[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.

                          ____________________