Annual Report Required.--The Secretary of Defense
shall submit to Congress each year, at or about the time that
the budget of the President is submitted to Congress that
year under section 1105(a) of title 31, a report on the
budgeting of the Department of Defense for key military
equipment.
``(b) Report Elements.--The report required by subsection
(a) for a year shall set forth the following:
``(1) A description of the current strategies of the
Department of Defense for sustaining key military equipment,
and for any modernization that will be required of such
equipment.
``(2) A description of the amounts required for the
Department for the fiscal year beginning in such year in
order to fully fund the strategies described in paragraph
(1).
``(3) A description of the amounts requested for the
Department for such fiscal year in order to fully fund such
strategies.
``(4) A description of the risks, if any, of failing to
fund such strategies in the amounts required to fully fund
such strategies (as specified in paragraph (2)).
``(5) A description of the actions being taken by the
Department of Defense to mitigate the risks described in
paragraph (4).
``(c) Key Military Equipment Defined.--In this section, the
term `key military equipment'--
``(1) means--
``(A) major weapons systems that are essential to
accomplishing the national defense strategy; and
``(B) other military equipment, such as major command,
communications, computer intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (C4ISR) equipment and systems designed to
prevent fratricide, that is critical to the readiness of
military units; and
``(2) includes equipment reviewed in the report of the
Comptroller General of the United States numbered GAO-06-
141.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``234. Budgeting for key military equipment: annual reports.''.
amendment no. 2564
(Purpose: To improve the general authority of the Department of Defense
to accept and administer gifts)
At the end of subtitle C of title III, add the following:
SEC. __. IMPROVEMENT OF AUTHORITIES ON GENERAL GIFT FUNDS OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
(a) Restatement and Expansion of Current Authority.--
Subsection (a) of section 2601 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(a)(1) Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary concerned
may accept, hold, administer, and spend any gift, devise, or
bequest of real or personal property made on the condition
that it be used for the benefit, or in connection with, the
establishment, operation, or maintenance of a school,
hospital, library, museum, cemetery, or other institution or
organization under the jurisdiction of such Secretary.
``(2)(A) Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary concerned
may accept, hold, administer, and spend any gift, devise, or
bequest of real or personal property made on the condition
that it be used for the benefit of members of the armed
forces or civilian employees of United States Government, or
the dependents or survivors of such members or employees, who
are wounded or killed while serving in Operation Iraqi
Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, or any other military
operation or activity, or geographic area, designated by the
Secretary of Defense for purposes of this section.
``(B) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations
specifying the conditions that may be attached to a gift,
devise, or bequest accepted under this paragraph.
``(C) The authority to accept gifts, devises, or bequests
under this paragraph shall expire on December 31, 2007.
``(3) The Secretary concerned may pay all necessary
expenses in connection with the conveyance or transfer of a
gift, devise, or bequest made under this subsection.''.
(b) Scope of Authority To Use Accepted Property.--Such
section is further amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (b), (c) and (d) as
subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new
subsection (b):
``(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), property
accepted under subsection (a) may be used by the Secretary
concerned without further specific authorization in law.
``(2) Property accepted under subsection (a) may not be
used--
``(A) if the use of such property in connection with any
program, project, or activity would result in the violation
of any prohibition or limitation otherwise applicable to such
program, project, or activity;
``(B) if the conditions attached to such property are
inconsistent with applicable law or regulations;
``(C) if the use of such property would reflect unfavorably
on ability of the Department of Defense, any employee of the
Department, or any member of the armed forces to carry out
any responsibility or duty of the Department in a fair and
objective manner; or
``(D) if the use of such property would compromise the
integrity or appearance of integrity of any program of the
Department of Defense, or any individual involved in such a
program.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (c) of such section,
as redesignated by subsection (b)(1) of this section, is
further amended in the flush matter following paragraph (4)
by striking ``benefit or use of the designated institution or
organization'' and inserting ``purposes specified in
subsection (a)''.
(d) GAO Audits.--Such section is further amended by adding
at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) The Comptroller General of the United States shall
make periodic audits of real or personal property accepted
under subsection (a) at such intervals as the Comptroller
General determines to be warranted. The Comptroller General
shall submit to Congress a report on the results of each such
audit.''.
amendment no. 2565
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the applicability of
the Uniform Code of Military Justice to members of the reserve
components of the Armed Forces on inactive-duty training overseas)
At the end of subtitle D of title V, add the following:
SEC. __. SENSE OF SENATE ON APPLICABILITY OF UNIFORM CODE OF
MILITARY JUSTICE TO RESERVES ON INACTIVE-DUTY
TRAINING OVERSEAS.
It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) there should be no ambiguity about the applicability of
the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to members of the
reserve components of the Armed Forces while serving overseas
under inactive-duty training (IDT) orders for any period of
time under such orders; and
(2) the Secretary of Defense should--
(A) take action, not later than February 1, 2006, to
clarify jurisdictional issues relating to such applicability
under section 802 of title 10, United States Code (article 2
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice); and
(B) if necessary, submit to Congress a proposal for
legislative action to ensure the applicability of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice to members of the reserve components
of the Armed Forces while serving overseas under inactive-
duty training orders.
amendment no. 2566
(Purpose: To facilitate the commemoration of the success of the United
States Armed Forces in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi
Freedom)
At the end of subtitle C of title III, add the following:
SEC. __. COMMEMORATION OF SUCCESS OF THE ARMED FORCES IN
OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM AND OPERATION IRAQI
FREEDOM.
(a) Finding.--Congress finds that it is both right and
appropriate that, upon their return from Operation Enduring
Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq,
all soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen in the Armed
Forces who served in those operations be honored and
recognized for their achievements, with appropriate
ceremonies, activities, and awards commemorating their
sacrifice and service to the United States and the cause of
freedom in the Global War on Terrorism.
(b) Celebration Honoring Military Efforts in Operation
Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.--The President
may, at the sole discretion of the President--
(1) designate a day of celebration to honor the soldiers,
sailors, marines, and airmen of the Armed Forces who have
served in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi
Freedom and have returned to the United States; and
(2) issue a proclamation calling on the people of the
United States to observe that day with appropriate ceremonies
and activities.
(c) Participation of Armed Forces in Celebration.--
(1) Participation authorized.--Members and units of the
Armed Forces may participate in activities associated with
the day of celebration designated under subsection (b) that
are held in Washington, District of Columbia.
(2) Availability of funds.--Subject to paragraph (4),
amounts authorized to be appropriated for the Department of
Defense may be used to cover costs associated with the
participation of members and units of the Armed Forces in the
activities described in paragraph (1).
(3) Acceptance of private contributions.--(A)
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of
Defense may accept cash contributions from private
individuals and entities for the purposes of covering the
costs of the participation of members and units of the Armed
Forces in the activities described in paragraph (1). Amounts
so accepted shall be deposited in an account established for
purposes of this paragraph.
(B) Amounts accepted under subparagraph (A) may be used for
the purposes described in that subparagraph until expended.
[[Page S12790]]
(4) Limitation.--The total amount of funds described in
paragraph (2) that are available for the purpose set forth in
that paragraph may not exceed the amount equal to--
(A) $20,000,000, minus
(B) the amount of any cash contributions accepted by the
Secretary under paragraph (3).
(d) Award of Recognition Items.--
(1) Authority to award.--Under regulations prescribed by
the Secretary of Defense, appropriate recognition items may
be awarded to any individual who served honorably as a member
of the Armed Forces in Operation Enduring Freedom or
Operation Iraqi Freedom during the Global War on Terrorism.
The purpose of the award of such items is to recognize the
contribution of such individuals to the success of the United
States in those operations.
(2) Recognition items defined.--In this subsection, the
term ``recognition items'' means recognition items authorized
for presentation under section 2261 of title 10, United
States Code (as amended by section 593(a) of this Act).
amendment no. 2567
(Purpose: To authorize the construction of battalion dining facilities
at Fort Knox, Kentucky)
On page 310, in the table following line 16, insert after
the item relating to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Knox............. $4,600,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On page 311, in the table preceding line 1, strike the
amount identified as the total in the amount column and
insert ``$1,199,722,000''.
On page 317, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
SEC. 2105. CONSTRUCTION OF BATTALION DINING FACILITIES, FORT
KNOX, KENTUCKY.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--The amount authorized
to be appropriated by section 2104(a) for military
construction, land acquisition, and military family housing
functions of the Department of the Army and the amount of
such funds authorized by paragraph (1) of such subsection for
military construction projects inside the United States are
each hereby decreased by $3,600,000.
(b) Use of Funds.--Of the amount authorized to be
appropriated by section 2104(a)(1) for the Department of the
Army and available for military construction at Fort Knox,
Kentucky, $4,600,000 is available for the construction of
battalion dining facilities at Fort Knox.
AMENDMENT NO. 2568
(Purpose: To provide for a responsibility of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
as military advisors to the Homeland Security Council)
At the end of subtitle A of title IX, add the following:
SEC. __. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF AS
MILITARY ADVISERS TO THE HOMELAND SECURITY
COUNCIL.
(a) Responsibility as Military Advisers.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 151 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``the Homeland Security
Council,'' after ``the National Security Council,''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``the Homeland Security
Council,'' after ``the National Security Council,''.
(2) Consultation by chairman.--Subsection (c)(2) of such
section is amended by inserting ``the Homeland Security
Council,'' after ``the National Security Council,'' both
places it appears.
(3) Advice and opinions of members other than chairman.--
Subsection (d) of such section is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``the Homeland Security
Council,'' after ``the National Security Council,'' both
places it appears; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``the Homeland Security
Council,'' after ``the National Security Council,''.
(4) Advice on request.--Subsection (e) of such section is
amended by inserting ``the Homeland Security Council,'' after
``the National Security Council,'' both places it appears.
(b) Attendance at Meeting of Homeland Security Council.--
Section 903 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C.
493) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) Members.--'' before ``The members'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Attendance of Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff at
Meetings.--The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (or, in
the absence of the Chairman, the Vice Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff) may, in the role of the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff as principal military adviser to the
Homeland Security Council and subject to the direction of the
President, attend and participate in meetings of the Homeland
Security Council.''
AMENDMENT NO. 2569
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the lives saved by the
Common Remotely Operated Weapons Station (CROWS) platform)
On page 286, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
SEC. 1073. SENSE OF SENATE ON COMMON REMOTELY OPERATED
WEAPONS STATION (CROWS) PLATFORM.
(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) With only a few systems deployed, the Common Remotely
Operated Weapons Station (CROWS) platform is already saving
the lives of soldiers today in Iraq by moving soldiers out of
the exposed gunner's seat and into the protective shell of an
up-armored Humvee.
(2) The Common Remotely Operated Weapons Station platform
dramatically improves battlefield awareness by providing a
laser rangefinder, night vision, telescopic vision, a fire
control computer that allows on-the-move target acquisition,
and one-shot one-kill accuracy at the maximum range of a
weapon.
(3) As they become available, new technologies can be
incorporated into the Common Remotely Operated Weapons
Station platform, thus making the platform scalable.
(4) The Army has indicated that an additional $206,000,000
will be required in fiscal year 2006 to procure 750 Common
Remotely Operated Weapons Station units for the Armed Forces,
and to prepare for future production of such weapons
stations.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that
the President should include in the next request submitted to
Congress for supplemental funding for military operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan sufficient funds for the production in
fiscal year 2006 of a number of Common Remotely Operated
Weapons Station units that is adequate to meet the
requirements of the Armed Forces.
AMENDMENT NO. 2570
(Purpose: To include packet based telephony service in the Department
of Defense telecommunications benefit)
At the end of subtitle C of title III, add the following:
SEC. __. INCLUSION OF PACKET BASED TELEPHONY IN DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE TELECOMMUNICATIONS BENEFIT.
(a) Inclusion in Benefit.--Subsection (a) of section 344 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004
(Public Law 108-136; 117 Stat. 1448) is amended by inserting
``packet based telephony service,'' after ``prepaid phone
cards,''.
(b) Inclusion of Internet Telephony in Deployment of
Additional Telephone Equipment.--Subsection (e) of such
section is amended--
(1) by inserting ``or Internet service'' after ``additional
telephones'';
(2) by inserting ``or packet based telephony'' after ``to
facilitate telephone''; and
(3) by inserting ``or Internet access'' after
``installation of telephones''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Such section is further
amended--
(1) in the subsection caption of subsection (a), by
striking ``Prepaid Phone Cards'' and inserting ``Benefit'';
and
(2) in the subsection caption of subsection (e), by
inserting ``or Internet Access'' after ``Telephone
Equipment''.
AMENDMENT NO. 2571
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate to emphasize that
financial assistance may be provided for the performance of activities
by the Army National Guard without use of competitive procedures under
standard exceptions to the use of such procedures)
At the end of subtitle A of title VIII, add the following:
SEC. __. SENSE OF SENATE ON APPLICABILITY OF COMPETITION
EXCEPTIONS TO ELIGIBILITY OF NATIONAL GUARD FOR
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR PERFORMANCE OF
ADDITIONAL DUTIES.
It is the sense of the Senate that the amendment made by
section 806 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375;
118 Stat. 2010) permits the Secretary of Defense to provide
financial assistance to the Army National Guard for the
performance of additional duties specified in section 113(a)
of title 32, United States Code, without the use of
competitive procedures under the standard exceptions to the
use of such procedures in accordance with section 2304(c) of
title 10, United States Code.
AMENDMENT NO. 2572
(Purpose: To clarify that military reservists, who are released from
active duty and who are otherwise qualified, are eligible for veterans
preference in Federal hiring)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SECTION __. VETERANS PREFERENCE ELIGIBILITY FOR MILITARY
RESERVISTS.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Reservist Access to Veterans Preference Act''.
(b) Veterans Preference Eligibility.--Section 2108(1) of
title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking
``separated from'' and inserting ``discharged or released
from active duty in''.
(c) Savings Provision.--Nothing in the amendment made by
subsection (b) may be construed to affect a determination
made before the date of enactment of this Act that an
individual is preference eligible (as defined in section
2108(3) of title 5, United States Code).
[[Page S12791]]
AMENDMENT NO. 2573
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study and
submit a report on the feasibility of conducting a military and
civilian partnership health care project)
At the end of subtitle B of title VII, add the following:
SEC. 718. STUDY AND REPORT ON CIVILIAN AND MILITARY
PARTNERSHIP PROJECT.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a study
on the feasibility of conducting a military and civilian
partnership project to permit employees of the Department of
Defense and of a non-profit health care entity to jointly
staff and provide health care services to military personnel
and civilians at a Department of Defense military treatment
facility.
(b) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2006, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of
the House of Representatives a report on the study required
by subsection (a).
amendment No. 2574
At the appropriate place in title VIII, insert:
SEC. __. CONTRACTING INCENTIVE FOR SMALL POWER PLANTS ON
FORMER MILITARY BASES.
(a) Authorization.--Notwithstanding the limitation in
Section 501(b)(1)(B) of title 40, United States Code, the
Administrator of the General Services Administration is
authorized to contract for public utility services for a
period of not more than 20 years, provided that such services
are electricity services procured from a small power plant
located on a qualified HUBZone base closure area.
(b) Definition of Small Power Plant.--In this section, the
term small power plant includes any power facility or project
with electrical output of not more than 60 Megawatts.
(c) Definition of Public Utility Electric Services.--In
this section, the term ``public utility services'', with
respect to electricity services, includes electricity
supplies and services, including transmission, generation,
distribution, and other services directly used in providing
electricity.
(d) Definition of Hubzone Base Closure Area.--In this
section, the term ``HUBZone base closure area'' has the same
meaning as such term is defined in Section 3(p)(4)(D) of the
Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632(p)(4)(D).
(e) Applicability of Other Provisions of Law.--Contracting
pursuant to this section shall be subject to all other laws
and regulations applicable to contracting for public utility
services.
amendment no. 2575
(Purpose: To extend through 2010 the requirement for an annual report
on the maturity of technology at the initiation of major defense
acquisition programs)
At the end of subtitle E of title VIII, add the
following:
SEC. __. EXTENSION OF ANNUAL REPORTS ON MATURITY OF
TECHNOLOGY AT INITIATION OF MAJOR DEFENSE
ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.
Section 804(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1180) is
amended by striking ``through 2006'' and inserting ``through
2010''.
amendment no. 2576
(Purpose: To authorize $4,500,000 for the Army National Guard for the
construction of a readiness center at Camp Dawson, West Virginia, to
authorize $2,000,000 for the Air National Guard for C-5 aircraft shop
upgrades at Eastern West Virginia Regional Airport, Shepherd Field,
Martinsburg, West Virginia, and to provide an offset)
On page 337, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
SEC. 2602. NATIONAL GUARD CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.
(a) Army National Guard at Camp Dawson, West Virginia.--
(1) Authorization of appropriations.--The amount
authorized to be appropriated by section 2601(1)(A) for the
Department of the Army for the Army National Guard of the
United States is hereby increased by $4,500,000.
(2) Use of funds.--Of the amount authorized to be
appropriated by section 2601(1)(A) for the Department of the
Army for the Army National Guard of the United States, as
increased by paragraph (1), $4,500,000 is available for the
construction of a readiness center at Camp Dawson, West
Virginia.
(3) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by
section 2601(3)(A) for the Department of the Air Force for
the Air National Guard of the United States, and available
for the construction of a bridge/gate house/force protection
entry project at Camp Yeager, West Virginia, is hereby
decreased by $4,500,000.
(b) Air National Guard at Eastern West Virginia Regional
Airport.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by
section 2603(3)(A) for the Department of the Air Force for
the Air National Guard of the United States, and otherwise
available for the construction of a bridge/gate house/force
protection entry project at Camp Yeager Air National Guard
Base, West Virginia, $2,000,000 shall be available instead
for C-5 aircraft shop upgrades at Eastern West Virginia
Regional Airport, Shepherd Field, Martinsburg, West Virginia.
amendment no. 2577
(Purpose: To require a report on the effects of windmill farms on
military readiness)
At the end of subtitle C of title III, add the following:
SEC. __. REPORT ON EFFECTS OF WINDMILL FARMS ON MILITARY
READINESS.
(a) Finding.--Congress finds that the Ministry of Defence
of the United Kingdom has determined, as a result of a
recently conducted study of the effect of windmill farms on
military readiness, not to permit construction of windmill
farms within 30 kilometers of military radar installations.
(b) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives a report on the
effects of windmill farms on military readiness, including an
assessment of the effects on the operations of military radar
installations of the proximity of windmill farms to such
installations and of technologies that could mitigate any
adverse effects on military operations identified.
amendment no. 2578
(Purpose: To require a report on advanced technologies for nuclear
power reactors in the United States)
At the end of subtitle B of title XXXI, add the
following:
SEC. __. REPORT ON ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES FOR NUCLEAR POWER
REACTORS IN THE UNITED STATES.
(a) Report Required.--Not later than six months after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy
shall submit to Congress a report on advanced technologies
for nuclear power reactors in the United States.
(b) Report Elements.--The report required by subsection
(a) shall include the following:
(1) A description and assessment of technologies under
development for advanced nuclear power reactors that offer
the potential for further enhancements of the safety
performance of nuclear power reactors.
(2) A description and assessment of technologies under
development for advanced nuclear power reactors that offer
the potential for further enhancements of proliferation-
resistant nuclear power reactors.
(c) Form of Report.--The information in the report
required by subsection (a) shall be presented in manner and
format that facilitates the dissemination of such information
to, and the understanding of such information by, the general
public.
amendment no. 2579
(Purpose: To require quarterly reports on the war strategy in Iraq)
At the end of subtitle D of title X, add the following:
SEC. __. QUARTERLY REPORTS ON WAR STRATEGY IN IRAQ.
(a) Quarterly Reports.--At the same time the Secretary of
Defense submits to Congress each report on stability and
security in Iraq that is submitted to Congress after the date
of the enactment of this Act under the Joint Explanatory
Statement of the Committee on Conference to accompany the
conference report on the bill H.R. 1268 of the 109th
Congress, the Secretary of Defense and appropriate personnel
of the Central Intelligence Agency shall provide the
appropriate committees of Congress a briefing on the strategy
for the war in Iraq, including the measures of evaluation
utilized in determining the progress made in the execution of
that strategy.
(b) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress''
means--
(1) the Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations
of the Senate; and
(2) the Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations
of the House of Representatives.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of an amendment
to the Defense Authorization Act of 2006, introduced by Senator Warner
along with Senator Levin and myself, which would authorize emergency
supplemental appropriations for the Department of Defense for domestic
hurricane relief and avian flu preparedness. At my request, this
amendment also includes $40 million in relief assistance for the people
affected by the devastating earthquake that struck northern Pakistan,
India, and Afghanistan on October 8, 2005. It would also require the
Secretary to submit a report to Congress describing the Department of
Defense's humanitarian efforts in the region and assessing the need for
further reconstruction and relief assistance. Although I fully support
the $40 million authorized in this amendment, I believe the DOD
assessment will reveal the need for a substantial increase
[[Page S12792]]
in assistance for the approximately 3 million people left homeless by
this earthquake.
Initial reports of this disaster described the situation as critical,
with over 30,000 people estimated dead and 1 million people in
desperate need of assistance. It is my understanding that, based on
these initial estimates, USAID has spent approximately $50 million of
the $156 million that the United States pledged in humanitarian
assistance to South Asia. In addition, the U.S. military has been
allocated $56 million of this pledge to support logistical and other
military relief efforts, and $50 million of this has already been
spent. As of November 9, the Department of Defense had more than 900
personnel providing relief and reconstruction support. DOD has flown
more than 1,100 helicopter missions delivering 2,700 tons of relief
supplies and evacuated over 8,200 casualties from the affected area. In
addition, the 212th Mobile Army Surgical Hospital has established a
unit in Pakistan and has 36 intensive care unit beds, 60 intermediate
minimal care beds, and 2 operating rooms. This unit has performed
valiantly, having completed more than 100 surgeries and treated 1,200
nonsurgical patients.
While I fully support these efforts, it has become clear that this
disaster is much larger than what was first assumed. The United Nations
is now reporting that ``the unfolding picture reveals levels of human
and economic devastation unprecedented in the history of the
subcontinent.'' In Pakistan alone, approximately 80,000 people have
died, half of whom were children. Nearly the same amount of people are
injured, with both numbers expected to rise. This region is home to 5
million people scattered across this mountainous area, and with a harsh
winter quickly approaching, the situation has the potential to become
much worse.
The earthquake destroyed most hospitals, schools, and government
buildings, and hundreds of towns and villages in the region have been
completely wiped out. Most roads and bridges have been completely
destroyed, and the 900 aftershocks have blocked the remaining roads by
landslides. Tens of thousands of people are still completely cut off
from any form of assistance. According to the United Nations, over 2
million people require life-saving assistance, including basic
necessities like food, water, and medicine. In addition, approximately
3 million people lack adequate shelter at a time when temperatures are
consistently below freezing and growing colder. There is now growing
concern that the death toll could quickly double if increased aid is
not provided immediately.
The U.N. has increased its appeal for aid to $550 million for the
next 6 months of operations, and it is estimated that disaster relief
and reconstruction may cost up to $6 billion over the long term. In the
near term however, I believe it is critical that we do all we can
before the Thanksgiving recess to help these people as they struggle
through the winter months. It is also important that if we are truly
committed to changing how the United States is perceived in a region
which is predominantly rural, poor, and Muslim, we must be willing to
demonstrate America's compassion and generosity in this time of urgent
need. To this end, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Amendment No. 2577
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the past several years the Senate has
been very engaged in producing a comprehensive energy policy. This
summer we took a positive step forward passing the first Energy bill in
more than 14 years.
It is my hope that this Energy bill will expand domestic supply,
encourage alternative sources, and help reduce our overall demand for
energy. Alternative energy sources will continually play a larger role
in the Nation's future and I believe wind power is a part of that
solution.
The Energy bill shifted the inadequate permitting process for
alternative energy production on outer continental shelf lands from the
Army Corps of Engineers to the Department of Interior's Minerals
Management Service. Given the Minerals Management Service's experience
with permitting offshore oil and gas leases, the inclusion of
alternative energy production such as windmills is a natural fit. Now
the permitting of wind farms, whether on or off shore, follows a strong
permitting process with input from the local, State, and Federal
Governments.
However, as windmills become a more prevalent part of the Nation's
energy landscape, we must be fully aware of the effects these
facilities may have on other aspects of the country's well being.
I have been prompted to look into this based upon the experiences of
the United Kingdom, which has studied in detail the potential adverse
effects of wind turbines on their radar abilities. The UK Ministry of
Defence is now a part of the permitting process for potential wind
farms in that country and some of these findings are currently being
shared with our own Department of Defense. However, we need more study.
Today I offer an amendment to provide a study regarding the effects
of wind turbines on military readiness, including an assessment of the
effects such farms may have on military radar. My amendment also
requires the report to include an assessment of technologies that could
mitigate any adverse effects wind projects could have on military
operations. As the entire world continues the development of
alternative sources of energy, it is imperative that the Department of
Defense and the Congress understand the effects that those energy
sources may have on the military's ability to do its job.
Whether it is a wind farm in the middle of the Arizona desert,
several miles off the Alaska Coast, or set along the shore of South
Africa, this Nation's military simply must be able to adequately deal
with the potential effects.
I thank the Senate for agreeing to include this study in the Defense
Authorization bill and look forward to its findings.
Amendment No. 1345
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, competitive sourcing is the process by
which the Federal Government conducts a competition to compare the cost
of obtaining a needed commercial service from a private sector
contractor rather than from Federal employees. Properly conducted,
competitive sourcing can be an effective tool to achieve cost savings.
Poorly utilized, however, it can increase costs and hurt the morale of
the Federal workforce.
The current guidelines under which agencies conduct these
competitions are contained in the Office of Management and Budget's
Circular A-76. To ensure that we maximize the benefit and minimize the
cost of competitive sourcing, A-76 competitions must be conducted in a
carefully crafted manner. The rules under which they take place must be
fair, objective, transparent, and efficient. In one particular regard,
I believe the current rules fail to meet these criteria.
Specifically, they do not allow Federal employees to protest the
agency's decisions in an A-76 competition beyond the agency's own
internal review processes to the General Accountability Office.
Congress has vested in the GAO the jurisdiction to hear and render
opinions in protests of agency acquisition decisions generally. Private
sector contractors, in contrast to Federal employees, have standing to
protest agency procurement decisions, including those in A-76
competitions, before GAO.
The current situation does not arise from any conscious policy
decision of Congress, GAO, or OMB. Rather, it occurs because the
Federal statute that confers protest jurisdiction upon GAO, the
Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 or ``CICA'' was not drafted to
address the unique nature of A-76 competitions, in particular, the role
of Federal employees in the ``Most Efficient Organization'' or ``MEO,''
which is the in-house side of these competitions. This was not
deliberate--this particular circumstance for protest was simply not
contemplated by Congress when drafting CICA.
Recent revisions to A-76 created the potential for GAO to review past
decisions by Federal courts and revisit its own opinions to see whether
the revisions would merit a determination that Federal employees had
gained standing to protest adverse A-76 competition decisions. However,
a GAO protest decision indicates that GAO has concluded
[[Page S12793]]
it lacks the authority under CICA to hear protests from Federal
employees in the MEO in these competitions. As a result, corrective
legislation became necessary in our view.
The Collins-Akaka amendment addresses a very important inequity in
our current procurement system. The amendment would ensure that Federal
employees have standing to protest to GAO similar to what the private
sector enjoys. The amendment would extend GAO protest rights on behalf
of the MEO in A-76 competitions to two individuals. The first is the
Agency Tender Official or ``ATO.'' The ATO is the agency official who
is responsible for developing and representing the Federal employees'
MEO. The second is a representative chosen directly by the Federal
employees in the MEO for the purposes of filing a protest with GAO
where the ATO does not, in the view of a majority of the MEO, fulfill
his or her duties in regards to a GAO protest. Our intent is to bolster
the A-76 process by providing a mechanism for Federal employees to seek
redress from GAO, an entity that is well known for its fair, effective
and expert handling of acquisition protests.
Study of Nuclear Power
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as the world economy continues to develop,
populations and economies grow, and energy demand continues to rise, it
is imperative that we diversify our supply of energy. Nuclear power
provides approximately 20 percent of our Nation's electricity needs and
it is a clean air alternative to fossil fuels. The safety record of our
commercial nuclear industry is a positive story and one that we need to
share. In an era where resources have become increasingly scarce and
expensive, it is unfortunate that nuclear power hasn't seemed to be a
part of the readily accepted solution. We have not been building
nuclear power plants in the past 20 plus years because of environmental
and safety concerns and this is a trend that I feel must be reversed.
I feel these concerns and that opposition to nuclear power are simply
a result of a lack of information. Today I offer an amendment that will
provide objective data for the public to see. Specifically, my
amendment calls on the Department of Energy to report to Congress on
the technologies for advanced nuclear power reactors and the potential
for safety enhancements as a result of those technologies.
This amendment will build on the nuclear provisions in the recently
passed Energy bill. Specifically, the extension of Price Anderson
insurance, incentives for nuclear power production, and support for the
construction of new nuclear reactors are positive policy developments.
In addition, there are several security related provisions regarding
security exercises, worker screening, and minimum facility standards
that will further enhance the safety and security of our nuclear
facilities. However, I feel there is information that would help many
understand the safety record of the industry and the potential
enhancement of that through new technology in the future.
I believe we must expand our nuclear power output as part of a
comprehensive energy policy and it is my hope that this study helps the
public better understand the safe and reliable contribution nuclear
power can make.
I thank the Senate for including this amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Returning to the debate on the two amendments, I yield
from my time 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Connecticut.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut is
recognized.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia. I
rise to support the Warner amendment and to respectfully oppose the
Levin amendment.
I believe something very important has happened in the last 24 hours.
In my opinion, the debate has grown in our country and in this city
much too partisan over what is happening in Iraq. That partisanship has
begun to get in the way of the potential for a successful completion of
our mission there.
I cite the great Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan, who said:
Politics must end at the water's edge. Why? So that America speaks with
maximum authority against those who would divide and conquer us in the
free world. That is from an earlier chapter in history, but his words
cry out to us.
Here is what the Washington Post said Saturday:
President Bush and leading congressional Democrats lobbed
angry charges at each other Friday in an increasingly
personal battle over the origins of the Iraq war. The sharp
tenor Friday resembled an election year campaign more than a
policy disagreement.
That is the danger that Vandenberg warns of. And about what? About
prewar intelligence, almost 3 years ago--not irrelevant, not
unimportant, but not as relevant and important as how we successfully
complete our mission in Iraq, how we protect the 150,000 men and women
fighting for us in uniform over there, how we do what the majority of
Members of both parties have said is so important to us--successfully
complete this mission.
Senator Warner and Senator Levin have done something unique. Senator
Levin worked very hard on our side to try to put together a broad
amendment that could involve as many members of the Democratic caucus
as possible. He did something that is important: expressed support for
the troops, for successful completion of the mission, but quite
correctly asked the administration and the Pentagon for a plan, for
measurements, for the beginning of a more open and complete dialog with
Congress.
He put something in there that I don't agree with that will lead me
respectfully to vote against the amendment. The last paragraph in the
Levin-Reid amendment looks like a timetable for withdrawal. It may not
be the intention, but I fear that is the message it will send. That is
a message I fear will discourage our troops in the field, will
encourage the terrorists, and will confuse the Iraqis.
Senator Warner has come along and accepted most of the Levin
amendment except primarily eliminated that last paragraph. In doing so,
these two leaders, Senator Levin and Senator Warner, have created a
context to break through the partisanship that has begun to diminish
American public support for the war, and that means making it more
difficult for our troops to successfully complete the mission.
We set up a dialog between the Congress and the President, measuring
points, and hopefully the administration will respond. This is a
statement of trust between Senator Warner and Senator Levin. I hope it
will be responded to by the administration because ultimately, only
together, as Vandenberg advised, will we achieve success in Iraq. And
success in Iraq means great stability in the Middle East, great freedom
for the people of Iraq, and a setback for the terrorists who attacked
us on September 11 and are anxious to do so again. I thank my friends
for working together to get us to this point.
Here is my hope. The vote on the Levin amendment, I gather, will be
first. I will respectfully vote against it. If it does not pass, I hope
there is overwhelming support for the Warner amendment. I can even
dream that 100 Senators would vote for it. That would be the strongest
statement of support to our troops and the strongest statement of
opposition to our enemy in Iraq.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. How much time remains?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 9 minutes 55
seconds.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, before my friend from Connecticut leaves, I
point out it is not partisanship that has caused the American people to
leave this war; it is the incredible gap between the rhetoric of the
administration of the last 2 years and the reality on the ground.
Before we ever got into the open debate, the American people in droves
were leaving this not just because Americans are dying, as tragic as
that is, but because they do not think we have a plan.
What I think all Democrats and Republicans are deciding is, Tell us
the plan, Stan. Tell us, Mr. President, what is the plan? It is the
first time this has happened.
The purpose of the amendment is as clear as it is critical: to
require the Bush administration to lay out what we need to do to
succeed in Iraq. For
[[Page S12794]]
the first time, our Republican colleagues have joined Democrats in
insisting on a clear Iraqi strategy from this administration, a
schedule to achieve it, and real accountability.
Let me be clear about what the amendment does not do. It does require
the administration to explain in detail, in public, its plan for
success--it has not been public, and that is why the American people
have left this outfit--and do it with specific goals, a realistic
schedule for achieving those goals, and the relationship between
achieving the goals and redeploying U.S. forces. It does not set a
deadline for withdrawal.
In providing the plan, both Democrats and Republicans are saying: I
hope the administration will start by being realistic and state
specifically what the mission is. Is the mission to protect every
Iraqi, or is the mission different? As the military will tell, and no
one knows better than my friends on the Committee on Armed Services,
the mission dictates the force structure, and the more realistic
mission calls for less force. We have to refocus our mission on
preserving America's fundamental interests in Iraq. What are they?
First, we have to ensure that Iraq does not become what it was not
before the war: a haven for jihadist terrorists.
Second, we have to do what we can to prevent a full-blown civil war
that turns into regional war. I predict if there is a civil war, there
will be a regional war.
To leave Iraq a stable and a united country with representative
government, posing no threat to its neighbors, we need to proceed on
three tracks at the same time: a political diplomatic track, an
assistance track, and a security track. We cannot succeed in Iraq
without all three of those succeeding.
On the diplomatic track, nothing is more important than getting
Iraq's three main groups--Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds--to agree to
changes in a constitution by next spring so that there is a consensus
constitution.
My friend, the chairman of the committee, says without a political
solution, we cannot do this. He is right. We need to know exactly what
the administration is doing to convince each community to make the
compromises necessary for a broad and sustainable political settlement.
We also need to know that the administration plans to engage the
world powers and regional powers in this effort, as we did in the Six
Plus Two Plan in Afghanistan, as we did in Bosnia. Iraq's neighbors
have real influence with these different communities, and we need them
to use that influence to arrive at a political settlement.
On the assistance track, the whole house of cards will collapse if
Iraqis have no capacity to govern themselves, and if the Iraqi people
cannot turn on the lights, drink the water, and walk out their front
doors without wading into sewage.
So we need to know what specific steps the administration is taking
to strengthen the capacity of Iraq's governmental ministries. We all
know none of them can function now--none. Not a single Iraqi ministry
is capable of functioning. The administration rejected the British plan
to adopt these ministries. So what is the plan? What are you going to
do, Mr. President, to make them able to function? How many regular
police do we have to keep? What are the basic law-and-order
requirements before we can draw down?
We need to stop this silliness about having trained 179,000 troops.
Stop this silliness. Tell us what the facts are and tell us the
relationship between the facts and our ability to draw down.
What is the plan to ensure that these local ministries are able to
move on their own and coordinate Iraqi security forces?
Our amendment lays this out. The fact that our Republican colleagues
have signed on to a very similar amendment makes it clear that all of
us in this body are tired of not being told the facts.
So, Mr. President, the gap between this administration's rhetoric on
Iraq and the reality on the ground has created a huge credibility gap.
And I would have never thought this: Only this President could unite
the Senate. He has united the Senate on a single point: What is the
plan? That is what our amendment does.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, if it is possible,
for 1 minute for my friend from California.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, is that an additional minute above the time
allotted to us?
Mr. BIDEN. Yes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I assume that a minute comes to this side
likewise.
Mr. BIDEN. Yes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from California is recognized for 1 minute.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair and my friend from Delaware.
Mr. President, remember when Secretary Rumsfeld said he doubted the
war would last 6 months, and when White House Budget Director Daniels
said Iraq would be an affordable endeavor, and Condoleezza Rice used
the imagery of a mushroom cloud to describe the threat of Iraq, and
Vice President Cheney's now famous assessment of the insurgency: ``They
are in their last throes, if you will''? That is a quote.
Well, this administration has failed to lead in Iraq in a way that is
ensuring a way out of this with a successful mission.
Finally, the Senate is finding its voice today in both of these
proposals in front of us. I am proud to say the Senate is standing up
for a change in policy. The status quo is not working. In California,
we have lost about 24 percent of the dead. We are suffering. Their
families are suffering. Just to say, ``stay the course, stay the
course, no matter how badly it is going,'' is simply not going to help
our troops in the field.
So, Mr. President, I view this day as a very important breakthrough
for the American people. They are being heard. The Democrats are
hearing them. The Republicans took the very words of our resolution,
made a couple of changes, I think important changes, which mitigate in
favor of ours, but I certainly will be voting for both.
Thank you very much.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used her 1 minute.
Who yields time?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on both sides?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan has 3
minutes 38 seconds. The Republican side has 4 minutes 18 seconds.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield a minute to the Senator from Rhode
Island.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island is
recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, after 2\1/2\ years of insurgency warfare in
Iraq, it is a stunning indictment of the Bush administration that this
Senate has to ask for a plan. And we are asking on behalf of the
American people because their disquiet with Iraq is not a function of
political bickering, it is a function of not understanding what the
plan is because the President has not presented us with a viable,
coherent plan.
I believe an important part of that plan is the phased redeployment
of American forces without a deadline. I believe that is being embraced
by people around the world. Yesterday, Tony Blair spoke about the
possibility of withdrawing British troops in 2006. Talabani, the Iraqi
leader, spoke about it. John Reid, the Defense Secretary of Great
Britain, talked about it.
I think we have to have from the administration a notion of when our
forces will come out of Iraq or redeployed within Iraq. It is important
not only for Iraq, it is important for our security across the globe.
How can we defend ourselves in the future if we do not know if our
forces will be freed up to respond to other crises? How can we pay for
these troops if we don't know when they will be coming out of Iraq? I
think it is important to do this and essential to any plan. I hope that
is something we can agree on today.
[[Page S12795]]
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used 1 minute.
Who yields time?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield a minute to the Senator from
Illinois.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois is
recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this debate today is going to be a
significant debate because you are going to hear from both sides of the
aisle that we are voting for change. We will reject the status quo. We
will reject the President's call for blind loyalty to his policies in
Iraq because we cannot be blind to the fact that we have lost over
17,000 American soldiers who have been killed and wounded. We cannot be
blind to the fact that there is no plan for success in Iraq. We cannot
be blind to the fact that it does no favor to our troops and their
families to ignore the obvious.
We need new leadership and new direction. The vote today on the
Warner amendment and the vote on the Levin amendment are both votes for
change. They are not votes to cut and run. Even though the Republicans
have done a cut-and-paste job on the Democratic amendment, both
amendments say to the administration: It is time to change the course
for success, to make certain that 2006 is a significant year, so that
we move toward a success and victory for our troops and for our Nation.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's 1 minute has expired.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I regret the term ``cut and paste'' was
used. Senator Levin and I have worked together now for 27 years in the
Armed Services Committee. I worked with him and told him we decided not
to completely rewrite the amendment. This in an effort, as the Senator
from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, a member of our committee, so
eloquently stated, to reach a sense of bipartisanship at this very
critical time, on the eve of another and perhaps the most significant
election in Iraq, to show strong bipartisan support on those points on
which we agree. And we agree almost on every point, with the exception
of the last paragraph.
I was interested in listening to each of the debates thus far, and I
did not hear anyone on that side specifically reinforce this last
paragraph, which we cannot accept, nor should the country have Congress
send across the airwaves of the world this message:
A campaign plan with estimated dates for the phased
redeployment of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq as
each condition is met, with the understanding that unexpected
contingencies may arise.
Therein is a short paragraph that could completely destabilize this
forthcoming election on December 15, sending the wrong message. It is
not needed.
This amendment, as drawn, is a very powerful, very powerful statement
by the Congress--hopefully, if the House adopts it, but certainly by
the Senate--of the need to tell the Iraqi people that we have done our
share, we are not going to leave them, but we expect from them equal,
if not greater, support than they have given to this date.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan is
recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment represents a significant
change in the course that we are on and so does the Republican
amendment. The title of both amendments is ``To clarify and recommend
changes to the policy of the United States on Iraq. . . .'' That is the
purpose of my amendment. It is a purpose which is retained in the
Warner amendment.
We lay out what those changes are. We agree on almost all of the
changes, that ``2006 should be a period of significant transition,''
that there should be ``phased redeployment of United States forces.''
That is on page 2. That is not paragraph 7. They accept the idea that
we should create the conditions for phased redeployment. They accept my
idea and our idea that the United States ``should tell the leaders of
all groups and political parties in Iraq that they need to make the
compromises necessary'' for a broad-based political settlement.
We need that political settlement. Our military leaders tell us, if
there is any chance of a military victory, you have to have a political
settlement. So we endorse paragraph 7. Senator Feingold read it. I have
read it. We totally endorse it for what it says. It is not cut and run.
It is not a statement that we are going to withdraw on a fixed date.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Who yields time?
The minority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will use leader time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator may use his leader
time.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, today, Senate Democrats offer the most
important amendment to this most important bill. Our amendment asks the
Bush administration to give our troops in Iraq a strategy that is
worthy of their sacrifices and heroic service.
Three years ago, America invaded Iraq with the finest Armed Forces in
the world. Our military forces were unchallenged and unmatched, and
they remain so today. Unfortunately, the President and this
administration have not exercised the leadership our troops deserve.
They place our troops in harm's way without a plan for success and have
damaged our standing in the world.
It is long past time for the President, the Vice President, and the
rest of the Bush White House to level with the American people and
present a winning plan and strategy for Iraq and our troops and for the
American people. They both deserve this, the troops and the American
people.
For the last 3 years, Democrats have stood with our troops and have
tried to make certain we did everything we could to help them succeed.
From the outset, we offered the administration concrete proposals that
would have greatly increased our prospects for success.
We called on the administration to put more troops on the ground, but
the administration rejected this call. We fought to provide more body
armor and equipment for our troops, but the administration rejected
this call. We urged the administration to increase international
participation to secure and rebuild Iraq, but the administration
rejected this call. We stressed the importance of putting together a
plan to win the peace, but the administration rejected this call.
Now, to remind my colleagues, it was not just the advice of Democrats
that the administration chose to ignore. It ignored the advice of our
senior generals, our friends and allies around the world, teams of
weapons inspectors, and even senior officials in the previous Bush
administration.
The President and his team also chose to disregard the Powell
Doctrine, which holds that military actions should be used only as a
last resort where there is a clear risk to national security.
According to this doctrine, if we do choose to fight, we should use
overwhelming force, we should ensure that the conflict is strongly
supported by the American people, and we should develop a clear exit
strategy before we get into the conflict. That is the Powell Doctrine.
Before this administration took office, the Powell Doctrine was
supported by the previous two Presidents, our military leaders, and
congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle. But this
administration turned the Powell Doctrine upside down. They determined
that military action should be a first resort, not a last. When the
risk to our national security was not clear, they manipulated and
cherry-picked intelligence to hype the threat. Instead of using
overwhelming force, this administration rejected our senior military
leaders' advice and deployed a smaller force. And as we all know, there
was not, and is not, an exit strategy to win the peace and bring our
troops home.
While we are determined to understand the mistakes this
administration made that brought us to this point, we are just as
committed to finding a way forward to succeed in Iraq. Every day that
goes by, it becomes increasingly clear that the administration's Iraq
policy is adrift and rudderless. All they are offering is a bumper-
sticker slogan: ``Stay the course.''
``Staying the course'' is not a winning strategy. More than 2,050
soldiers
[[Page S12796]]
have died and about 16,000 have been wounded. Iraq now risks becoming
what it was not before the war: a haven for international terrorists
and, as we saw in Jordan, a new launching pad for terrorist attacks.
In addition, America's taxpayers have already contributed more than
$250 billion and are spending an additional $2 billion every week this
war continues. In short, our troops deserve more than a slogan. They
deserve a real, clear strategy for completing their mission in faraway
Iraq.
Our amendment sets forth in the clearest terms the Democrats' view of
what the President and the Iraqi people must accomplish to succeed in
Iraq and complete our mission.
First, it is time to see a significant transition toward full Iraqi
sovereignty with Iraqi forces helping to create the conditions that
will eventually lead to the phased redeployment of U.S. Armed Forces.
Two thousand six should be a year we take the training wheels off the
Iraqi government and let the Iraqi people run their own country.
Second, the administration must tell the Iraqi people, clearly and
unambiguously, that U.S. military forces will not stay indefinitely and
that Iraqis must achieve a broad-based and sustainable political
settlement that is essential for defeating the insurgency.
Third, the President must submit to the Congress and the American
people a plan for success in Iraq. The American people deserve to know
the conditions we seek to establish, the challenges we face in
achieving these conditions, and the progress, if any, being made. As an
example, the administration said repeatedly that our forces can stand
down as Iraqi forces stand up. The American people deserve to know what
that means in real and clear terms. How many capable Iraqi security
forces are needed so that we can begin phased redeployment of U.S.
forces as our tasks are achieved? How long will it take? Is it no
longer acceptable that the President refuses? The answer is yes, it is
no longer acceptable not to answer these and many other basic questions
about his policy in Iraq. It is not acceptable to this Member of
Congress, and it is certainly not acceptable to our troops. Many of
those troops are serving their third tour of duty with no apparent end
in sight.
With this amendment, Democrats are standing with our troops and the
American people, insisting that the President and the Republican-
controlled Congress do their jobs. The President must be held
accountable and tell our troops and the American people his plan for
Iraq and what additional sacrifices will be expected of our troops and
the American people. We must honor our troops. We must preserve our
national security. We must protect the American people. That is the
least we should expect from our Commander in Chief.
I am going to vote for both amendments. Understand that the
Democratic amendment and the Republican amendment have the same
purpose. It is on both amendments. Purpose: To clarify and recommend
changes to the policy of the United States in Iraq and to require
reports of matters relating to Iraq. That is the purpose.
Based on what I see here today, the Republicans have no plan and no
end in sight. We want to change the course. We can't stay the course. I
appreciate, though, the Republicans following the Democrats as far as
they have on this amendment. It is a tremendous step forward because we
all agree--all 100 Senators, obviously--to clarify and recommend
changes in the policy of the United States on Iraq and to require
reports on matters relating to Iraq. That is the purpose of both
amendments. We stand united. The Democrats stand united. We appreciate
the support of the Republicans in this amendment process.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Who yields time?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my understanding is that I have 2 minutes
remaining on the 15-minute allocation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. WARNER. Given that we have no time to speak of before the
amendment of the Senator from South Carolina and Senator Levin, I yield
my 2 minutes for a matter other than the Iraqi debate, the habeas
corpus issue, to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Amendment No. 2524
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from Virginia.
I just want to alert my colleagues to the fact that the amended
Graham amendment, which is the subject of newspaper comment but hasn't
been the subject of any hearings, apparently agreed to by Senator
Levin, or at least with fewer objections, this amendment in its present
form is blatant court stripping in the most confusing way possible. The
language of the amended Graham amendment says that there will be
exclusive jurisdiction in the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit.
If it means what it says, the Supreme Court of the United States
would not have jurisdiction. This language has not been subjected to
any analysis or hearing. An earlier part of the amendment provides that
no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to consider the
application for writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court of the United
States, in three decisions handed down in June of last year, gave very
substantial, articulated U.S. constitutional law as giving significant
rights to the detainees to have an adjudication as to their status.
We have had many efforts at court stripping. Under the language of
exclusive jurisdiction in the DC Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court would
not have jurisdiction to hear the Hamdan case which came into sharp
focus because Chief Justice Roberts was on the panel there.
This is a sophisticated, blatant attempt at court stripping. It ought
to be rejected, and we ought to have an opportunity to give it some
thoughtful analysis before these fundamental changes are made.
I thank my colleague from Virginia.
Amendments Nos. 2518 and 2519
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Iraq amendment under consideration
today constitutes no run-of-the-mill resolution and reporting
requirement. It is much more important than that, and likely to be
watched closely in Iraq--more closely there, in fact, than in America.
In considering this amendment, I urge my colleagues to think hard about
the message we send to the Iraqi people. I believe that, after
considering how either version will be viewed in Iraq, we must reject
both.
Reading through each version, one gets the sense that the Senate's
foremost objective is the drawdown of American troops. But America's
first goal in Iraq is not to withdraw troops, it is to win the war. All
other policy decisions we make should support, and be subordinate to,
the successful completion of our mission. If that means we can draw
down troop levels and win in Iraq in 2006, that is wonderful. But if
success requires an increase in American troop levels in 2006, then we
should increase our numbers there.
But that is not what these amendments suggest. They signal that
withdrawal, not victory, is foremost in Congress's mind, and suggest
that we are more interested in exit than victory. A date is not an exit
strategy. This only encourages our enemies, by indicating that the end
to American intervention is near, and alienates our friends, who fear
an insurgent victory. Instead, both our friends and our enemies need to
hear one message: America is committed to success in Iraq and we will
win this war.
The Democratic version requires the President to develop a withdrawal
plan. Think about this for a moment. Imagine Iraqis, working for the
new government, considering whether to join the police forces, or
debating whether or not to take up arms. What will they think when they
learn that the Democrats are calling for a withdrawal plan? The
Republican alternative, while an improvement, indicates that events in
2006 should create the conditions for a redeployment of U.S. forces.
Are these the messages we wish to send? Do we wish to respond to the
millions who braved bombs and threats to vote, who have put their faith
and trust in America and the Iraqi Government, that our No. 1 priority
is now bringing our people home? Do we want to tell insurgents that
their violence has successfully ground us down, that their horrific
acts will, with enough time, be successful? No, we must not send these
messages. Our exit strategy in Iraq is not the withdrawal of our
troops, it is victory.
[[Page S12797]]
If we can reach victory in 2006, that would be wonderful. But should
2006 not be the landmark year that these amendments anticipate, we will
have once again unrealistically raised the expectations of the American
people. That can only cost domestic support for America's role in this
conflict, a war we must win.
I repeat that. This is a war we must win. The benefits of success and
the consequences of failure are too profound for us to do otherwise.
The road ahead is likely to be long and hard, but America must follow
it through to success. While the sponsors of each version of this
amendment might argue that their exact language supports this view,
perceptions here and in Iraq are critical. By suggesting that
withdrawal, rather than victory, is on the minds of America's
legislators, we do this great cause a grave disservice.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I wish to speak on leader time.
Shortly, we will be voting on two amendments, one offered by Senators
Levin and Reid, and the other proposed by Senator Warner and myself.
Our amendment, the Republican amendment, shows leadership, signals
our commitment, and reflects an exit strategy we call victory. As
Chairman Warner just said a few moments ago, there are many
similarities between the two amendments which reflect a lot of broad
agreement that we have on the war, the progress to date, and the way
ahead.
Notwithstanding the Democrats' political carping of the last several
days, and really the last several weeks, these two amendments that we
will be voting on are forward-looking. They don't get into the issues
that were debated and decided a long time ago in the last election.
They are forward-looking. They don't try to rewrite history of how
Members voted, why they voted, or what they supposedly meant at the
time they voted when they spoke in support of the war.
There is a lot being made in the media about the requirement of a
quarterly report, an update on the war's progress, allegations that
this in some way shows dissatisfaction with the administration. That is
absurd. It is ridiculous. The fact is that Congress, this body, is
charged with oversight of the executive branch regardless of which
party is in power at the time. This amendment is a continuation of that
oversight. It is not a change in policy. It is a continuation of that
oversight that we have been conducting for years in the Senate. That
includes whether we are looking at prewar intelligence issues or
investigating the Abu Ghraib prison abuses or inquiring about the pace
of reconstruction efforts in Iraq.
The Senate has been doing this for years. We are already getting much
of the information from the administration, largely at the urging of
the Republican leadership.
There is a huge, important difference between the two amendments we
will be voting on. That main difference between these amendments is
that the Democrats' amendment requires a timeline, a plan for
withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Some have referred to this as the
cut-and-run provision; that is, pick an arbitrary timeline and get out
of Iraq regardless of what is happening on the ground, regardless of
the security situation, regardless of the political developments
occurring in Iraq. We believe that is dangerous. We believe that is
irresponsible. It is irresponsible to tell the terrorists, who we know
are waiting to take us out, what that timeline is because the timeline,
once exposed, simply says: All we have to do is wait and then we
attack. Then we swoop in to overwhelm Iraq's fledgling democracy, once
those troops depart, turning Iraq into a safe haven and base of
operations to export terrorism abroad.
That is why cut-and-run is the wrong policy. Such a scenario would
play very nicely into the plans that we know al-Qaida has. The recently
intercepted letter between Zawahiri and Zarqawi laid out what that
terrorists' strategy is, to force the United States out of Iraq and use
the media and public opinion against us, to turn Iraq into a safe
haven, and from there launch their twisted vision of establishing a
radical caliphate throughout the Middle East. They laid it out. A cut-
and-run strategy plays right into their hands.
That is why telling the enemy our plans is irresponsible and
dangerous. That is why the votes on these amendments in a few moments
are so important. It is dangerous for our troops in the region, for our
Nation, and for the American people.
Democrats want an exit strategy, thinking cut-and-run. What we are
for is a victory strategy. The President of the United States has laid
that strategy out clearly in four steps: First, defeat the insurgency
using military force while helping Iraq build its own security
capability; second, help Iraq rebuild its infrastructure and supporting
economy to promote growth and prosperity and hope; third, promote
democracy in its institutions through a political process that
culminates in an elected government that respects and represents the
views of all Iraqis; and fourth, integrate that new Iraq into the
international community of civilized nations. Four steps, that is the
victory strategy.
We have already seen great progress by the Iraqis on each of these
issues. As the President has said, U.S. forces will not stay one day
longer than necessary. Our troops will step aside as Iraqi forces stand
up. Publishing a timeline for our retreat will encourage the
terrorists. It will confuse the Iraqi people. It will play into the
hands of the Zawahiri and Zarqawi letter. It will discourage our
troops, and it sends all the wrong signals to friends and foes alike in
this country and, indeed, around the world.
My colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, made many of these
points a few moments ago and again last night when he so eloquently
announced his strong support for the Warner amendment. Yes, 2006 will
be a transition year for Iraq. We can celebrate that. With elections in
6 weeks, 2006 will be the year a permanent democratically elected
government will finally take power, 31 months after the fall of Saddam
Hussein. This government will be guided by its recently approved
constitution. On October 15, 10.5 million people came out to ratify
that constitution. The government will represent the views and the
backgrounds and the beliefs and deeds of all peace-loving Iraqis. That
is progress.
With Iraqi security forces now numbering 200,000, and their
experience and leadership growing every day, I believe we can continue
handing our security responsibilities over to Iraqi forces. I also
believe that given the professionalism and courage of our Armed Forces,
the commitment of the Iraqi people, and the support of the American
people, we can achieve the vision. The vision is crystal clear. It is a
free, democratic, and prosperous Iraq that is governed by the rule of
law, that protects the rights of all Iraqis, that is not a threat to
its neighbors, and is a responsible international citizen.
Mr. President, the Republican amendment is not a change in policy. It
is not a change in tone as has been suggested on the floor. Our
amendment reflects where this body has always been, supportive of the
President and supportive of our troops overseas, forward-looking and
optimistic, always conscious of the oversight responsibilities of this
institution and our obligation as Senators to the American people.
Indeed, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose the Levin amendment and
to support the Frist-Warner amendment.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. REID. I yield my leader time to the Senator from Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. I yield time to the Senator from Michigan. I think I have a
minute or 2.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a minute.
The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the majority leader has railed against
language which does not exist in our amendment. Repeating over and over
again a cut-and-run strategy is wrong, he tries to create the
impression that that is what paragraph 7 proposes. It does not by its
own terms. By repeating cutting and running enough I guess the hope is
that people who don't read this language will believe that that is the
language in paragraph 7. It is not.
[[Page S12798]]
What we propose in paragraph 7 is that there be estimated dates,
estimated dates if the conditions on the ground are met as the
Republican and Democratic amendment both propose occur. Then give us
estimated dates for a phased redeployment--estimated dates--if those
conditions are met and with the understanding that unexpected
contingencies may arise. That cannot be fairly characterized the way
the majority leader repeatedly characterized it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 1 minute.
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. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 58, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 322 Leg.]
YEAS--40
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Obama
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden
NAYS--58
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
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
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--2
Alexander
Corzine
The amendment (No. 2519) 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.
Amendment No. 2518
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Warner
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, beginning with this vote, all remaining
votes will be 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under the previous order, there is 2 minutes equally divided on the
Warner amendment on which the yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am very grateful for the bipartisan
support on this amendment. Our amendment is simply taking portions of
the Levin amendment, putting them into an amendment that we put
together, rather than draw up a totally new amendment, so we can have
the maximum bipartisanship but carefully crafting the Warner amendment
so that not any words can be construed to indicate there is a timetable
for the withdrawal of coalition forces, most particularly U.S. forces.
We are on the verge of an historic election in Iraq for a permanent
government in a matter of weeks, and thereafter they have 60 days in
which to stand up that government. The next 120 days are absolutely
critical. The Warner amendment is forward-looking. It clearly sends a
message to the Iraqi people that we have stood with them; we have done
our part. Now it is time for them to put their government together,
stand strong so that eventually they can exercise total sovereignty and
select their own form of democracy. We cannot allow any verbiage to
come out of the Congress of the United States that can be construed as
a timetable of withdrawal at this critical time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I intend to vote for the Warner amendment
because it represents change, not as much change as we would have
liked, and we have debated that and argued that. But there are
significant changes that are being proposed in this amendment which we
have worked very hard to put in our amendment and we think would
represent an improvement. We need to have 2006 be a year of transition.
We need to have the administration lay out a strategy. We need to state
what our military states, which is that the Iraqis have to solve their
political problems and come together and unify if that insurgency is
going to be defeated. This amendment continues to say to the
administration they need to tell that to the Iraqis.
This amendment also sets up a schedule for conditions that are goals
we hope to be achieved on the ground. That ``schedule,'' which is the
word that remains in this amendment, is an important schedule that
needs to be retained, and it is retained. It needs to be met, and if it
is not met, we need to be told what has changed so that it can be met.
I support the Warner amendment as the second-best approach, but it
continues to keep the purpose, to clarify and recommend changes to the
policy of the United States on Iraq. Keeping that purpose is critical.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. All time has
expired for debate.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 19, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 323 Leg.]
YEAS--79
Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Burns
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--19
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Chambliss
Coburn
Conrad
DeMint
Graham
Harkin
Inhofe
Isakson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kyl
Leahy
McCain
Sessions
Thune
Vitter
NOT VOTING--2
Alexander
Corzine
The amendment (No. 2518) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REED. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2523
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may we have order?
I ask the Presiding Officer to once again restate the sequence of
votes that are about to take place.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
[[Page S12799]]
The upcoming amendment is the Bingaman amendment to the Graham
amendment. The previous order allows 2 minutes of debate.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer and again remind the
Senators the votes are 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is correct. All
votes from here on are 10 minutes.
Mr. WARNER. The time reserved to me under the Bingaman amendment I
yield to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, last week we had a debate and vote on
whether an enemy combatant terrorist al-Qaida member should be able to
have access to our Federal courts under habeas like an American
citizen. Senator Bingaman is trying to strip that part of the
amendment. He is consolidating the habeas petitions into the DC Court
of Appeals, but habeas still lies with a standard you can drive a truck
through. The court would look at the lawfulness of the detention which
would allow, in my opinion, the ability of a terrorist to go into the
DC Circuit Court of Appeals and start asking for Internet access under
the right of counsel. It is a never-ending process that should never
have begun anyway.
I urge a ``no'' vote to make sure the right of appeal is consistent
with the law of armed conflict and we do not have unfettered right of
court access by enemy combatants to sue us over everything to undermine
the war effort. I ask a ``no'' vote consistent with the last vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order. The Senator
should be heard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, last year the Supreme Court said that
Federal courts have authority to consider petitions for a writ of
habeas corpus. This would apply to prisoners at Guantanamo. People
should not be imprisoned without having the ability to challenge the
legality of that imprisonment. That is the history of our common law
system and our Constitution as well.
I will yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I support the Bingaman amendment and
oppose the Graham amendment because the Graham amendment is
sophisticated court-stripping. On the face of the Graham amendment, it
says the DC Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction, and on the face of it,
that even takes away jurisdiction from the Supreme Court of the United
States.
To alter habeas corpus in the context where the Supreme Court last
June, 2004, found substantial rights of the detainees is court-
stripping and would set a very bad precedent, not only for this factual
situation but in general.
I thank my colleague from New Mexico.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, last week I voted against an amendment
introduced by Senator Graham, No. 2515, which stripped the Federal
courts of their historic jurisdiction to hear applications for writs of
habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I
did so because the amendment would have eliminated virtually all
judicial review of combatant detentions, including review of the
decisions of military tribunals.
Today, I voted in favor of Senator Bingaman's amendment No. 2523,
because it would have preserved judicial review in the most important
areas while also preventing frivolous claims. When the Bingaman
amendment failed, I voted for a second-degree amendment No. 2524, which
reflected the hard work of Senator Levin to provide another means to
preserve some form of judicial review of the proceedings at Guantanamo
Bay. And, it is my understanding that, as Senator Levin stated on the
floor of the Senate just yesterday, ``this amendment will not strip
courts of jurisdiction over [pending] cases.''
The war on terror presents us with challenges unique in our Nation's
history, requiring solutions that are sustainable over the long-term.
We have little reason to trust the administration's record on this
score. But with these provisions, the Senate declares it is our
priority to prosecute the war on terror with every tool at the
country's disposal including the rule of law. It remains my priority,
and I know the priority of my colleagues, to win this war, to hunt down
and destroy terrorists wherever they are, destroy their networks, and
make our world safe.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I support the Bingaman second-degree
amendment to the Graham detainee amendment.
The Senator from South Carolina has been a leader on the issue of
detention and interrogation policies. I share his goal of setting clear
rules for the detention of enemy combatants.
This amendment would do some positive things that I support. It would
require the Defense Department to report to Congress on the procedures
for determining the status of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. It
would prohibit the Defense Department from determining the status of a
detainee based on evidence obtained from torture.
However, I am concerned that one section of the Graham amendment
would have very dramatic unintended consequences.
However, subsection (d) of the amendment would eliminate habeas
corpus for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. In so doing, it would overturn
the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Rasul v. Bush. It would strip
federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, of the right to hear
any challenge to any practice at Guantanamo Bay, other than a one-time
appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court on the limited question of whether the
Defense Department is complying with its own rules for classifying
detainees. It applies retroactively, and therefore would also likely
prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on the merits of the Hamdan case,
a pending challenge to the legality of the administration's military
commissions.
For these reasons, I am opposed to Senator Graham's amendment.
I will support Senator Bingaman's second degree amendment to the
Graham amendment. It would preserve the positive elements of the Graham
amendment and would strike subsection (d) of the amendment. It would
replace subsection (d) with a streamlined judicial review system that
would preserve habeas for Guantanamo detainees, consolidate habeas
claims in the D.C. Circuit Court, allow claims challenging the legality
of detention, and prohibit claims based on ``living conditions,'' e.g.
the type of food a person is provided. These restrictions would not
apply to people who have been charged by military commissions or who
have been determined not to be enemy combatants by a Combatant Status
Review Tribunal, CSRT.
The Graham-Levin substitute amendment would somewhat improve the
underlying amendment by expanding the scope of review by the D.C.
Circuit Court to include whether the CSRT's procedures are legal, but
not whether a particular detainee's detention is legal. It would also
allow for post-conviction review of military commission convictions.
However, the amendment would still eliminate habeas review and overrule
the Rasul case. As a result, I will oppose it.
No one questions the fact that the United States has the power to
hold battlefield combatants for the duration of an armed conflict. That
is a fundamental premise of the law of war.
However, over the objections of then-Secretary of State Colin Powell
and military lawyers, the Bush administration has created a new
detention policy that goes far beyond the traditional law of war.
The administration claims the right to seize anyone, including an
American citizen, anywhere in the world, including in the United
States, and to hold him until the end of the war on terrorism, whenever
that may be.
They claim that a person detained in the war on terrorism has no
legal rights. That means no right to a lawyer, no right to see the
evidence against him, and no right to challenge his detention. In fact,
the government has argued in court that detainees would have no right
to challenge their detentions even if they claimed they were being
tortured or summarily executed.
U.S. military lawyers have called this detention system ``a legal
black hole.''
[[Page S12800]]
Under their new detention policy, people who never raised arms
against the United States have reportedly been taken prisoner far from
the battlefield, including in places like Bosnia and Thailand.
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has described the detainees as ``the
hardest of the hard core'' and ``among the most dangerous, best
trained, vicious killers on the face of the Earth.'' However, the
administration now acknowledges that innocent people are held at
Guantanamo Bay. In late 2003, the Pentagon reportedly determined that
15 Chinese Muslims held at Guantanamo are not enemy combatants and were
mistakenly detained. Almost 2 years later, those individuals remain in
Guantanamo Bay.
Last year, in the Rasul decision, the Supreme Court rejected the
administration's detention policy. The Court held that detainees at
Guantanamo have the right to habeas corpus to challenge their
detentions in federal court. The Court held that the detainees' claims
that they were detained for years without charge and without access to
counsel ``unquestionably describe custody in violation of the
Constitution, or laws or treaties of the United States.''
The Graham amendment would protect the Bush administration's
detention system from legal challenge. It would effectively overturn
the Supreme Court's decision. It would prevent innocent detainees, like
the Chinese Muslims, from challenging their detention.
Yesterday, I received a letter from Colonel Dwight Sullivan of the
U.S. Marine Corps. Colonel Sullivan is the Chief Defense Counsel in the
Office of Military Commissions. He and other military lawyers have gone
to court to challenge the legality of the administration's detention
policies.
Colonel Sullivan opposes the Graham amendment. In his letter to me,
he said:
I am writing to call your attention to serious errors in
the arguments advanced by proponents of Amendment No. 2515 to
the FY 2006 DOD Authorization Act that would strip Guantanamo
detainees of habeas rights.
In his initial floor speech supporting the Amendment,
Senator Graham stated, ``Never in the history of the law of
armed conflict has an enemy combatant, irregular component,
or POW been given access to civilian court systems to
question military authority and control, except here.'' That
claim simply is not true. As discussed in greater detail
below, the Supreme Court considered habeas petitions filed on
behalf of seven of the eight would-be German saboteurs in Ex
parte Quirin and on behalf of a Japanese general who was a
prisoner of war in In re Yamashita.
Senator Graham stated:
Here is the one thing I can tell you for sure as a military
lawyer. A POW or an enemy combatant facing law of armed
conflict charges has not been given the right to habeas
corpus for 200 years because our own people in our own
military facing court-martials, who could be sentenced to
death, do not have the right of habeas corpus.
Again, Senator Graham's argument is factually incorrect. U.S.
servicemembers do have a right to challenge court-martial proceedings
through habeas petitions, in addition to the direct appeal rights.
Colonel Sullivan is not the only military leader who has raised
concerns about the Graham amendment. Yesterday, every member of the
Senate received a letter from nine retired military officers, including
seven Generals and one Rear Admiral. Here is what they said about the
Graham amendment:
For generations, the United States has stood firm for the
rule of law. It is not the rule of law if you only apply it
when it is convenient and toss it over the side when it is
not.
The Great Writ of Habeas Corpus has been at the heart of
U.S. law since the first drafts of the Constitution. Indeed,
it has been part of Western culture for 1000 years, since the
Magna Carta . . . The restriction on habeas contemplated by
Amendment 2516 would be a momentous change. It is certainly
not a change in the landscape of U.S. jurisprudence we should
tack on to the Defense Department Authorization Bill at the
last minute.
The practical effects of Amendment 2516 would be sweeping
and negative. America's great strength isn't our economy or
natural resources or the essentially island nature of our
geography. It is our mission, and what we stand for. That's
why other nations look to us for leadership and follow our
lead. Every step we take that dims that bright, shining light
diminishes our role as a world leader. As we limit the rights
of human beings, even those of the enemy, we become more like
the enemy. That makes us weaker and imperils our valiant
troops. We are proud to be Americans. This Amendment, well
intentioned as it may be, will diminish us.
These American patriots, who served our country for decades, say it
better than I ever could. This is not about giving rights to suspected
terrorists. It is about American values. Secret indefinite detention is
not the American way. Eliminating habeas corpus is not the American
way. I urge my colleagues to support the Bingaman second-degree
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. WARNER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Alexander) would have voted ``no.''
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 44, nays 54, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 324 Leg.]
YEAS--44
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith
Specter
Stabenow
Sununu
Wyden
NAYS--54
Allard
Allen
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
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
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Stevens
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--2
Alexander
Corzine
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2524 to Amendment No. 2515
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 2 minutes
equally divided on the Graham amendment to the Graham amendment.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional
minute to set the record straight.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is the
Senator from South Carolina asking for a second minute for each side?
Mr. GRAHAM. That would be fine. I would like an extra minute. Senator
Kerry gave me some very good advice, and I will take it if I am given
the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to 4 minutes equally
divided?
Mr. SPECTER. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this is a serious and very important vote.
During the debate last week, I made a statement about what rights our
troops would have. Our troops, once they are charged under the Uniform
Code of Military Justice, get appeal rights under the military system,
and they do have habeas rights about their criminal misconduct.
What I am trying to say--I got it wrong--is when our troops are enemy
prisoners there is no right to appeal to
[[Page S12801]]
the civil courts wherever they may be, nor has there ever been a right
for an enemy prisoner to go to our court. Senator Kerry gave me some
good advice. I misstated, and I am sorry. But the concept of an enemy
prisoner or enemy combatant not having access to civilian courts has
been the tradition of 200 years. We are about to end this whole
endeavor on a high note. I thank Senator Kyl for being a very
constructive finder of solutions, and I thank Senator Levin for going
that extra mile to find a way we can leave this issue with honor.
This Levin-Graham-Kyl amendment allows every detainee under our
control to have their day in court. They are allowed to appeal their
convictions, if they are tried by military commissions--a model that
goes back for decades to the Federal courts of this country, if they
get a sentence of 10 years or the death penalty.
We are going to have court review. An enemy combatant will not be
left at Guantanamo without a court looking at whether they are properly
characterized. We are doing it in a way consistent with the law of
armed conflict, in an orderly way.
I am proud that we are because this is a war of values. We can win
this war without sacrificing our values, and part of our values is due
process, even for the worst among us.
I thank Senator Levin very much. Senator Specter's stated that the
Circuit Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia is the primary
court to hear these cases, but the Supreme Court can receive a
certiorari petition from that court.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a Senator seeking time in opposition?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, when the Senator from South Carolina says
the Supreme Court of the United States can take certiorari, it is at
variance with the plain language of the statute. The statute says:
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia shall have exclusive jurisdiction.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. SPECTER. No. It means what it says.
I can't yield having only 2 minutes, but I would be glad to hear the
Senator afterwards.
It means what it says--the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction.
The great difficulty with the Graham-Levin amendment is that it was
worked out yesterday--sort of an affront to the Judiciary Committee, if
I may say so--that there is no time for the Judiciary Committee to have
a hearing on the matter to consider it.
We are dealing with very fundamental rights, habeas corpus.
Another provision of the Graham-Levin amendment says there shall be
no habeas corpus jurisdiction.
There have been repeated efforts in the history of our country to
take away the jurisdiction of the courts. Court stripping was a big
issue in the confirmation process of Chief Justice Roberts. He ran from
it like the plague. He had an early memo. He didn't want to be
associated with it.
These are weighty and momentous considerations that go far beyond the
detainees at Guantanamo. And we ought not to be deciding these
questions on an amendment, which was agreed to yesterday between
Senator Graham and Senator Levin, and no one has had a chance to study
or analyze--most of all the authors--which on the face takes away
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States. It is untenable
and unthinkable and ought to be rejected.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues across the aisle
who are attempting to address the treatment of detainees in U.S.
custody, despite resistance from members of their own party and the
strong opposition of the White House. I know Senator Graham has worked
closely with Senator McCain and others to give our troops the clear
guidance they need to effectively detain and interrogate enemy
prisoners, and I commend him for that. The legislative branch has not
met its obligation of oversight and policymaking in this area. For
months, Senator Graham has been prodding the Congress to take action.
He is one of the few members of his party to forcefully speak out on
the need to change the administration's policies.
While I support Senator Graham's efforts on these issues, I cannot
support his amendment to strip Federal courts of the authority to
consider a habeas petition from detainees being held in U.S. custody as
enemy combatants.
The Graham amendment would deny prisoners who the administration
claims are unlawful combatants the right to challenge their detention.
At no time in the history of this Nation have habeas rights been
permanently cut off from a group of prisoners. Even President Lincoln's
suspension of habeas was temporary. The Supreme Court has held numerous
times that enemy combatants can challenge their detention.
Many of my colleagues across the aisle argue that terrorists do not
deserve access to our Federal courts. This argument would be far more
persuasive if all of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay were terrorists.
Unfortunately, many of them are almost certainly not. Numerous press
accounts have quoted unnamed officials who believe that a significant
percentage of those detained at Guantanamo do not have a connection to
terrorism. And yet they have been held for years without the right to
challenge their detention in a fair and impartial hearing, a situation
that does significant harm to our Nation's reputation as a leader in
human rights and which puts our own soldiers at risk.
Filing a writ of habeas corpus is often the detainee's only
opportunity to openly challenge the basis for his detention. Providing
detainees this right is not about coddling terrorists--it is about
showing the world that we are a nation of laws and that we are willing
to uphold the values that we urge other nations to follow. It is about
honoring and respecting the principles that are part of our heritage as
Americans and that have been a beacon to the rest of the world.
Allowing a detainee to file a habeas petition provides legitimacy to
our detention system and quells speculation that we are holding
innocent people in secret prisons without any right to due process.
Some Members of the Senate have argued that these prisoners should be
tried in the military justice system. I think that we could all agree
on such a course if the administration had worked with Congress from
the start and established with our approval procedures that are fair
and consistent with our tradition of military justice. I introduced a
bill in the 107th Congress to do just that. So did Senator Specter. The
fact is, that the system that has been established by the
administration to try individuals held at Guantanamo is not a system
that reflects our values. It does not give due process or independent
review.
Everyone in Congress agrees that we must capture and detain terrorist
suspects, but it can and should be done in accord with the laws of war
and in a manner that upholds our commitment to the rule of law. The
Judiciary Committee held a hearing on detainee issues in June. At that
hearing, Senator Graham said that once enemy combatant status has been
conferred upon someone, ``it is almost impossible not to envision that
some form of prosecution would follow.'' He continued, ``We can do this
and be a rule of law nation. We can prove to the world that even among
the worst people in the world, the rule of law is not an inconsistent
concept.'' I agree with Senator Graham, but I strongly believe that in
order to uphold our commitment to the rule of law, we must allow
detainees the right to challenge their detention in Federal court.
As Chairman Specter noted on the floor last week, there are existing
procedures under habeas corpus that have been upheld by the Supreme
Court that do not invite frivolous claims, and that are appropriate.
Senator Graham's amendment would not only restrict habeas in a manner
never done before in our Nation, but, as the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee said last week, it would open a Pandora's box.
The chairman is right. He spoke forcefully again this morning about
the danger of such court stripping efforts. We must not rush to change
a legal right that predates our Constitution. Creating one exemption to
the ``great writ'' only invites more. The Judiciary Committee has
jurisdiction over habeas corpus and it should have the first
opportunity to review any proposed changed carefully and thoroughly.
Although congressional action on the
[[Page S12802]]
issue of foreign detainees is long overdue, we must not act hastily
when the ``great writ''--something that protects us all--is at stake.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from
the deans of four of our Nation's most prestigious law schools that
articulates the dangers of adopting the Graham amendment.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
November 14, 2005.
Dear Senator Leahy: We write to urge that the Senate adopt
the amendment of Senator Bingaman removing the court-
stripping provisions of the Graham Amendment to the
Department of Defense authorization bill. As professors of
law who serve as deans of American law schools, we believe
that immunizing the executive branch from review of its
treatment of persons held at the U.S. Naval Base at
Guantanamo strikes at the heart of the idea of the rule of
law and establishes a precedent we would not want other
nations to emulate.
At the Guantanamo Naval Base, the Government has subjected
foreign nationals believed to be linked to Al Qaeda to long-
term detention and has established military commissions to
try a small number of the detainees for war crimes. It is
entirely clear that one of the Executive Branch's motivations
for detaining noncitizens at Guantanamo was to put their
treatment beyond the examination of American courts.
The Supreme Court rejected the Government's claim in Rasul
v. Bush that federal habeas corpus review did not extend to
Guantanamo. The extent of the rights protected by federal
habeas law is now before the Federal Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit. Another challenge has been filed to the
authority of the President, acting without congressional
authorization, to convene military commissions at Guantanamo.
Just last week the Supreme Court announced that it would
review the case, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.
The Graham Amendment would attempt to stop both of these
cases from proceeding and would unwisely interrupt judicial
processes in midcourse. Respect for the constitutional
principle of separation of powers should counsel against such
legislative interference in the ongoing work of the Supreme
Court and independent judges.
Unfortunately, the Graham Amendment would do much more.
With a minor exception, the legislation would prohibit
challenges to detention practices, treatment of prisoners,
adjudications of their guilt and their punishment.
To put this most pointedly, were the Graham Amendment to
become law, a person suspected of being a member of Al Qaeda
could be arrested, transferred to Guantanamo, detained
indefinitely (provided that proper procedures had been
followed in deciding that the person is an ``enemy
combatant''), subjected to inhumane treatment, tried before a
military commission and sentenced to death without any
express authorization from Congress and without review by any
independent federal court. The American form of government
was established precisely to prevent this kind of
unreviewable exercise of power over the lives of individuals.
We do not object to the Graham Amendment's procedural
requirements for determining whether or not a detainee is an
enemy combatant and providing for limited judicial review of
such decisions. This kind of congressional structuring of the
detention of military prisoners is long overdue, and it
highlights the absence of congressional regulation of
standards of detainee treatment and the establishment of
military commissions. Curiously, the Graham Amendment
recognizes the need for judicial review of the determination
of enemy combatant status, but then purports to bar judicial
review of far more momentous commission rulings regarding
determinations of guilt and imposition of punishment.
We cannot imagine a more inappropriate moment to remove
scrutiny of Executive Branch treatment of noncitizen
detainees. We are all aware of serious and disturbing reports
of secret overseas prisons, extraordinary renditions, and the
abuse of prisoners in Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan. The
Graham Amendment will simply reinforce the public perception
that Congress approves Executive Branch decisions to act
beyond the reach of law. As such, it undermines two core
elements of the rule of law: congressionally sanctioned rules
that limit and guide the exercise of Executive power and
judicial review to ensure that those rules have in fact been
honored.
When dictatorships have passed laws stripping their courts
of power to review executive detention or punishment of
prisoners, our government has rightly challenged such acts as
fundamentally lawless. The same standard should apply to our
own government. We urge you to vote to remove the court-
stripping provisions of the Graham Amendment from the pending
legislation.
T. Alexander Aleinikoff,
Dean, Georgetown University Law Center.
Elena Kagan,
Dean and Charles Hamilton Houston Professor of Law, Harvard
Law School.
Harold Hongju Koh,
Dean and Gerard C. & Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of
International Law, Yale Law School.
Larry Kramer,
Dean and Richard E. Lang Professor of Law, Stanford Law
School.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Graham amendment, which the Senate
approved last Thursday, includes a prohibition on Federal courts having
jurisdiction to hear habeas petitions brought by aliens outside the
United States who are detained by the Defense Department at Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba.
The Graham-Levin-Kyl amendment would make three significant
improvements to the underlying Graham amendment.
The habeas prohibition in the Graham amendment applied retroactively
to all pending cases--this would have the effect of stripping the
Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction over all
pending case, including the Hamdan case.
The Graham-Levin-Kyl amendment would not apply the habeas prohibition
in paragraph (1) to pending cases. So, although the amendment would
change the substantive law applicable to pending cases, it would not
strip the courts of jurisdiction to hear them.
Under the Graham-Levin-Kyl amendment, the habeas prohibition would
take effect on the date of enactment of the legislation. Thus, this
prohibition would apply only to new habeas cases filed after the date
of enactment.
The approach in this amendment preserves comity between the judiciary
and legislative branches. It avoids repeating the unfortunate precedent
in Ex parte McCardle, in which Congress intervened to strip the Supreme
Court of jurisdiction over a case which was pending before that Court.
The Graham amendment would provide for direct judicial review only of
status determinations by combat status review tribunals, not to
convictions by military commissions.
The Graham-Levin-Kyl amendment would provide for direct judicial
review of both status determinations by CSRTs and convictions by
military commissions. The amendment does not affirmatively authorize
either CSRTs or military commissions; instead, it establishes a
judicial procedure for determining the constitutionality of such
processes.
The Graham amendment would provide only for review of whether a
tribunal complied with its own standards and procedures.
The Graham-Levin-Kyl amendment would authorize courts to determine
whether tribunals and commissions applied the correct standards, and
whether the application of those standards and procedures is consistent
with the Constitution and laws of the United States.
This amendment is not an authorization of the particular procedures
for the military commissions; rather it is intended to set a standard--
consistent with our Constitution and laws--with which any procedures
for the military commissions must conform.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, in a series of votes last Thursday and
today, the Senate has voted to deny the availability of habeas corpus
to individuals held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. I
rise to explain my vote against the Graham amendment last week, and my
votes in favor of the Bingaman amendment and the Graham-Levin amendment
earlier today.
First, let's put the whole issue of the rights of suspected
terrorists in context. As Senator McCain said over the weekend,
terrorists are ``the quintessence of evil. But it's not about them;
it's about us.'' This debate is about respect for human rights and
adherence to the rule of law. It is about the continued moral authority
of this Nation.
For the past four years, the Bush administration has advocated a
policy of detaining suspects indefinitely and largely in secret,
without access to meaningful judicial oversight. This policy is
inconsistent with our core
[[Page S12803]]
values as Americans. In addition, a policy so inconsistent with human
rights will further damage America's image abroad and provide more
ammunition for those who wish to do us harm.
The writ of habeas corpus is one of the pillars of the Anglo-American
legal system. It is the mechanism by which people who are held by the
government can seek an independent review of the legality of their
detention. Very often the people who rely on habeas corpus are
unpopular, whether they are convicted criminals or suspected
terrorists. But habeas corpus protects all of us--it is the way we
ensure that the executive branch acts within the bounds of the law.
The amendment offered by Senator Graham last week created an
exception to the habeas corpus rights established in title 28 of the
United States Code. It contained a separate, essentially hollow review
of whether the Defense Department had complied with its own procedures
in declaring someone an enemy combatant. In a practical sense, the
amendment put the actions of U.S. officials with respect to the
Guantanamo detainees beyond the reach of the law, and created a legal
no-man's land. I opposed the Graham amendment for this reason.
Nobody thinks that detainees should be able to file habeas petitions
about what kind of peanut butter they are served or whether they can
watch DVDs. That is not what this is about. This is about whether we
are going to permit the President to detain a human being indefinitely
without independent judicial review.
I want to draw the attention of my colleagues to an op-ed published
in the Washington Post yesterday by one of the pro bono lawyers for the
Guantanamo Bay detainees. The lawyer describes the importance of habeas
review for his client, who remains in jail despite the military's
determination that his client was innocent and was not associated with
al-Qaida or the Taliban.
The writ of habeas corpus is for people like this. It is for figuring
out whether those held at Guantanamo are in fact terrorists--and
whether they are held lawfully and in accordance with the requirements
of the Constitution.
In addition, the Senate recently passed, by a vote of 90 to 9, the
McCain amendment to prohibit the use of torture at Guantanamo and
elsewhere. The Graham amendment would undermine this prohibition by
preventing its enforcement by the Federal courts. The Federal courts
exist to vindicate important rights. In general, this jurisdiction-
stripping amendment would trample on the independence of the judiciary
and violate principles of separation of powers.
Today the Senate voted on two amendments to improve the Graham
amendment. I supported the Bingaman amendment, because it would have
preserved the fundamental right of habeas corpus, while at the same
time streamlining judicial review of Guantanamo cases and ensuring that
only the most serious cases are before the Federal courts. I applaud
the Senator from New Mexico for his defense of habeas corpus and I
regret that his amendment did not pass.
I also voted in favor of the Graham-Levin amendment because it is an
improvement over the original Graham amendment, which, as the vote last
week demonstrated, would have passed the Senate with or without
improvements. Importantly, the Graham-Levin amendment would allow
courts to consider whether the standards and procedures used by the
Combatant Status Review Tribunals are consistent with the Constitution
and U.S. laws, and would allow for court review of the actions of
military commissions.
As a supporter of the Graham-Levin amendment, let me state my
understanding of several important issues. First, I agree with Senator
Levin that his amendment does not divest the Supreme Court of
jurisdiction to hear the pending case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. I believe
the effective date provision of the amendment is properly understood to
leave pending Supreme Court cases unaffected. It would be highly
irregular for the Congress to interfere in the work of the Supreme
Court in this fashion, and the amendment should not be read to do so.
Second, I do not understand this legislation to represent a
congressional authorization of the military commissions unilaterally
established by the executive branch at Guantanamo Bay. We would hardly
authorize these commissions based upon a few hours of floor debate.
Instead, I regard this legislation as establishing a process for the
federal courts to review the constitutionality of the commissions. To
the extent that question turns on whether Congress has authorized or
recognized the commissions, nothing we have done today lends support to
the argument that the commissions are a valid exercise of executive
authority.
Third, Senator Specter raised the question of whether the grant of
``exclusive jurisdiction'' to the DC Circuit precludes Supreme Court
review of the DC Circuit's final orders in these cases. I do not
understand the amendment to strip the Supreme Court of such appellate
jurisdiction. Congress often grants ``exclusive jurisdiction'' to one
court or another, but that phrase is not understood to preclude appeals
through the usual means.
Finally, there may be questions about what Congress meant when it
directs the courts to review ``whether subjecting an alien enemy
combatant to such standards and procedures is consistent with the
Constitution and laws of the United States.'' In my view, the Federal
court should hear any factual or legal challenge by a detainee who
contests being classified as an enemy combatant in the first place.
Even after adoption of the Graham-Levin amendment, the underlying
Graham amendment still strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas
corpus petitions. For this reason, I oppose the final Graham amendment
as amended. I hope it is either improved in conference or deleted
altogether.
But even if the Graham amendment is enacted into law, the Judiciary
Committee should hold hearings to define the rights of the detainees at
Guantanamo with greater care and to develop sensible procedures for
enforcing those rights. It is of the utmost importance that this
Congress work to preserve the principles of human rights and the rule
of law upon which this Nation was founded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the Graham amendment.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment, and the clerk will call
the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''
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 84, nays 14, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 325 Leg.]
YEAS--84
Akaka
Allard
Allen
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Salazar
Santorum
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--14
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Byrd
Dayton
Durbin
Feingold
Harkin
Kennedy
Lautenberg
Leahy
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Specter
NOT VOTING--2
Alexander
Corzine
The amendment (No. 2524) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on
the table.
[[Page S12804]]
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2515, as Amended
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we now turn to the underlying amendment.
It is my understanding the Senator from South Carolina has agreed to a
voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2515, as amended.
The amendment (No. 2515), as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Order for Recess
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for
the recess, which is already part of the order of the Senate, be
extended until 2:30. I am sure both caucuses have a lot of work to do,
and we could convene at 2:30.
Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, if we could just
withhold for a moment and discuss it.
Mr. REID. Of course.
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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I presume, now that the quorum call has
been withdrawn, that under the unanimous consent agreement, the Senate
may now move to third reading of the bill.
Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the chairman of the
subcommittee and the ranking member, Senators Shelby and Mikulski, for
being understanding. I ask unanimous consent that the recess be
extended until 2:30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I think it is a reasonable request by the
Democratic leader so we can get on with this vote and go to our
caucuses. The reason there was an initial objection to it was because
Senator Shelby, chairman of the committee, had something he had to
move. But we will work it out and start at 2:30. We will have plenty of
time for our caucus lunch.
iraqi military equipment
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is in our Nation's interest and in our
own troops' interests to ensure that Iraqi security forces, fighting
side by side with America's soldiers and marines, are well-trained and
well-equipped. As the chairman of the Armed Services Committee has
indicated, our capacity to transfer security responsibilities to the
Iraqis will chiefly rely on one thing--the ability of Iraqi forces to
stand up and assume control over their nation's security.
To successfully complete the mission in Iraq and to bring our troops
home as quickly as possible, we need to ensure that lraq's soldiers and
policemen have the capacity to assume control over their nation's
security and law enforcement. And in the immediate term, as our troops
deploy on patrol with their Iraqi partners, they need to know that they
can rely on Iraqi forces to shoulder their share of combat operations.
Achieving this goal is not only a matter of training Iraq's soldiers
and policemen. We need to also ensure that they are adequately equipped
to perform their missions safely and effectively. Last week, the New
York Times reported on the difficulties Iraqi troops are facing in
procuring inadequate armor and safety gear. According to that article,
the biggest shortage is in fortified vehicles. Tragically, Iraqis are
being required to patrol the same roads and marketplaces that are
besieged on a daily basis by improvised explosive devices and suicide
bombers without any armored protection or heavy vehicles. With several
hundred Iraqis operating in military vehicles, only three dozen such
vehicles are outfitted with protective armor. We need to do better than
that if we expect Iraqi troops to have even a fighting chance. But at
the same time, we also need to recognize that the needs of our own
troops are of paramount concern. That is why, with the chairman's
support, I offered an amendment to reimburse troops for protective gear
that they purchased; why we have supported rapidly fielding
increasingly more armored protection to U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen,
and marines deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan; why the Senate supported
the chairman's amendment last July to add an additional 1,800 up-
armored HMMWVs for the U.S. Marines Corps; and why, yesterday on the
bill, we voted to add an additional $360 million for even more armored
vehicles.
Members of this body have few higher priorities than the safety and
well-being of our troops deployed in harm's way. And there is no
greater champion of the American GI than the current chairman of the
Armed Services Committee. Therefore, I am sure that he would agree that
the best way we can safeguard the safety and security of our troops is
to ensure that U.S. forces can complete their mission and return home
as soon as possible. Doing so will require well-equipped as well as
well-trained Iraqi forces to take over from U.S. forces the
responsibilities for maintaining peace and order through Iraq.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. He has raised a
significant concern that we both, and many others in this body, share.
There is no question we must continue to provide our magnificent
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines with the finest equipment
available to meet the mission requirements in Iraq and elsewhere around
the world. In Iraq, there is no doubt that efforts to train and equip
Iraqi Security Forces are decisive to Iraq's future and a major element
in the policy of the United States. Lieutenant General Petraeus
performed masterfully as Commander of the Multi-National Security
Transition Command in Iraq that was charged with training the Iraqi
Security Forces and now Lieutenant General Dempsey has the reins on
this mission. During the most recent elections in Iraq, the performance
of Iraqi Security Forces was an important contributor to that success.
The Iraqi Security Forces provided protection to more than 6,000
polling sites. That was a very positive step in the right direction,
but we still have some way to go in training and equipping the Iraqi
Security Forces. As chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I
am monitoring the readiness of these Iraqi units. The viability of
Iraqi units must be measured by a series of indicators, including
efforts to measure intangibles such as morale and unit cohesion, as
well as quantifying the military training of Iraqi Security Forces and
the distribution of weapons and equipment. As the Senator from
Connecticut indicated, the quality of the weapons and equipment we
provide to the Iraqis must be of the caliber that contributes to the
discipline, confidence, and morale of the Iraqis we are training. It is
in the best interest of all that we move quickly to equip the Iraqi
Security Forces with the proper equipment. We cannot ask the Iraqi
Security Forces to conduct patrols or engage in battle in pickup trucks
and SUVs while the embedded American forces are in up-armored HMMWVs
and Bradley Fighting Vehicles. I am prepared to work with my colleague
and the Secretary of Defense to provide suitable equipment for the
Iraqi Security Forces. I am also prepared to work with other elements
of the administration to engage our Allies and partners in this effort.
I, for one, do not believe we have time to build and then rebuild the
Iraqi Security Forces.
Mr. DODD. I thank the chairman for his statement and applaud his
commitment to improving the availability of suitable equipment to the
Iraqi Security Forces. As I said before, I share his belief that our
first obligation is to the safety and well-being of our men and women
deployed in harm's way. In that same token, I also appreciate his
assertion that ensuring Iraqi troops have the equipment they need is in
the security interest of our Nation and our
[[Page S12805]]
troops. I urge the administration to--make available to the Iraqis
adequate force protection equipment as soon as possible to allow them
to take the lead in Iraq, and, ultimately, operate independently in
securing their own country.
As American forces upgrade their own armor and safety equipment,
perhaps the Departments of Defense and State will consider making
available to Iraqi forces some of the older equipment of the United
States, to allow Iraqis the ability to operate side by side with
American forces. As U.S. forces upgrade their armored vehicles in Iraq,
from what is called Level One protection to the more advanced Level Two
protection, we might wish to consider distributing these older vehicles
to Iraqi forces. And perhaps, when American forces eventually withdraw
from Iraq, the United States would further consider leaving their older
Level One armored fleet for use by the Iraqis. Another option might be
to seek out other non-U.S. sources of armored vehicles to replace the
substandard equipment that the Iraqis are currently using.
The sooner we can properly train and equip these Iraqi police and
military units, the sooner we can get our troops home safe and secure.
And that must be our principal objective in completing Operation Iraqi
Freedom.
I thank the Chairman for engaging in this colloquy.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleagues, the
senior Senator from Virginia and the Senior Senator from Michigan, for
their hard work in getting the fiscal year 2006 Defense authorization
bill to the floor and for including in the bill two amendments I
offered. These amendments will directly affect the quality of health
care we provide our Nation's armed forces.
As many of you know, the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, has
created one of the most effective electronic medical records systems in
the Nation. Despite a number of problems at the VA--from funding
shortfalls to delayed benefits--the electronic medical records system
is one of the VA's great successes and serves as a national model.
Unfortunately, the Department of Defense, DOD, has not created a
similar system for members of the military.
Despite a significant expenditure of time and money, the Department
of Defense appears to be far from completion of its system, the
Composite Health Care System II, CHCS II. Consequently, we have
soldiers who have honorably served their country leaving the military
and entering the VA system, and yet there is no easy way to transfer
their medical records to the new health care system. This lack of
compatibility results in severe inefficiencies and delayed benefits for
our veterans. This is a problem that the national veterans' service
organizations have highlighted over the years, but despite their
efforts, the Department of Defense is still lagging behind the VA.
The Government Accountability Office, in a report released last year,
found that one of the primary reasons for the Defense Department's
severe delays in producing a compatible medical records system is the
lack of strong oversight of the process. My amendment is an effort to
implement some oversight. Pursuant to my amendment, 6 months after
enactment of the bill, the DOD would be required to report to Congress
on the progress being made on the development of the CHCS II system,
the timeframe for implementation of the system, a cost estimate for
completion of the system, and a description of the management structure
used in the development of the system.
I also want to thank Senators Levin and Warner for accepting my
amendment requiring that DOD report to the Senate and House Armed
Services Committees about its pandemic flu preparedness activities.
When pandemic flu strikes, many of our military and civilian personnel
will be at high risk for infection, particularly those deployed in Asia
where avian flu poses the greatest current risk; military and civilian
personnel in this country also will likely be involved in domestic
response activities in the event of a pandemic. Our Nation's security
is contingent on a healthy military, and we must ensure that these
members will be protected.
It is Congress's duty to oversee the delivery of health care to our
Nation's soldiers, and these amendments will help in our efforts to
exercise this oversight. I hope to work with the conferees on this
authorization bill to retain these provisions in conference.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, the Senate today is considering the
Department of Defense authorization bill for the 2006 fiscal year. As a
member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have attended numerous
hearings and participated in the markup of this legislation. And I want
to commend the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator
Warner, and the ranking member, Senator Levin, for the serious,
bipartisan approach they have taken in preparing this bill for
consideration on the Senate floor.
I just returned from an International Rule of Law symposium focusing
on the need to create an international rule of law movement. As we talk
today about providing our troops with the support they need to serve
our Nation, it is also important to recognize that we should be doing
all we can to make sure that we are not tarnishing their service. As we
promote the rule of law in other societies, we need to begin by
recognizing that the United States has a special heritage and a special
responsibility--a responsibility not to be perfect, for that is
impossible, but to admit our mistakes and use the rule of law to mend
them, not to cover them up. When we fail that standard, we harm the
ideals we most seek to promote--and undermine the foundations of our
own society and our influence around the world.
That is why it is so important that we send a clear signal that the
mistreatment of prisoners under our control was a mistake that will not
happen again. Our commitment to the rule of law demands it. The men and
women who signed up to defend our country, not to defend accusations of
torture, deserve it.
It is very unclear whether any good information ever comes from
torture--many experienced intelligence officers say no. But it is
crystal clear that the bad consequences of this high-level political
decision will haunt us for years--in how hostile armies treat our
soldiers; how foreign governments judge our trustworthiness; and how
foreign citizens respond to our best shared values, like faith in the
rule of law.
This DOD authorization bill is critically important, particularly
with our service men and women serving bravely in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and around the world. We owe it to our men and women in uniform to do
everything we can to support them.
Back when we first considered the DOD authorization bill in July, the
Senate accepted an amendment Senator Graham and I offered to make
Tricare available to all National Guard members and reservists.
This week, the Senate has accepted another amendment I offered--this
one with Senator Collins--that will improve financial education for our
soldiers. This is a problem that has plagued military service men and
women for years: a lack of general knowledge about the insurance and
other financial services available to them.
This amendment instructs the Secretary of Defense to carry out a
comprehensive education program for military members regarding public
and private financial services, including life insurance and the
marketing practices of these services, available to them. This
education will be institutionalized in the initial and recurring
training for members of the military. This is important so that we
don't just make an instantaneous improvement, but a truly lasting
benefit to members of the military.
This amendment also requires that counseling services on these issues
be made available, upon request, to members and their spouses. I think
it is very important to include the spouses in this program, because we
all know that investment decisions should be made as a family. Too many
times, a military spouse has to make these decisions alone, while their
husband or wife is deployed.
This amendment requires that during counseling of members or spouses
regarding life insurance, counselors must include information on the
availability of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, SGLI, as well as
other available
[[Page S12806]]
products. It requires that any junior enlisted member--those in the
grades of E1-E4--that they must provide confirmation that they have
received counseling before entering into any new contract with a
private sector life insurer. It is my expectation that this will help
prevent our young troops from being taken advantage of by unscrupulous
insurance companies.
I am proud my fellow Senators support this legislation and I look
forward to working hard during conference to ensure its incorporation
in the final bill put before the President.
Today, I would also like to speak about several issues that, while
unlikely to be brought up as amendments to this bill, we will have to
seriously consider during conference.
The first is the extremely important issue of the role of women in
combat. In the House Armed Services Subcommittee markup of the Defense
bill, a provision was inserted that would have turned back the clock on
the roles that women play in our military. The uproar over this
provision from the public and from the Pentagon was strong. General
Cody, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, wrote a letter to the House
Armed Services Committee explaining that such a provision would disrupt
our forces serving overseas. The House Armed Services Committee
withdrew the offending provision and instead included a provision to
codify the Pentagon's 1994 policy regarding women in combat. I am
uncertain that this policy needs to be codified and will be looking at
this language closely in conference.
Because of the House's efforts to restrict the role of women, I want
to take a few minutes to recognize the enormous contributions that
women have made and continue to make to our military.
Women have a long history of proud service in our Armed Forces. Women
have served on the battlefield as far back as the American Revolution,
where they served as nurses, water bearers, cooks, laundresses, and
saboteurs. Since that time, opportunities have increased, especially
since 1948 when the Women's Armed Services Integration Act of 1948 was
passed.
More than 200,000 women currently serve, making up approximately 17
percent of the total force. Thousands of women are currently serving
bravely in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. During my own visits to
Iraq--and as I am sure that many of my colleagues who have also visited
Iraq can also attest--I witnessed women performing a wide range of
tasks in a dangerous environment. In Iraq, the old distinctions between
the front lines and the rear are being blurred, and women are ably
shouldering many of the same risks as men. And when I have met with
women soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, they have not complained that
they are being placed in harm's way. To the contrary, they have
expressed pride in being able to contribute to the mission.
At a time when our Armed Forces are struggling to meet recruiting and
retention goals, it makes no sense to further restrict the role of our
women in uniform. Doing so would only add to the strain on our Armed
Forces and undermine the morale of our service members.
Since September 11, our Armed Forces have stretched to meet new and
growing needs. It is essential that we fu1ly utilize and retain
personnel. Women in uniform have increasingly served in the line of
fire, performing honorably and courageously in service to our country.
Over 100,000 women have been deployed in support of military operations
since September 11. Imagine the strain that our forces would suffer if
many of these women were suddenly deemed ineligible to serve in their
current roles.
Our soldiers, both men and women, volunteered to serve their Nation.
They are performing magnificently. There should be no change to
existing policies that would decrease the roles or positions available
to women in the Armed Forces. Earlier this year, I introduced, along
with several of my colleagues, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution stating
that there should be no change to existing laws, policies or
regulations that would decrease the roles or positions available to
women in the Armed forces.
As we approach the conference, I will oppose any efforts that would
send a negative signal to women currently serving and I hope my
colleagues will join me in preserving the ability of women to fully
serve their country.
As we talk about honoring those who serve, I would also like to draw
the attention of my colleagues to another piece of legislation that I
have introduced in the Senate, the Cold War Medal Act of 2005.
It is important that we remember and honor the contributions of all
veterans, from our World War II veterans to those just returning from
Iraq. It is especially important that we not forget those who served
during the Cold War, a decades-long struggle that, even in the absence
of a formal declaration of hostilities, was for nothing less than the
future of the world.
Our victory in the Cold War was made possible by the willingness of
millions of Americans in uniform to stand prepared against the threat
from behind the Iron Curtain.
That is why I have introduced legislation, S. 1351, the Cold War
Medal Act of 2005, to create a military service medal to members of the
Armed Forces who served honorably during the Cold War.
This is the companion bill to legislation that was introduced on the
House side by Congressman Andrews. This legislation would establish a
Cold War Medal for those who served at least 180 days from September 2,
1945 to December 26, 1991. About 4.8 million veterans would be eligible
to receive this medal.
Our victory in the Cold War was a tremendous accomplishment and the
men and women who served during that time deserve to be recognized.
This legislation has been included in the House-passed version of the
Defense authorization bill and I intend to encourage my colleagues in
both the House and Senate to support its inclusion in the bill that
emerges from the House-Senate conference.
It is also important that we honor those men and women who are
currently serving. One issue that has come to my attention is the
status of National Guard members who served at Ground Zero in the
aftermath of September 11. In the rush to send National Guard members
to Ground Zero immediately after the attacks on September 11, New
York's Governor activated them in their State status. However, many of
these Guard men and women ended up serving at Ground Zero for over a
year. Since they were in their State status, these Guard men and women
did not qualify for Federal retirement credits. However, other New York
National Guardsmen who were activated to protect Federal installations
after September 11 were activated in their Federal status. The result
was that two groups of Guardsmen were created. Each group served
honorably after September 11, but the Guardsmen serving at Ground Zero
did not earn retirement credit, while the Guardsmen protecting Federal
installations did earn that credit. Several months ago, I introduced
legislation, S. 1144, to remedy this injustice. This legislation was
included in the House's version of the Defense authorization bill and I
will once again urge my colleagues to support this in the House-Senate
conference on the legislation.
One issue that is not addressed in either the House or the Senate
version of the Defense authorization bill is our spending priorities
for science and technology at the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency, DARPA. I would like to use the remainder of my time to raise
some concerns that I have regarding the Department of Defense's
investments in science and technology and disturbing trends in our
investments in the longer term, basic research--investments that will
develop the next generation of capabilities on which our military
superiority will depend. To put it plainly, I am concerned that DARPA
is losing its focus on basic and early stage research.
The Department's science and technology programs make investments in
research at our nation's universities and innovative high-tech small
businesses in areas such as robotics, artificial intelligence, and
nanotechnology. In the past, we have seen these investments grow into
revolutionary capabilities that our military takes for granted today.
We have seen the fruits of these investments support our efforts in the
global war on terrorism and operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
[[Page S12807]]
That is why I am concerned that the Department of Defense seems to be
systematically underinvesting in fundamental and long-term research
programs that will shape the military of the future. I note that the
Department's science and technology request for 2006 was down $2.8
billion from the 2005 appropriated level and even $28 million below the
original 2005 budget request. In fact, the request is so low it has
triggered a congressionally mandated Defense Science Board review of
the effects of the lowered S&T investment on national security. I look
forward to seeing the results of that review. I am pleased that this
bill has increased those funding levels by over $400 million. While I
understand the need to focus efforts on current events and operational
issues--we cannot do it at the expense of sacrificing the research base
that shapes the military of the future.
Of particular concern to me are the trends in funding of DOD's
premier research agency. DARPA has been the engine of defense
innovation for nearly 50 years--spawning innovations such as the
Internet, unmanned air vehicles, and stealth capability--a record of
unmatched technological accomplishments of which we should all be
proud. However, I am concerned that in recent years--despite tremendous
overall budgetary increases--DARPA has lost some of its unique,
innovative character and is no longer funding the ``blue sky'' research
for which it is famous.
Concern over DOD's, and especially DARPA's support for early stage
research has come from a number of distinguished scientific circles.
The National Academy of Sciences, in a recent report requested by the
Senate Armed Services Committee, recommended that ``DOD should redress
the imbalance between its current basic research allocation'' and its
needs to support new technology areas, new researchers, and especially
more unfettered or long-term research.
President Bush's own Information Technology Advisory Committee,
PITAC, recently noted that DARPA had decreased funding in the critical
area of cybersecurity research, stating, ``. . . very little, if any,
of DARPA's substantial cybersecurity R&D investment was directed
towards fundamental research.'' They also noted a ``shift in DARPA's
portfolio towards classified and short-term research and development
and away from its traditional support of unclassified longer-term
R&D.''
The Defense Science Board has also raised concerns over DARPA's
funding of computer science, stating that DARPA has further limited
university participation in its computer science programs. These
limitations have arisen in a number of ways, including non-fiscal
limitations, such as the classification of work in areas that were
previously unclassified, precluding university submission as prime
contractors on certain solicitations, and reducing the periods of
performance to 18-24 months.'' That kind of short term-focus is not
conducive to university programs or to addressing broad, fundamental
technical challenges--especially when research in computer science is
helping develop and shape our networked forces of the future.
I know that our chairman, Senator Warner, is also a great supporter
of DOD research programs and the committee has taken a number of steps
to ensure that these programs are well-managed and adequately funded.
In addition to the National Academy study that I mentioned above, the
Senate Armed Services Committee has initiated a Defense Science Board,
DSB, review of the position of the Director of Defense Research and
Engineering. This position also serves as the Chief Technology Officer
of DOD, and the head of all science and technology programs. The
committee has been concerned that the position does not have adequate
authority to advocate for S&T budgets or ensure that Services and DARPA
programs are well-coordinated into a broader defense technology
strategy. I understand that the DSB should report out its findings
sometime later this year.
I hope the members of the Armed Services Committee, and indeed the
entire Senate, will consider carefully the findings of these expert,
independent studies and reports. At a time when we are so dependent on
technologies to combat IEDs, treat battlefield injuries, and defend our
homeland, we should make sure that DOD's science and technology
organizations--especially DARPA--are adequately funded, well managed,
and investing in the development of capabilities for the battlefields
of both today and tomorrow.
I look forward to working with the committee to look closely at DARPA
and the entire DOD S&T program. Although we should be clearly focused
on the issues our troops are facing here at home, in Iraq, Afghanistan
and elsewhere, we cannot afford to lose sight of the important role
that scientific research plays in developing the military of the
future.
Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the
Armed Services committee and in the Senate as well as the House on the
issues that I have discussed today.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise to support the Defense
authorization bill for the 2006 fiscal year, and to comment on several
amendments to the bill that build on the good work of the Armed
Services Committee under the leadership of Chairman Warner and Ranking
Member Levin.
I am pleased that this bill includes an amendment I offered to create
a grant program for employment services provided to the spouses of
certain members of the Armed Forces. Many of our men and women in
uniform change duty stations every 2 to 5 years, wreaking havoc on
their spouses' careers. Additionally, when Reservists and National
Guardsmen are called to active duty, many of their spouses enter the
workforce to make up the difference between civilian and military pay.
It is not just those in uniform who make sacrifices for this country.
Military families need our support as well. My amendment would create a
DoD grant program for workforce boards established under the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998. Many of these centers already provide
employment services for military spouses through the National Emergency
Grant fund under the Department of Labor, but this fund has been
severely strained.
This DOD grant program will provide assistance to spouses who have
lost their job to accommodate a servicemember's permanent change in
duty station. It will also assist spouses who have experienced a
reduction in family income due to a servicemember's deployment,
disability, death or the activation of a National Guardsman or
Reservist.
Helping our military families cope with the disruption that comes
with deployment cycles and frequent moves is the least we can do, and I
thank the managers for including my amendment.
I have also cosponsored an amendment with Senator Landrieu that will
allow up to $10 million under Title VI, the Defense Health Program, to
be used for mental health screenings for members of the Armed Forces.
Mental health experts predict that because of the intensity of
warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan 15 percent or more of the
servicemembers returning from these conflicts will develop post-
traumatic stress disorder, PTSD. This nearly equals the PTSD rate for
Vietnam War veterans, and the Veterans Affairs' National Center for
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder estimates rates of PTSD could reach as
high as 30 percent.
Additionally, concussions both small and large can cause what is
known as Traumatic Brain Injury, or TBI. While there are no service-
wide figures available on how many troops are affected by TBIs, doctors
at Walter Reed found that 67 percent of the casualties they treated in
a 6-month period had brain injuries. This is far higher than the 20
percent figure that military doctors documented in Vietnam and other
modern wars. Because of the number of soldiers affected by TBIs they
are being called the ``signature injury'' of the war.
Rates of TBI in Iraq and Afghanistan are high because of soldiers'
frequent exposure to improvised explosive devices. Thanks to dramatic
improvements to body armor and vehicle armor in recent years, these
explosions, thankfully, often do not kill a soldier. But the blast jars
their brain, often causing bruising or permanent damage. Studies of
veterans who suffered TBIs
[[Page S12808]]
in previous wars indicate that they experience cognitive deficits in
social behavior, reasoning, attention, and planning that need effective
diagnosis and rehabilitation.
Without more mental health screenings, too many of these injuries
will continue to go undiagnosed. This amendment will help to diagnose
soldiers earlier, and improve their long-term quality of life. I am
pleased that it has been included in the bill.
This bill also includes an amendment I authored to allow the Office
of Special Events within the Department of Defense to provide more
support to paralympic competitions in the United States. This is a
matter of basic fairness. The Pentagon currently supports Olympic and
other international games. This amendment just makes it easier for the
Pentagon to support such competitions and this is especially important
now, as so many of our seriously injured servicemembers are working to
rebuild their lives and find new outlets for their drive and
determination.
This bill also contains an amendment I authored as a result of a
letter I received from one of my constituents. He is an Army specialist
and is currently deployed to Iraq. He wrote to me because one of his
friends was killed by an IED while sitting in the exposed gunner's seat
of a Humvee. His letter reads as follows:
Two days ago a good friend of mine was killed in action
when an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) detonated next to
his M1114 Humvee. He was sitting in the gunner seat and
pulling rear security. I have seen automated guns that can go
on the top of these same Humvees. These guns are controlled
from inside the vehicle. Why are these guns not on every
Humvee? I do not have the time or the resources over here to
check, but if you were to look into it I believe you would be
shocked at the percentage of KIA's that were sitting in the
gunner's seat of Humvees since OIF 1 in 2003. All I do know
is that the four people that were inside the vehicle were
physically unharmed. If the answer is money, then I would
really like to know how much my friend's life was worth.
Since receiving that letter I have been in close contact with the
Pentagon about the technology this young specialist is referring to.
The Common Remotely Operated Weapons Station, known as CROWS, can move
our soldiers out of the exposed gunner's seat and inside the protective
shell of an up-armored Humvee.
In a CROWS-equipped vehicle, the gunner controls a powerful weapons
platform through a computer screen. The system can be mounted on a
variety of platforms, and it gives a solder the capability to acquire
and engage targets while protected inside the vehicle, out of range of
enemy fire or IED attacks.
Right now we have a few of these systems deployed in Iraq, and I am
told that our soldiers ``hot seat'' them, which means that when one of
these Humvees comes back from a patrol or an escort mission, another
group of soldiers takes the vehicle out again as soon as they can gas
it up.
My amendment would express the sense of the Senate that the
administration should ask for full funding of this program in their
next supplemental budget request. I appreciate the managers' support
for my efforts to send a strong signal to the Pentagon about this
important priority.
Another amendment, which I cosponsored, will resolve the last
remaining obstacle to the creation of the Rocky Flats National Wildlife
Refuge. The amendment authorizes the Department of Energy to spend up
to $10 million to acquire the mineral interests on four parcels of land
within the tentative boundaries of the refuge. These mineral interests
would be acquired from willing sellers. The Departments of Energy and
Interior agree that these four parcels represent the areas which
include sand and gravel deposits of sufficient value that future mining
is possible and which also include significant and unique ecological
values that should be protected as part of the refuge.
This amendment also resolves the potential claims for natural
resource damages that might arise in the future as a result of releases
of hazardous substances that have already been identified in the
lengthy administrative record of the Rocky Flats cleanup. The State of
Colorado trustees with responsibility to pursue such claims, the
Colorado attorney general, the director of the Colorado Department of
Natural Resources, and the director of the Colorado Department of
Public Health and the Environment, all agree that the expenditure of
$10 million to acquire these mineral interests is fair compensation for
the waiver of potential Natural Resource Damage claims. The release of
hazardous materials not previously identified would not be waived by
this amendment, and the Department of Energy would remain liable for
such releases, if any.
As our brave men and women in uniform continue to perform so
admirably in tremendously difficult conditions, and as their families
continue to make their own sacrifices, it is vitally important that the
Senate has finally acted on this bill. I am committed to continuing to
work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give our troops
the support that they deserve.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate was finally
able to debate and pass the Defense authorization bill. It was
inexcusable that this bill that is so critical to our men and women in
uniform was allowed to languish for over half a year. Vital defense
policies are set every year in the authorization bill, including
policies with a direct impact on military families such as pay and
benefits. I am very pleased that we were able to include a 3.1 percent
pay raise for all of our men and women in uniform and am proud of the
Senate's strong bipartisan efforts to make TRICARE available for the
Guard and Reserve. I was pleased to support these efforts and the
successful efforts to eliminate the SBP-DIC offset and reduce the
retirement age for those in the Reserve component.
One of the key policy debates that took place during the Senate's
consideration of this bill involved our Nation's Iraq policy. For
months, I have been calling on the President to provide a flexible,
public timetable for completing our mission in Iraq and for withdrawing
our troops once that mission is complete. I am not calling for a rigid
timetable I mean one that is tied to clear and achievable benchmarks,
with estimated dates for meeting those benchmarks. I worked with some
of my distinguished Democratic colleagues in the Senate to draft an
amendment that demanded just that, and I am pleased that 40 Members of
the Senate agreed that we need a flexible timetable for achieving our
military mission in Iraq and withdrawing our troops. They recognize
what increasing numbers of military leaders and experts are saying,
that having such a timeline will help us defeat the insurgency.
Our servicemembers deserve to know what their military mission is and
when they can expect to achieve it. And the American people deserve to
know that we have a plan, tied to clear benchmarks, for achieving our
military goals and redeploying our troops out of Iraq so we can focus
on our most pressing national security priority, defeating the global
terrorists who threaten this country. I will keep fighting for a
timeframe for our military mission and I am heartened by the fact that
an increasing number of my Senate colleagues agree with me, and with
the American people, on the need for such a timeframe.
I am pleased that the Senate passed my amendment to enhance and
strengthen the transition services that are provided to our military
personnel by making a number of improvements to the existing transition
and post-deployment/pre-discharge health assessment programs. My
amendment will ensure that members of the National Guard and Reserve
who have been on active duty continuously for at least 180 days are
able to participate in transition programs and requires that additional
information be included in these transition programs, such as details
about employment and reemployment rights and a description of the
health care and other benefits to which personnel may be entitled
through the VA. The amendment also requires that demobilizing military
personnel have access to follow-up care for physical or psychological
conditions incurred as a result of their service. In addition, the
amendment requires that assistance be provided to eligible military
personnel to enroll in the VA health care system. I thank the chairman
and the Ranking Member for their assistance on this important issue.
This bill also contains a provision I authored establishing the
Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps, CLRC, pilot project. It became
abundantly clear
[[Page S12809]]
after the attacks of September 11, 2001, that the U.S. Government had a
dearth of critical language skills. The 9/11 Commission report
documented the disastrous consequences of this deficiency that,
unfortunately, we still have not made enough progress in addressing 4
years after the 9/11 tragedy.
CLRC is designed to address the Government's critical language
shortfall by creating a pool of people with advanced language skills
that the Federal Government could call on to assist when needed. The
National Security Education Program completed a feasibility study of
CLRC and concluded that the concept was sound and ``an important step
in addressing both short- and long-term shortfalls related to language
assets in the national security community.'' It also recommended that a
3-year pilot project be conducted to work out any potential problems.
My amendment establishes this pilot project. I want to thank the
managers of the bill for working with me to include this worthwhile
measure and thank Senator Coleman for cosponsoring my amendment.
I also want to thank the bill managers for continuing to work with me
in assisting the families of injured servicemembers. I was pleased that
Congress included my amendment on travel benefits for the family of
injured servicemembers in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief of 2005, P.L.
109-13. My amendment corrected a flaw in the law that unintentionally
restricted the number of families of injured servicemembers that
qualify for travel assistance. Too many families were being denied help
in visiting their injured loved ones because the Army had not
officially listed them as ``seriously injured,'' even though these men
and women have been evacuated out of the combat zone to the United
States for treatment. The change in the law now ensures that families
of injured servicemembers evacuated to a U.S. hospital get at least one
trip paid for so that these families can quickly reunite and begin
recovering from the trauma they have experienced. I introduced my
amendment to this bill because the family travel provision in P.L. 109-
13 was sunset at the end of the 2005 fiscal year by the conferees. I
thank the Senate for adopting my amendment that will make the provision
permanent.
The Senate also adopted an amendment I authored requiring the
Department of Defense to report on the steps it is taking to clearly
communicate the stop-loss policy to potential enlistees and re-
enlistees. One of my constituents, a sergeant in the Army, wrote to me
earlier this year articulating his frustration with the Army's stop-
loss policy. He had been scheduled to be released from service prior to
his unit's deployment to Iraq but the stop-loss order kept him in
uniform making him feel that his service was completely unappreciated.
Part of this sergeant's frustration and the frustration experienced by
others who have been put under stop-loss orders stems from the fact
that many don't know that the military can keep them beyond their
contractual date of separation. They may find out about this policy
only shortly before they are deployed to a war zone, as was the case
with my constituent. This situation is simply unacceptable.
The sergeant who shared his story with me was killed in Iraq only
days after he wrote his letter. With thousands of soldiers still on
stop-loss, I am certain that similar tragic stories have played out
many times over the last few years. The very least we owe those who
volunteer to serve our Nation is full disclosure of the terms under
which they are volunteering. My amendment includes a finding that
states exactly that. I hope that, by pushing the Department to report
on the actions it is taken to ensure that potential recruits know the
terms of their service, the Department will take quick action to do
just that. One good place for it to start would be to revise DOD Form
4/1, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document, the service contract new
enlistees and reenlistees must sign to join the military. Form 4/1 does
not currently include information that tells those joining the active
component that they may be kept on stop-loss during partial
mobilizations. The Department must immediately fix this flaw and take
other steps to clearly communicate to our men and women in uniform the
terms under which they are volunteering to serve.
Congress has a crucial role in defense oversight and I am
disappointed that the Senate has again failed to adopt Senator Dorgan's
amendment that would have created a Truman Committee to oversee our
efforts in Iraq. This measure was a commonsense way to assure that we
carry out our policies in the most effect way possible and not, as now,
waste millions if not billions of taxpayer dollars. After all, our
shared goal is to get needed resources to our troops and rebuilding
efforts not to profiteers.
One measure the Senate adopted that should assist in our oversight
responsibilities is my amendment requiring DOD to report on how it will
address deficiencies related to key military equipment. According to a
recent GAO report, DOD has not done a good job in replacing equipment
that is being rapidly worn out due to the military's high operational
tempo or even tracking its equipment needs. Military readiness has
suffered as a result. My amendment requires DOD to submit a report in
conjunction with the President's annual budget request that details
DOD's program strategies and funding plans to ensure that DOD's budget
decisions address these equipment deficiencies. Specifically, the
Department must detail its plans to sustain and modernize key equipment
systems until they are retired or replaced, report the costs associated
with the sustainment and modernization of key equipment, and identify
these funds in the Future Years Defense Program. Finally, if the
Department chooses to delay or not fully fund their plan, it must
describe the risks involved and the steps it is taking to mitigate
those risks.
Although I am voting for the Department of Defense authorization
bill, I am disappointed with the mixed messages that the Senate
continues to send to the administration and the country on issues
related to the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. Even as the Senate
passed the important McCain amendment on torture, the Senate also
included in this bill the Graham amendment, which even as modified
would still eliminate habeas review for detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
The modification worked out by Senators Graham and Levin would provide
detainees with only limited review in the DC Circuit of the procedures
for determining whether they are enemy combatants and the procedures
the military commissions used to try them. This is an improvement over
the original amendment offered by Senator Graham, but it would not
allow a court to review any claim that an individual detainee is not,
in fact, an enemy combatant. I was very disappointed that this became
part of this bill, although I am pleased with the amendment's ban on
the use of evidence obtained by undue coercion. It is troubling that
after 4 years of congressional acquiescence to the administration on
this issue, it took a Supreme Court decision allowing habeas review for
the Senate to take action. It is good that the Senate is finally paying
attention to this issue, but this amendment is the wrong result. It
sends the wrong message about this country's commitment to basic
fundamental fairness and the rule of law.
I must also note with some disappointment that this bill continues
the wasteful trend of spending billions of dollars on Cold War era
weapons systems while at the same time not fully funding the needs of
the military personnel fighting our current wars. I think the Senate
missed some opportunities when it rejected amendments that could have
made the bill better. However, on balance this legislation contains
many good provisions for our men and women in uniform and their
families and that is why I support it.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to speak in support of the important
amendment on Iraq offered by my colleague Senator Levin. I am pleased
to have worked with many of my Democratic colleagues on this amendment
and to be an original cosponsor.
Mr. President, 2006 will be the pivotal year in determining whether
we can successfully complete our mission in Iraq and bring our troops
home in a reasonable amount of time. As we enter this make or break
period, the
[[Page S12810]]
administration must finally adopt a realistic, clear, and comprehensive
strategy.
This Democratic amendment lays out many of the principles that should
guide that strategy, including using all of our diplomatic, military,
political and economic leverage to defeat the insurgency, getting
greater international support for the reconstruction effort,
strengthening the capacity of Iraq's governing ministries, and training
Iraqi security forces. And it requires the administration to regularly
report back to Congress and the American public on the status of
implementing the measures necessary to complete the mission.
As we know from painful experience, no President can sustain a war
without the support of the American people. In the case of Iraq, their
patience is frayed nearly to the breaking point because Americans who
care deeply about their country will not tolerate our troops giving
their lives without a clear strategy, and will not tolerate vague
platitudes when real answers are needed.
The Democratic amendment addresses that by calling on the
administration to give Congress and the American public a target
schedule for achieving the conditions that will allow for the phased
redeployment of U.S. troops, the status of efforts meet that schedule,
and the estimated dates for such redeployment.
Let's be very clear on this point: the Democratic amendment does not
call for setting any arbitrary deadlines for withdrawal of U.S. troops.
It envisions redeployment of U.S. forces as conditions allow. But it
rejects the administration's hollow, vague declaration to just ``stay
as long as it takes'' by calling on the administration to give target
dates and regular updates on reaching those conditions.
For far too long, Congress and the American public have been left in
the dark when it comes to Iraq. We have repeatedly been asked by the
administration to take their word that they have a strategy for
success, without being given any sense of what that is or when our
troops will be home. It is past time for Congress and the American
people to be fully informed about what our strategy is, the progress
that is being made in implementing it, and when we might expect to see
our troops redeployed. That is what the Levin amendment will do.
While the Democratic amendment and the Republican amendment offered
by Senators Warner and Frist are a wakeup call to the Bush
administration that there is an overwhelming bipartisan majority with
deep concerns about the administration's aimless course in Iraq, I will
not support the Warner-Frist amendment because it stripped out two of
the key provisions of the Democratic amendment. The first is the sense
of the Senate that America should let the Iraqi people know that we
will not stay in Iraq indefinitely, which will send an important
message about our intentions while reducing the sense of U.S.
occupation. The second is the requirement that the administration
provide a report to Congress that includes estimated dates for the
redeployment of U.S. troops as specific conditions are met, which is
necessary to keep Congress and the American public informed about our
progress towards the ultimate goal of finishing our mission and getting
our troops home. These provisions are an essential part of a real
strategy for success in Iraq. We owe our troops and the country nothing
less.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the passage of the bill, as
amended.
Mr. WARNER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''
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 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 326 Leg.]
YEAS--98
Akaka
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--2
Alexander
Corzine
The bill (S. 1042), as amended, was passed.
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 1042, as
amended, be printed as passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I now ask further unanimous consent that
the Senate proceed immediately to the consideration en bloc of S. 1043
through S. 1045, Calendar Orders Nos. 103, 104, and 105; that all after
the enacting clause of those bills be stricken, and the appropriate
portions of S. 1042, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof according
to the schedule which I am sending to the desk; that these bills be
advanced to third reading and passed; that the motions to reconsider en
bloc be laid upon the table; and that the above actions occur without
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
____________________