[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 105 (Wednesday, August 2, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8578-S8599]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007--Continued

  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the 2007 
Defense appropriations bill. Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, as 
well as the entire committee, worked diligently to produce a bill that 
supports our troops and provides what our military needs to fight and 
win the global war on terrrorism. I am pleased to say that this bill 
does just that. The bill provides $453.48 billion in new budget 
authority for the Department of Defense, including the $50.0 billion in 
additional global war on terror appropriations, and $14.7 billion above 
the fiscal year 2006 enacted level, excluding supplemental funding. 
This bill provides our service men and women with the resources 
necessary to continue and win the global war on terrorism, keep our 
country safe, and improve the quality of life for soldiers, sailors, 
airmen, marines, and their families.
  After visiting with soldiers stationed from the 48th Brigade in 
Tallil, Iraq, I am convinced that the members of the Armed Forces are 
wholeheartedly committed to accomplishing the mission. It is my belief 
that Members of Congress have a duty to support fine soldiers such as 
these and ensure they have the best training, equipment, and resources 
to defeat our Nation's enemies. We must never forget that it is 
essential we finish the job we set out to do because our own security 
rests in winning the global war on terrorism.
  Over the past few months, we have seen many amendments that claim 
that withdrawing from Iraq is the right approach. The Senate wisely 
defeated those amendments. We have a responsibility to ensure that the 
governments of Iraq and Afghanistan are stable, have the ability to 
govern themselves as sovereign nations, and have the infrastructure 
necessary to maintain the rule of law. I am proud that the bill before 
us today allows us to continue to fight and win the global war on 
terrorism and also continues to enhance our research and development 
projects so that we will continue to be able to defeat those who raise 
arms against us.
  One of the key provisions in this bill is the funding for new 
aircraft. By appropriating $4.3 billion and approving a multiyear 
contract for the F-22A, the United States will maintain its position as 
having the superior air fighter well into the next few decades. Because 
my colleagues and I fought hard for multiyear procurement during the 
Defense authorization bill debate, we will be able to save the American 
taxpayer an estimated $225 million over separate 1-year contracts for 
the next 60 F-22s. While some dismissed these savings as 
``insignificant,'' funds saved through this multiyear contract can be 
applied to other, crucial priorities during this time of war.
  I am also very proud of the aspects of the bill which guarantee the 
United States will maintain its strategic lift capability. With an 
aging fleet, it is imperative we invest now in strategic lift aircraft 
to secure our future. The bill appropriates $867 million to procure C-
130Js. Coupled with an additional $12 million for the C-5 AMP Program 
and $2.3 billion for C-17 procurement, including language directing the 
Department of Defense to budget for additional C-17s fiscal year 2008, 
we can be assured that the United States will maintain a strategic 
force projection capability able to respond to crises any place on 
short notice.
  We must remember, however, that the best investment we can make is 
not equipment, but in the warfighters themselves. I am pleased that 
this legislation appropriates $45 million in supplemental education 
funding for local school districts that are heavily impacted by the 
presence of military personnel and families, including $30 million for 
impact aid, $5 million for educational services to support special-
needs children, and an additional $10 million for districts 
experiencing rapid increases in the number of students due to rebasing 
and the BRAC process. I have several bases in my State that will 
benefit from this funding and I can assure you that this funding is 
critical to ensuring that children of our military families receive the 
quality education they deserve. As a result of the 2005 base 
realignment and closure process, Fort Benning and school systems in the 
surrounding area will experience an influx of approximately 10,000 
students into their school systems over

[[Page S8579]]

the next several years. This funding ensures that communities like Fort 
Benning will have additional resources to help accommodate these extra 
students.
  Continuing our focus on the families of service members, this bill 
provides $2 million to support the Reach Out and Read Program on 
military installations world-wide. The Reach Out and Read organization 
seeks to promote literacy and language development in infants and young 
children to ensure that they start school with every advantage 
possible. Cited by the National Research Council as an exemplary 
program, I am pleased that the bill provides funding for this worthy 
cause. This program makes an investment in the future that I am sure 
will pay substantial dividends.
  This bill also provides a well deserved pay raise of 2.2 percent for 
all military personnel, effective January 1, 2007, and approves 
targeted pay raises for mid-career and senior enlisted personnel and 
warrant officers effective April 1, 2007. I have heard directly from 
troops in the field and personnel at Georgia military installations 
about how important these targeted pay raises are for retaining our men 
and women in uniform in the service and taking advantage of their hard-
to-replace expertise. I commend the committee for including these pay 
raises in the bill.
  This is a good bill that is clearly crafted with the needs of our 
troops and the security of our Nation foremost in mind. I hope my 
colleagues will join me in expeditiously approving this legislation so 
that our men and women in uniform can get the equipment, the benefits, 
and the support that they need and deserve.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield.


                    Amendment No. 4775, as Modified

  Mr. STEVENS. I send to the desk a modification of Senator Sessions' 
amendment that reflects the amendment offered by Senator Kyl. Since it 
has not been ordered yet, I believe it is the Senator's right to modify 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A vote has been ordered on the amendment, so 
it does take consent.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent he be permitted to modify his 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4775), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 221, line 9, strike ``$204,000,000'', and insert 
     ``$2,033,100,000, which shall be designated as an emergency 
     pursuant to section 402 of S. Con. Res. 83 (109th Congress), 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2007, 
     as made applicable in the Senate by section 7035 of Public 
     Law 109-234.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations and the ranking Member for 
their very good work in producing this Defense appropriations bill. It 
has been my pleasure to serve on this committee for some 25\1/2\ years 
with Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye. I have supported their action 
in providing substantial funding for a robust military and will be 
supporting this bill.
  Our first line of defense is diplomacy. We ought to be undertaking 
some very strenuous efforts at diplomacy on what is happening today in 
the Middle East with Israel raging a defensive war, having been 
attacked by Hezbollah to the north and Hamas to the south, two 
terrorist organizations.
  I spoke at some length on this subject on June 16th. My remarks are 
in the Congressional Record. I made the basic point that I thought it 
highly advisable for the United States to engage in direct negotiations 
with Iran and in direct negotiations with North Korea to try to solve 
the problems posed by those nations on the very serious issue of 
nuclear proliferation, with Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons and 
with North Korea having nuclear weapons and posing an enormous threat.
  In the more extensive remarks, which I made back on June 16, I 
pointed out the experience I have had in discussions with Hafez al-
Assad on many visits which I paid to Syria over the years and some of 
those contacts which I think were helpful in acquainting Hafez al-Assad 
with the thinking of the West, acting to some extent as an intermediary 
between Assad and the Israeli Prime Minister because they would not 
talk, and perhaps being helpful in getting Assad and the Syrians to go 
to the Madrid Conference in 1991.
  I picked up some of the efforts of former Congressman Solarz in 
trying to get Assad to allow the Jews in Syria to leave. And after many 
years, Assad did that. Whether my exhortations had any influence or 
not, I cannot be sure. But my own experience has been, in talking to 
foreign leaders, that one-on-one negotiations is highly desirable.
  I had occasion to talk to Castro, to Chavez in Venezuela, to 
officials in China. And all of this is set out at some greater length 
in the floor statement I made back on June 16.
  I made some comments on July 20, again, noted in the Congressional 
Record, as to what I thought ought to be done with respect to trying to 
work for a settlement in the Mideast, trying to eliminate Hezbollah as 
a threat to Israel's north and Hamas as a threat to the south in 
Israel.
  I want to supplement those comments today with the underlying point 
that a solution to the problems there require some international 
pressure, if there is any pressure at all that can be brought to bear 
on Iran and Syria to stop backing Hezbollah and to stop arming 
Hezbollah and to stop being an accessory before the fact and really a 
coconspirator with Hezbollah in waging the war against Israel.
  Earlier this week, on July 31, I wrote to Secretary of State 
Condoleezza Rice, with a copy to U.N. Ambassador Bolton. My letter to 
Secretary Rice applauded the efforts she is making to find a peaceful 
solution to the Mideast, and saying:

       It is my judgment that no solution is possible, especially 
     as to Hezbollah, until Iran and Syria cease to support 
     Hezbollah's military action.

  I sent a copy of that letter, as noted, to our Ambassador to the 
U.N., John Bolton, and talked to him about the situation. And after 
those discussions--and I am not looking for any endorsement from 
anybody--I thought that I ought to pursue the matter with this floor 
statement.
  We have had a situation where the Iranian Foreign Minister was in 
Beirut earlier this week and parroted the party line from Syria and 
Hezbollah in making demands for a five-point program: First, Israeli 
withdrawal; second, an exchange of prisoners; third, an international 
force; fourth, that Israel should compensate Lebanon, which is not 
sensible, to put it mildly, in light of the fact that Israel is 
fighting a war in self-defense, which Israel has every right to do 
under article 51 of the U.N. Charter; and the fifth point pursued by 
the Iranian Foreign Minister, in talks with the French Foreign Minister 
in Beirut earlier this week, was the formation of an international 
commission to investigate Israeli war crimes, with the view to 
compensation--again, an idea which has no merit whatsoever in view of 
the underlying facts as to what is going on there.
  We have seen a situation evolve in the fighting there where Hezbollah 
has fired some 1,500 Katyusha rockets into Israel. They started the 
turmoil and the conflict on July 12 of this year, kidnapping two 
Israeli soldiers and killing eight others. This is the same Hezbollah 
terrorist organization which, in April of 1983, killed 63 people in a 
bomb attack on the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon. On October 23, 1983 
Hezbollah was responsible for the killing of 241 U.S. servicemen at the 
marine barracks in Beirut.
  Since its establishment, Hezbollah has been tracked with the 
kidnapping of more than 30 westerners and has been charged with 
carrying out attacks from London to Buenos Aires. Hezbollah has killed 
more Americans than any terrorist group, with the exception of al-
Qaida.
  The State Department's 2006 Country Reports on Terrorism noted that 
Hezbollah ``receives training, weapons, and explosives, as well as 
political, diplomatic, and organizational aid, from Iran.'' The report 
further states that Hezbollah ``is closely allied with Iran and often 
acts at its behest.'' Further, the report maintains that ``the Iranian 
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Ministry o Intelligence and 
Security

[[Page S8580]]

were directly involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts 
and continued to exhort . . . Lebanese Hezbollah, to use terrorism in 
pursuit of their goals.''

  The same State Department 2006 report on terrorism also describes the 
support provided to Hezbollah by the Government of Syria. According to 
the report: ``Hezbollah receives diplomatic, political, and logistical 
support from Syria'' and ``Syria continued to permit Iran to use 
Damascus as a transshipment point to resupply Hezbollah in Lebanon.'' 
More recently, an intelligence officer said, as reported by the 
Washington Post on July 27 of this year, that, Iranian national 
security chief Ali Larijani was on an unannounced visit to Damascus on 
Thursday to discuss the Lebanon crisis with Syrian leaders and to urge 
continued support for Hezbollah.''
  The New York Times, on July 19, reported that 5 days earlier an 
Israeli naval vessel was attacked by ``a sophisticated antiship cruise 
missile, the C-802, an Iranian-made variant of the Chinese Silkworm.'' 
Experts cited in this article noted that ``Iran was not likely to 
deploy such a sophisticated weapon without also sending Revolutionary 
Guard crews with the expertise to fire the missile.'' And the Times 
also noted that forensics conducted by the Israelis concluded that many 
of the Hezbollah rockets ``including a 220-millimeter rocket used in a 
deadly attack on a railway site in Haifa . . . were built in Syria.''
  On February 9 of 2004, the Security Council passed Resolution 1559 by 
a vote of 9-0 which called for the disbanding and disarmament of 
Hezbollah, the removal of foreign forces from Lebanon, and the 
deployment of the Lebanese Army to the southern border. After the 
adoption of that resolution, the U.N. issued a statement calling ``upon 
all parties concerned to cooperate fully and urgently with the Council 
for the full implementation of all its resolutions concerning the 
restoration in Lebanon of territorial integrity, full sovereignty and 
political independence.''
  An April 2006 report delivered to the Security Council on the 
implementation of Resolution 1559 was explicitly critical of Iran's and 
Syria's support for Hezbollah. In the report, Secretary General Kofi 
Annan noted:

     . . . renewed incidents of arms transfers across the Syrian-
     Lebanese border into Lebanon . . . [is] in contradiction of 
     resolution 1559.

  The report further stated that Hezbollah ``maintains close ties, with 
frequent contacts and regular communication, with the Syrian Arab 
Republic and the Islamic Republic of Iran.''
  All of this paints a conclusive picture of Iran and Syria being 
behind Hezbollah, having armed Hezbollah, having the rockets in a 
position with a knife at the throat of Israel, with Israel taking 
action in self-defense, once Israeli soldiers were killed, other 
Israeli soldiers attacked.
  And in searching for a resolution to this dire situation, it is 
pointless to defang Hezbollah if Hezbollah is going to be resupplied by 
Syria and by Iran. And that is why I have urged Secretary of State 
Condoleezza Rice, by the letter dated July 31, to have the United 
States seek to bring Iran and Syria before the United Nations for the 
imposition of sanctions if they do not act promptly in furtherance of 
U.N. resolutions to stop arming Hezbollah.
  My conversations with U.N. Ambassador John Bolton confirmed my view 
that this sort of U.N. action is urgently needed. I complimented 
Ambassador Bolton on the U.N. resolution--14 to 1--to set the stage for 
the imposition of sanctions on Iran if Iran does not move ahead to 
cease its development of nuclear weapons.
  So I urge our State Department to move ahead vigorously to seek the 
imposition of sanctions on Iran and Syria to try to be helpful on this 
serious situation. Without eliminating the source of supply to 
Hezbollah, any cease-fire or any resolution would be temporary only.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my 
letter to Secretary Rice be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                    Washington, DC, July 31, 2006.
     Hon. Condoleezza Rice,
     Secretary, Department of State,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Condi: I applaud the efforts you are making to try to 
     find a peaceful solution to the two-front defensive war which 
     Israel is waging against Hezbollah to the north and Hamas to 
     the south.
       It is my judgment that no solution is possible, especially 
     as to Hezbollah, until Iran and Syria cease to support 
     Hezbollah's military action.
       In a speech on the Senate floor on July 20, 2006, I urged 
     the United Nations to call Iran and Syria on the carpet to 
     explain their conduct in backing Hezbollah, in providing 
     personnel to do more than train Hezbollah, more than advisers 
     being integral parts of the military offensive of Hezbollah.
       I urge you to take the leadership to bring a U.S. 
     resolution before the UN Security Council demanding that Iran 
     and Syria stop supporting Hezbollah and other terrorist 
     organizations.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Arlen Specter.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fuller 
statement be printed in the Record at the end of these extemporaneous 
remarks
  There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Statement of Senator Arlen Specter on the United Nations Obligation To 
              Confront the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah Connection

       Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President. I have been following the 
     recent developments in the Middle East with great concern. 
     While Israel has rightfully defended itself against the 
     attacks of Hezbollah, I believe the true source of this 
     conflict must be confronted if there is to be an enduring 
     peace in the region. Hezbollah is not a terrorist entity 
     acting solely of its own accord. Rather, Hezbollah is a proxy 
     of Iran and Syria.
       Despite Israel's withdrawal from Southern Lebanon in 2000, 
     the territory has remained a terrorist safe haven and over 
     the last two weeks has become the launching point for more 
     than 1,500 Katyusha rockets into Israel. This is the same 
     territory from which Hezbollah launched an attack on an 
     Israeli border patrol on July 12, 2006 which resulted in the 
     killing of eight Israeli soldiers and the kidnapping of two 
     others. These unprovoked acts of aggression have resulted in 
     numerous civilian casualties in both Israel and Lebanon.
       Israel, especially its citizens in the north, have had a 
     knife at their throat for decades. Hezbollah has spent the 
     last 25 years digging in and arming themselves poised to 
     attack Israel. These belligerent acts are not the first to 
     come from Hezbollah. In April 1983, Hezbollah killed 63 
     people in a bomb attack on the U.S. embassy in Lebanon. In 
     October of that same year, the terrorist group killed 241 
     U.S. servicemen at the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut. Since 
     its establishment, Hezbollah is believed to have kidnapped 
     more than thirty Westerners and has been charged with 
     carrying out attacks from London to Buenos Aires.
       I compliment the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, for 
     her efforts to highlight the connectivity which exists 
     between Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah. These links have 
     contributed to the destabilization of the region and are 
     directly responsible for the outbreak of hostilities between 
     the Israeli Defense Forces and Hezbollah. The UN must 
     proclaim that Iran and Syria's links with Hezbollah will not 
     be tolerated and must be severed. Failure to do so will allow 
     Syria and Iran to remain the obstacle in laying a foundation 
     upon which a lasting peace can be established.
       The connection between Iran, Syria and Hezbollah is 
     undeniable. According to the State Department's 2006 Country 
     Reports on Terrorism, Hezbollah ``receives training, weapons, 
     and explosives, as well as political, diplomatic, and 
     organizational aid, from Iran.'' The report states that 
     Hezbollah ``is closely allied with Iran and often acts at its 
     behest.'' Further, the report maintains that ``the Iranian 
     Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Ministry of 
     Intelligence and Security (MOIS) were directly involved in 
     the planning and support of terrorist acts and continued to 
     exhort . . . Lebanese Hezbollah, to use terrorism in pursuit 
     of their goals.''
       The State Department's 2006 Reports on Terrorism also 
     describes the support provided to Hezbollah by the government 
     of Syria. According to the report, ``Hezbollah receives 
     diplomatic, political, and logistical support from Syria'' 
     and ``Syria continued to permit Iran to use Damascus as a 
     transshipment point to resupply Hezbollah in Lebanon.'' More 
     recently, an intelligence officer told The Washington Post on 
     July 27, 2006, that, ``Iranian national security chief Ali 
     Larijani was on an unannounced visit to Damascus on Thursday 
     to discuss the Lebanon crisis with Syrian leaders and to urge 
     continued support for Hizbollah.''
       The outbreak of violence has made these connections even 
     more apparent. According to officials cited in a July 19, 
     2006 article in The New York Times, on July 14, 2006 an 
     Israeli naval vessel was attacked by ``a sophisticated 
     antiship cruise missile, the C-802, an Iranian-made variant 
     of the Chinese Silkworm.'' Experts cited in this article 
     noted, ``Iran was not likely to deploy such a sophisticated 
     weapon without also sending Revolutionary Guard crews with 
     the expertise to

[[Page S8581]]

     fire the missile.'' The New York Times also stated that 
     forensics conducted by the Israelis concluded that many of 
     the rockets in Hezbollah's arsenal ``including a 220-
     millimeter rocket used in a deadly attack on a railway site 
     in Haifa . . . were built in Syria.'' It is evident that not 
     only is Hezbollah supplied by Iran and Syria, but that both 
     nations have tacit knowledge of their actions and are 
     directly supporting terrorist operations in Southern Lebanon.
       On February 9, 2004, the Security Council attempted to 
     plant the seeds for peace when it adopted Resolution 1559 by 
     a vote of 9-0 which called for the disbanding and disarmament 
     of Hezbollah, the removal of foreign forces from Lebanon, and 
     the deployment of the Lebanese army to the southern border. 
     Upon adoption of Resolution 1559, the U.N. issued a statement 
     calling ``upon all parties concerned to cooperate fully and 
     urgently with the Council for the full implementation of all 
     its resolutions concerning the restoration in Lebanon of 
     territorial integrity, full sovereignty and political 
     independence.'' Although Israel fully withdrew its forces 
     from Lebanon, Hezbollah did not disarm. Further, Iran and 
     Syria continued to be an obstacle by providing support to 
     Hezbollah, which prevented the deployment of Lebanese 
     forces to southern Lebanon--an area the State Department 
     has described as a ``terrorist sanctuary''.
       An April 2006 report delivered to the Security Council on 
     the implementation of Resolution 1559 was critical of Iran 
     and Syria's support for Hezbollah. In the report, Secretary-
     General Kofi Annan noted, ``renewed incidents of arms 
     transfers across the Syrian-Lebanese border into Lebanon . . 
     . in contradiction to resolution 1559''. Specifically the 
     report cited, ``an incident, in which arms destined for 
     Hezbollah had been transferred from the Syrian Arab Republic 
     into Lebanon. Twelve trucks carrying ammunitions and weapons 
     of various kinds, including Katyusha rockets, crossed the 
     border from the Syrian Arab Republic.'' The report further 
     stated that Hezbollah, ``maintains close ties, with frequent 
     contacts and regular communication, with the Syrian Arab 
     Republic and the Islamic Republic of Iran'' and that 
     implementation of the resolution would require the 
     ``cooperation of all other relevant parties, including the 
     Syrian Arab Republic and the Islamic Republic of Iran.''
       Secretary General Annan stated, ``with the continued 
     support of the Security Council, the national dialogue, the 
     unity of the Lebanese and the farsighted leadership of the 
     Government of Lebanon, as well as the necessary cooperation 
     of all other relevant parties, including the Syrian Arab 
     Republic and the Islamic Republic of Iran, the difficulties 
     of the past can be overcome and significant headway made 
     towards the full implementation of resolution 1559.'' It is 
     clear that Iran and Syria, have acted in a manner to subvert 
     the implementation of 1559.
       I believe Iran and Syria, through Hezbollah, are 
     responsible for attacking the State of Israel and should be 
     held accountable. Accordingly, I urge the United Nations to 
     demand the immediate halt of Hezbollah's attacks against 
     Israel, declare Iran and Syria directly responsible for the 
     actions of Hezbollah and demand that all support for the 
     terrorist organization be immediately withdrawn under the 
     threat of sanction.
       Iran and Syria were three of the original 51 Member States 
     of the United Nations, agreeing to the Charter and accepting 
     its conditions on October 24, 1945. Chapter I, Article 2, 
     Paragraph 2 of the Charter binds ``All Members, in order to 
     ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from 
     membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations 
     assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.'' The 
     Charter further calls on member states ``to practice 
     tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good 
     neighbors'' and ``to maintain international peace and 
     security.'' Iran and Syria have not practiced tolerance and 
     their actions pose a threat to peace and security.
       Chapter I, Article 2, Paragraph 3 states that, ``All 
     Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful 
     means in such a manner that international peace and security, 
     and justice, are not endangered.'' Iran and Syria, via 
     Hezbollah, have chosen to support aggression rather than 
     peaceful means in their dispute with Israel.
       Furthermore, under Chapter I, Article 2, Paragraph 4, ``All 
     Members shall refrain in their international relations from 
     the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity 
     or political independence of any state, or in any other 
     manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United 
     Nations.'' Iran and Syria, who have tacit knowledge of and 
     directly support Hezbollah's actions, have orchestrated and 
     enabled the attacks against the territory of a sovereign 
     nation.
       The Security Council is bound under Chapter VII, Article 39 
     to, ``determine the existence of any threat to the peace, 
     breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make 
     recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in 
     accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore 
     international peace and security.'' Accordingly, the UN must 
     recognize that Hezbollah is a threat to the peace, Iran and 
     Syria have enabled Hezbollah to breach the peace and that 
     this connectivity represents a direct threat to the peace. 
     The Security Council should, under Article 40, call on Syria 
     and Iran to cease and desist. Should either nation fail to 
     comply, the UN should move to consider actions, such as 
     sanctions, available under Article 41.
       In conclusion, Syria and Iran have acted contrary to 
     Security Council Resolution 1559, to the detriment of peace 
     and stability in the region. Iran and Syria enable, arm, 
     support and, to a significant degree, dictate the actions of 
     Hezbollah. It is the duty of the United Nations to directly 
     confront Iran and Syria and take swift and harsh action to 
     rightfully lay the blame of Hezbollah's aggression at the 
     doorstep of Damascus and Tehran.
       I yield the floor.

  Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


          Vote on Amendment No. 4775, as Amended and Modified

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, at 2 p.m. there will be a vote on the 
Sessions amendment, as modified?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. The yeas and nays have not been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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, as amended and 
modified. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Bunning) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus and 
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 220 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     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
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--3

     Feingold
     Hagel
     Jeffords

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Baucus
     Bunning
     Lieberman
  The amendment (No. 4775), as amended and modified was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask 
for its immediate consideration. I talked to both managers of the bill, 
and they are reviewing it.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator permit us to have a managers' package 
first?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. I withhold my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment No. 4802 
is scheduled to be the next pending measure before the Senate.
  The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Inouye, I 
will present another managers' package. This contains amendment No. 
4778, for Senator Smith, regarding airships; No. 4773, for Senator 
Dayton, regarding postdeployment support; No. 4766, for Senator Inouye, 
regarding a military history exhibit; No. 4760, as modified, for 
Senator Lott, regarding airdrop systems.
  Mr. President, I withdraw the package.

[[Page S8582]]

                           Amendment No. 4802

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, it is now in order 
to consider amendment No. 4802, as offered by Senator Kennedy.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself, 
     Mr. Reid, Mr. Biden, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Reed, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4802.

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

   (Purpose: To require a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq)

       On page 150, line 24, insert before the period the 
     following: ``: Provided, That Director of National 
     Intelligence shall, utilizing amounts appropriated by this 
     heading, prepare by not later than October 1, 2006, a new 
     National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq with an assessment by 
     the intelligence community of critical political, economic, 
     and security trends in Iraq, which shall address such matters 
     as the Director of National Intelligence considers 
     appropriate, including (1) an assessment whether Iraq is in 
     or is descending into civil war and the actions that will 
     prevent or reverse deterioration of conditions promoting 
     civil war, including sectarianism, (2) an assessment whether 
     Iraq is succeeding in standing up effective security forces, 
     and the actions that will increase the chances of that 
     occurring, including an assessment of (A) the extent to which 
     militias are providing security in Iraq, and (B) the extent 
     to which the Government of Iraq has developed and implemented 
     a credible plan to disarm and demobilize and reintegrate 
     militias into government security forces and is working to 
     obtain a political commitment from political parties to ban 
     militias, (3) an assessment of (A) the extent of the threat 
     from violent extremist-related terrorism, including al Qaeda, 
     in and from Iraq, (B) the extent to which terrorism in Iraq 
     has exacerbated terrorism in the region and globally, (C) the 
     extent to which terrorism in Iraq has increased the threat to 
     United States persons and interests around the world, and (D) 
     actions to address the terrorist threat, (4) an assessment 
     whether Iraq is succeeding in creating a stable and effective 
     unity government, the likelihood that changes to the 
     constitution will be made to address concerns of the Sunni 
     community, and the actions that will increase the chances of 
     that occurring, (5) an assessment (A) whether Iraq is 
     succeeding in rebuilding its economy and creating economic 
     prosperity for Iraqis, (B) the likelihood that economic 
     reconstruction in Iraq will significantly diminish the 
     dependence of Iraq on foreign aid to meet its domestic 
     economic needs, and (C) the actions that will increase the 
     chances of that occurring, (6) a description of the 
     optimistic, most likely, and pessimistic scenarios for the 
     stability of Iraq through 2007, (7) an assessment whether, 
     and in what ways, the large-scale presence of multinational 
     forces in Iraq helps or hinders the chances of success in 
     Iraq; and (8) an assessment of the extent to which the 
     situation in Iraq is affecting relations with Iran, Saudi 
     Arabia, Turkey, and other countries in the region: Provided 
     further, That, not later than October 1, 2006, the Director 
     of National Intelligence shall submit to Congress the 
     National Intelligence Estimate prepared under the preceding 
     proviso, together with an unclassified summary of the 
     National Intelligence Estimate: Provided further, That if the 
     Director of National Intelligence is unable to submit the 
     National Intelligence Estimate by the date specified in the 
     preceding proviso, the Director shall submit to Congress, not 
     later than that date, a report setting forth the reasons for 
     being unable to do so''.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is a request for a national 
intelligence estimate on Iraq. We haven't had one now for 2 years. I 
have talked with the managers. They will review it. It is under 
consideration. They will let us know. We will have further comments on 
it later. The managers understand this, and I hope we will have an 
opportunity to dispose of it a little later.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy's amendment remains the 
pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 4802 is the pending business.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum. I withhold that 
request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is withdrawn.
  The Senator from Illinois.


                           Amendment No. 4781

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside so I may call up amendment No. 4781 for debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself, Mr. 
     Obama, and Mr. Lautenberg, proposes an amendment numbered 
     4781.

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

   (Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test and 
 Evaluation, Army, up to $2,000,000 for the improvement of imaging for 
                       traumatic brain injuries)

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8109. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title IV under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test and Evaluation, Army'', up to $2,000,000 
     may be available for the improvement of imaging for traumatic 
     brain injuries and the adaptation of current technologies to 
     treat brain injuries suffered in combat.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me for a few 
minutes to consider this amendment. It relates to traumatic brain 
injury. It is a very serious problem with soldiers who are serving in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. This amendment addresses the very real medical 
issues and problems they are facing with these serious wounds. Senator 
Obama shares my concern of this issue. That is why we are offering this 
amendment together today.
  Our goal is to improve the treatment of the devastating injuries 
which are suffered by many of our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Traumatic brain injuries can range from large, penetrating skull 
fractures to concussions which may not be immediately detected.
  As of January of this year, the Department of Defense reported that 
nearly 12,000 members of the military have been directly or indirectly 
wounded in explosions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Mr. President, I am going to display a chart at this moment which is 
painful to see. I talked it over with a man who has served in Iraq who 
commanded troops in Iraq who saw one of his soldiers suffer a very 
serious injury similar to the one I am about to show. I asked whether 
he thought it was appropriate for me to show this image on the floor. 
He said, Yes, it is important that the people of this country 
understand the kinds of injuries that our soldiers are experiencing and 
why this issue of traumatic brain injury is so important for us to 
discuss with this amendment.
  This is an actual x-ray of an American soldier who has been the 
victim of a traumatic brain injury. Because of an explosion, one can 
see that a major portion of this soldier's skull was blown off. We are 
told that there are soldiers who have experienced injuries that are 
even more grievous, and they survived. Through the miracle of 
evacuation and medical treatment, they survive. They go through 
extensive surgeries, and some, this officer told me, end up wearing 
helmets for long periods of time during their recuperation until they 
can finally rebuild their skulls so they can start to go through 
rehabilitation and recuperation.
  This is amazing when we see an image of an x-ray such as this and 
understand that many of our soldiers have been subjected to traumatic 
brain injury of lesser and greater extent and are now returning to the 
United States.
  These brain injuries are often caused by bullet wounds or penetrating 
head injuries and can also be the result of blasts, obviously bombs, 
grenades, landmines, missiles, mortar, artillery shells.
  In the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, traumatic brain injury 
accounts for 22 percent or more of injuries, a larger proportion of 
casualties than in any other recent war of the United States. It is a 
serious medical challenge for those who treat our soldiers, certainly 
for the soldiers who are victims of these injuries and their families.
  With the frequency of attack by rocket-propelled grenades, improvised 
explosive devices in Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers are more likely to 
encounter an explosion. Improvements in protective devices, such as 
Kevlar helmets and body armor, may make the soldiers more likely to 
survive these terrible explosions.
  More than 1,700 of those wounded in Iraq are known to have sustained 
serious brain injury--1,700 soldiers. Half of these injuries are severe 
enough to permanently impair thinking, memory, mood, behavior, and 
their ability to work.

[[Page S8583]]

  This information I am sharing is from official documentation of the 
Department of Defense.
  Mr. President, you may recall, however, that back in January, ABC 
News co-anchor Bob Woodruff sustained a traumatic brain injury from an 
IED when he was embedded with the Army's 4th Infantry Division in Iraq.
  In a recent survey of 115 soldiers wounded from blast injuries, 62 
percent had brain injuries, according to the Defense and Veterans 
Injury Center at Walter Reed.
  According to a recent study by researchers at Harvard and Columbia, 
it is estimated that the cost of medical treatment for those 
individuals with brain injuries from the Iraqi war will be at least $14 
billion over the next 20 years. In Vietnam and previous 20th century 
wars, brain injuries accounted for less than 20 percent of injuries.
  The effect of these injuries range from short-term minor impairment 
to long-term serious disability. One of the common long-term residual 
effects of traumatic brain injury is the onset of epileptic seizures. 
These symptoms may begin months or even years after the injury occurs. 
The more brain tissue a soldier loses as a result of a brain injury, 
the more likely he or she is to develop seizures.
  I can recall recently seeing another television show. There was a 
young woman, a beautiful young woman, who had volunteered to serve in 
the Army and was in Iraq. She was the victim of one of these blast 
injuries and lost a major portion of her skull. She had gone through 
numerous surgeries and long periods of recuperation. When you saw her 
on television, she looked perfect, beautiful as can be, perfectly 
normal, as if nothing had ever happened to her. It is a tribute to the 
men and women who treat our soldiers that they do return to this moment 
in their lives where they have a chance.

  When she was asked what life was like, she said: It is still a battle 
every day, but it is one I am willing to face--double vision, pain, 
these are things which I am just going to work with.
  Unfortunately, we know that these brain seizures are also a challenge 
for these victims. Recurrent late seizures are considered post-
traumatic epilepsy, or PTE. Studies have estimated that over 50 percent 
of Vietnam veterans with penetrating head injuries acquired epilepsy as 
a result of their injuries.
  The same statistics apply in Iraq. It means that we will have massive 
numbers of our soldiers in years to come who have suffered head 
injuries of varying degrees at least subject to the possibility of 
these seizures. Unfortunately, our veterans in Iraq and Afghanistan may 
face that future. I hope they do not, but it could happen.
  Given the heavy incidence of closed head trauma in this war, which is 
less well understood, we may see even more cases.
  The Army currently does not have a program focused on advanced 
traumatic brain injury diagnosis that will treat combat wounds and 
related ailments, such as PTE. Clearly, such a program would help the 
more than 1,700 soldiers with brain injuries sustained in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  The Army estimates that there is an annual investment gap of $20 
million in research, development, test, and evaluation for improved 
diagnostics and other long-term rehabilitative treatments of traumatic 
brain injuries. These are the Army's own estimates: That they are 
falling short $20 million for what they need to deal with this serious 
problem.
  Senator Obama and I are offering this amendment so that we can focus 
a small part of a large bill on defense funds, using them to acquire 
and use technology that can best diagnose, identify, and help us treat 
traumatic brain injury.
  Currently, there is a promising technology called diffusion tensor 
imaging, DTI, that could help identify traumatic brain injury that 
might not be apparent. DTI is similar to an MRI, but it is twice as 
powerful in scanning the brain. DTI identifies damage to the white 
matter in the brain that frequently causes traumatic brain injury.
  However, today DTI is currently used primarily to identify noncombat 
diseases, such as multiple sclerosis and schizophrenia, not for 
diagnosing combat-related injuries.
  Before we can deploy this promising technology to help treat our 
soldiers who suffer traumatic brain injury, we need a greater 
understanding of how to use it more effectively. If this research isn't 
focused soon, we won't be able to deploy DTI technology to combat field 
hospitals or regional medical treatment facilities in places such as 
Baghdad or Landstuhl, Germany, that are very close to the scene of 
battle.
  In order to reach the point where DTI can be deployed closer to 
combat, we need to fund a program that pairs the Army with premier 
brain institutes in America to focus primarily on diagnosing brain 
injuries sustained in combat.
  The amendment that Senator Obama and I offer would do just that. It 
would allocate $2 million--$2 million--a significant sum for the 
average person, but in the context of this bill involving billions of 
dollars a very small amount. It would allocate $2 million to premier 
brain scientists at the University of Chicago where this research is 
underway and enable them to partner with the U.S. Army to test and 
evaluate DTI technology so that we can establish a standard of care for 
traumatic brain injury that would bring the advantages of DTI closer to 
the troops in the field.
  This will allow us to immediately detect and treat the increasing 
number of traumatic brain injury cases caused by combat. In addition, 
these funds will allow the university to partner with the Army Medical 
Research and Materiel Command and associated epilepsy advocacy to treat 
traumatic brain injury survivors with post-traumatic epilepsy.
  As my colleagues can see, this project is directly related to the 
real-life needs of our soldiers who have served us so valiantly in Iraq 
and Afghanistan and other theaters. It is a small amount by the 
standards of this bill, but it could provide the promise of recovery 
for soldiers who face these traumatic brain injuries. It will go a long 
way toward treating what may be the signature wound of the conflicts in 
Iraq and Afghanistan.
  I know this is not included in the bill as it comes before us. I 
hope, despite the debate in the committee, that my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle will consider this amendment.
  Mr. President, $2 million seems a small price to pay to give these 
soldiers who have paid such a greater price for America, a chance for 
full recovery; $2 million doesn't seem like an unreasonable amount to 
bring the very best, modern technology closer to the battlefield so 
that our soldiers can be treated and treated effectively and treated 
quickly. I hope my colleagues will support our injured troops fighting 
this war by supporting this amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I think I can say with assurance, I am 
probably the only Member of the Senate who has had a traumatic brain 
injury in connection with a jet crash in 1978. I have deep respect for 
the researchers who are involved in this area. But really, this is an 
amendment to give the University of Chicago's research team $2 million.
  The NIH has a substantial number of programs. I am told that through 
the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, a whole 
portion of NIH has an extensive traumatic brain injury program that 
supports basic, translational, and clinical research through grants and 
contracts through over 100 research teams and investigators.
  In addition, we have $45 million in this bill that can be used. It is 
called the Peer Review Medical Research Program. This amount can come 
out of that $45 million if the Department of Defense needs it. It is up 
to them. To stay within our allocation, we had to notify Members who 
brought us requests for medical research that we had established this 
$45 million program, and from that the Defense Department can pick 
these suggestions that come from Members of the Senate, the Congress, 
too. The House will be involved in it obviously.
  This is not a neglected area. We spent over $1 billion in research 
grants for studies in this area, particularly funding long-term 
research in traumatic head injury, head and spine injury, and epilepsy. 
This amendment deals with epilepsy and its connection with brain 
injuries.

[[Page S8584]]

  In the past 3 years, an average of $430 million a year has been 
awarded for grants, contracts, and research by the National Institutes 
of Health clinics for epilepsy, traumatic brain injury, and injuries to 
the head and spine. In the last 3 years alone we spent $1.29 billion in 
those specific efforts in this area.
  In this current fiscal year Congress encouraged and directed the 
National Institutes of Health to expand basic and advanced research in 
brain injury rehabilitation. As I said, they told us they have an 
extensive program there. This is where this money should be taken, in 
the final analysis. We have been using over three-quarters of a billion 
dollars for research not associated with military programs in the past.
  We have at least 20 amendments of the same kind that have also been 
suggested to us. The Senator from Pennsylvania has one. A whole series 
of people have come and said they want to have earmarks on the money we 
have in that fund. We have not done that because we believe the 
Department should take the money and spend it on research that is 
related to the demands of the military today.
  Further brain injury research through the Department of Defense will 
reduce the funds available for military readiness and will ignore the 
valuable contributions made by NIH and other nondefense research 
entities.
  I say to the Senator from Illinois, as we discussed in the committee, 
there is no question it is a good program. There is no question the 
University of Chicago should compete with other universities for the 
money that is available. For this to be earmarked here now means they 
no longer have to compete. As I said, NIH said there are currently over 
100 separate contracts out there right now in addition to the $45 
million we have in this bill. NIH has an enormous amount of money and 
the expertise of NIH and their clinical trials. The program they have 
for allocating money, I think, should not be obviated by an earmark 
here on the floor.
  If it happens, if the Senate wants to adopt this amendment, then I 
can tell them in all fairness we are going to have to bring forth the 
amendments of the other Senators. Several of them, as a matter of fact, 
are from Senators who are up for election. We told them no. So I say to 
the Senate, if you want to adopt this amendment of the Senator from 
Illinois to give the University of Illinois priority on this money, 
then that is the judgment of the Senate. I oppose it, as I did in 
committee. I do think we have to stop using Defense money for contracts 
with universities and basic research at the suggestion of a single 
Senator. It is not something that should be done.
  We have adequate money in this bill to cover this if the Department 
wants to do it. We have an overwhelming amount of money in the NIH 
area, if NIH wants to pursue having the University of Chicago do this 
epilepsy research, but this is not a military requirement.
  All the Senator said about injuries that are coming from current 
military involvement is correct. But they are being met. Not one member 
of the military society came to us and said we need more money for 
brain research--not one. This is not something to be handled with an 
amendment on the floor, to give one university priority over all others 
in connection with the research money that is available under this 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it has been my honor to serve on the 
Appropriations Committee and on this subcommittee. It is an important 
subcommittee, one of the most important subcommittees in terms of our 
national defense.
  A decision was reached, probably before I was elected to the Senate, 
that we would dedicate funds within this appropriation for medical 
research. Some have questioned them over the years. I have never 
questioned them. I believe it is important that we pursue medical 
research, not only at the National Institutes of Health--which, 
incidentally is facing a cutback in medical research funds in this 
President's budget this year--but also when it comes to our military 
medical research. They are very competent. They have been very good. 
They have included in their research enormous opportunities, 
opportunities which relate directly to the soldiers in combat and 
opportunities which relate to them and their families.
  Breast cancer research is included in this. I totally support it. I 
applaud it. I voted for it. There is no question about that. What I am 
talking about here is traumatic brain injury to soldiers. This is 
something that has become the signature wound of this conflict in Iraq. 
The amount of money which I am asking for, $2 million, pales in 
comparison to the millions and millions of dollars earmarked in this 
bill for universities, specific universities for specific medical 
research.

  The Senator from Alaska cannot tell me that every dollar in medical 
research in this bill is peer reviewed. It is not. You know it and I 
know it. Decisions were made by the committee to earmark certain 
research at specific universities. I will tell the Senator, I didn't 
question that. I deferred to his judgment and the judgment of Senator 
Inouye on that.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield? I will be pleased to have you 
point that out to me.
  Mr. DURBIN. Page 241.
  Mr. STEVENS. We have had $3 billion requested of our subcommittee for 
medical research. It is the largest growth area in this subcommittee's 
jurisdiction. More and more money for medical research was requested. 
We put $45 million into this program. I want to see that earmark.
  Mr. DURBIN. It is page 241 that I refer the chairman to. What we are 
talking about here is $2 million. The Senator from Alaska has said we 
can't afford this. We cannot afford this medical research. It will be 
at the expense of our readiness, the ability of our soldiers to fight.
  I am prepared to make the same offer I made to the Senator in 
committee. I am prepared to take $2 million--Senator Obama and I will--
from existing projects we alone offered in this bill, $2 million we 
will take out of those projects to go into this medical research for 
traumatic brain injury so you cannot make the argument that the $2 
million is at the expense of anything else related to readiness.
  These are dollars that only we requested, dollars given to us in the 
bill, and we believe this is a higher priority. So the argument that 
somehow we are taking money away from military readiness does not 
apply.
  To argue that $2 million for traumatic brain injury should be 
disqualified because it would go to the University of Chicago? It turns 
out the University of Chicago is one of the premier institutes when it 
comes to this new technology. I am not going to argue about money going 
to any university if it is the right place to send it, and we believe 
the credentials of this institution stand up against the best in 
America--the best in the world. Isn't that what we want for our troops?
  As far as being an earmark, I plead guilty, it is an earmark. But it 
is being discussed right here on the floor of the Senate, the exact 
dollar amount, the exact recipient, and the exact purpose. There is 
nothing that is being done here under cover of night. It should not be.
  Why is it so hard for us in a bill of this magnitude, with all of 
this spending, to find $2 million for epileptic seizures from traumatic 
brain injury when we have so many of our soldiers returning with this 
problem? Wouldn't we want to at least err on the side of these soldiers 
to get them back, as quickly as possible, recovered, as close as 
possible to normal lives?
  I don't understand it. I can't understand the opposition of the 
chairman. I am prepared--maybe it is best now to go ahead and do it. I 
am prepared to say we will take the $2 million out of existing projects 
in the bill.


                    Amendment No. 4781, As Modified

  I ask unanimous consent to modify the pending amendment and send this 
amendment in its place to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mr. STEVENS. Does this require unanimous consent?
  Mr. DURBIN. I don't need consent to modify my amendment under the 
Senate rules.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The amendment (No. 4781), as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:

[[Page S8585]]

       Sec. 8109. (a) Improvement of Imaging for Traumatic Brain 
     Injuries.--
       (1) Additional amount for research, development, test and 
     evaluation, army.--The amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title IV under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test and Evaluation, Army'' is hereby increased 
     by $2,000,000.
       (2) Availability.--Of the amount appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by title IV under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test and Evaluation, Army'', as increased by 
     paragraph (1), up to $2,000,000 may be available for the 
     improvement of imaging for traumatic brain injuries and the 
     adaptation of current technologies to treat brain injuries 
     suffered in combat.
       (b) Offset.--
       (1) Other procurement, air force.--The amount appropriated 
     by title III under the heading ``Other Procurement, Air 
     Force'' is hereby reduced by $1,000,000.
       (2) Defense health program.--The amount appropriated by 
     title V under the heading ``Defense Health Program'' is 
     hereby reduced by $1,000,000.

  Mr. DURBIN. That argument is gone. This $2 million is from our 
projects that only we requested, that we are prepared to give up for 
this medical research for the soldiers. Now what is the next argument? 
That we don't need it, when 1,700 of our soldiers have already suffered 
traumatic brain injuries? We are prepared to take it out of our own 
projects for soldiers who are going through this kind of an injury.
  Why do you still resist it?
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, those 1,700 or however many you have, 
soldiers, aren't going to the University of Chicago. This is simply a 
provision to take $2 million of the defense money for the University of 
Chicago for epilepsy research. As I said, we had a total of $3 billion 
in requests from this subcommittee for medical research from other 
Senators. We turned them all down. The Senator from Illinois wouldn't 
take ``no.''
  I understand his position. His position is he now wants to say other 
items we allowed him to earmark in other portions of the bill would be 
changed in order to have this go to the University of Chicago.
  Every Senator who asks for that money is going to come wanting to do 
the same thing. In other words, it will not make any difference. The 
money will be going to medical research instead of going to the needs 
of the military.
  I didn't say it was for readiness. I said we could not have any more 
money going out of the Defense bill to take care of medical research 
when medical research is basically a function of NIH and the 
subcommittee that deals with Labor, Health, and Human Services. It is 
not our business.
  I confess, I am the one who made the first mistake years ago. The 
Senator just reminded me. I am the one who suggested that we include 
some money for breast cancer research. It was languishing at the time. 
It was back in the 1980s. Since that time it has grown to $750 million 
that was involved, I think it was, in the last bill we had, dealing 
with medical research that had nothing to do with the Department of 
Defense.
  With the shortage of money we have now, we are now over the budget by 
about $78 billion in emergency money. Don't tell me I am objecting to 
brain research. As I said, I have been the subject of brain research. 
But there is plenty of money there for it.
  I notice the occupant of the chair suggests maybe I need a little bit 
more.
  But as a practical matter, we cannot do this just for one Senator, 
and I have been a whip and I understand what it means to have access to 
the floor and make a demand. But this is not right. I say to the 
Senate, if we are going to vote this $2 million, I am going to go back 
and tell each one of the other Senators they should come and offer 
their amendments, too. They are very well-meaning amendments. I have to 
tell you, we have back injury. We have problems with regard to a whole 
series of items. Among the amendments proposed were tissue engineering; 
another traumatic brain injury study for a long-term concept of a study 
of that; vaccine health care centers; eye refractive surgery; 
hypothermia; hemostatic agents; traumatic brain injury research at 
several other universities.
  One of the reasons we turned this one down is we could not in good 
faith take the one from the University of Chicago in Illinois and take 
down the others. We had neuromuscular research. I could go on and on.
  The things all added up to $3 billion. This is just the tip of the 
iceberg. It is $2 million, but it leads into, Why should we take this 
amendment of the Senator from Illinois and turn down all these other 
amendments? We turned them down, not because they were not worthy. We 
didn't turn them down because they were not necessary. We turned them 
down because this is not the place to fund them.
  It is my position that the suggestion we are going to turn around and 
take it out of another provision in the bill that says why did we agree 
to that other provision, if it is not necessary? Why did we add it to 
the bill?
  As a matter of fact, I don't recall those items where we did, but we 
did handle several amendments for the Senator from Illinois. We treated 
them the same as we did every other Senators with regard to research 
for medical purposes. This is the only one out of all of them where we 
said, no, that has been presented to the Senate.
  I do not want to be accused of being against brain research or 
ignorant of the fact that there is an enormous number of brain injuries 
to our military people. As a matter of fact, I went out to Walter Reed 
to see one of our young people from Alaska who had a brain injury. But 
no one, again, has told me we need money in this bill for brain 
research beyond what is there already and beyond what is being made 
available by NIH.
  I do say again, this amendment should not be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I don't want to belabor this. I think we 
have covered most of the ground. But I will tell the chairman, the 
Senator from Alaska, the Army estimates annual investment gaps of $20 
million in research, development, test, and evaluation for improved 
diagnostics and other long-term rehabilitative treatment of traumatic 
brain injury.
  I am not making this up from whole cloth. This is the Army's own 
report. To suggest that we have all the funds we need in this area, to 
suggest they couldn't figure out what to do with $2 million just isn't 
backed up by the Army's own official statements about what is needed. 
They need $20 million. We are offering $2 million.
  The Senator has argued that we are taking it from some other areas of 
the bill. Senator Obama and I are offering $1 million each from 
projects included in the bill, which will slow down their development 
but will put more money into medical research in traumatic brain 
injury. And, yes, the University of Chicago is a leader. I don't 
apologize for that. Wouldn't you want to go to a leading institution 
with $2 million for 1,700 soldiers facing traumatic brain injury?
  I don't want to belabor the point other than to say to the Senator, 
whom I tried in the committee to reason with, that we are prepared to 
make sacrifices in other areas for what we consider to be a very 
important medical priority, and he wouldn't allow us to go forward. I 
tried here on the floor; I am trying now.
  At some point, I would like to have my colleagues vote. I think 
traumatic brain injury is a serious issue. We need to put more 
resources into it. We need to give our soldiers the very best 
technology.
  Senator Obama and I will offer this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senators Menendez and Salazar be added 
as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4776

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 4776.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Salazar] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4776.

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.

[[Page S8586]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide that, of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
available by title II for the Air Force for operation and maintenance, 
  $10,000,000 shall be available for an interoperable communications 
           capability for the United States Northern Command)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title II under the heading ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Air Force'', $10,000,000 shall be available to 
     provide the United States Northern Command with an 
     interoperable mobile wireless communications capability to 
     effectively communicate with Federal, State, and local 
     authorities.


                    Amendment No. 4776, as Modified

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the 
amendment with a modification which I am sending to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to modify the 
amendment.
  The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 4776), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title II under the heading ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Air Force'', up to $10,000,000 may be available 
     to provide the United States Northern Command with an 
     interoperable mobile wireless communications capability to 
     effectively communicate with Federal, State, and local 
     authorities.

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Levin and Warner be added as cosponsors of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I also understand that this amendment 
will be accepted as part of a managers' package. I want to say thank 
you to both the Senator from Hawaii and the Senator from Alaska, the 
floor managers, for accepting this amendment.
  At the outset of my brief comments on this amendment, I also want to 
say that I very much appreciate the leadership of both Senator Inouye 
and Senator Stevens. I had the great honor of participating in some 
activities with Senator Inouye within this past week and hearing his 
own story of his personal courage and fight against discrimination, and 
how he has stood up for our country is something that makes me very 
proud to be an American. I think with Senator Inouye's life story one 
can see how far it is we have come as a country. And he is a living 
example of the kind of heroes that we need in America today in these 
difficult times which we face as a nation.
  I commend both Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye for bringing this 
vitally important bill to the floor. While servicemembers are fighting 
overseas, this bill is one of the most important actions that we can 
take this year on the Senate floor.
  This bill takes care of our troops and I look forward to its passage 
before the August recess.
  Protecting its citizens from attack is our Government's most 
important responsibility. Liberty and prosperity are impossible without 
security here in our Nation and in our homeland.
  We must see to it that we are making the right investments to protect 
Americans from attack.
  In the last few years the threats facing our Nation have grown in 
size and complexity. Rogue nations are developing nuclear weapons as we 
speak. Terrorist organizations are recruiting and new members and have 
been plotting attacks against Americans. And American service men and 
women are in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan as we speak.
  Our way of life and our freedoms depend on our ability to confront 
these threats. They depend on our ability to make smart, forward-
thinking investments in our national defense.
  I am proud to represent a State that contributes so much toward 
achieving these objectives. An in-depth look at this bill shows just 
how prominent a role Colorado plays in contributing to our national 
defense and our homeland security. I am happy to support those measures 
in this bill that focus on Colorado's military installations, such as 
those that will benefit Fort Carson, Schriever Air Force Base, Peterson 
Air Force Base, the United States Air Force Academy, and Pueblo 
Chemical Depot.
  Furthermore, this bill contains additional emergency supplemental 
money for the ongoing campaign in Iraq. This money is necessary to make 
sure that our fighting men and women are provided with the equipment 
they need to be safe and to get the job done. Recently there have been 
a number of military commanders saying that overall military readiness 
is on the decline. Military equipment is wearing out in the harsh 
environment of the desert. I am very troubled by these reports, and am 
therefore very proud to support the measure introduced by Chairman 
Stevens and Ranking Member Inouye last night to counteract this decline 
in readiness by adding $13.1 billion to the bridge fund for Army and 
Marine Corps equipment reset requirements. This money is necessary for 
the continuing combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. I thank my 
friends--the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii, as well 
as Senator Reed of Rhode Island and Senator Dodd of Connecticut--for 
their leadership on this important issue.
  The amendment I offer directly impacts our homeland security, by 
providing the United States Northern Command, known as NORTHCOM, with 
an emergency, mobile, fly-away interoperable communications capability.
  Northern Command is headquartered in Peterson Air Force Base in 
Colorado, and is a crown jewel of our Nation's homeland defense.
  The U.S. Northern Command was established on October 1, 2002 to 
provide command and control for DOD homeland defense efforts and to 
coordinate military assistance to civil authorities. NORTHCOM serves to 
defend America on our native soil.
  Specifically, NORTHCOM's mission is to conduct operations to deter, 
prevent, and defeat threats and aggression aimed at the United States, 
its territories and interests within the assigned area of 
responsibility; and as directed by the President or Secretary of 
Defense, provide military assistance to civil authorities including 
consequence management operations.
  The area of responsibility that falls under Northern Command is vast. 
Their responsibility encompasses the continental United States, Alaska, 
Canada, Mexico, and the surrounding water out to approximately 500 
nautical miles. It also includes the Gulf of Mexico, Puerto Rico and 
the U.S. Virgin Islands.
  NORTHCOM plans, organizes, and executes homeland defense and civil 
support missions. NORTHCOM's civil support mission includes domestic 
disaster relief operations that occur during fires, hurricanes, floods, 
and earthquakes. Support also includes counterdrug operations and 
managing the consequences of a terrorist event employing a weapon of 
mass destruction.
  It is quite clear to all of us, that in the few short years that 
NORTHCOM has been in existence, it has quickly become integrated into 
the very fabric of our homeland defense. NORTHCOM exists to provide the 
unity of command that is absolutely necessary when responding to 
emergencies that immediately threaten Americans on their home soil. I 
know that the men and women at NORTHCOM work hard every single day to 
make sure that we are safe, and I thank them for their dedication and 
their unswerving devotion to duty.
  But thanking them is not enough. We, the Congress, have to provide 
them with the tools necessary to do their job. And one thing they lack 
right now but desperately need is an interoperable communications 
capability.
  The amendment I am proposing will benefit the entire country, because 
it will provide NORTHCOM with the interoperable communications 
equipment they need in order to respond effectively during an 
emergency.
  Northen Command's top unfunded requirement is the purchase of these 
systems. Without interoperable communications, NORTHCOM, the Department 
of Homeland Security, and local and State authorities cannot 
effectively respond to natural and manmade disasters. A $10 million 
increase in fiscal year 2007 funds for NORTHCOM would allow the command 
to procure an interoperable mobile communications capability.
  This amendment cosponsored by Senator Warner and Senator Levin will

[[Page S8587]]

accomplish that. It is legislation that we have approved before in the 
Senate.
  When we spoke about this with respect to the budget resolution and 
the Department of Defense authorization bill, it was approved by the 
Senate.
  Language included in the National Defense Authorization Act for 
fiscal year 2007 specifically referred to the $10 million for 
interoperable communications.
  On page 293 of that report, we in the Senate said the following:

       U.S. Northern Command requires the capability to 
     effectively communicate with Federal, State, and local 
     governments in order to facilitate support to civil 
     authorities, share information, and provide situational 
     awareness in response to natural or manmade disasters.

  The committee recommends an increase of $10 million to OMAF to 
address this funding shortfall and to provide the interoperable 
communications capability for USNORTHCOM.
  My amendment follows that recommendation.
  The Nation cannot afford to wait for the next disaster to strike 
before we purchase this equipment.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank the Senator 
from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii for their consideration and for 
their support of this amendment. I am proud to offer this amendment and 
again thank both Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens for their 
leadership on Department of Defense appropriations legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4806

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], for himself and Mr. 
     Wyden, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. 
     Cantwell, and Mr. Salazar, proposes an amendment numbered 
     4806.

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

    (Purpose: To prohibit the suspension of royalties under certain 
circumstances, to clarify the authority to impose price thresholds for 
  certain leases, to limit the eligibility of certain lessees for new 
        leases, and to restrict the transfer of certain leases)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. ROYALTY RELIEF FOR PRODUCTION OF OIL AND GAS.

       (a) Price Thresholds.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, the Secretary of the Interior shall place limitations 
     based on market price on the royalty relief granted under any 
     lease for the production of oil or natural gas on Federal 
     land (including submerged land) entered into by the Secretary 
     of the Interior on or after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
       (b) Clarification of Authority to Impose Price Thresholds 
     for Certain Lease Sales.--Congress reaffirms the authority of 
     the Secretary of the Interior under section 8(a)(1)(H) of the 
     Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(H)) 
     to vary, based on the price of production from a lease, the 
     suspension of royalties under any lease subject to section 
     304 of the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief 
     Act (Public Law 104-58; 43 U.S.C. 1337 note).

     SEC. __. ELIGIBILITY FOR NEW LEASES AND THE TRANSFER OF 
                   LEASES.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section
       (1) Covered lease.--The term ``covered lease'' means a 
     lease for oil or gas production in the Gulf of Mexico that 
     is--
       (A) in existence on the date of enactment of this Act;
       (B) issued by the Department of the Interior under the 
     Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1337 note; Public Law 104-58); and
       (C) not subject to limitations on royalty relief based on 
     market price that are equal to or less than the price 
     thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section 
     8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C).
       (2) Lessee.--The term ``lessee'' includes any person that 
     controls, is controlled by, or is in common control with, a 
     lessee.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (b) Issuance of New Leases.--
       (1) In general.--Beginning on the date that is 1 year after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall not 
     issue any new lease that authorizes the production of oil or 
     natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico under the Outer Continental 
     Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) to--
       (A) any lessee that--
       (i) holds a covered lease on the date on which the 
     Secretary considers the issuance of the new lease; or
       (ii) was issued a covered lease before the date of 
     enactment of this Act, but transferred the covered lease to 
     another person or entity (including a subsidiary or affiliate 
     of the lessee) after the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (B) any other entity or person who has any direct or 
     indirect interest in, or who derives any benefit from, a 
     covered lease.
       (2) Multiple lessees.--
       (A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1), if there 
     are multiple lessees that own a share of a covered lease, the 
     Secretary may implement separate agreements with any lessee 
     with a share of the covered lease that modifies the payment 
     responsibilities with respect to the share of the lessee to 
     include price thresholds that are equal to or less than the 
     price thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of 
     section 8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 
     (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)).
       (B) Covered lease.--Beginning on the effective date of an 
     agreement under subparagraph (A), any share subject to the 
     agreement shall not constitute a covered lease with respect 
     to any lessees that entered into the agreement.
       (c) Transfers.--A lessee or any other person who has any 
     direct or indirect interest in, or who derives a benefit 
     from, a lease shall not be eligible to obtain by sale or 
     other transfer (including through a swap, spinoff, servicing, 
     or other agreement) any covered lease, the economic benefit 
     of any covered lease, or any other lease for the production 
     of oil or natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico under the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.), unless 
     the lessee--
       (1) renegotiates all covered leases of the lessee; and
       (2) enters into an agreement with the Secretary to modify 
     the terms of all covered leases of the lessee to include 
     limitations on royalty relief based on market prices that are 
     equal to or less than the price thresholds described in 
     clauses (v) through (vii) of section 8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)).

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me briefly describe what this amendment 
does. We will have a unanimous consent request later today to deal with 
this amendment in the most expeditious way. I appreciate the 
cooperation of Senator Stevens and his staff and Senator Domenici in 
helping to work out how we deal with this particular amendment.
  This amendment deals with some unfinished business before the Senate. 
As we will recall, yesterday the Senate overwhelming passed S. 3711, 
which is the Gulf of Mexico Security Act of 2006. This bill would open 
new areas off the gulf to oil and gas exploration and development. S. 
3711, which I voted for, is an important first step in providing our 
energy independence and reducing energy prices for American consumers. 
Once again, it raises a matter of concern: a history of lapses and 
mistakes in royalty collection and payments for oil and gas production 
under deepwater leases. It also underscores the prospect that future 
payments will go uncollected due to royalty provisions that are still 
on the books.
  We must step up and deal with this unfinished business of royalty 
reform. That is why Senator Wyden and I are offering this amendment 
today. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Wyden who has been working 
with me on a bipartisan basis on this issue, along with Senator DeWine, 
who is an original cosponsor of this royalty reform legislation, S. 
3760, and Senators Lieberman, Feinstein, Cantwell, and Salazar.
  There are three important aspects of the royalty program that need 
fixing.
  First, we need to deal with the mistakes that were committed by the 
Clinton administration in 1998 and 1999. In those years, the Department 
of the Interior, through the Mineral Management Service, issued leases 
that did not include price thresholds. That is a big deal. Energy 
prices have skyrocketed, and without price thresholds to trigger 
payment for royalties, the U.S. Government and the American people will 
not see a dime from these leases. The GAO estimated that this mistake 
could cost the taxpayers at least $7 billion in lost revenues to the 
U.S. Treasury.
  Second, we need to deal with leases that were issued in 1996, 1997, 
and 2000 that included price thresholds in the lease terms but which 
are being challenged. A few of the oil and gas companies who signed 
leases in those years

[[Page S8588]]

have refused to pay royalties on production even though the thresholds 
have been exceeded. One of the companies has sued the Department of the 
Interior, arguing that Interior does not have the authority to 
establish price thresholds or any leases issued between 1996 and 2000. 
If the lawsuit is successful, this could have significant implications 
for royalties already collected. The Federal Government would likely be 
required to refund approximately $525 million in royalties paid by the 
industry and be precluded from collecting between $18 billion and $28 
billion over the next 5 years.
  Third, we need to deal with new leases that have royalty relief in 
the lease terms. In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress 
reinstitutes royalty relief on production in the deep waters but did 
not require the Department of Interior to put price thresholds in new 
leases that include royalty relief. The 1998 and 1999 leases 
demonstrate that the Interior Department can't be trusted to do this on 
its own, and we cannot afford another $7 billion mistake.
  Let me explain how the amendment fixes these three problems. Let's 
take the 1998 and 1999 leases first, since they are the most 
controversial. In the context of the fiscal year 2007 Interior 
appropriations bill, there have been efforts to address this problem by 
Senator Gregg, Senator Domenici, and Senator Feinstein. This amendment 
today builds on those efforts.
  In our approach, we try to get companies to do the right thing by 
giving them a choice: Keep your existing leases royalty free but be 
barred from bidding on new leases or renegotiate in good faith with the 
Federal Government and retain your eligibility to bid on new leases in 
the future. The major difference in our amendment is that we provide 
time to renegotiate.
  Every company that wants to come to the table has a full year from 
the date of enactment of this Act to reach agreement. One year is more 
than enough time to address any concerns that need to be explored and 
worked out. I am told many of the companies holding leases from 1998 
and 1999 are already renegotiating those leases. I applaud the efforts 
of those companies. However, Congress cannot stand by and watch 
consumers pay record prices at the pump knowing that American taxpayers 
are not getting fairly compensated for the oil and gas extracted from 
public land. We need to deal with this problem.
  Incidentally, I note that Senator Domenici has inserted in a separate 
appropriations bill an amendment that deals with this problem, 
hopefully, over the course of the next year. What Senator Wyden and I 
are saying is let the process that Senator Domenici has begun have an 
opportunity to work. We hope it does work. But in the event that it 
does not work after a year, our amendment kicks in to, in effect, force 
a solution.
  The other two fixes are less controversial and probably in the future 
actually even more important. Let's turn to the leases first issued 
between 1996 and 2000 and the Secretary's authority to impose price 
thresholds limiting royalty relief when oil and gas prices are high. 
The amendment we are offering simply reaffirms that Congress intended 
the Secretary to have the authority to vary the suspension of royalties 
based on the price of production in all leases subject to the deepwater 
royalty relief action. The language is exactly the same as Senator 
Domenici offered on another bill. After all, the whole point of royalty 
relief was to provide companies that undertook high-risk investments in 
deep water specific volumes of royalty-free production to help cover a 
portion of their capital costs before starting to pay royalties. It was 
not to pad the pocketbooks of the oil and gas companies at the expense 
of the American taxpayer. Price thresholds are the mechanism that 
ensures the companies do not benefit from both high market prices and 
royalty-free volumes.
  Finally, Congress needs to require that new oil and gas deepwater 
leases that the Federal Government issues include price thresholds. 
This seems like a no-brainer, but right now there is no requirement 
that price thresholds be included in leases that have royalty relief. 
The language says ``may,'' not ``shall.'' Our amendment will say 
``shall.'' It is a one-word change that directs the Secretary of 
Interior to include price thresholds in all new leases. This is an 
important action to ensure that the Interior Department collects 
royalties on the American people's energy resources at times when oil 
and gas prices warrant it.
  I am hoping that as we debate this important Defense bill we can do 
the right thing and fix this problem. We are talking about a program 
that accounts for 30 percent of the oil and 23 percent of the natural 
gas produced domestically and is a major source of revenue for the 
Federal Government.
  According to the Mineral Management Service, Federal revenues from 
offshore leases are estimated at $6.3 billion in fiscal year 2005. Of 
the $6.3 billion in revenue for fiscal year $2005, $5.5 billion was 
from royalties. Securing royalty receipts is important.
  I recognize this amendment may be deemed legislating on an 
appropriations bill, but my colleagues and I have tried to go the 
traditional route up to this point to no avail. This problem is too 
important to ignore. We are running out of time. We are willing to 
submit this amendment to a 60-vote threshold. I look forward to working 
with Senator Domenici to work an agreement to that effect soon.
  As President Bush and the oil and gas companies have said, we don't 
need these additional incentives to explore and develop oil and gas at 
current prices. Let's give the American taxpayer fair compensation for 
the oil and gas that is extracted from public lands.
  I hope my colleagues will agree to our amendment. I note, in passing, 
that the score of this, according to CBO, is a $9 billion revenue gain 
to the Treasury. This is one of those few times when we are actually 
going to be able to help the Treasury rather than take some money from 
it.
  I conclude by thanking my colleague from Oregon. The Senator from 
Oregon and I have worked in a bipartisan way now for several weeks. We 
have come to a good resolution of the issue that our colleagues should 
be able to support.
  Senator Wyden is seeking recognition, and I will let him comment at 
this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the distinguished 
Senator from Arizona for working with me on this issue for many months 
now. Colleagues know that I stood in this spot for almost 5 hours a few 
months ago to try to put together a bipartisan effort to save taxpayers 
billions of dollars. I believe we have done that.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the official 
score that Senator Kyl and I have now received from the Congressional 
Budget Office, which the Congressional Budget Office has now officially 
informed us that over the next 10 years, the taxpayers will save $9 
billion
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Estimated budgetary impact of Kyl-Wyden amendment to 
     prohibit the suspension of royalties under certain 
     circumstances, to clarify authority to impose price 
     thresholds for certain leases, to limit the eligibility of 
     certain lessees for new leases, and to restrict the transfer 
     of certain leases--Amendment No. 4806.

                                                                            [In millions of dollars, by fiscal year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               2007       2008       2009       2010       2011       2012        2013         2014         2015         2016       2007- 2011      2007- 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BA........................................          0       -100       -500       -600       -900       -900       -1,100       -1,600       -1,700       -1,600          -2,100          -9,000
OL........................................          0       -100       -500       -600       -900       -900       -1,100       -1,600       -1,700       -1,600          -2,100          -9,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CBO.


[[Page S8589]]

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the reason Senator Kyl and I feel so 
strongly about this, this is a program that is out of control. The fact 
is that even the sponsor of this program, our distinguished former 
colleague, Senator Johnston of Louisiana, said this program is not 
operating as Senator Johnston intended.
  A brief bit of history is relevant. This program began in the 1990s, 
when the price of oil was under $20 a barrel. The point of the program, 
as devised by Senator Johnston, nobody could really argue with. We 
needed to produce energy, and with the economic situation in that part 
of the country, folks were hurting. They devised this program.
  But no one can make a case for a program that began when oil was $19 
a barrel, when the price of it is now over $70 a barrel. We have a 
situation where the companies are charging record prices. They are 
making record profits. We certainly do not need record subsidies, 
particularly at a time when we have a program that even the sponsor of 
the original effort says is not working.
  This is the biggest subsidy in the energy area. This is one of the 
biggest boondoggles we have seen operated by the Federal Government. 
The fact of the matter is, there have been mistakes made under both 
Democratic and Republican administrations.
  As I outlined for the Senate several months ago, the initial mistakes 
were made by those in the Clinton administration which did not lock in 
the appropriate price thresholds. When former Secretary Norton came 
into office, she sweetened up the subsidies administratively, and 
Congress went still further with respect to this program in the Energy 
bill.
  The Government Accountability Office has estimated that at a minimum 
the Federal Government and the taxpayers are going to be out $20 
billion. There is litigation underway that could mean the taxpayers 
would be out in the vicinity of $80 billion. It is time to draw a line 
in the sand and ensure that this effort to roll back these subsidies 
becomes law.
  If the oil industry can keep the Senate from voting on royalties, the 
legislation the House adopted after Senator Kyl and I came to the 
Senate and discussed it, almost certainly is going to disappear. The 
negotiations now underway with oil companies, in my view, are going to 
be dragged out until the last legislative vehicle has left town. Then 
the companies can walk away from the table and return to feeding at the 
expense of the taxpayers.
  Senator Kyl and I have worked very closely with Chairman Domenici. As 
always, he has been very fair and very straightforward with us.
  With this approach, we have a chance to get a permanent solution to 
this giveaway of taxpayer money. We will not interrupt the approach 
that Chairman Domenici has advocated. We hope it will work. It 
essentially involves negotiations on a voluntary basis. As I have 
indicated in the Senate before, while I hope that works, put me down as 
skeptical because it is fairly implausible that the oil companies will 
simply walk away from billions and billions of dollars at the 
negotiating table. If it does work, all the better. If it doesn't work, 
however, Senator Kyl and I believe it is finally time for the Senate, 
on a bipartisan basis, to lock in a permanent solution.
  Colleagues, the President, to his credit, has said, ``You don't need 
subsidies for the oil industry when the price of oil is over $55 a 
barrel.'' The President made that statement, and I appreciate him 
making it. Second, this is an opportunity for the Senate to go back 
through these various programs, save taxpayers some money, and to do it 
in a bipartisan way.
  Even though the President said we do not need incentives with the 
price of oil over $55 barrel, we did see the Secretary of the Interior 
and the Congress continue to sweeten this royalty relief program, even 
as the price of oil climbed far above the point mentioned by the 
President at which the oil industry no longer needs subsidies.
  We are now faced with the prospect that if we are going to get a 
permanent solution, now is the time for the Congress to step up.
  I, also, point out, given the fact that the Senate has voted in the 
last few days to start a new program, a program that will involve 
additional dollars going out to the oil industry, at a minimum, let us 
say we are going to fix the old program that is out of control before a 
new program is started. That is common sense.
  For the Senate to talk about creating a new program, allowing even 
more taxpayer money to be given away--and in that case, for 50 years or 
more--common sense says the Senate should step up before the end of 
this session and move to permanently fix the old program that is out of 
control.
  The Senate ought to have an opportunity to debate and vote on a 
permanent solution to ending these oil royalty giveaways. The House has 
voted to do it. They voted, in a bipartisan way, for the very thing 
that I spoke at length about in the Senate and that Senator Kyl and I 
have been trying to change for many months.
  I also point out, if we can get the savings by fixing the old 
program, you can talk about a responsible way for funding new efforts, 
such as the effort approved by the Senate this week.
  I am sure our citizens who now face the highest gas prices ever will 
be interested to know when the Senate is going to have a chance to vote 
on the question of, at this time of record prices and record profits, 
whether we should continue to give away record amounts of taxpayer 
subsidies that the President of the United States has indicated are not 
necessary.
  If the Senate ducks this issue, I think it will be very difficult to 
explain to the American people how Congress can be proposing to allow 
additional billions of dollars of royalty money to go out before it 
fixes the current out-of- control program.
  I have said for some time the Senate should not be forced into a 
false choice of either aiding the Gulf States or standing up for the 
public interest in the face of outrageous taxpayer rip-offs.
  We can and should do both. Given what the Senate did earlier this 
week on the new program, it is, in my view, essential to protect 
taxpayers to accept the bipartisan amendment that Senator Kyl and I 
offer this afternoon to reform the Oil Royalty Program.
  Mr. President, I urge colleagues to support the bipartisan Kyl-Wyden 
amendment. I would also note--I see Senator Stevens on the Senate 
floor--that we have a number of sponsors of this bipartisan proposal, 
including Senator DeWine, Senator Lieberman, Senator Cantwell, Senator 
Feinstein, and Senator Salazar.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the Kyl 
amendment dealing with royalty relief. The amendment would put an end 
to the Federal Government giving the oil and gas industry incentives to 
drill when oil and natural gas prices are high.
  The amendment includes a provision that Senator Gregg and I 
successfully included in the Senate Interior Appropriations bill that 
would fix an administrative error that was made in 1998 and 1999. This 
provision also passed the House by a vote of 252 to 165.
  In 1998 and 1999, the Department of Interior inadvertently omitted 
price thresholds from contracts entered into with oil and gas 
companies.
  This omission has allowed oil companies to produce in Federal waters 
in the Gulf of Mexico for free while consumers are paying $3 a gallon 
at the pump. And it will cost American taxpayers $10 billion over the 
next 25 years.
  Essentially, the amendment provides energy companies with a choice: 
They can keep their existing leases royalty-free if they so choose, but 
be barred from bidding on a new lease, or agree to renegotiate the 
terms of the existing lease and be free to bid on new leases.
  In my view, the oil companies do not need incentives at a time when 
they are making record profits. Just last week, the companies reported 
their second quarter profits, and again, they hit new records. 
ExxonMobil made $10.36 billion in the second quarter of 2006; that is 
almost $3 billion more than they made in the second quarter of 2005. 
Shell reported a second quarter profit of $7.32 billion--more than $2 
billion greater than their second quarter profit in 2005. And BP's 
profits were $7.27 billion, or just less than $2 billion greater than 
their second quarter 2005 profits.
  The oil companies themselves have said that they do not need royalty 
relief. At the Joint Energy and Natural

[[Page S8590]]

Resources and Committee hearing on November 9, 2005, the oil executives 
were asked by Senator Wyden:

       Gentlemen, the President says and I quote ``With $55 oil, 
     we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore. 
     There are plenty of incentives.'' Now today the price of oil 
     is above $55 per barrel. Is the President wrong when he says 
     we don't need incentives for oil and gas exploration?

  All responded that they did not need incentives.
  In addition, a lawyer for Shell Oil, Michael Coney, recently told the 
New York Times:

       Under the current environment, we don't need royalty 
     relief.

  The amendment passed by the House and by the Senate Appropriations 
Committee has spurred oil companies to admit publicly that they would 
be willing to renegotiate their leases to include a price threshold. 
But without congressional pressure, there is no reason for them to 
actually do it. We need to hold their feet to the fire in order to make 
sure the leases are really renegotiated.
  I just want to take a minute to focus on the issues that the oil 
companies have raised in opposition to this amendment: First, they 
raised the issue that foreign companies were going to take over 
production in the Gulf of Mexico.
  Nothing could be farther from the truth. Regulations implementing the 
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act state that ``Mineral leases issued 
pursuant to the Act . . . may be only held by Citizens and Nationals of 
the United States . . . or private, public or municipal corporations 
organized under the laws of the United States or of any State or of the 
District of Columbia or territory thereof . . .''
  Secondly, the oil companies have argued that the amendment will hurt 
oil and gas production.
  In fact, the amendment will not impact the daily production of more 
than 1.5 million barrels of oil and 10 billion cubic feet of natural 
gas from the Gulf of Mexico.
  Oil companies are also free to explore and drill in the more than 
4,000 untapped leases in the Gulf of Mexico that have already been 
leased to them. The amendment simply prohibits oil companies that fail 
to renegotiate existing royalty-free leases from obtaining new ones.
  Finally, and most importantly, the oil companies say that the 
amendment attacks the sanctity of contracts.
  And the oil companies couldn't be more wrong on this point.
  CRS has issued two papers now stating that the amendment is 
constitutional. Specifically, CRS says ``the amendment's incentive to 
renegotiate . . . gives the government side a classic argument that 
there is no taking here: the decision of a . . . leaseholder to 
renegotiate is voluntary, and voluntary actions cannot be the basis of 
a taking claim.''
  In addition, CRS shows that case law supports the fact that amendment 
does not violate contracts.
  The courts have determined that if there is no legal compulsion, the 
voluntary compromise of a property right in exchange for an economic 
benefit is not a taking.
  And I would like to reiterate--the amendment offers energy companies 
a choice: compromise a property right--exemption from payment of 
royalties--in exchange for a possible economic benefit--ability to bid 
on new OCS leases.
  This amendment is not a taking, because the government is not taking 
any property right from the oil companies; it is merely offering an 
incentive to renegotiate their leases--an incentive that the oil 
companies are free to decline.
  We should not be giving away this oil and gas for free while 
consumers are paying record high prices to fuel their cars and heat 
their homes, and oil companies are making record profits.
  Unless we act to force the companies to renegotiate the leases, 
taxpayers are going to be left holding the bill for $10 billion.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                    amendment no. 4776, as modified

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and that Senator Salazar's amendment No. 4776 be 
placed before the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the managers of the bill are prepared to 
accept this amendment and ask that it be accepted on a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 4776), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


     amendments nos. 4778; 4773; 4760, as modified; 4796, and 4771

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have managers' package No. 2 back 
again. I wish to restate that request now. It applies to amendment No. 
4778, for Senator Smith, regarding airships; amendment No. 4773, for 
Senator Dayton, regarding postdeployment support; amendment No. 4760, 
as modified, for Senator Lott, regarding airdrop systems; amendment No. 
4796, for Senator Conrad, regarding weapons bays; and amendment No. 
4771, for Senator Frist, regarding contracts.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and 
that the Senate proceed to the consideration of this managers' package 
en bloc, and that they be adopted en bloc, and the motion to reconsider 
be laid upon the table.
  Mr. INOUYE. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4778

   (Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test and 
  Evaluation, Navy, up to $2,000,000 for the Advanced Airship Flying 
                              Laboratory)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title IV under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy'', up to $2,000,000 
     may be available for the Advanced Airship Flying Laboratory.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4773

    (Purpose: To make available from additional appropriations for 
 Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard, up to $6,700,000 for 
 the pilot program of the Army National Guard on the reintegration of 
   members of the National Guard into civilian life after deployment)

       At the end of title IX, add the following:
       Sec. 9012. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by chapter 2 of this title under the heading 
     ``Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard'', up to 
     $6,700,000 may be available for the pilot program of the Army 
     National Guard on the reintegration of members of the 
     National Guard into civilian life after deployment.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 4760, as modified

(Purpose: To appropriate, with an offset, an additional $2,000,000 for 
  Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army for the Para foil 
                    Joint Precision Air Drop System)

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8109. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army'', 
     up to $2,000,000 may be available for support of design 
     enhancements and continued testing of the Para foil Joint 
     Precision Air Drop System (JPADS) design parachute system for 
     the drop of 5-ton and 15-ton loads to precise locations from 
     high altitude and greater offset distance.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4796

   (Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test and 
  Evaluation, Air Force, up to $6,000,000 for Military-Standard-1760 
      integration for the internal weapons bays of B-52 aircraft)

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8109. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title IV under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force'', up to 
     $6,000,000 may be available for Military-Standard-1760 (MIL-
     STD 1760) integration for the internal weapons bays of B-52 
     aircraft.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4771

     (Purpose: To modify the notice and wait period applicable to 
   modifications of certain contracts for national defense purposes)

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8109. Notwithstanding the first section of Public Law 
     85-804 (50 U.S.C. 1431), in the event a notice on the 
     modification of a contract described in that section is 
     submitted to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives by the Army Contract 
     Adjustment Board during the period beginning on July 28, 
     2006, and ending on the date of the adjournment of the 109th 
     Congress sine die, such contract may be modified in 
     accordance with such notice commencing on the earlier of--

[[Page S8591]]

       (1) the date that is 60 calendar days after the date of 
     such notice; or
       (2) the date of the adjournment of the 109th Congress sine 
     die.

  Mr. STEVENS. Now, what is the pending amendment, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Kyl amendment No. 
4806.
  The Senator from North Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 4805

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I know that the chairman and the ranking 
member of the Appropriations Committee and particularly this 
subcommittee are anxious to move this piece of legislation. I thank 
them for their work. This is perhaps one of the more difficult pieces 
of legislation to put together from the appropriations side. It spends 
an enormous amount of money at a time when we are engaged in wartime 
activities. There are many accounts that are in urgent necessity of 
being replenished and restored.
  Let me say to the chairman and to the ranking member, I think they 
have done an excellent job with a very difficult piece of legislation. 
I appreciate their work, and I am privileged to serve on that 
subcommittee with them and understand the importance this bill will 
have for the U.S. military at a time when men and women are risking 
their lives because their country has asked them to do that.
  I do want to make a point, however, today, as we pass an 
appropriations bill, and I will make the point understanding that the 
chairman and ranking member will recognize that this is not about how 
much money we appropriate but, rather, about how the money is used. I 
accept that in most cases that is a function of authorizing 
committees--oversight requirements of authorizing committees--rather 
than the Appropriations Committee.
  But I do want to make the point now because we have spent a great 
deal of money, and will again spend a lot of money--most of it 
emergency funding outside of this particular bill--dealing with issues 
in Iraq and Afghanistan, when all around us we are seeing that a fair 
portion of that money is attached to allegations of misuse and waste 
and, in some cases, fraud.
  I think all of us, especially those of us on the Appropriations 
Committee, wish very much to make certain that what we appropriate is 
used to support our troops, to improve the security of this country, is 
used wisely and prudently in support of the things that Congress has 
authorized.
  I want to go through some things because I think it is important for 
all of us in Congress to understand the allegations of waste that have 
attended some of this spending. And it is important for all of us on 
the appropriations and authorizing committees to try to figure out: How 
on Earth do we deal with this? What do we do to put a stop to--not 
allegations--the waste of taxpayers' funding?
  There are so many examples it is hard to know where to start. But 
because there have been so few oversight hearings on the bulk of these 
issues, I think it is important to describe what we are hearing. 
Taxpayers in this country have been asked to provide taxpayer funding 
through appropriations, and here are some of the examples: contracts 
that are signed, sole-source, no-bid contracts that extend for some 
long while.
  And because they are sole-source, no-bid contracts, and they are 
cost-plus, the taxpayer has been fleeced.
  These are stories not from someone who alleges to have seen 
something, these stories are from people who worked for the 
contractors, whistleblowers: $85,000 trucks, brandnew $85,000 trucks 
abandoned beside the road to be torched because they had a flat tire; 
$85,000 trucks abandoned to be torched because they had a plugged fuel 
pump; a case of Coca-Cola, $45--that is the charge to the American 
taxpayer--two plates of breakfast, $28 a plate; feed 42,000 soldiers a 
day--and it turns out they were feeding only 14,000 soldiers a day; 
they missed it by 28,000 in the charges they made to the U.S. 
Government--leasing SUVs, $7,500 a month.
  Hand towels, providing hand towels for our troops, the buyer who was 
asked to buy the additional hand towels for our troops in the war 
theater said: Here are the hand towels I was going to purchase. And 
here are the hand towels I was asked to purchase. And the hand towels I 
was asked to purchase by my supervisor included the embroidered name of 
my company, which doubled the price of the hand towels. So when I 
complained about that, the answer was: It doesn't matter.
  This is cost-plus. We are the only contractor. The taxpayer will pay 
the bill. Cost doesn't matter.
  The list is endless and goes on and on and on. Food service to the 
troops: A man named Rory, who actually worked in the food service 
kitchens, in Iraq, of the contractor--an employee of the contractor--
said: We routinely got food that was stamped ``expired,'' date-stamped 
``expired.''
  He said: Our supervisors said it doesn't matter. Feed it to the 
troops. It doesn't matter. Just feed it to the troops.
  He said: We were repeatedly told by our supervisors, don't you dare 
speak to a Government investigator or a Government auditor. If they 
show up and you talk to them, you are going to be fired. If they show 
up and you talk to them, and you are not fired, you are going to be 
sent to the most hostile area we can find to send you.
  The fellow named Rory, who showed up and spoke about this, who was an 
employee and described all of this, in fact, did speak to Government 
investigators about what he saw happening to the American taxpayer, and 
he was sent to Fallujah during the hostilities. That is what happened 
to him.
  More recently, we have a whistleblower, or several of them, who have 
come forward to say: We are spending money for a contractor to provide 
water to our troops at all of the bases in Iraq. That is the money we 
are spending to provide water to our troops.
  I want to show you some memoranda and some discussions back and forth 
about what has happened to that spending. This is an internal report 
written by Will Granger, who works for the company that has the 
contract to provide water to all the U.S. bases in Iraq. Will Granger 
is the top employee for Halliburton on the ground in Iraq. Here is what 
Will Granger said in his report:

       No disinfection to non-potable water was occurring at Camp 
     Ar-Ramadi for water designated for showering purposes.

  Incidentally, this is water that the troops use to brush their teeth 
and wash their face and shower.

       This caused an unknown population to be exposed to 
     potentially harmful water for an undetermined amount of time.

  The whistleblowers came forward who were also involved in the 
delivery of this water. And they said: By the way, the nonpotable 
water--that is water you do not drink, but water you brush your teeth 
with and take showers with, and so on--the nonpotable water was more 
degraded, more contaminated than if they would have taken raw water 
from the Euphrates. This is from the whistleblowers.
  Now, when this became known, the internal report that we had from Mr. 
Will Granger--again, from the same company--said:

       The deficiencies of the camp where the event occurred is 
     not exclusive to that camp; meaning that country wide, all 
     camps suffered to some extent from all or some of the 
     deficiencies noted.

  Now, while all this going on, the company, Halliburton, said: None of 
this happened. You are wrong. None of this happened.
  My point is, the discussion of this came from employees of the 
company itself and from an internal memorandum that was leaked, an 
internal memorandum written by the top official on the ground in Iraq 
in charge of water.
  Will Granger, the man I am speaking of, the man in charge, while his 
company in Houston was saying publicly, and said it repeatedly, that 
none of this happened, none of this happened, Mr. Ganger's report said 
this:

       This event should be considered a ``near miss'' as the 
     consequences of these actions could have been VERY SEVERE 
     resulting in mass sickness or death.

  We are spending money on these contracts. Then we have whistleblowers 
come forward to say there is a waste of money--tragic waste of money. 
Then we have whistleblowers come forward to say that the companies that 
are getting these contracts--in this case for water--are not treating 
the nonpotable water properly, which is a danger to the troops. And the 
company says: Not true. Just not true.

[[Page S8592]]

  Then we discover the internal memorandum that the company received 
from that company's person on the ground in Iraq, and the guy says:

       The consequence . . . could have been VERY SEVERE resulting 
     in mass sickness or death.

  Shortly after this, by the way, a young woman who is serving in Iraq, 
an Army physician, wrote me an e-mail, and she said: I have read about 
this sort of thing. I want you to know it has happened in my camp. And 
I had my assistant go track the water line to see what kind of water 
they were bringing into the base that is called nonpotable water, and 
it, too, was contaminated, and it, too, is of degraded quality and more 
contaminated than raw water, the raw water you would get from the 
Euphrates River.
  So the question is: What are we getting? What are we getting for the 
money we are spending? Where is the accountability?
  Now, some of these have been Halliburton. And I know the minute you 
talk about Halliburton, somebody says: Ah, that is a political attack 
on the Vice President. The Vice President is not at Halliburton. This 
is not about the Vice President at all. He used to work for that 
company, but this is not about him. It is about a company that received 
large no-bid contracts, sole-source contracts, and the allegations are 
almost unbelievable about what has happened.
  Now, there are others. Some of them are with a RIO contract, Restore 
Iraq Oil contract, others with a LOGCAP contract. But let me give you 
some other examples: Custer-Battles--two guys show up in Iraq, one 
named Custer, one named Battles, and they decide: We want to get in on 
some of this. We want to get in on some of this activity.
  Before that ended, Custer and Battles had received over $100 million 
in contracts from our Government. Among the contracts was one to 
provide security at the Baghdad Airport. There were no flights going in 
and out of the Baghdad Airport, so presumably they did a pretty good 
job of that, except they took the forklift trucks that existed at that 
airport, put them in a shed someplace and repainted them blue, and then 
sold them back to the Coalition Provisional Authority, which was us. 
That is an interesting way to do business.
  And, by the way, here is a picture of $2 million wrapped in Saran 
Wrap. I know this fellow. This fellow showed up here in Washington, DC. 
This picture was taken in Iraq in a building.
  He was the guy holding a portion of this money. He said: Our message 
in Iraq was, Bring a bag; we pay in cash. If you are a contractor, 
bring a sack; we pay in cash.
  This is $2 million, 100-dollar bills wrapped in Saran Wrap. They used 
them to play football in the office, throwing bricks of 100-dollar 
bills around. It was like the Wild West, he said. This particular $2 
million went to Custer Battles, a company that showed up with no 
experience, took forklift trucks from the airport, repainted them, sold 
them back to the American taxpayer, called the Coalition Provisional 
Authority. The CPA is us, the Coalition Provisional Authority. That was 
created by Donald Rumsfeld. He signed the creation of the CPA. It was 
us. So Custer Battles gets a contract for airport security.
  Here is the Baghdad airport director of security talking about Custer 
Battles. He wrote it to the CPA.

       Custer Battles have shown themselves to be unresponsive, 
     uncooperative, incompetent, deceitful, manipulative, and war 
     profiteers. Other than that they are swell fellows.

  Something else that happened with this contract. They were supposed 
to provide trucks. The problem is, they supplied trucks and the trucks 
didn't work. Couldn't get them started. They didn't run. The Custer 
Battles company said: We just said we would supply trucks. We didn't 
guarantee they were going to run. They didn't have to be operational.
  My point is this, this goes on day after day, month after month. It 
is not the fault of the appropriators. It has nothing to do with the 
appropriators. It is about accountability. And in most cases, that 
would come from authorizing committees and from a Congress that would 
say: Wait a second. When we hear about nonpotable water that is more 
contaminated than raw water from the Euphrates River, a Congress would 
say, wait a second; you can't do that to American troops, and begin an 
immediate investigation. Yet you see very little activity to look into 
these issues.
  On behalf of the taxpayers and on behalf of those of us who are 
appropriators, including the chairman and ranking member and the entire 
committee, I think all of us, the Congress, the Department of Defense, 
all of us need to expect more accountability and soon. We are spending 
an enormous amount of money.
  I have mentioned previously that in the early 1940s, Harry Truman 
believed there was substantial waste. He put together the Truman 
committee, formed by Congress, a bipartisan committee. I am sure there 
was a great deal of teeth gnashing down at the White House because the 
President was of his own party. But the Congress, with that bipartisan 
committee, rooted out a great deal of waste, fraud, and abuse through 
the Truman committee. I have tried previously on three occasions to 
pass such legislation here in the Senate. I have not been successful.
  I think it is time--and I only take the time to speak as we 
appropriate money--for all of us to expect more from those committees 
with the responsibility to hold accountable those who spend this money. 
I have seen precious little energy and far too little activity to 
respond to these issues.
  I have talked about food and water to troops. There are many other 
issues. I will not go through them all today. The issues are sufficient 
that we need to take a hard look at what is happening.
  Last Friday I met with a doctor from Iraq. He wanted to go look at 
the 142 health clinics that were to be restored and rehabilitated and 
created in Iraq, 142 health clinics with the money we appropriated in 
the U.S. Congress. This Iraq physician went to the health minister of 
Iraq and said: I would like to track the money and see what is 
happening with these 142 clinics.
  The health minister said: No, you don't understand. Many of these 
clinics are imaginary.
  I said: Are you sure? You are sure that is what he said.
  Oh yes, I am sure. Many of these are imaginary clinics. They don't 
exist.
  It turns out 20 clinics were rehabilitated or created of the 142 that 
were supposed to have been rehabilitated or created. Only 20 were done 
and all the money is gone. Why? How? Who cares? Does somebody care? 
That is the question for this Congress.
  I don't mean in any way to suggest that my colleagues, the chairman 
and ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, bear responsibility 
for this. That is not the case. It is the case, however, that we need 
to be much more aggressive on other committees with oversight 
responsibility. Oversight is a significant legislative responsibility. 
It has gone unfulfilled in this Congress and a couple of Congresses 
preceding it.
  I have an amendment that I noticed. I understand that the amendment 
itself is not germane on an appropriations bill. A point of order would 
lie against it. I would expect my colleagues would insist on a point of 
order. But the amendment would punish war profiteers, crack down on 
contract cheaters, and force real contract competition so that we 
finally can do what we should for the American taxpayer and bring down 
these costs.
  I had filed it as No. 4805. I ask unanimous consent that we set aside 
the pending amendment in order to have 4805 considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4805.

  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am appalled at some of the information 
that the Senator from North Dakota

[[Page S8593]]

has brought to us. I will join him, perhaps, in some specific amendment 
that might have some germaneness to this bill such as an authorization 
to shoot such people. I can't imagine that anyone would provide to 
troops in the field contaminated water. I can't believe that we are 
being charged for a sizable number of clinics and our taxpayers are 
paying for it and they are imaginary.
  On the other hand, this is a provision that deals with Government 
contracting governmentwide. If we include it, we would have to have 
several subcommittees and the other body confer with us to try to write 
the amendment in a way that might be pertinent to the matter before us, 
and that is financing the Department of Defense.
  I do think we should be indebted to the Senator for his research and 
what he is doing to try to bring honesty into Government contracting. 
But I am compelled to say that it is an amendment that should be taken 
to the Government Affairs Committee, and it should not be on this bill. 
It is legislation on an appropriations bill. I do make a point of order 
that it violates rule XVI.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is taken.
  The amendment falls.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I use this opportunity when we appropriate 
money to make the point. It is not the responsibility or the burden of 
a couple people who have put together a good appropriations bill to 
bear the responsibility for a lack of oversight that exists and the 
lack of oversight that exists in the entire Congress. I only raise this 
because I think it is critically important that all of us understand.
  There is far too much waste and fraud and abuse in some of these 
contracts. I recognize that wartime is different. There are times 
during wartime when you do things you might not otherwise do. You might 
not be quite as efficient or effective. Some money may be wasted. But 
this seems like hogs in a trough when you see what is going on.
  We are spending so many billions. We added $18.2 billion for 
reconstruction in Iraq, and the grunting and shoving and moaning of 
hogs at the trough trying to find some of that money. I mentioned 
Custer Battles. Two guys would show up with hardly a taxi fare, get 
$100 million in contracts, and now we discover the American taxpayer 
has been fleeced for much of that. The water isn't going to clear up 
until you get the hogs out of the creek. We need to find a way to 
address these issues, most especially those raised with food and water 
to troops.
  Let me say to Senators Stevens and Inouye, I want to work with them. 
I know they want the same result I want with respect to these issues. 
That is the only reason I raise this today. This burden also falls on 
some authorization committees and others that really need to do a much 
better job with respect to oversight.
  My hope remains that at some point we will be able to pass my 
amendment--I expect to offer it again, and I think that will be the 
fourth time--to create a Truman-type committee that sinks its teeth 
into these issues and says: We will not put up with this. We won't put 
up with waste, fraud, and abuse.
  I will be back again. I thank my colleagues for their forbearance as 
I discuss these things and know that they share with me an interest in 
trying to deal with them in an effective way on behalf of our troops 
and on behalf of America's taxpayers.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves, I am sure 
Senator Inouye is telling him the same thing. We will instruct our 
staff to start the process of establishing a series of hearings to 
investigate this fraud that he has brought to our attention. The 
Senator is a member of our committee, and we will be pleased to work 
with him on it. If it gets to the point where we need a commission per 
se to be outside of the Congress to do this investigating, we can look 
into that, too. I think we should start the process of investigating 
into these repeated reports we have had about fraud and corruption in 
connection with Government contracting, particularly that related to 
our war effort.
  I thank the Senator for his work.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me then work with my colleagues, 
Senators Stevens and Inouye, and see if I can find a way to write this 
approach in a way that does not have a point of order lying against it 
and in a way that begins some kind of inquiry. I very much appreciate 
the cooperation and interest.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. I don't think we need an act. We have authority under 
our existing rules today to do that investigation. As has been pointed 
out, President Truman used a subcommittee of the Congress at the time 
he did his investigations in World War II.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. 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. GREGG. Mr. President, I wanted to speak briefly about the status 
of the budget relative to defense spending, really more for the purpose 
of information for my colleagues, because we are getting into a process 
where there is tremendous confusion over how much we are spending and 
where it is coming from and how it is being spent as a function of what 
has been the administration's view that they can fund this war out of 
emergency supplementals ad infinitum.
  Traditionally when you fund a war such as this--I guess there isn't 
much tradition, and hopefully it won't be a tradition for war. But if 
you look back over the wars we have fought as a nation that have gone 
on for a while, they have usually started out with significant 
commitments of emergency funds. There is no question about that. It is 
essential to get the troops in the field and get them what they need.
  Over time, in both the Korean war and the Vietnam war, which are 
probably the best examples to look to, the operation and funding of the 
war has been folded into the regular order where the authorizations 
have gone through the Defense Department, have gone through the Defense 
authorization committee and on to the Appropriations Committee, and 
there has been some significant congressional oversight.
  In the Korean war, 77 percent of the cost of that war was funded 
through the regular budget. In the Vietnam war, about 72 percent was 
funded through the regular budget.
  This war we are confronted with now is as big and as significant a 
threat as we have ever faced because of the fact that, regrettably, the 
people who wish to do us harm have shown their willingness to kill 
Americans. They have stated their purpose is to destroy our culture. 
They have said that if they can get their hands on a weapon that will 
kill thousands of people, they will use it against civilian 
populations, and they have shown their willingness to kill civilians, 
Americans on American soil.
  So this is a war that must be fought aggressively. I congratulate the 
President for the aggressiveness with which he has gone after 
terrorists around the globe and the fact that he has taken the fight to 
them. I have supported that effort. But I also remain concerned that 
we, as a Congress, have a role here, which we have to some degree 
abrogated, and that is the role of oversight as this effort goes 
forward--maybe not so much in the day-to-day operation of the war, 
which should be left to the generals and the people on the ground, the 
officers and men and women fighting this war, but to the issue of how 
the Defense Department structures its core purposes in the context of 
being in a war.
  In fact, for the first couple of years of this effort, when 
supplementals were coming up--and they came up at the rate of $50 
billion, $60 billion--there appeared to be an almost physical 
disconnect between the dollars being used on the war-fighting effort 
and the dollars being used for the core purposes of national defense. 
One could ask the question: Was the core purpose of the Defense 
Department, which was costing in the vicinity of $300 billion to $400 
billion at the time, 2 or 3 years ago--

[[Page S8594]]

was a large percentage of that being used to fight the war or was a 
large percentage being used to maintain traditional operations within 
the Defense Department? It appeared that the two were decoupled in many 
ways.
  What evolved is a process where, essentially, we have a core defense 
budget, on which we have overlaid an entirely separate appropriations 
process and budget, called emergency appropriations. We have now had 4 
years of experience, and we are averaging about $90 billion a year of 
emergency appropriations that are outside of the basic budget process 
and which are being spent on the war-fighting effort. For the first 2 
years of this effort, the Defense Department refused to send up any 
number at all relative to what this would cost. That didn't make a lot 
of sense because we knew we were going to have to pay something with 
soldiers in the field. At the urging of the Congress 2 years ago, we 
put into place a $50 billion--for lack of a better term--``holding'' 
number to try to cover and identify what that cost was going to be in 
the context of the entire budget.
  The Defense Department still at that time took the position that it 
had no number for that, so $50 billion didn't need to be put in. It 
turned out that they exceeded the $50 billion by about $40 billion. 
Last year, because we put in $50 billion before, the administration 
sent up the base defense budget of about $400 billion and put $50 
billion in because, as it was represented by the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense before the Budget Committee, because he said the Congress had 
done it the year before, he could not estimate whether that would be 
the cost of the war. They put that in because Congress had already done 
that, so they were trying to track what Congress did. This didn't make 
a lot of budgetary sense again, so we put in the budget what had been 
the average for this supplemental effort to fight the war, which was 
$90 billion.
  The new Budget Director--and I give him great credit, and I 
appreciate the fact that he has convinced people at the Pentagon to go 
along with this--stated very openly that now the supplemental that they 
expect in the next budget cycle will be somewhere in the vicinity of 
$110 billion to $120 billion, which is at least a number we can work 
on, a number that has been put forward and appears to be realistic.
  I guess the point is this: Where do we stand with all these numbers 
floating around? Do we have any control over this? Is this a lot of 
operational activity that is being basically sloughed off on the 
emergency accounts so that we end up with the core budget of the 
Defense Department not being correctly reflected and authorized, and, 
of course, that account clearly isn't authorized relative to war 
fighting and is difficult to reflect.
  I tried to put this together. This chart reflects the situation as I 
see it and the Budget Committee sees it. I put these numbers out so 
people can get a sense of where we are going and what we are spending 
because this is becoming a fairly significant item of the Federal 
activity and is obviously critical to our capacity to fight this war 
and be successful.
  Since 2001, we have had this core budget of the Defense Department 
which, as you can see, rose from $297 billion in 2001, where the 
Defense Department had been radically cut back by the Clinton 
administration and was suffering underfunding. Ironically, I would call 
in the last year and a half of the Clinton Presidency--he acknowledged 
publicly that he disproportionately cut the Defense Department and was 
starting to retool it and refund it. The core budget has gone from $297 
billion--which was a low number, below what they needed--up to $430 
billion. That includes the appropriations for the Defense bill and for 
military construction.
  The supplementals in the postwar period, as we dealt with the Iraq 
situation and Afghanistan situation, are the red numbers. They have 
gone from $79 billion to $88 billion, to $79 billion, and last year--or 
the year we are presently in, it is estimated to be $125 billion. Now 
we are looking at 2007.

  This is a number that I think needs to be at least publicly stated so 
we know what is happening around here. We have the core budget of $430 
billion. On top of that, we have a supplemental within this bill--
before the 2007 is even passed and the year has even begun, this is a 
supplemental within the bill of $42 billion to basically fight the war. 
Then $8 billion came out of money, which last year there was an across-
the-board cut in spending generating about a $9 billion savings--more 
than that, but of that across-the-board cut, about $9 billion was not 
spent. That came down to about $8 billion being available. And it is 
now transferred over to this Defense bill. It could have gone to the 
Defense bill or the HHS bill, whatever bill came to the floor, or it 
could have been applied to deficit reduction.
  On top of that, last night there was a $13 billion add-on to this 
bill in emergency spending to basically refund the Army and the 
Marines, who are in desperate shape in the area of equipment due to the 
harsh climate of Iraq, and this money was critical. And then the 
President's representative, Mr. Portman--and I congratulate him--has 
said the full cost of this year's emergency supplementals will be about 
$110 billion. So we can presume that we are going to get at least 
another $60 billion in emergency supplemental as we head into 2007 and, 
regrettably, I suspect that will be conservative. It means we are going 
to essentially have a $553 billion budget in the defense area, even 
though you could argue that the stated budget is $430 billion in the 
defense area.
  These are just numbers and they are facts. I think it is important we 
understand what is happening. I guess the bottom line of all this is we 
have set up a two-track process of budgeting and spending around here. 
One is subject to the proper review process, which is the authorizing 
process followed by the appropriating process. That is the $430 
billion. And the other part in here essentially has no controls and 
comes at us from the White House and the administration, where they 
unilaterally make the decision as to the dollars. I don't think that is 
healthy.
  There is no question that the Defense Department probably needs this 
money. But the purpose of the Congress should be in oversight of the 
use of the money. So I am hopeful, because it appears that this process 
of these large supplementals has become the modus operandi for both the 
administration and the Congress. We should take a hard look at this. We 
need to consider the fact that maybe there is a better way to do this, 
where Congress can intersect a little earlier on how we are going to 
spend this money, so that we put the same review into this money that 
we are putting into the base budget, so we can be sure that the money 
going to the emergencies of fighting the war--and it is critical that 
our soldiers have what they need in the field--is not being used 
actually for the purpose of replacing core defense opportunities or 
defense needs and, thus, being a way around congressional scrutiny of 
core defense obligations.
  There are a lot of weapons systems being purchased which have outyear 
procurement issues. I heard the second ranking member of the Defense 
Committee say that of the nine major systems--I think he said seven 
systems were in issue as to how much they were costing and whether they 
would be delivered on time. If you are going to properly oversight 
that, you want to make sure that those dollars are not suddenly flowing 
through the emergency process and thus not being subject to review.
  So we have a problem as a Congress, as to how we deal with the 
reality of having troops on the ground who have to get support from 
us--and no one here would not support them--but at the same time have a 
defense budget and an actual budget process that is fundamentally 
broken relative to our capacity to oversight these dollars as they are 
coming up and being requested.
  I don't have the answer, to be very honest with you. But I am trying 
to outline the issue so that people are aware of it. I honestly don't 
think there are probably five people in the Senate who understand this 
number. What we are dealing with is not a defense number of $430 
billion, not a defense number of that plus the $42 billion supplemental 
in it or plus the $8 billion or plus the $13 billion. It is a defense 
number of somewhere around $553 billion and going up. It may be, and 
probably is, money we are going to have to spend. I suspect I will vote 
for all of it. But I would like to have more

[[Page S8595]]

confidence than I have right now that we have not set up a two-track 
budget process, where we essentially focus on one set of numbers and 
allow another set of numbers to pass through here as if they are going 
through in the night on some shadowy boat.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Budget Committee chairman raises literally the 
things we have been thinking about and mumbling about for months now. 
We have in this bill a provision that says next year all of this should 
be within the budget. That, of course, we realize is next to impossible 
because of the inability to predict in advance--really 18 months in 
advance--what the costs are going to be to fight a war.
  I believe the Senator should look at the changes that have been made 
since the war I was in, World War II. We had draftees. All of the 
equipment that was used, the transportation equipment was operated by 
people in uniform. All of the bases were operated by people in uniform. 
We didn't have security people; we did the guard duty. We didn't have 
people running the kitchens; we did it ourselves. I distinctly remember 
peeling potatoes for hour after hour.
  All I am saying to the Senator is, the concept of handling war 
materials and emergency issues has gotten out of control. The Senator 
from North Dakota--I don't know if the Senator from New Hampshire saw 
his comments about some of the fraud and abuse that is involved in 
Government contracting.
  It is fairly clear, because of the nature of the emergency, controls 
have been thought of after the fact. We are trying to bring it into 
some kind of perspective for the future.
  As budget chairman, the Senator from New Hampshire is absolutely 
correct, I don't know how we could fold into the budget for next year 
and make everything involved in the fiscal year 2008 the concepts we 
are dealing with in terms of emergency funding right now.
  However, I am also convinced that because of the way this conflict 
has changed and the nature of the conflict, as opposed to wars of the 
past, even the Persian Gulf war that we fought, we have no way of 
telling how much it is going to cost.
  I want the Senator to know that those of us who handle the 
appropriations bills, particularly those regarding defense, would like 
to work with the Senator. There must be some way to put some controls 
over the way this money is spent.
  I am appalled when I hear of some of the things the money is spent 
for in a redundant fashion which ends up not achieving the goals, but 
still have to spend the money after the goals are not achieved. It is 
difficult for us right now to get our hands on the way this war has 
been costed out and the way the money has been spent.
  I don't think it is a political question. I don't think it is a 
matter of politics. I think it is a matter of practical application, 
some good money-handling propositions. We have run into that in terms 
of some of the money we have provided to the Iraq Government, also. I 
hope the Senator from New Hampshire is familiar with those.
  I wonder whether the Senator has any suggestions on how we might help 
him in this endeavor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, first off, my admiration for the Senator 
from Alaska is immense and is extremely deep on the issue of defense 
policy and how we should fund our Defense Department. If the Senator 
from Alaska says we need something, the odds are I am going to say we 
need to fund it. People, such as the Senator from Alaska who have the 
expertise around here and have had it for a long time--the Senator from 
Virginia, for example, who chairs the Armed Services Committee and 
members of that committee--are not getting much of a window of 
opportunity to be players in how these budgets are evolved. We are just 
getting them presented to us and claimed they are an emergency and 
basically they have gone outside the budget process.
  We have to set up some process that allows the Senator from Alaska, 
as chairman of the subcommittee that appropriates, and which allows 
Senator Warner as chairman of the full Armed Services Committee to 
intersect this activity a little earlier in the process so they can 
have their input in it, much as they would the core budget.
  The Senator from Alaska spent a lot of time putting together this 
base budget of $434 billion. I know he did. That emergency money comes 
in here with a bang--here it is today and the Senator has to 
appropriate it tomorrow--a situation from the administration. Granted, 
it is a war and there is going to be some need for that type of 
activity, but there is also a way to anticipate some fairly significant 
percentage of that, I would think. I think a little more openness and 
cooperation from downtown on that might be helpful.
  I don't have the answer. I am just raising the red flag of concern. I 
would rely greatly on the Senator's expertise and the expertise of 
others around here who have the history and knowledge of the Defense 
Department to figure out how we as a Congress can engage more 
effectively and not have this second budget moving along which is 
really sort of shadowing.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator also.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, on this subject, I thank the chairman of 
the Budget Committee and Chairman Stevens for their observations. Early 
on, I urged the administration to budget for the war, and they said: It 
is hard to predict what will be needed. I said: That is true, but the 
one thing we know for certain, the right answer is not zero. And that 
is what the administration was sending up in their budgets: Zero, no 
money. Obviously, that wasn't right.
  Budgets are about making an estimate of what the costs are going to 
be. Unfortunately, early on, the chief spokesman for this 
administration dramatically understated what this war would cost. I 
remember very well Larry Lindsey, who was the chief economic adviser to 
the President, said this may cost over $100 billion. The Vice President 
of the United States chastised him publicly--at least that is my 
recollection--and suggested that this war would not cost more than $50 
billion.
  Here we are and the war has cost over $300 billion so far, and the 
administration is still not budgeting appropriately for it. They are 
dramatically understating in their budgets what this war is really 
going to cost. What that does is denies the Congress the ability to 
oversee these expenditures, and the result is we are going to see more 
scandals, we are going to see more wasteful spending, we are going to 
see more circumstances in which our troops do not receive the equipment 
they ought to receive because this money is being handled in a way that 
is outside the normal process in which a budget is sent up here that 
does not really represent the spending plan at all. And then it is 
followed by what is called an emergency supplemental bill that has very 
little chance for review, very little chance for scrutiny, very little 
chance for oversight.
  What the chairman is saying is there is a reason for a budget 
process, and the reason is to give Congress the chance to try to make 
certain that money is not wasted.
  Is it a perfect process? No, we all know that. We know it is a very 
imperfect process. But we know it is the best we have, and if we don't 
follow it, we are then vulnerable to waste and abuse, and that is a 
serious concern for every one of the Members.


                   The Spreading Disaster of Drought

  Mr. President, I now wish to speak on a different matter. It is a 
matter of an emergency in my State and increasingly a matter of 
emergency in other States as well, and that is the spreading disaster 
of drought that is enveloping the central part of our country.
  Ironically, last year, my State had massive flooding. These were the 
headlines from a year ago: ``Rain Halts Harvest''; ``Heavy Rain Leads 
to Crop Diseases''; ``Beet Crop Could be Smallest in 10 Years''; 
``Crops, Hay Lost to Flooding''; ``Area Farmers Battle Flooding, 
Disease.''
  These were the headlines from last year.
  In North Dakota last year, every one of our counties was declared a 
disaster because of abnormal wet weather conditions, something we are 
not very used to in North Dakota, but that is what we were experiencing 
last year. Pictures such as this were very typical

[[Page S8596]]

last year: Massive flooding in which farmsteads were surrounded by 
water. And in fact, in North Dakota last year, we had over 1 million 
acres that couldn't even be planted; 1 million acres that could not 
even be planted in my State last year, and then hundreds of thousands 
of additional acres that were planted but then flooded out. So farmers 
got no production.
  Fast forward to this year and what is happening now. This is the 
drought monitor that comes out on a weekly basis. What this shows is 
the center part of the country is now in very serious drought. The 
color code for those watching on TV is: Yellow is abnormally dry, the 
light tan is moderate drought, the darker tan is severe drought, the 
red is extreme drought, and the dark brown is exceptional drought.
  One can see all of my State is now in drought. All of South Dakota is 
now in drought. All of Nebraska, all of Kansas, and all of the 
Presiding Officer's State are in drought, and virtually all of Texas--
not quite all, but virtually all.
  What is dramatic is how this has spread. Last year, it was just the 
south central part of our State. Now the entire State is in drought, 
and much of it is in extreme drought. That is the red part of this 
chart. And one part is in exceptional drought, that is beyond extreme--
exceptional drought.
  There was an article in one of our major dailies saying that the 
Dakotas are now the epicenter of a drought-stricken Nation. It 
indicated that more than 60 percent of the United States is in drought, 
and it says the experts say that the dry spell is the third worst on 
record. Looking at the drought from 1999 to 2006, the drought ranks 
only behind the 1930s and the 1950s.
  This is an extraordinarily serious situation in my State. We put 
together a chart that just shows the month of July. These are the days 
that were over 90 degrees in Bismarck, ND, the capital city, my 
hometown: 23 days over 90 degrees. Rainfall is less than 20 percent of 
normal. We are a pretty dry area to begin with, but 20 percent of 
normal? In my lifetime, I have never seen anything like this. I didn't 
live in the thirties. I did live in the fifties, but I was so young I 
probably didn't really know what was going on in terms of weather 
conditions.
  I thought I had seen it all, but last Sunday in my hometown, it was 
112 degrees--112 degrees in Bismarck, ND. I have never seen anything 
approaching that. I am not talking about the heat index here. I am not 
talking about when they add a bunch of things together. I am talking 
about the temperature in my hometown last Sunday was 112 degrees with 
rainfall 20 percent of normal.
  This is a situation that is becoming dire, and if we look at the 10 
days leading up to that, on the 10th of July, it was 96 degrees; the 
next day it was 101; the next day 105; the next day 94; the next day 
102; the next day 105; the next day 106.
  In North Dakota, typically you might have a couple of days that are 
100 in the summer, but you don't have day after day, and you certainly 
don't have a day that gets to be 112.
  In July, Senator Dorgan, Congressman Pomeroy, the Governor, and I 
went together on a drought tour. This was in early July. This is what 
we saw in pastures in North Dakota. There is nothing there. There is 
nothing for the cattle to eat.
  Now we have seen as the days have gone by that the ground is actually 
cracking. It is so dry the ground is cracking. This is an extremely 
serious situation.
  Here is a map of North Dakota and our counties. The red counties are 
ones that have already been approved for emergency CRP haying and 
grazing. One can see it is widespread across our State and growing.
  But what is striking is when you go out and look at the crops. This 
is southern Burleigh County. This is where Bismarck, my hometown, is 
located, the capital city of North Dakota. This is a cornfield. You 
know what they used to say--knee high by the 4th of July? This isn't 
boot high by the 4th of July. There are hardly any plants that have 
even emerged. They will produce nothing, absolutely nothing.
  During our drought tour, a man came up from South Dakota who runs the 
Herreid livestock auction ring in north central South Dakota. He said: 
Senators, I want to alert you to something that is happening. It is a 
real warning signal. He said: In July we would normally be selling a 
couple of hundred head a day. The last 3 or 4 days we have been selling 
thousands, thousands of head, because there is no feed.
  The Senate has taken action before. We took it on the supplemental 
appropriations bill and we said we needed to provide disaster 
assistance. There is a need to take it here. Seventy-two Members of the 
Senate said: Don't take it out, we ought to provide disaster 
assistance. The President said no. If there is any disaster assistance, 
he would veto it.
  I hope the President is watching carefully what is happening, what is 
developing. I just had the independent bankers of my State in my 
office. They told me if there is not assistance, 10 percent of the 
people they lend to will go out of business by the end of this year--10 
percent of the farmers and ranchers of my State. This is a catastrophe 
of stunning proportion. It is getting worse each and every day.
  We are experiencing temperatures that are unprecedented and a lack of 
rainfall that has only happened twice before in our history--in the 
1930s, the Dust Bowl days, and the 1950s.
  I take the time of my colleagues to raise this issue on the Defense 
appropriations bill. I recognize full well this has nothing to do with 
the Defense appropriations bill. This does have to do with a crisis 
among the people I represent, so I have taken a few moments of the time 
of the Senate to alert them to what is happening and to tell them that 
a group of us, on a bipartisan basis, from the States affected, are 
writing the leadership, Republican and Democratic, of this body to 
alert them that when we return in September it will be our effort on 
every vehicle that moves to put on disaster assistance.
  This is a group of Republican Senators and Democratic Senators who 
are from the affected regions. We will do everything we can to minimize 
the financial request that is made, but we have to say to our 
colleagues this is a crisis. When it gets to be 112 in July in 
Bismarck, ND, and rainfall is 20 percent of normal, that is headed 
toward a catastrophe--a catastrophe for literally tens of thousands of 
people in my State.
  It extends way beyond the border of North Dakota. I have talked to 
colleagues here from Montana who report to me their State is in 
drought, as are Minnesota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, 
Texas, Colorado--so many of these States being affected--and, of 
course, Wyoming as well. I have talked to colleagues from many of these 
States who report to me that they are seeing in their States what I am 
seeing in mine. This drought is intensifying and the prospects for a 
calamitous growing season are growing.
  I thank my colleagues for their patience.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4819

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment?
  Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4819.

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

   (Purpose: To make available an additional $6,700,000,000 to fund 
     equipment reset requirements resulting from continuing combat 
    operations, including repair, depot, and procurement activities)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

[[Page S8597]]

       Sec. __. From funds available in this Act, an additional 
     $6,700,000,000 may be available to fund equipment reset 
     requirements resulting from continuing combat operations, 
     including repair, depot, and procurement activities.

  Mr. DODD. I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Reed of 
Rhode Island, Senator Inouye, Senator Leahy, Senator Bingaman, and 
Senator Kennedy.
  I thank Senator Inouye and his staff for helping us craft this 
amendment. As I understand it, this amendment has been cleared on both 
sides for consideration. I will be asking for a vote on this amendment 
at the appropriate time, but I am not going to take a long time here 
because the substance of this amendment was discussed last evening when 
it was offered--part of this was offered by Senator Stevens, along with 
Senator Inouye--and then earlier today Senator Reed of Rhode Island and 
I had a discussion here on the floor about this issue, of what is 
occurring in terms of the equipment our military needs to operate 
effectively, the gap that exists, that we worry about here, in terms of 
the failure to provide the necessary support for our men and women in 
uniform, in the Marine Corps, the Army particularly, but also in the 
National Guard.
  The Senator from Alaska offered an amendment last evening, as I 
mentioned a moment ago, to address critical capital equipment 
shortfalls long identified by the Army and Marine Corps.
  As my colleagues know, Army Chief of Staff General Schoomaker has 
said that $17 billion would be needed to begin repairing and replacing 
our fleets of trucks, tanks, and aircraft. Last night's amendment 
contained an additional $7.8 billion for the Army to add to the $2.5 
billion in the underlying bill. It also contained $5.3 billion for the 
Marine Corps. But the amendment still leaves a $6.7 billion shortfall 
within the $17 billion figure identified by the military's top 
uniformed officers.
  I am offering this amendment, along with Senator Reed and others, to 
make this remaining $6.7 billion available to our military if it needs 
it. This is what we call a ``soft mark.'' If the money is not needed, 
the resource would come back to the Treasury. But rather than waiting 
until next spring sometime when a supplemental might be asked for, we 
don't want to deprive our military leadership of the resources 
necessary if they can use them to replace and repair the deteriorated 
equipment being used in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere.
  This amendment is a soft amendment, if you will, in that regard. It 
will not detract from other defense priorities, and it will not 
contribute further to the deficit. It is part of our budget-neutral, if 
you will, proposal. All my amendment does is say that the Army is 
allowed at its discretion to use this appropriation for any available 
unobligated funds.
  Up until now, the cost of war in Iraq has been mainly measured in the 
number of lives lost, which is tragic, and the U.S. Treasury spent--and 
rightly so.
  In Iraq, 2,578 of our fellow citizens have been killed, and Congress 
has approved more than $437 billion, with another $50 billion now soon 
to be considered by this body. But there is another cost of this war 
that needs to be addressed, one we cannot afford to ignore. That is 
military readiness.
  For months now, the Army's uniformed leadership has been sounding the 
alarm about the growing readiness gap, as it is called.
  In March, Army Deputy Chief of Staff LTG James Lovelace testified to 
Congress that since the Iraq war's beginning, the number of Army units 
fully equipped for combat has steadily declined. According to General 
Lovelace and his Marine counterpart, LTG Jan Huly, military units have 
increasingly become less prepared for combat as they have seen their 
stock of functioning vehicles, aircraft, and equipment decline.
  Last month, Army Chief of Staff GEN Peter Schoomaker put the problem 
in budgetary terms--the President's proposed 2006 supplemental request 
was $4.9 billion short to address the equipment shortfalls caused by 
combat losses and wear and tear in Iraq. In the administration's 2007 
budget request, there was an even larger $12 billion shortfall, 
according to the leadership of our uniformed services.
  Today we are announcing our commitment to meeting those generals' 
calls to address one of the most pressing challenges of the U.S. 
military--the growing readiness gap.
  We must find resources necessary to repair and replace our military's 
critical equipment. This is a matter of the most urgent priority. By 
some accounts, these equipment shortfalls are leaving up to two-thirds 
of the U.S. Army's combat brigades unfit to perform basic combat 
duties. I do not know what could be more alarming, particularly as the 
United States confronts growing threats to peace and security 
throughout the globe, from the Korean Peninsula to the Middle East, and 
elsewhere.

  While the sheer size and scope of the U.S. Army readiness remains 
classified, one thing is certain: Our military hardware is stretched 
thin and our fleets of aircraft, tanks, and trucks are wearing out. 
Those are facts--not ones I concluded on my own, but our uniformed 
services have warned us about this since very earlier this year.
  Early this year in Iraq, U.S. tanks were being driven over 4,000 
miles per year--5 times the expected annual usage of 800 miles. Army 
helicopters are experiencing usage rates up to roughly two to three 
times their otherwise planned usage. The Army's truck fleet is 
experiencing some of the most pronounced problems of excessive wear, 
with usage rates of five to six times their peacetime rates, further 
exacerbated by the addition of heavy armor. This increased use shortens 
the life of equipment and demands larger investments in maintenance and 
procurement.
  On top of that, our equipment is being further degraded by sand, 
extreme heat, rocket-propelled grenades, and explosive attacks.
  Certainly, our military personnel's bravery and valor can never be 
exhausted. We know that. But the same could not be said of the fleets 
of humvees, trucks, and aircraft they depend upon. We owe it to them 
and to the American people to make certain that the U.S. Armed Forces 
are outfitted with the equipment they need to get the job done.
  On three or four other occasions over the last several years, I have 
stood on this floor to offer amendments to deal with equipment used by 
our men and women in uniform. At one point, we were offering the 
necessary dollars to make certain that our service men and women were 
getting hydration systems, basic needs of a soldier going into combat. 
We lost those amendments, and we came back and offered a different 
idea--to reimburse the men and women in uniform, some of whom, by their 
own accounts, were scraping around in dumps in Iraq to find the 
hardware to armor up their humvees and equipment.
  Whatever our politics may be on the issue of the war in Iraq, all of 
us believe we should never send a soldier into harm's way without 
giving them the equipment they deserve and need when they are in those 
kinds of situations. Those situations are important. This situation I 
have described here today outstrips the importance of those issues. 
This has to do with the very ability of our people to defend themselves 
and to prosecute their efforts successfully, and we are coming up 
woefully short.
  I appreciate the leadership of this committee, Senator Stevens and 
Senator Inouye, for supporting these additional funds we talked about 
here which Senator Reed and I are offering. We think it is critically 
important that the uniformed services have the tools necessary to make 
sure the men and women in uniform are going to have the kind of 
equipment they deserve and need to have under these circumstances. I am 
very grateful to the leadership for supporting this amendment.
  I will ask at the appropriate time for the yeas and nays on this 
amendment. In fact, I will ask for the yeas and nays at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I do not know when we want to schedule these 
votes. Are we ready to go to a vote? I withhold moving that at that 
moment until the chairman of the committee

[[Page S8598]]

has a chance to determine how they will proceed.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Dodd amendment raises an interesting 
issue of availability of additional money if needed. It in effect is 
reprogramming authority granted in advance to move money to meet 
necessity, if it occurs. On that basis, I think I would be willing to 
support it, but I think the Senate as a whole ought to vote.
  Mr. President, I suggest that we agree on a time to commence this 
rollcall vote. Can we say it occur at 10 minutes after 5? Is that 
agreeable with Senator Inouye?
  Mr. INOUYE. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this vote be 
scheduled for 10 minutes after 5.
  Mr. DODD. And no second degrees in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Is there any further amendment to be discussed at this 
time?
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask to rescind the previous order 
regarding the vote that is scheduled, and I now ask consent that at 
5:15 today, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the DOD 
amendment No. 4819, with no amendments in order to the amendment prior 
to the vote; further, that the Senate then vote in relation to the 
Durbin amendment No. 4781, with no amendments in order to the amendment 
prior to the vote, and there be 4 minutes for debate equally divided 
between the votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to the Dodd 
amendment No. 4819. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Bunning) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus) and 
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 221 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     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
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Menendez
     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--3

     Baucus
     Bunning
     Lieberman
  The amendment (No. 4819) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like the Senate to know where we 
are. As of 4:35 this afternoon, we had 68 more amendments. I have asked 
the Parliamentarian to advise Senator Inouye and me tomorrow morning 
how many of them are subject to rule XVI. A great many of them are 
legislation.
  I point out to the Senate that this bill must be conferenced and we 
must get this bill to the President in time for the money to be 
available at the end of the fiscal year. We cannot go over this year.
  Amendments subject to rule XVI, when we go to conference, require us 
to confer with another committee on the House side in order to see 
whether the House will accept these nongermane amendments.
  It is our intention to raise rule XVI against any amendment that the 
Parliamentarian tells us is subject to the rule. If some can be 
rewritten in a way not to do that, we can reconsider them.
  I apologize to the Senator from Illinois. There is another vote 
scheduled.


                    Amendment No. 4781, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 4 minutes 
equally divided prior to a vote on the Durbin amendment No. 4781, as 
modified.
  The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Senator Obama and I have offered an 
amendment relating to medical research on traumatic brain injury. This 
is the x-ray of an American soldier who has returned from Iraq having 
suffered an explosive blast injury. Mr. President, 1,700 of our 
soldiers have returned with traumatic brain injuries. This is a very 
severe case, but this soldier, thank God, survived. But 1,700 soldiers 
have faced this injury, and 62 percent of the soldiers exposed to blast 
injuries have traumatic brain injury.
  Senator Obama and I have taken money out of our own projects in this 
bill--a million dollars each--to put it into medical research at the 
University of Chicago so we can use the latest technology to diagnose 
and treat traumatic brain injury.
  The U.S. Army has reported in their official documents that they have 
a gap of $20 million necessary for research for diagnosis and treatment 
of soldiers who have suffered these traumatic brain injuries. This does 
not take money out of the bill.
  Today, we have added $1.8 billion in emergency spending. We just 
shifted $6.7 billion. We are asking for $2 million from our own 
projects for research for traumatic brain injury for these soldiers. 
Please, if you believe we should do everything we can to help these 
soldiers, I hope you will support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is an important amendment. It is one 
to provide the University of Chicago with $2 million to conduct imaging 
research on the connection between epilepsy and brain injury.
  This is not to directly help the soldiers who have been injured. As a 
matter of fact, this is not a neglected area. We put up a billion 
dollars in the last 2 years, and there has been substantial research on 
brain injuries.
  There is a necessity for money for the treatment and care of those 
who have this problem, but we do not need more money for research. As a 
matter of fact, in the past 3 years, we averaged $430 million a year in 
grants, contracts, and research conducted by NIH. For 2006, we asked 
NIH to expand research on brain injury rehabilitation.
  This money is not going to treat soldiers; it is going to the 
University of Chicago for an imaging research

[[Page S8599]]

project. We have 20 other amendments here that deal with the question: 
Should we use more money from defense for medical research? We have 
said no, we don't want any more money used for brain research.
  There is $45 million in this bill that the Department of Defense can 
use for any research project in the health area it wants to. But to 
take more money now--this is a symbolic $2 million. If this amendment 
passes, we have to deal with the other 20. We have said no to 
everybody, not just to one amendment.
  I urge my colleagues not to support this amendment. As a matter of 
fact, I move to table this amendment, and 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 motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Bunning) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus) and 
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 222 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

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

                                NAYS--43

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Baucus
     Bunning
     Lieberman
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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.

                          ____________________