[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 105 (Wednesday, August 2, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8599-S8601]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                           Amendment No. 4806

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate 
amendment No. 4806.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). The amendment is pending.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that this 
amendment violates rule XVI.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is well taken, and the 
amendment falls.


                           Amendment No. 4768

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate 
amendment No. 4768.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is pending.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I similarly raise a point of order that 
this amendment violates rule XVI.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is well taken, and the 
amendment falls.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we do have another managers' package. 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 the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, again, I would alert Senators of the fact 
that we have active staff on both sides of the aisle working on these 
managers' packages. We urge Senators to come forward and discuss these 
amendments with us. We would like to work out as many as we can.


          Amendments Nos. 4803, 4779, 4766, and 4798, En Bloc

  I have another managers' package ready now. I will read the 
components of it:

       Amendment No. 4803 for Senator Byrd regarding a biometrics 
     study, amendment No. 4779 for Senator Warner regarding 
     research and studies, amendment No. 4766 for Senator Inouye 
     regarding a military history exhibit; amendment No. 4798 for 
     Senator Isakson regarding environmental compliance.

  I send these amendments to the desk. I ask unanimous consent they be 
considered en bloc, adopted en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be 
laid on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INOUYE. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 4803

  (Purpose: To require reports on the recommendations of the Defense 
Science Board regarding the management of the biometrics program of the 
                         Department of Defense)

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8109. (a) Interim Report on Management of Biometrics 
     Program.--Not later than September 8, 2006, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees 
     an interim report on the management of the biometrics program 
     of the Department of Defense.
       (b) Final Report.--Not later than October 15, 2006, the 
     Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense 
     committees a final report on the management of the biometrics 
     program of the Department of Defense.
       (c) Report Elements.--Each report under this section shall 
     include, current as of the date of such report, the 
     following:
       (1) A detailed description of the recommendations of the 
     Defense Science Board regarding the management of the 
     biometrics program of the Department of Defense.
       (2) Such recommendations as the Defense Science Board 
     considers appropriate regarding changes of mission for the 
     existing biometrics support officers.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4779

  (Purpose: To make available from Operation and Maintenance, Defense-
     Wide, an additional amount of up to $7,500,000 for the Joint 
           Advertising, Market Research and Studies program)

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8109. (a) Joint Advertising, Market Research and 
     Studies Program.--Of the amount appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by title II under the heading ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', up to $7,500,000 may be 
     available for the Joint Advertising, Market Research and 
     Studies (JAMRS) program.
       (b) Supplement Not Supplant.--The amount available under 
     subsection (a) for the program referred to in that subsection 
     is in addition to any other amounts available in this Act for 
     that program.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4766

(Purpose: To make available from Operation and Maintenance, Army, up to 
   $500,000 for the United States Army Center of Military History to 
  support a traveling exhibit on military experience in World War II)

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8109. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title II under the heading ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Army'', up to $500,000 may be available for the 
     United States Army Center of Military History to support a 
     traveling exhibit on military experience in World War II.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4798

   (Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test and 
  Evaluation, Army, up to $1,000,000 for environmental management and 
                        compliance information)

       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 $1,000,000 
     may be available for environmental management and compliance 
     information.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, what is the pending amendment now, Mr. 
President?


                           Amendment No. 4802

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Kennedy amendment, No. 4802, is the 
pending amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Kennedy amendment, yes. 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 the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S8600]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4762

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate 
amendment No. 4762.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is pending.
  Mr. STEVENS. This is the medical countermeasures procurement 
amendment. Is that ready for clearance on both sides?
  Mr. INOUYE. We have no objection.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am informed there is no objection to this amendment. I 
ask it be considered at this time and adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the 
amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4762) 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, again, 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.


 Amendments Nos. 4814, 4829, 4792, as modified, and 4783, as modified, 
                                en bloc

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have another managers' package offered 
by myself and Senator Inouye.
  The first is amendment No. 4814 by Senator Bingaman regarding 
adaptive optics; amendment No. 4829 by Senator Sununu regarding 
unmanned underwater vehicles; amendment No. 4792, as modified, by 
Senator Coleman regarding microelectronics; and amendment No. 4783, as 
modified, by Senator Schumer regarding bandages.
  These I believe have been cleared on both sides.
  Mr. INOUYE. No objection.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send this package to the desk and ask 
unanimous consent that the amendments be considered en bloc, agreed to 
en bloc, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INOUYE. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4814

   (Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test and 
   Evaluation, Air Force, up to $1,500,000 for Commercialization and 
                 Industrialization of Adaptive Optics)

       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 
     $1,500,000 may be available for Commercialization and 
     Industrialization of Adaptive Optics (PE #0602890F).


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4829

   (Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test and 
  Evaluation, Navy, up to $1,000,000 for an integrated, low-cost, low-
    power Multibeam Side Scan Sonar System for Unmanned Underwater 
                               Vehicles)

       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, Navy'' up to $1,000,000 may 
     be available for an integrated, low-cost, low-power Multibeam 
     Side Scan Sonar System for Unmanned Underwater Vehicles 
     (UUVs).


                    amendment no. 4792, as modified

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8109. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title III under the heading ``Procurement of 
     Ammunition, Air Force'', up to $5,000,000 may be available 
     for the procurement of Radiation Hardened Microelectronics 
     (HX5000).


                    AMENDMENT NO. 4783, as modified

 (Purpose: To provide that up to $9,000,000 of the amount appropriated 
 or otherwise made available by chapter 2 of title IX for the Army for 
     operation and maintenance and up to $2,000,000 of the amount 
appropriated or otherwise made available by such chapter for the Marine 
   Corps for operation and maintenance may be made available for the 
procurement of hemostatic agents, including blood clotting bandages and 
 invasive hemostatic agents, for use by members of the Armed Forces in 
                               the field)

       On page 238, after line 24, add the following:
       Sec. 9012. (a) Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by chapter 2 of this title under the heading 
     ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', up to $9,000,000 may be 
     made available for the procurement of hemostatic agents, 
     including blood clotting bandages and invasive hemostatic 
     agents, for use by members of the Armed Forces in the field.
       (b) Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by such chapter under the heading ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Marine Corps'', up to $2,000,000 may be made 
     available for the procurement of hemostatic agents and 
     invasive hemostatic agents, including blood clotting 
     bandages, for use by members of the Armed Forces in the 
     field.

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I announce to the Senate that we have 
completed all the packages we can work on tonight. We urge Senators and 
their staff to get together with us early in the morning. We will be 
back in session at 9:30, and we hope we can continue to find ways to 
agree to the amendments that can be worked out.
  There is a series of amendments regarding the National Guard that we 
wish to get to as quickly as possible tomorrow. I alert Senators and 
staff that we are interested in working on the National Guard 
amendments during the early part of the morning tomorrow, if it is at 
all possible.
  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. McCAIN. Mr. President, amendment No. 4838 would strike language 
from the bill that states that certain projects in the committee report 
``shall be considered to be authorized by law.''
  Committee reports that accompany Senate bills and joint explanatory 
statements that accompany conference reports are not law but, rather, 
advisory documents. While some like to think otherwise, the Federal 
agencies are under no legal requirement to follow verbatim the many 
directives that are included in each and every committee report. And I 
note that also applies to the hundreds of earmarks that are included in 
committee reports and joint explanatory statements each year. Unless 
provisions are included in enacted legislation, they do not have the 
force of law. And this is not just my view.
  Let me read from the April 1998 opinion of Supreme Court Justice 
Scalia in United States, petitioner v. Estate of Francis J. Romani et 
al.:

       The Constitution sets forth the only manner in which the 
     Members of Congress have the power to impose their will upon 
     the country: by a bill that passes both Houses and is either 
     signed by the President or repassed by a supermajority after 
     his veto. Art. I, Sec. 7. Everything else the Members of 
     Congress do is either prelude or internal organization.

  And just this past June, in Zedner v. United States, Scalia wrote:

       I believe that the only language that constitutes ``a Law'' 
     within the meaning of the Bicameralism and Presentment Clause 
     of Article I Sec. 7, and hence the only language adopted in a 
     fashion that entitles it to our attention, is the text of the 
     enacted statute.
       It may seem that there is no harm in using committee 
     reports and other such sources when they are merely in accord 
     with the plain meaning of the Act. But this sort of 
     intellectual piling-on has addictive consequences. To begin 
     with, it accustoms us to believing that what is said by a 
     single person in a floor debate or by a committee report 
     represents the view of Congress as a whole--so that we 
     sometimes even will say (when referring to a floor statement 
     and committee report) that ``Congress has expressed'' thus-
     and-so. . . . There is no basis either in law or in reality 
     for this naive belief Moreover, if legislative history is 
     relevant when it confirms the plain meaning of the statutory 
     text, it should also be relevant when it contradicts the 
     plain meaning, thus rendering what is plain ambiguous.

  I fully understand a committee's interest in having an agency 
consider the guidance it provides in its report language. But on 
occasion, that interest can get carried away. I remember the 
controversy that occurred a few years ago when a report included 
language expressing extreme displeasure over the fact that an agency 
had not followed to the letter certain prior year's

[[Page S8601]]

report language. The subsequent report, which accompanied the fiscal 
year 2004 CJS appropriations bill, stated the following:

       As in past years, the Committee expects NOAA and the 
     Department to adhere to the direction given in this section 
     of the Committee report, particularly language regarding 
     consultation with Congress, and to observe the reprogramming 
     procedures detailed in section 605 in the general provisions 
     of the accompanying bill. Unlike past years, however, the 
     Committee intends to enforce congressional direction 
     ruthlessly.

  The reason I am referencing that report is to demonstrate the extent 
to which committees can go in imposing report directives. I am not 
trying to suggest the DOD appropriations report accompanying the 
pending bill includes comparable threats, but I am concerned about a 
line in the bill language that I believe should be eliminated because 
it would have the effect of authorizing projects that are merely listed 
in the report, thus giving provisions in the report the force of law.
  Section 8042 of the bill states:

       The Secretary of Defense, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, acting through the Office of Economic 
     Adjustment of the Department of Defense, may use funds made 
     available in this Act under the heading ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' to make grants and supplement 
     other Federal funds in accordance with the guidance provided 
     in the report of the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate accompanying this Act, and the projects specified in 
     such guidance shall be considered to be authorized by law.

  Let me repeat the last phrase: ``and the projects specified in such 
guidance shall be considered to be authorized by law.''
  Mr. President, the projects referred to are not included in the 
legislative language, and we should not be suggesting that it is 
acceptable to authorize provisions by reference. In this particular 
case, it would result in the authorization of about 30 projects. But 
imagine what is next. I can envision the conference report of this or 
another bill to include a line stating that all the projects in its 
report ``shall be considered to be authorized by law.''
  The language that allows certain projects to be ``considered 
authorized by law'' is a dangerous precedent, and I believe it should 
be eliminated.
  I appreciate that the bill managers have agreed to accept this 
amendment, and I trust that they will work to ensure that the final 
conference agreement is free of language that would allow provisions in 
the joint explanatory statement to have the force of law.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, recently the Senate Appropriations 
Committee approved the fiscal year 2007 Defense appropriations bill. As 
a member of the committee, I supported this measure, and it is now 
being considered by the full Senate.
  The bill provides $453.5 billion in new discretionary spending 
authority for the Department of Defense. Included in this amount is $50 
billion for contingency operations related to the global war on terror.
  I have repeatedly called upon the Bush administration to be frank 
with American taxpayers about funding levels for ongoing operations in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. For far too long, the Bush administration has 
relied upon emergency supplemental spending measures, as opposed to the 
annual budget process, to fund our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. I 
believe that is wrong.
  In his budget proposal, President Bush finally submitted a $50 
billion request for a bridge fund to support military efforts in 
Afghanistan and Iraq for the coming fiscal year. The Senate 
Appropriations Committee funded this request, but I remain concerned 
that this level of funding will be insufficient, and once again 
Congress will need to consider another emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill.
  Furthermore, President Bush's continued insistence on maintaining tax 
breaks for the extremely wealthy has made it incredibly difficult to 
fund important domestic spending programs. In fact, the President's 
budget reduced funding for critical programs including No Child Left 
Behind, the Perkins Career and Technical Education Program, and 
firefighter assistance grants.
  Consequently, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Thad Cochran 
was forced to reduce defense spending by $9.1 billion to meet urgent 
domestic spending needs. As a result, our servicemembers received a 2.2 
percent across- the-board pay raise, a reduction of nearly 1 percent 
from last year's level of 3.1 percent. In addition, the Bush budget 
recommended funding for only 333,000 Army National Guard personnel, 
well below the National Guard authorized end-strength of 350,000. This 
proposal was opposed by the National Guard and Reserve, and I am 
pleased that the Senate was able to provide sufficient funding to 
support an Army National Guard end strength of 350,000 soldiers.
  While some shortfalls remain in the bill, it is important to note 
that it provides an additional $340 million for National Guard and 
Reserve equipment above the President's request. The bill also provides 
$735 million for body armor and personal protection equipment, as well 
as $1.5 billion for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat 
Organization.
  Furthermore, I am pleased that the bill reported out by the Senate 
Appropriations Committee provides funding for a number of important 
South Dakota projects. Due to my seat on the Appropriations Committee, 
the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology received funding to 
develop a number of important defense related projects. Researchers at 
the school will receive over $3.3 million to establish and staff a 
nationally competitive polymer and composites processing laboratory in 
South Dakota; they will work to develop new transparent armor for the 
Army's Future Combat Systems; and the school will develop a control 
system for laser powder deposition.
  The South Dakota School of Mines and Technology is not the only 
organization conducting critical defense-related research in South 
Dakota. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe will receive $5 million to continue 
their efforts to establish the Advanced Electronics Rosebud Integration 
Center. The center will research, develop, test, and demonstrate 
advanced electronics integration and fabrication technology on the 
Rosebud Sioux Tribe reservation in South Dakota. In addition, funding 
was provided to RPM & Associates to facilitate their efforts to use 
LENS technology for aerospace applications. Likewise, the Batcheller 
Consulting Group will move forward in developing innovative on-board 
sensor systems to assess the wear-and-tear to military vehicles and 
weapon systems.
  Finally, the South Dakota National Guard will benefit from defense-
wide funding increases I championed. For example, the Senate 
Appropriations Committee included nearly $35 million above the 
President's request to meet the urgent needs of our National Guard and 
Reserve. This funding will help procure additional M22 Automatic 
Chemical Agent Alarms, Improved Chemical Agent Monitors, targeting pods 
for F-16 aircraft, and helmet mounted cueing systems.
  Mr. President, while I continue to have deep concerns about the 
spending priorities of the Bush administration, I do believe that the 
funding included in this bill will go a long way toward providing our 
troops with the resources they need to defend our country.

                          ____________________